Two Senators Sold A Bunch Of Stock After Being Briefed About COVID-19; While Telling The World Things Were Going To Be Fine
from the all-grifting-all-the-time dept
Senator Richard Burr is a real piece of work. In 2012 he was one of only three Senators to vote against the STOCK Act. This was a law put in place following a 60 Minutes expose about how Congress was getting filthy stinkin' rich off of insider trading, since Congress was exempt from insider trading laws. The bill did pass -- Burr's vote against notwithstanding -- and President Obama signed into law. Unfortunately, the next year, Congress passed (and Obama signed) an amendment that rolled the rules back for staffers, though it still does apply to elected officials themselves.
So, it's quite interesting to see the news that Senator Burr just sold off a "significant percentage" of his stock holdings, according to a ProPublica article detailing the sale. A big chunk of that stock sale? In the hospitality industry that has been so hard hit. He had a big chunk of stock in Wyndam Hotels and Extended Stay America, but sold those off just before everything went bad. The timing is interesting:
Soon after he offered public assurances that the government was ready to battle the coronavirus, the powerful chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr, sold off a significant percentage of his stocks, unloading between $628,000 and $1.72 million of his holdings on Feb. 13 in 33 separate transactions.
As the head of the intelligence committee, Burr, a North Carolina Republican, has access to the government’s most highly classified information about threats to America’s security. His committee was receiving daily coronavirus briefings around this time, according to a Reuters story.
Now, you might say that there might be another reason why he sold stuff off, but it certainly appears that Burr knew full well what was coming. And that's because in another news bombshell from just a few hours earlier, a recording was leaked of Burr telling a private luncheon gathering that things were going to be bad -- all at the same time he was insisting that the US was totally prepared for COVID-19. A month after he sold all that stock, and a few weeks after he told the private luncheon that the coronavirus was "much more aggressive in its transmission than anything that we have seen in recent history" and compared it "to the 1918 pandemic" he publicly was claiming that we had everything under control:
“Luckily, we have a framework in place that has put us in a better position than any other country to respond to a public health threat, like the coronavirus."
He also said the same thing just days before selling all that stock:
Thankfully, the United States today is better prepared than ever before to face emerging public health threats, like the coronavirus, in large part due to the work of the Senate Health Committee, Congress, and the Trump Administration.
That op-ed also said:
The public health preparedness and response framework that Congress has put in place and that the Trump Administration is actively implementing today is helping to protect Americans. Over the years, this framework has been designed to be flexible and innovative so that we are not only ready to face the coronavirus today but new public health threats in the future.
And then he sold most of his stock earning somewhere between half a million and a million and a half dollars -- most of which would have plunged in value if he'd kept it invested. And, the fact that such a large chunk was in the hospitality industry is telling: he would have likely realized were going to be hit hard by any form of lock down and the expected decline in travel due to the pandemic.
Hours after the Burr story broke, The Daily Beast highlighted how another Senator, the new Senator from Georgia, Kelly Loefler, sold off millions of dollars of stock the very day she was briefed about the COVID-19 threat. She literally tweeted that day:
And then she dumped tons of stock:
Loeffler assumed office on Jan. 6 after having been appointed to the seat vacated by retiring Sen. Johnny Isakson. Between then and Jan. 23 she did not report a single stock transaction from accounts owned by her individually or by her and her husband jointly.
Between Jan. 24 and Feb. 14, by contrast, Loeffler reported selling stock jointly owned with her husband worth between $1,275,000 and $3,100,000, according to transaction reports filed with Senate ethics officials.
For what it's worth, it's probably worth noting that Loeffler's husband, Jeffrey Sprecher, is the chairman and CEO of the New York Stock Exchange. The stock sales included a bunch of retailers: Ross Stores, TJX (owners of TJ Maxx, Marshalls and a bunch of similar brands), and Autozone. All of those are struggling -- TJX just announced it's closing all its stores for at least two weeks.
