https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dianne-feinstein-3-senate-colleagues-sold-off-stocks-before-coronavirus-crash-reports

muddybrazos said:

---

This is not illegal or unusual for our Congress. They've been doing this since forever and exempted themselves from insider trading rules. Must be nice to know what and when to buy and when to sell. There is a reason that all of them are millionaires.

---

I am not sure this is entirely correct. I read where they are prohibited from trading on information they learn while serving in their congressional capacity. Is that not correct?

BaylorTaxman said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

This is not illegal or unusual for our Congress. They've been doing this since forever and exempted themselves from insider trading rules. Must be nice to know what and when to buy and when to sell. There is a reason that all of them are millionaires.

---

I am not sure this is entirely correct. I read where they are prohibited from trading on information they learn while serving in their congressional capacity. Is that not correct?

---

I believe it is prohibited by the STOCK Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

Might be prohibited for the Congress members to trade, but not their repository brokers or trust admins. Simple to just forward information on and then let the sales folks make their decisions. Might not dodge the "intent" but sure escapes the "letter" of the law.

BaylorTaxman said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

I'm disgusted with this.

But....when should they be able to sell stock?

---

I am disgusted as well. One of the Republican Senators is claiming she had no idea about the trades, which were handled by people managing her investments, until mid-February. I understand that many investors have mutual funds and don't really follow all of the transactions within those funds. Given her and her husband's financial background, I am a little skeptical of that argument.

But this seems like a huge coincidence. Hopefully a good journalist will research to see if the volume of trades in question were substantially higher than activity from 2018 and 2019. That would be an even bigger red flag. If she routinely had this volume of activity, then I am more inclined to believe her.

But it looks really, really bad.


I do find it humorous that CNN leads of this discussion mentioning the two Republican senators involved, while Fox highlights the Democratic senator involved. Some things are never going to change.

---

Richard Burr sold a significant portion of his net worth, and he's on-tape essentially admitting to insider trading.

Kelly Loeffler and her husband Jeffrey Sprecher (chairman of the NYSE) had an estimated net worth close to half a billion dollars and engaged in less than $10mm in trades (<2%). Due to his job and conflicts of interest, I bet Loeffler and Sprecher rarely make any trades on their own or instruct their money managers beyond general investment goals. I can believe that their money manager saw the rumblings of a crisis in China and made the (relatively) small moves without any information from Loeffler.

But I agree; it looks horrible.

Who's the Democratic that's being accused of insider trading? I've only heard of Burr and Loeffler.

When the **** hits the fan, go Seargent Schultz.

BaylorTaxman said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

This is not illegal or unusual for our Congress. They've been doing this since forever and exempted themselves from insider trading rules. Must be nice to know what and when to buy and when to sell. There is a reason that all of them are millionaires.

---

I am not sure this is entirely correct. I read where they are prohibited from trading on information they learn while serving in their congressional capacity. Is that not correct?

---

Ok it maybe technically illegal but nobody gets in trouble. Nancy Pelosi's husband made millions of a failing solar company and pulled his money out a couple of weeks before it went bankrupt. This is just par for the course.

My brother works for the dept of defense and said a girl he works with was bragging about how she sold all of her stocks about a month ago bc she got wind of the coming sell off bc her father is in the CIA.

Pelosi and Feinstein did the exact same.

Watch the rules not apply to Democrats and watch Democrat voters not care.

All politicians do this. Some might be better at making sure they are not directly implicated, but they all do it. Just look at the companies their friends and family are invested in and look at the ear marks they are pushing and you can connect the dots.

muddybrazos said:

---

This is not illegal or unusual for our Congress. They've been doing this since forever and exempted themselves from insider trading rules. Must be nice to know what and when to buy and when to sell. There is a reason that all of them are millionaires.

---

Yep. This sort of thing is common place for these people. I'm sure the MSM will be all over this solely because republicans are involved, and people can get all exercised and upset, but this has gone on forever for members of both parties. As you indicate there are reasons why so many of these people go from average everyday Joes to multi millionaires and even billionaires despite making the relatively modest salaries they make for being office holders.

codyorr said:

---

BaylorTaxman said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

I'm disgusted with this.

But....when should they be able to sell stock?

