# Two Republican Senators are facing calls to resign over using insider knowledge to sell stocks



## ChibiMofo (Mar 20, 2020)

Resigning isn't nearly enough. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51976484

Two US Republican Senators are facing calls to resign over allegations they used insider knowledge to sell shares before prices fell due to coronavirus fears.

Richard Burr reportedly dumped up to $1.7m (£1.45m) of stocks last month.

Kelly Loeffler is reported to have sold holdings worth up to $3m in a series of transactions beginning the same day as a Senate briefing on the virus.

As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Mr Burr receives nearly daily briefings on threats to US national security,

On 7 February, shortly after the first case of coronavirus was reported, Mr Burr wrote on Fox News that the US government was “better prepared than ever” to tackle an outbreak.

But a week later, when President Donald Trump assured the public that the virus would not hit America hard, Mr Burr and his wife sold at least $628,000 and as much as $1.72 million in stocks. Two weeks after that, he gave the speech obtained by NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2020/03/19/8181...-questions-about-private-comments-on-covid-19


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 20, 2020)

Dianne Feinstein now included 
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-before-coronavirus-crash-reports/ar-BB11rIYo


----------



## notimp (Mar 20, 2020)

Addressing the Tar Hill Circle at a private lunch-in in the Capital Hill Club. 

(starts at about min 10)



I'll crosspost it into the corruption thread later..


----------



## omgcat (Mar 20, 2020)

Joe88 said:


> Dianne Feinstein now included
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-before-coronavirus-crash-reports/ar-BB11rIYo



read the article:

“All of Senator Feinstein’s assets are in a blind trust,” the spokesman, Tom Mentzer, told the Times. “She has no involvement in her husband’s financial decisions.”

Feinstein said her husband sold shares in a cancer therapy company that “is unrelated to any work on the coronavirus and the sale was unrelated to the situation.”


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 20, 2020)

what party? my money's on republican


----------



## morvoran (Mar 20, 2020)

It's unfortunate that the media never focuses on the Democrats who do such unethical activities such as Tlaib, Omar, AOC, Pelosi, Schumer, etc.....  If they did, I guess there wouldn't be any Democrats still in office or not under investigation.  
Oh well, I guess as long as the sheeple keep voting them in, the swamp will never be drained completely.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 20, 2020)

well duh republicans are never "for the common folk" only the multimillionaires and such the middle class republicans are just tools to get voted in probaably cause the american public are too stupid to even think for themselves


----------



## morvoran (Mar 20, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> Bah, bah, bah!!!!!!


  I had to run this through the sheeple to human translator and made some corrections for you - 
" duh *democrats* are never "for the common folk" only the welfare babies and such the social security leeches are just tools to get voted in probaahbly cause *I'm* are too stupid to even think for *myself*"

You can keep being blind or open your eyes and see what your wonderful democrat politicians are "doing for you" by keeping you poor and needy.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 20, 2020)

well AHCA WAS suppose to be a mirror image of canada's HC system until the republican controlled congress during the obama era frankenstied the shit out of the bill (unless you forgot to watch the news and read up on the unaltered bill btw that bill still saved my butt from aging out of my parent's insurance due to my cerebraal palsy which saved me tons out of pocket expenses for medical


----------



## Joe88 (Mar 20, 2020)

omgcat said:


> read the article:
> 
> “All of Senator Feinstein’s assets are in a blind trust,” the spokesman, Tom Mentzer, told the Times. “She has no involvement in her husband’s financial decisions.”
> 
> Feinstein said her husband sold shares in a cancer therapy company that “is unrelated to any work on the coronavirus and the sale was unrelated to the situation.”


If her husband is running it then its not a blind trust, she was receiving classified briefings, then her husband conveniently sold millions of $ of stock before the market tanked

Now the law in question unfortunately has alot of loopholes so all 4 members will most likely not be punished in anyway, all 4 has put out different reasons why they sold their stock holding (I heard something on the news, read something on the internet, my stock broker told me to do it, someone else makes the decisions, ect...). Without direct evidence (audio recording, phone call, txt message, or email) it will hard to do anything.