Like Burr, Loeffler toed the Trumpian line that the country was all set to handle this pandemic that (spoiler alert!) it's still not ready to handle:
Some might argue that while she didn't have any transactions in the weeks leading up to that coronavirus briefing, and then sold a bunch of stock, she did make two purchases of stock in that period. But those really don't help her case:
One of Loeffler’s two purchases was stock worth between $100,000 and $250,000 in Citrix, a technology company that offers teleworking software...
Yes, sold a bunch of other stock, but purchased stock in a company that enables telework, just weeks before practically the whole country moved to telework. The other purchase? Oracle. While Oracle stock has declined along with most of the rest of the market, given how much Oracle pushes itself as a "cloud" provider, you could see someone thinking it might get a boost as well.
Given all, a little other spelunking through the newly released financial disclosures for stocks sales in this period from three other Senators as well: Ron Johnson, Dianne Feinstein, and Jim Inhofe. The details of those sales don't look quite as suspicious as the other two, but still might raise some eyebrows. Inhofe sold a bunch of Paypal, Intuit, and Apple stock. Feinstein sold a bunch of Allogene Therapeutics stock, a biotech firm doing cancer research -- so it's not clear that that's related to pandemic info. Johnson made a bundle: between $5 million and $25 million in selling all of his share of a plastic extrusion company, Pacur, but that's a private family company that he ran before becoming a Senator (his brother now runs the firm), and the sale was made to a private equity firm, and shows no evidence of being connected in any way to the pandemic (indeed, the company does plastic extrusion for medical devices, and you can see why that might suddenly be in more demand these days).
In a just world, someone would be looking into the Burr and Loeffler sales as insider trading. I'm not convinced that we're in that world right now, though. In the meantime, as many of us are isolated at home, we can rest safe, knowing that Senator Burr and Senator Loeffler socked away a bunch of money while the rest of us suffer. The only surprising thing I will note, is that Burr, at least, is now receiving heavy criticism from both Democrats and Republicans, and even Tucker Carlson -- usually a trusty voice repeating Trumpian talking points, has called for Burr to resign.
Of course, it's worth highlighting one more point: profiting off the coming disaster is horrible and disgusting and awful. But it's much, much worse to have spent weeks or even months knowing what disaster was about to befall the country and lying to the public about it.
The potential insider trading is dreadful and possibly criminal, but what could elevate this to a historic scandal is the idea that senators may have known enough to be alarmed for themselves yet still projected rosy scenarios to the public AND failed to make sure we were ready. https://t.co/PeMktkEPFA
— David French (@DavidAFrench) March 20, 2020
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, coronavirus, covid-19, insider trading, kelly loeffler, richard burr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
IANAL, but…
isn't this textbook insider trading?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IANAL, but…
Usually someone doing insider trading knows ahead of time a significant piece of info that will be revealed at a future but unchangeable time. They typically don't control the release date of that information, nor can they put out deliberate false information which endangers lives.
I'm no legal expert but there's probably more charges besides "insider trading" to be put on the ledger here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IANAL, but…
The argument that it's not insider trading, is that there was enough publicly available information coming out of Italy and China, such that a well-informed layperson could have reasonably predicted the crash just as well.
I don't personally buy it, given that the magnitude of the crash was dependent on knowing what the government response to the crisis would be (which is not publicly available information), and given that the people selling off stocks were actively spreading disinformation about the crisis. But the argument is there to be made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IANAL, but…
They also may argue they are allowed to do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: IANAL, but…
Honestly, it wasn't terribly hard to predict that partisan bickering would prevent a quick response. Look through what Trump and administration officials were saying in the early days, what people from both major parties and the TV hosts on their side were saying, how people reacted to SARS. Plus, a lot of information on thing like government stockpiles of important supplies would be public to one who knows where to look. The inequitable state of US health care and the precarious state of workers in certain industries isn't much of a surprise; and we knew from China and Europe which industrties would be impacted.
It doesn't look good for the senator, but any decent lawyer will point out the above and more to establish reasonable doubt. It's hard for me to believe they'd be convicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: IANAL, but…
Excuses are like assholes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: IANAL, but…
I think it's insider trading, but that's a criminal charge and I can't see someone proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. So he'll probably get away with it, unless there's another option like recall, impeachment, or censure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IANAL, but…
Yes, I agree - they will prob get away with it.