---

I am disgusted as well. One of the Republican Senators is claiming she had no idea about the trades, which were handled by people managing her investments, until mid-February. I understand that many investors have mutual funds and don't really follow all of the transactions within those funds. Given her and her husband's financial background, I am a little skeptical of that argument.

But this seems like a huge coincidence. Hopefully a good journalist will research to see if the volume of trades in question were substantially higher than activity from 2018 and 2019. That would be an even bigger red flag. If she routinely had this volume of activity, then I am more inclined to believe her.

But it looks really, really bad.


I do find it humorous that CNN leads of this discussion mentioning the two Republican senators involved, while Fox highlights the Democratic senator involved. Some things are never going to change.

---

Who's the Democratic that's being accused of insider trading? I've only heard of Burr and Loeffler.

---

Found the answer. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/richard-burr-coronavirus-kelly-loeffler-dianne-feinstein-james-inhofe-sold-lots-of-stock-virus-fears-started/

"In addition to Burr and Loeffler, California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein sold $1.5 million to $6 million worth of shares in late and mid-February, Senate records show.

However, Feinstein denied that this movement had anything to do with concerns about the coronavirus.

`During my Senate career I've held all assets in a blind trust of which I have no control. Reports that I sold any assets are incorrect, as are reports that I was at a January 24 briefing on coronavirus, which I was unable to attend,' Feinstein tweeted.

Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe sold as much as $400,000 in equities on January 27, disclosure reports show.

Inhofe called allegations that he sold equities in response to the January 24 briefing `completely baseless and 100 percent false,' saying he did not attend the briefing."

Pam Manhart said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Pelosi and Feinstein did the exact same.

Watch the rules not apply to Democrats and watch Democrat voters not care.

---

Don't care if the pigs involved are Republicans or Democrats.....they should all be forced to resign .

---

Term limits

---

Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve

really bad optics - if not worse.

they've got some 'splaining to do.

babbalooooooooooooooo.....................

- KKM

D!

CHP Bear said:

---

I have 1K and want to generate 100K ($352,269 - 2019 money) anyone know a good cattle futures trader?

---

Sorry to say, but 'Red' has passed on to the forever futures market.

Jack and DP said:

---

I'm disgusted with this.

But....when should they be able to sell stock?

---

When the private information becomes public information, just like everybody else.

ABC BEAR said:

---

CHP Bear said:

---

I have 1K and want to generate 100K ($352,269 - 2019 money) anyone know a good cattle futures trader?

---

Sorry to say, but 'Red' has passed on to the forever futures market.

---

Wasn't aware. Natural passing or suicide? Hehehe

Jack and DP said:

---

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dianne-feinstein-3-senate-colleagues-sold-off-stocks-before-coronavirus-crash-reports

---

You guys are seriously shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here???

tommie said:

---

Although all these cases appear to be the same, they may or may not be. If Feinstein and Loeffer really do have blind trusts and 3rd party managers they may or may not have engaged in insider trading. (I don't believe blind trusts are always blind.)

Burr appears questionable because of the information he received as chairman of the intelligence committee and the video of him saying this is 1918 bad.

---

Burr and Loeffler should resign. In disgrace. Fiddling (with their finances) while Rome burns. Note that other senators include 2 Republicans and Dianne Feinstein, and their trades do NOT look suspicious.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/20/opinion/burr-loeffler-stocks-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

On Jan. 24, Richard Burr, a Republican senator from North Carolina, attended a private Senate briefing from senior government scientists about the seriousness of the coronavirus. Kelly Loeffler, a Republican senator from Georgia, received the same briefing.

At the time, many Americans did not yet understand the danger that the virus posed. The same day as the briefing, President Trump in one of his many attempts over the past two months to make the virus seem like a frivolous matter tweeted, "It will all work out well."

Given the disconnect between what they knew and the public's understanding, Burr and Loeffler had an opportunity to sound the alarm. They could have broken ranks with other congressional Republicans and told the country to take the situation more seriously. They could have criticized Trump for not doing more. Such criticism, coming from Trump's own party, would have received major attention. It would have had the potential to alter Trump administration policy and, by extension, the course the disease took.

