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?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 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.Jack and DP said:
I'm disgusted with this.
But....when should they be able to sell stock?
BaylorTaxman said: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?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.
BaylorTaxman said: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.Jack and DP said:
I'm disgusted with this.
But....when should they be able to sell stock?
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.
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.BaylorTaxman said: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?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.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.
Don't care if the pigs involved are Republicans or Democrats.....they should all be forced to resign .Doc Holliday said:
Pelosi and Feinstein did the exact same.
Watch the rules not apply to Democrats and watch Democrat voters not care.
codyorr said:BaylorTaxman said: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.Jack and DP said:
I'm disgusted with this.
But....when should they be able to sell stock?
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.
Term limitsCanada2017 said:Don't care if the pigs involved are Republicans or Democrats.....they should all be forced to resign .Doc Holliday said:
Pelosi and Feinstein did the exact same.
Watch the rules not apply to Democrats and watch Democrat voters not care.
Pam Manhart said:Term limitsCanada2017 said:Don't care if the pigs involved are Republicans or Democrats.....they should all be forced to resign .Doc Holliday said:
Pelosi and Feinstein did the exact same.
Watch the rules not apply to Democrats and watch Democrat voters not care.
Sorry to say, but 'Red' has passed on to the forever futures market.CHP Bear said:
I have 1K and want to generate 100K ($352,269 - 2019 money) anyone know a good cattle futures trader?
Jack and DP said:
I'm disgusted with this.
But....when should they be able to sell stock?
Wasn't aware. Natural passing or suicide? HeheheABC BEAR said:Sorry to say, but 'Red' has passed on to the forever futures market.CHP Bear said:
I have 1K and want to generate 100K ($352,269 - 2019 money) anyone know a good cattle futures trader?
You guys are seriously shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here???Jack and DP said:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dianne-feinstein-3-senate-colleagues-sold-off-stocks-before-coronavirus-crash-reports
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.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.
I disagree with term limitsBuddha Bear said:Pam Manhart said:Term limitsCanada2017 said:Don't care if the pigs involved are Republicans or Democrats.....they should all be forced to resign .Doc Holliday said:
Pelosi and Feinstein did the exact same.
Watch the rules not apply to Democrats and watch Democrat voters not care.
Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve
Burr said he acted on information that appeared on CNBC.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.
One issue with terms limits is that you lose people with institutional memory and solid experience.Osodecentx said:I disagree with term limitsBuddha Bear said:Pam Manhart said:
Term limits
Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve
Harry Reid changed the Senate rules. Every Republican opposed it.Jinx 2 said:Osodecentx said:I disagree with term limitsBuddha Bear said:Pam Manhart said:
Term limits
Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve
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.
Reid made a very bad call, and we have paid dearly for it.Osodecentx said:Harry Reid changed the Senate rules. Every Republican opposed it.Jinx 2 said:Osodecentx said:I disagree with term limitsBuddha Bear said:Pam Manhart said:
Term limits
Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve
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.
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
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.Jinx 2 said:Reid made a very bad call, and we have paid dearly for it.Osodecentx said:Harry Reid changed the Senate rules. Every Republican opposed it.Jinx 2 said:Osodecentx said:I disagree with term limitsBuddha Bear said:Pam Manhart said:
Term limits
Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve
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.
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
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.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/23/21031430/senate-republicans-judges-american-bar-association-unqualified-mitch-mcconnell-donald-trumpOsodecentx said: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.Jinx 2 said:Reid made a very bad call, and we have paid dearly for it.Osodecentx said:Harry Reid changed the Senate rules. Every Republican opposed it.Jinx 2 said:Osodecentx said:I disagree with term limitsBuddha Bear said:Pam Manhart said:
Term limits
Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve
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.
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
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.
Harry sowed the wind and is reaping .... well, you know.
Like I said, I don't see any middle ground here.Jinx 2 said:https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/23/21031430/senate-republicans-judges-american-bar-association-unqualified-mitch-mcconnell-donald-trumpOsodecentx said: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.Jinx 2 said:Reid made a very bad call, and we have paid dearly for it.Osodecentx said:Harry Reid changed the Senate rules. Every Republican opposed it.Jinx 2 said:Osodecentx said:I disagree with term limitsBuddha Bear said:Pam Manhart said:
Term limits
Thats the one thing the whole country can agree on, but unfortunately just about impossible to achieve
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.
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
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.
Harry sowed the wind and is reaping .... well, you know.
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.