Just like all the rest of the crap they are getting away with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IANAL, but…
"isn't this textbook insider trading?"
Yup. And good luck proving it unless the senators are on record with their broker, disclosing that their actions are because of privileged information gained as part of their government jobs.
All they have to do is try to look smart and say "Look, any idiot could see that a pandemic going global would hurt travel agencies, hotels and restaurants"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When your actions shoot your words in the back
'Everything is fine, this administration has everything under control' said the people selling off stock in companies that were about to take a beating.
Tough times seem to have a tendency to bring out the best in some people, while exposing just how utterly vile other people are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When your actions shoot your words in the back
I remember a certain sketch, I think it was by Jon Stewart in the Daily Show quite a few years back... Shows some clip with a similar situation -- there's a crisis, someone at the top is saying all's fine but privately bailing out. Camera cuts to Stewart playing a ship captain, in a life vest. He assures us everything's fine and that the ship isn't sinking, then slowly blows some air into the life vest, while maintaining eye contact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here, we have yet another reminder that the GOP believes in one ethos before all else: Fuck You, Got Mine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No worries, I'm sure as members of the party of personal responsibility they will be lightning quick in owning up to their own actions and accepting the punishments and condemnations that fellow party members will surely heap on them any day now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm positive they will try to enact a law prohibiting discussion of their crimes. Then we will all be given free education on how to properly thank dear leader(s) for everything they have done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same as the Dems and everyone in this country who talks about how good they are while their actions prove the opposite. People are just mad they weren't cut in on the action, since they already know what our senators are like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
" People are just mad "
Yes, as they should be. Some of our congressional members have priorities that are not in line with the oath they took.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Same as the Dems and everyone in this country..."
No, just no. There are shit people on both sides and there always have been, but the modern incarnation of the GOP has taken taken this sort of behavior to a whole new level. There is simply no genuine 'both sides' argument to be made here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, the "that guy who spilt his glass of soda is just as bad as the guy who raped the nun then shit on the altar" narrative needs to stop in American politics before anything improves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Same as the Dems and everyone in this country who talks about how good they are while their actions prove the opposite."
No. Just no.
The democratic party is as bought and corrupt as they come. The republican party used to be more or less the same.
These days the average republican politician is either a diehard frothing-at-the-mouth fanatic who thinks Jesus communicates his wishes to him by making pictures in his morning cereal...or an utterly unscrupulous pretend libertarian who'd shake the hand of Kim Jong-Un and give him his daughter if he thought there was a thousand dollar bill or a few votes in it for him.
The last credible republican may have been John McCain who i may not have agreed much with, but have to pity for seeing his party's turn into a complete shit-show of conmanship and malice within a few measly years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, Republicans lied to the public, tried to pretend that any truthful criticism of them was a Democratic hoax, doing so to enrich themselves personally, all while failing to do the job they were elected to do and potentially putting their constituents in danger?
The only surprise here is that anyone is shocked by this standard operating procedure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Typical gop projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
An accurate description of what happened is not projection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You seem to have missed the part where the comment you replied to stated it's the GOP that's projecting, not PaulT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes. I should try to be more clear
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
O no you don't. All 4 of them are guilty. Guilty as hell and they know it.. even the one Democrat involved. All 4 of them need to be in prison. I don't want to hear any bullshit about how all 3 of the Republicans are guilty, but the one Democrat has excuses and reasons... They are all guilty as hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I don't want to hear any bullshit about how all 3 of the Republicans are guilty, but the one Democrat has excuses and reasons"
Good, because you won't hear that from me. But, out of 4 things listed, you ignored half of them. The Democrat is guilty of profiteering, if they did indeed do that, and may be lying in order to do that. They are, however, not guilty of the administration they run failing to act, while pretending that factual information is a Democratic hoax.
Yes, 1/4 of the people accused of these crimes was a Democrat. Yet, their crime was lesser than what the Republicans committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"I don't want to hear any bullshit about how all 3 of the Republicans are guilty, but the one Democrat has excuses and reasons..."