----------



## morvoran (Mar 20, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> well AHCA WAS suppose to be a mirror image of canada's HC system until the republican controlled congress during the obama era frankenstied the shit out of the bill (unless you forgot to watch the news and read up on the unaltered bill btw that bill still saved my butt from aging out of my parent's insurance due to my cerebraal palsy which saved me tons out of pocket expenses for medical



Well, thank goodness for you that it didn't mirror Canada's healthcare system.  You might not be with us today if the Dem's destroyed our healthcare like that.  For the rest, you may want to revisit the history on Obamacare.  Obviously, somebody lied to you.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 21, 2020)

To be honest : I don't want to be the judge to rule over a case like this,and that is exactly because the US government is the US government. 

The thing is : it's illegal to sell stock with prior public unknown information, but what exactly is 'public unknown'? The sanctions the US would soon implement, certainly, but the truth about the severity and contagion of Corona were publicly known at February 7th. 

I admit it would be kind of funny to see Burr and those other two legally argue that Trump's words credibility is worthless, but to everyone but Republicans... Sorry : everyone but OTHER Republicans... This was a known fact for years. (1)

So... Perhaps Republicans are outraged because other Republicans don't believe their president, but as someone not in that club I can't really blame them for actually thinking. 

I'd blame Burr for lying on fox news, but why? For one thing, a week's an eternity in a situation like this, and most of all : it's fox. If you believe they usually bring news on their channel you 're to dumb to have an opinion when you do catch them on a lie. 

(1)heck... If I owned stock on eg. Swiss cheese and Trump came on television saying Swiss cheese was fine, that in itself would cause me to check whether the status on Swiss cheese. 



chrisrlink said:


> what party? my money's on republican


Erm... Their party's in the thread title, so I don't think anyone's going to take that bet.


----------



## notimp (Mar 21, 2020)

morvoran said:


> It's unfortunate that the media never focuses on the Democrats who do such unethical activities such as Tlaib, Omar, AOC, Pelosi, Schumer, etc.....


Are you insane?

First, you just pick five names at random of people that havent done something like this. Than you accuse them of a crime.

Then you accuse the media of misreporting.

Then you accuse the media of bias.

Then you overlook, that Dianne Feinstein (Democrat) is also accused of insider trading in this very case.

Then you pick fights.

You have never ever added anything productive to this forum. You pick an insane evangelist radio shock jockey - thats probably in an assisted work program as your avatar, you lie left and right and demean others.

And for some reason, we all still are supposed to deal with you?

When can you get it in your head, that you pick the worst possible sources (an insane person), and then complain that people are not more receptive to your extreme views?

Your are kind of doing this 'living' thing all wrong. If you want anything other than social isolation.

Its problematic enough, that people see dems and reps as clubs they can get their opinions from, But you are the guy that always strifes for having one of those clubs eradicated, so the world finally becomes just, by the other club winning.

Sorry - but can we get serious moderating action on you some time soon?

Because we are alway in line after your statements trying to bring people up to level, that they are dealing with a borderline personality that always spews theories, that are unfounded lies and second hand projections of an insane person (Jesse Lee Peterson).

You are worse than people from the infowars cult.

edit: And you are excusing people from side of the fence from commiting crimes, because "the other side would do it as well - the media just isnt telling you".

Boy, you would have worked well in a society that needed no laws, brains, or morals. Just plain ambition and loyalty.


----------



## Taleweaver (Mar 21, 2020)

notimp said:


> And for some reason, we all still are supposed to deal with you?


I have to disagree there. Just put him on ignore. It leads to some strange effects (I initially thought you were calling me insane ), but it's not like you miss something important.


----------



## notimp (Mar 21, 2020)

I dont put people on ignore. Its a quirk of mine. Free speech and all. (Although I did shout for moderation here (mostly for effect).)