But Burr and Loeffler did virtually nothing to protect the health and safety of their constituents or of Americans in other states. (Burr went so far as to co-write an article for FoxNews.com bragging about the country's readiness.) Here's what the two senators did instead: They sold large amounts of their personal stock holdings, cashing in before the market sharply declined, as the severity of the virus became apparent to everyone.

The Daily Beast broke the story of Loeffler's trades, which added up to between $1.2 million and $3.1 million. She started selling the shares the same day as the briefing. She also bought "between $100,000 and $250,000 in Citrix, a technology company that offers teleworking software" and whose share price has risen since the crisis began, The Daily Beast's Lachlan Markay, William Bredderman and Sam Brodey write.

The Center for Responsive Politics and ProPublica broke the news of Burr's trades, which amounted to between $600,000 and $1.8 million. Among the shares that he and his wife sold were those in three hotel companies, all of which have since seen their stock prices hammered, Karl Evers-Hillstrom wrote.

Loeffler was appointed to her senate seat last year by Georgia's governor, and is running for election this November. Burr is currently in his third term and has said he would not run again.

Their sales are "an immense and outrageous abuse of the public trust," writes Lawfare's Susan Hennessey. "It's an inexcusably terrible thing to have done," she adds.

Update: Several readers have asked about the other senators who sold stock during the same period, including Dianne Feinstein (a California Democrat), James Inhofe (an Oklahoma Republican) and Ron Johnson (a Wisconsin Republican). But none of their trades look particularly suspicious.

Feinstein has said that she did not attend the Jan. 24 briefing; her stock was in a blind trust, which means she didn't make the decision to sell; and the transaction lost her money, because the trust was selling shares of a biotechnology stock, the value of which has since risen. Inhofe's transactions were part of a systematic selling of stocks that he started after he became chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Johnson sold stock in his family's plastic business, as part of a process that has been occurring for months; his sale also occurred well after stock market began falling.

Jeff Blehar of National Review has a helpful summary on Twitter, in which he argues Burr's transactions are the worst. Loeffler, who is extremely wealthy and married to the chairman of the New York Stock Exchange, frequently sells stock and has said "multiple third-party advisors" not her or her husband made the decision to sell shares in January and in February. The notion that Feinstein or Johnson did something unethical, Belhar wrote, is "flat wrong." Don Moynihan of Georgetown University agrees.

Burr's response on Friday morning was not strong. He said that he relied on only "public news reports" about the crisis, like CNBC's reporting from Asia, a claim that's impossible to verify. He also said he had asked the Senate Ethics Committee to open "a complete review."

Buddha Bear said:

---

Pam Manhart said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Pelosi and Feinstein did the exact same.

Watch the rules not apply to Democrats and watch Democrat voters not care.

---

Don't care if the pigs involved are Republicans or Democrats.....they should all be forced to resign .

---

Term limits

---

Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve

---

I disagree with term limits

Gruvin said:

---

Jack and DP said:

---

I'm disgusted with this.

But....when should they be able to sell stock?

---

When the private information becomes public information, just like everybody else.

---

Burr said he acted on information that appeared on CNBC.

We'll find out if that is true

Osodecentx said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Pam Manhart said:

---

Term limits

---

Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve

---

I disagree with term limits

---

One issue with terms limits is that you lose people with institutional memory and solid experience.

Another issue is that everybody in government, unless they are extremely honorable, is making policy decisions and voting based on their move to the private sector after their term is over. That's a really consequential issue.

On the other hand, the unhealthy domination of Mitch McConnell and his success in stacking the courts, which Republicans support because it benefited them but would be howling about had Democrats done the same (and refused to even SPEAK to Merrick Garland) would be impossible if term limits were enforced, and that would be a good thing.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Pam Manhart said:

---

Term limits

---

Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve

---

I disagree with term limits

---

On the other hand, the unhealthy domination of Mitch McConnell and his success in stacking the courts, which Republicans support because it benefited them but would be howling about had Democrats done the same (and refused to even SPEAK to Merrick Garland) would be impossible if term limits were enforced, and that would be a good thing.

---

Harry Reid changed the Senate rules. Every Republican opposed it.

You're reaping the whirlwind that Harry wrought. The majority will change back some day and you'll then support the rules you now oppose.