Oh, they're all guilty and in any system of justice they'd be spending their golden years in Leavenworth...
But those of them who lied through their teeth to calm the public while quietly enriching themselves? They need to be locked up and the key thrown away.
I can't say that a democrat, under a sitting democratic administration, might not do the same. But that is not what happened here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You do realize one of the 4 is a Democrat right? Greed isn't partisan. Lets not pretend it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"You do realize one of the 4 is a Democrat right?"
Yes, which means 3/4 of the criminals here were Republicans, and the crimes committed by the Republicans were more severe. Therefore, they get the majority of the criticism. Problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You got it all wrong.
See, the Trump administration is and was perfectly prepared for dealing with the Corona crisis. Those senators knew that perfectly well. But what they couldn't know (though they had a hunch) is that the fake-media press under Democratic control would make such a scare out of the perfect 10-of-10 handling of the crisis that the stock market would drop like a rock.
Now the are not insiders to how Democrats and fake media will manipulate the stock market to serve their narrative, so this was not insider trading.
They were just working from experience, like any stock trader, of what kind of manipulations forces not under their control and oversight would wreak on the stocks.
Predicting how Democrats and fake media would cause a stock crash is not insider-trading.
And I am sure that if we found crooked Hillary's mail server, we could prove that she planned all of this.
If Obama hadn't dissolved the pandemic response team (and he must have impersonated Trump to do so given the timing, imagine this outrage), all this could have been prevented.
Where's my cheque from Fox?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You got it all wrong.
"Where's my cheque from Fox?"
Thousands of fans adoring the Great Fearless Leader staunchly defending his image from the blasphemy of the godless liberal commie leftists for free...and you want money?
If you've got a daughter with genitals shaped like a handle we'll talk.
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tucker Carlson thinks it's shameful that Burr failed to prepare the citizens he serves for the epidemic, and that Burr should resign.
If Burr failed to do his job, then the entire Trump administration also failed. Even more so, since they were the ones at the helm.
Will Carlson also call for the resignation of Trump, Pence and others? Or is Burr just a scapegoat, useful to deflect attention? I wonder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Side note
I like how "Trumpian" has become an adjective. It's very descriptive and colorful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FYI there was a Democrat senator implicated in this scandal as well: the one from California who hates encryption, loves surveillance, and rubber stamps any copyright maximalist agenda. She is blaming her husband and denies any knowledge of what trades are made, but even if that is true, she had access to the inside info, and could well have influenced his decision to dump stock.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Oops, sorry, I was responding to PaulT's comment, and did not realize the senator was actually mentioned in the article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If she is found to have done something unlawful/illegal, she should face the consequences for those actions. Her political affiliation shouldn’t change that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Exactly. Hang anyone found to have been taking advantage of this for personal gain, especially while misinforming the public in the process. Political affiliation should not be a shield against consequences.
However, this does seem to be much more regular behaviour on the Republican side. Plus, given that they are not only the ones in charge right now, but also using it as a way to score political points by attacking Democrats for essentially telling the truth about the situation, they deserve greater criticism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"However, this does seem to be much more regular behaviour on the Republican side."
Citation needed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Remind me, whose associates have been sentenced to prison time for charges spinning out of the Mueller investigation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Four republicans, one democrat ... so far
Four Republicans, One Democrat Caught Up in Ballooning Senate Insider Trading Scandal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"However, this does seem to be much more regular behaviour on the Republican side."
It is, mainly because libertarianism is heavier in representation in the GOP.
Unfortunately that doesn't mean the democrats are much better. Biden spent most of his career being the well-paid lobbyist of anyone willing to toss some campaign funds his way and his flexible allegiance is the primary reason he's being held up as the democratic presidential candidate of choice, the actual incorruptible menace - Bernie - being opposed at every turn.
Frankly, I don't see much hope for the US no matter which party wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Feinstein must go.
She claims that her assets are in a blind trust, but that trust is managed by her husband. Was the briefing classified? Did she disclose it to her husband?