----------



## cearp (Mar 21, 2020)

@Taleweaver - yeah I agree, it's no surprise that the economy would most likely go bad, so why not sell your stocks?
I guess I don't understand it all, but it doesn't seem a bad idea, or like insider knowledge to me.


----------



## chrisrlink (Mar 21, 2020)

well cots is gone i'm supprised this guy's still here being a troll


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 22, 2020)

chrisrlink said:


> well cots is gone i'm supprised this guy's still here being a troll




Your posts are just as myopic and disruptive to reasoned discourse here. 90% of what you post is vitriol.


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 22, 2020)

I am going to wait and see on a court case/investigation for this one as I can't see clear evidence of wrongdoing but enough to warrant a further look into things. Suspension would also seem to be a rather harsh measure. As far as public statements go then one of the few things most governments actually worked out was panicking people are morons and cause more damage than the thing they are nominally panicking about, and make actual responses to it harder. Speaking with your mates is a different matter, though that would still be no excuse for dropping information that constituted insider dealings.
Late January I was seeing insurance claims shoot through the roof for any number of things* (speaking to the same people it is worse now) along with supply chain worries, and it looked like it was going to pop in some way. The bloody BBC was reporting on it in late January, and while China's information was of rather dubious merit there were enough people able to read between the lines and talking publicly of it, so it was hardly news in February. We have had nice little panics before and they tend to have predictable effects on the market (does any investment channel spend more than 2 hours without talking about investor confidence?) -- the article mentions this was before the market "showed signs of volatility" but that hardly means much; if you are long in the market and leaping at such signs you might well already be behind the curve.

*plenty of people cancelling holidays way into the future (and then present) and moving accordingly. Airlines were already dropping like flies this last few years, and plenty more circling the drain, with cash flow issues and no reserves/credit usually being the cause. To that end companies/sectors troubled by such things were already on shaky ground.

It might well be that they jumped and knew things that would confirm markets would tank and thus warrant some kind of slap for it, however it could also just have been prudent or loss avoiding.

Insider trading is not behaviour to condone and resignation (or worse) would probably be fitting as a result but the stuff above fails to make a great case in and of itself. Sound basis for an investigation but clear cut case less so.


----------



## WD_GASTER2 (Mar 22, 2020)

Joe88 said:


> Dianne Feinstein now included
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-before-coronavirus-crash-reports/ar-BB11rIYo


thank you for pointing this out. it bring me shame that this lady repesents my state. I am left leaning but balls and strikes should be called on both sides.

quite frankly in times like these they should resign at the very least. The republicans involved on this are being jackasses during interviews as well


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 22, 2020)

This is pretty low behavior, but proving it to be _criminal_ behavior is a tall bar. Already mentioned above, but it's not like the virus wasn't already known, and people weren't already panicking. As for calls by offended people on the internet for any of them to resign, don't hold your breath. This is politics we're talking about. Will the Senate as a body act against them? Only if none of them have ammunition against any others, which seems especially unlikely in Feinstein's case. Probably something voters just need to remember the next time their names appear on a ballot. You can be sure each of them (and everyone else in the Senate) were already culpable of worse before this ever came to light.


----------



## notimp (Mar 22, 2020)

If the fine/impact on your life is less, than what you'd expect loosing over the next months, what would you do?

Its hard to argue, why this isnt a 'victimless crime'. (You just got more information than the rest of the market, isnt that how capitalism works?  )

It basically is, because of the structural disruption (system = unfair perception) it causes, and then perception of system becoming overly negative.

But if you had the opportunity to do it - and wouldnt be likely caught...
"""Why not:"""?

Someone explain to me why this is such a grave and low behavior. I might have missed something.  (Never was in the situation to think about this one before.  )

edit: Just googled for 10 minutes. Other people agree on my logic, historically. Love it, when it works out that way.. 

Same idiotic thing as with "we dont like illegal migrants, because they are illegal". "Yeah, but why?" is the obvious response there. Not - yes, very bad, because feels, and looks. 