I oppose term limits even though it would get rid of Bernie, Chuck and Nancy. That is a decision for the voters

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Pam Manhart said:

---

Term limits

---

Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve

---

I disagree with term limits

---

On the other hand, the unhealthy domination of Mitch McConnell and his success in stacking the courts, which Republicans support because it benefited them but would be howling about had Democrats done the same (and refused to even SPEAK to Merrick Garland) would be impossible if term limits were enforced, and that would be a good thing.

---

Harry Reid changed the Senate rules. Every Republican opposed it.

You're reaping the whirlwind that Harry wrought. The majority will change back some day and you'll then support the rules you now oppose.

I oppose term limits even though it would get rid of Bernie, Chuck and Nancy. That is a decision for the voters

---

Reid made a very bad call, and we have paid dearly for it.

That doesn't excuse McConnell's treatment of Merrick Garland or the GOP's practice during the Trump administration of nominating judges who are clearly not qualified by experience and ramming them through. That undermines the credibility of the justice system. McConnell & Co. obviously weren't concerned about that, given that Trump started attacking judges in the worst way possible beginning with his racist attacks on the Hispanic judge (born in Indiana) who ruled against Trump's bogus for-profit university right after Trump was elected.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Pam Manhart said:

---

Term limits

---

Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve

---

I disagree with term limits

---

On the other hand, the unhealthy domination of Mitch McConnell and his success in stacking the courts, which Republicans support because it benefited them but would be howling about had Democrats done the same (and refused to even SPEAK to Merrick Garland) would be impossible if term limits were enforced, and that would be a good thing.

---

Harry Reid changed the Senate rules. Every Republican opposed it.

You're reaping the whirlwind that Harry wrought. The majority will change back some day and you'll then support the rules you now oppose.

I oppose term limits even though it would get rid of Bernie, Chuck and Nancy. That is a decision for the voters

---

Reid made a very bad call, and we have paid dearly for it.

That doesn't excuse McConnell's treatment of Merrick Garland or the GOP's practice during the Trump administration of nominating judges who are clearly not qualified by experience and ramming them through. That undermines the credibility of the justice system. McConnell & Co. obviously weren't concerned about that, given that Trump started attacking judges in the worst way possible beginning with his racist attacks on the Hispanic judge (born in Indiana) who ruled against Trump's bogus for-profit university right after Trump was elected.

---

We just disagree on the qualifications of the judges Trump has nominated. I'm not seeing any middle ground for you and me on this one.

Harry sowed the wind and is reaping .... well, you know.

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Pam Manhart said:

---

Term limits

---

Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve

---

I disagree with term limits

---

On the other hand, the unhealthy domination of Mitch McConnell and his success in stacking the courts, which Republicans support because it benefited them but would be howling about had Democrats done the same (and refused to even SPEAK to Merrick Garland) would be impossible if term limits were enforced, and that would be a good thing.

---

Harry Reid changed the Senate rules. Every Republican opposed it.

You're reaping the whirlwind that Harry wrought. The majority will change back some day and you'll then support the rules you now oppose.

I oppose term limits even though it would get rid of Bernie, Chuck and Nancy. That is a decision for the voters

---

Reid made a very bad call, and we have paid dearly for it.

That doesn't excuse McConnell's treatment of Merrick Garland or the GOP's practice during the Trump administration of nominating judges who are clearly not qualified by experience and ramming them through. That undermines the credibility of the justice system. McConnell & Co. obviously weren't concerned about that, given that Trump started attacking judges in the worst way possible beginning with his racist attacks on the Hispanic judge (born in Indiana) who ruled against Trump's bogus for-profit university right after Trump was elected.

---

We just disagree on the qualifications of the judges Trump has nominated. I'm not seeing any middle ground for you and me on this one.

Harry sowed the wind and is reaping .... well, you know.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/23/21031430/senate-republicans-judges-american-bar-association-unqualified-mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump

Even as it stymied hundreds of bills this year, the Republican-dominated Senate was laser-focused, yet again, on confirming a huge number of judges at a rapid pace.


That included three who were deemed "not qualified" for the job, by the American Bar Association (ABA), the independent professional organization which has offered presidents guidance on judicial picks for decades.