A blind trust run by someone's husband simply isn't blind. Just as Trump's family run his company, Feinstein should move management of her assets to someone independent of her family. Actually, she should really go, since she is a reactionary who no longer represents the values of Californians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Feinstein must go.
Why just her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Feinstein must go.
Well she is overdue to go for her war on encryption stupidity despite a large chunk of her state's economy being tech based.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and only about 10 days ago, i was basically pummeled on this site for saying that we have just about the most corrupt government of all of the so-called 'non-3rd world, democratic countries'! if this sort of thing doesn't back up my opinion, i dont know what the hell does!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since you didn't link to your 'pummeling' it is hard to know what your 'pummeling' was actually about. Context matters. If your comment about corrupt government had nothing to do with the article in question then it could be viewed as deserved.
If you have been around here for any length of time then you should know that neither the article writers nor the commenter's are afraid to mention government corruption, and without regard for which party they are a part of. However, if you were ranting about government corruption on an article that had nothing to do with the government, well, learn to pick the articles where your rant will be appropriate, and then make sure it is relevant to that article rather than just an out of place screed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I did not pummel, but I read the pummel thread. And while there may be legitimate disagreement with the particular words or phrases you used in that post, I thought that your general point was right on time and right on target! And, yes, this is a perfect case-in-point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I suspect it was only our resident idiot trolls doing the pummeling. Almost everyone here acknowledges the corruption in our government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sure, we may have corruption in our government, but it's less than if we'd have voted for crooked Hillary or will vote for nepotist Biden instead of Trump and his whole hard-working family working their ass off in government jobs that are so arduous that nobody really can deign to understand what they are being paid for. If it weren't for Chinese trademark deals for her side business to go through for Ivanka incidentally before important bilateral trade conferences, she'd be starving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"nepotist Biden"
You know you're dealing with a moron when they defend Trump, the guy who inherited most of his wealth and power and has regularly installed friends and family into government positions for which they are woefully unqualified, by attacking his opponents as nepotists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm going to have to save a link to this comment as one of the most clear-cut examples of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know you are writing for a U.S. audience when no amount of sarcasm is outrageous enough not to be mistaken for a statement made in good faith by a fellow American.
I wonder whether Swift had similar problems with his Modest Proposal in the 18th century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not that the audience is US. It's that nothing can be put past our current administration. It's not possible to go over the top far enough as to be obvious sarcasm. Our government is a shitshow and everything they do is outrageous.
Your non-American education is showing if you're clueless about how to address your audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Shrug. Tell me whether read my complete original post before replying. If you did, I think we may have to agree to disagree just about whose cluelessness is showcased more in this failure of communication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's alright. I'm an American and I figured your post was sarcasm. I'd recommend the /s sarcasm mark in the future.
But for me, the give away was that it didn't have enough typos to be a real Trump supporter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Tell me whether read my complete original post before replying."
I read it, at least. It came across as an unofficial white house press briefing. We've seen Trump make even more insane claims, usually three times a day.
You need to read up on Poe's Law. You really can't say anything insane enough to sound as "sarcasm" where the rabbit hole known as the Trump white house is concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Welcome to the poe problem, where reality and those that populate it is/are so utterly insane that even what should be clearly sarcasm is seen as dead serious, because at some point people have run across others who said that sort of stuff and weren't being sarcastic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For reference, this (and this, and this) is the kind of serious post that you have to noticeably outstrip in order to be perceived as satire.
You fell well short of the ludicrousness of even bog-standard Trump support, which is why it didn't parse as satire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That is not an argument. It is just contradiction.
Actually, it isn't even contradiction. It is just incoherent foaming off the mouth. It doesn't even purport to follow some twisted logic. All it does is make you wish that a rabies vaccination were less painful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Actually, it isn't even contradiction. It is just incoherent foaming off the mouth."
Which is why there is no argument, no matter how insane, which couldn't be identified as the genuine opinion of a Trump devotee.
Hell, some of those insane rants are actually on par with what Trump himself has tweeted out every now and then.
"Mery" above, stating that the tell that it was sarcasm was that it didn't contain typos? That's about it.