Morvovan has one thing going for him - the "other people do it all the time and dont get caught" argument, isnt such a bad one...


----------



## FAST6191 (Mar 22, 2020)

If the market is so key to your economy (banks, investments, retirement funds, savings, foreign investment... all feeding from it after all) and people are preparing to dump however many trillion in to keep it afloat when something goes wrong or people become idiots there is the expectation of fairness.
If it is a game nobody can play because of inside information being the dominant currency, or pricing you out as the price shoots up in expectation of you buying things, then nobody does and the money pools and importance of it all become far less, and you also open the door the market manipulation which nobody wants either. If you want a less hazy one see the Barclays and Credit Suisse dark pools thing they got slapped for a while back.
If your "more information" is because you have better algorithms, can pull sources faster, and do analysis of patterns in related fields, or think something announced is going to rock the boat for them then that is all good and how the game is supposed to be played. 

As far as morality. Anything I invest I am prepared to lose and I would normally try to have a little "it'll be alright" fund going anyway. I would also figure it is much like hiring someone, or indeed not, in that if you can't think of a justification you are not trying hard enough.


----------



## notimp (Mar 22, 2020)

Overall logic holds true (if perception is 'rigged' people dont want to play). But individual logic... is very different. 

(Heck, if you dont want for perception to change, just dont catch me, copper..  Bail me out.  )
-

The stuff I find titillating here is, that big financial investors - OBVIOUSLY preempt the market by trying to get information early even by miliseconds - and not all of what they do can be explained away as 'generally available to the clever investor advantage'.

Second the failover stops like - if stock index drops too much, trading is halted. (Stopping cascading effects, but...) (Actually, same logic as with corona applies, you are trying to slow down the rate of doubling of perceived negative worth.. Thats rigging.  (But for the benefit of all' (Who dont like stock market busts.)).)

Third - so the regulation logic must be along the lines of "a few big players you can regulate" a bunch of a little smaller ones following self serving individual logic you cant - so you have to establish a "culture" for them?

Might actually be workable.. 

But then I fall back on - why can lets say someone in a national security commite not act like Douglas Fink? Because of conflict of interest and too much potential of 'market making' (less individual risk)? In this very second I find this fascinating.. 

edit: The other way around sheds a little more light. If someone 'big' is perceived as 'always a little early' in a way that is COPYABLE by many other market actors, the system breaks (people will not decide based on market logic, but based on sidegame logic). So that is what you are trying to prevent.

If big player rigs market in a way that isnt replicatable by many other players, you try to regulate him differently by doing something to his overall profit margin. Maybe slap em on the hand if they are playing too fast and loose...  So complexity becomes the differentiator. 

Am I wrong?


----------



## notimp (Mar 23, 2020)

Ah, false premise. 


> *By members of Congress[edit]*
> Members of the US Congress are exempt from the laws that ban insider trading. Because they generally do not have a confidential relationship with the source of the information they receive, however, they do not meet the usual definition of an "insider." [35] House of Representatives rules[36] may however consider congressional insider trading unethical. A 2004 study found that stock sales and purchases by Senators outperformed the market by 12.3% per year.[37]



There you go. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_trading



> In May 2007, a bill entitled the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act was introduced that would hold congressional and federal employees liable for stock trades they made using information they gained through their jobs and also regulate analysts or political intelligence firms that research government activities.[41] The STOCK Act was enacted on April 4, 2012.





> The STOCK Act requires a one-year study of the growing political intelligence industry, and requires every Member of Congress to publicly file and disclose any financial transaction of stocks, bond, commodities futures, and other securities within 45 days on their websites, rather than once a year as they do now. The Act also requires members of Congress and Executive branch officials to disclose the terms of mortgages on their homes, prohibits them from receiving special access to initial public stock offerings, and denies federal pensions to members of Congress who are convicted of felonies involving public corruption. The bill is divided into nineteen sections.[6]


----------