Those were far from the only federal judges the Senate approved; in 2019, lawmakers confirmed a total of 102, including 20 circuit court judges. This number builds on the 66 judges the Senate advanced last year as President Donald Trump and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seek to push the federal judiciary further to the right.

The ABA ratings have long been part of the vetting process that each judicial nominee goes through, though presidents have opted to treat them differently. Former President Barack Obama, for example, waited to receive the ratings before making his nominations official, while Trump has declined to do so.

For every person that is nominated for a judgeship, a panel from the ABA made up of 15 law experts known as the Committee on the Federal Judiciary ranks their qualifications based on interviews with colleagues, a review of their past writings, a personal interview and an examination of their broader body of work. The group has three ratings it grants nominees: well qualified, qualified, and not qualified, all of which are intended to capture a person's "integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament."

Since 1989, the group has rated just 21 announced nominees as "not qualified," a rare classification that suggests an individual lacks the necessary professional expertise or judgment to serve on the federal bench.
In 2019, the ABA officially gave three of Trump's judges this distinction: Ninth Circuit Court Judge Lawrence VanDyke, District Court Judge Justin Walker and District Court Judge Sarah Pitlyk. The Senate confirmed them all.

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Jinx 2 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Buddha Bear said:

---

Pam Manhart said:

---

Term limits

---

Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve

---

I disagree with term limits

---

On the other hand, the unhealthy domination of Mitch McConnell and his success in stacking the courts, which Republicans support because it benefited them but would be howling about had Democrats done the same (and refused to even SPEAK to Merrick Garland) would be impossible if term limits were enforced, and that would be a good thing.

---

Harry Reid changed the Senate rules. Every Republican opposed it.

You're reaping the whirlwind that Harry wrought. The majority will change back some day and you'll then support the rules you now oppose.

I oppose term limits even though it would get rid of Bernie, Chuck and Nancy. That is a decision for the voters

---

Reid made a very bad call, and we have paid dearly for it.

That doesn't excuse McConnell's treatment of Merrick Garland or the GOP's practice during the Trump administration of nominating judges who are clearly not qualified by experience and ramming them through. That undermines the credibility of the justice system. McConnell & Co. obviously weren't concerned about that, given that Trump started attacking judges in the worst way possible beginning with his racist attacks on the Hispanic judge (born in Indiana) who ruled against Trump's bogus for-profit university right after Trump was elected.

---

We just disagree on the qualifications of the judges Trump has nominated. I'm not seeing any middle ground for you and me on this one.

Harry sowed the wind and is reaping .... well, you know.

---

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/23/21031430/senate-republicans-judges-american-bar-association-unqualified-mitch-mcconnell-donald-trump

Even as it stymied hundreds of bills this year, the Republican-dominated Senate was laser-focused, yet again, on confirming a huge number of judges at a rapid pace.


That included three who were deemed "not qualified" for the job, by the American Bar Association (ABA), the independent professional organization which has offered presidents guidance on judicial picks for decades.

Those were far from the only federal judges the Senate approved; in 2019, lawmakers confirmed a total of 102, including 20 circuit court judges. This number builds on the 66 judges the Senate advanced last year as President Donald Trump and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell seek to push the federal judiciary further to the right.

The ABA ratings have long been part of the vetting process that each judicial nominee goes through, though presidents have opted to treat them differently. Former President Barack Obama, for example, waited to receive the ratings before making his nominations official, while Trump has declined to do so.

For every person that is nominated for a judgeship, a panel from the ABA made up of 15 law experts known as the Committee on the Federal Judiciary ranks their qualifications based on interviews with colleagues, a review of their past writings, a personal interview and an examination of their broader body of work. The group has three ratings it grants nominees: well qualified, qualified, and not qualified, all of which are intended to capture a person's "integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament."

Since 1989, the group has rated just 21 announced nominees as "not qualified," a rare classification that suggests an individual lacks the necessary professional expertise or judgment to serve on the federal bench.
In 2019, the ABA officially gave three of Trump's judges this distinction: Ninth Circuit Court Judge Lawrence VanDyke, District Court Judge Justin Walker and District Court Judge Sarah Pitlyk. The Senate confirmed them all.

---

Like I said, I don't see any middle ground here.

You'll just have to accept that I am correct