Hence the need for the /s sarcasm tag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"we may have corruption in our government"
Ya think??
"it's less than if we'd "
Your opinion is noted
"Trump and his whole hard-working family working their ass off"
Ok, this is sarcasm - right?
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right. Congratulations for being the only one to get it. I would not have imagined it that hard, but then I don't have a U.S. education.
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Thanks."
No problem.
You had me up to the Trump and his whole hard-working family thing :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: You forgot your /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: You forgot your /s
Well, I consider it sort of an insult to the readers' intelligence. Somehow I am startled every time when figuring out that an insult may actually be called for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: You forgot your /s
"Well, I consider it sort of an insult to the readers' intelligence."
Problem is that you could quote half of "Mein Kampf" and still come off as a bona fide Trump supporter. It's no longer a question of intelligence but simply very sad recognition that Poe's Law has become default reality on this forum.
Hell, the only tell you gave was that the insanity was packaged in proper grammar and syntax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think "his whole hard-working family working their ass off in government jobs that are so arduous that nobody really can deign to understand what they are being paid for" was the tipoff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Mention the trolls, and, sure enough, they appear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Up to 4 senators now
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11214675/four-republican-senators-dumped-millions-in-stocks-after-clas sified-briefings-on-coronavirus-before-market-crashed/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Up to 4 senators now
Those were all discussed in the article. The evidence on the others does not support claims of insider trading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doublespeak
Not quite. He was engaging in typical politician double-speak. The United States can be in a better position than anyone else, while still being in a bad position overall. In the land of the blind, the man with 20-200 vision is still better positioned than the man who is actually blind, but you wouldn't trust either of them to drive.
His next two quotes are likewise carefully constructed as comparisons versus a hypothetical alternate United States, and make no assurance that the actual US will do well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doublespeak
Snake oil sales is down the hall and to the right.
Thx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doublespeak
"The United States can be in a better position than anyone else, while still being in a bad position overall."
And the US, frankly, isn't really in a good position overall. The US readiness against a pandemic and the associated social cost is...low.
Too many american workers aren't eligible for unemployment benefits at all or have to struggle through a completely overloaded system to get them. That's where european social security nets shine.
In general the senatorial speech was just the usual packet of lies meant to make the sheeple believe the system has their backs. Knowing he's just fed them a load of horseshit he then turns around and takes steps to make sure he won't get hit too badly once the broken system bellyflops completely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
salt upon the wound
Not only is it a douche bag move to dump stock based upon privileged information, but with the many folk dumping so much stock on the market all at once certainly did not help the on going panic and sell off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Treason??
One could say that through the incalculably inept responses of, refusal to acknowledge the threat of the disease by, and outright lying to the public by, the President, his staff and those senators and congress-critters that, in mocking-bird-like fashion, mimic'd the PotUS's line, did in fact commit acts of treason.
Their refusal to acknowledge the severity of the virus was a direct attack on this nation and the government's ability to protect its citizens.
Their decisions to ignore the threat, and failure to act to bring resources to bear on detection, diagnosing, containment of the disease, all while grand-standing to the press have led to incalculable harm to the people of this nation.
The fact that they then went on to profit through knowledge that should have been distributed to the nation as soon as it was known is just the icing on the treason cake that they've baked together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Treason??
One could say it's treason, but one would be wrong in terms of American law. The definition is very specific, due to the British overusing the term at that time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Treason??
The truth is ... you are wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bet there are a lot of Congress critters and staffers doing CYA on this. Doubt that these few outed so far are the last. Now that blood is in the water, the press will have a field day. Normal 'these are our guys/gals' rules are probably gone as many of the press have watched their own retirement/investment accounts lose a lot of value. They are not going to be in a mode to ignore 'their guy' avoiding losses or worse, profiting on the info obtained in those briefings.
That this is a few months/weeks before filing for office season is a bonus.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Different Point of View?
I admit that my first impulse was to call insider trading when I heard the news. However, I read the article at the link below and it raised some valid points worth considering. For those of you who don't want to bother looking at the article, it brings up issues related to automated trading (as in whether the person made the decision to sell or was it some algorithm or remote manager doing it?), the amount of the selloff vs. the amount of wealth in holding (it may seem a large amount to us, but it might be a small amount to them), and the exact timing of the sale. I am not saying they are NOT guilty of insider trading, but rather that it MIGHT be possible that some might be innocent.
[Link] (https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/03/20/1-2-3-4-senators-dump-stock-after-wuhan-virus- briefing-its-not-as-simple-as-that/)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: A Different Point of View?
Sorry, the redstate website is not a credible source.
Perhaps if you found corroborating stories at other sites then it may be worth looking at, otherwise no thanks.
From what I have read on various websites (both lib and con) what these five (so far) congress critterz did was act upon privileged information associated with the performance of their duties as government employees, which resulted in significant financial benefit to them personally.
It used to be legal for congressional member to do such abhorrent things, but then there was a law that will probably be ignored because why not.
Not sure why anyone would make excuses for these folk, perhaps you are a frustrated millionaire?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: A Different Point of View?
Gee, I wish I was a frustrated millionaire, but sadly no. However, I like to try to keep an open mind about subjects and I thought some of the counter arguments had some value. As I said at the beginning of my post, my leanings are more in alignment with many of the other comments posted here. I was not aware that the RedState site was not a credible source. But I thought the counter arguments are worthy of bringing to the forum for discussion and response. Since I am not a normal reader of RedState, I was not aware that citing might be a waste of everyone's time. Lesson learned. Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: A Different Point of View?
"I was not aware that the RedState site was not a credible source."
It doesn't necessarily impact the credibility of the specific article you linked, but it's not credible at all. Even a cursory search on their name should reveal that while they've always had a conservative slant, they've been heavily criticised over the last few years for a hard pro-Trump swing, with many established writers either being fired or quit for not wishing to toe that particular line. Any outlet that is actively culling writers who don't conform to a particular ideal must be deemed suspect in the area of objective news reporting.
"But I thought the counter arguments are worthy of bringing to the forum for discussion and response"
Reasoned counter arguments, sure. Arguments which only have the support of outlets known to distort or fabricate stories, no.
"Since I am not a normal reader of RedState..."
...you should be vetting your sources rather than believing anything a random article you stumble across is claiming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: A Different Point of View?
I obtained the link from a source that is normally fairly reliable. I think it highlights the issue than ANY reader is likely to encounter which is "How do I know if I can trust this news?" One does not know until you put it out there for discussion. The debate will let the truth emerge. That is the power of free speech.
I stand by original decision to share this. Whether the facts are true or not, the article makes you question the validity of what news services are spreading. We should ALWAYS do this; particularly before you grab your pitchfork.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Different Point of View?
"One does not know until you put it out there for discussion."
This is not true. I found the above information in a short amount of googling their name, most of the information coming from venues with a wide known good reputation. Granted, the reason I searched is primarily because I have known their name and reputation for years, but the information is easily available.
"Whether the facts are true or not, the article makes you question the validity of what news services are spreading"
...and your reaction to that was immediately share the known false ones. That's the problem. Whether the article itself had any valid points, you freely and thoughtlessly shared a known false propaganda venue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Different Point of View?
"Whether the facts are true or not, the article makes you question the validity of what news services are spreading."
and this is why it is advisable to seek sources from various points of view and see what they agree upon and disagree upon. What they do not say can be more revealing than what they do say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Different Point of View?
Indeed. Checking multiple sources is a very good thing. But, you don't fill in potential blanks from reputable sources by reading known liars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or you could use Google. Google is a thing that exists.
Ah, you’re one of those “view from nowhere”, “the right answer is in the middle” types of people.
Between “get your kids vaccinated if you can, it saves lives” and “don’t give kids any vaccines, they cause autism”, which one has more credibility behind it? And if the “right answer” is between the two ideas, what is between those two extremes that is more correct than the first idea?
Hey, your funeral, dig your grave all you like.
Did you ever question the validity of the article itself, or did you accept it at face value because it conformed to your personal biases?
And you should’ve done it with that article, but, well, here we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]