Martha Stewart went to jail for doing stuff like this.

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 $582,029 and $1.56 million of his holdings on Feb. 13 in 29 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.

A week after Burr’s sales, the stock market began a sharp decline and has lost about 30% since.

https://www.propublica.org/article/sena ... eparedness

Martha Stewart went to jail on a $25,000 fraud. The bigger the amount, the lesser the punishment, maybe censure by Senate colleagues.

How novel of him....

Tugg

You might note, Martha is a private citizen and falls under the law. Senator Burr, like all members of Congress cleverly exempted themselves. Yet another example of Congressional and, indeed governmental, amorality. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of Congress did the same thing. Or, in Saint Nancy’s case, her husband did. She’s quite wealthy.

It is objectively corruption that elected officials can trade securities using non-public information.

Oh, and obligatory reminder that Martha Stewart did not go to prison for her ImClone stock trade. The trade was legal. She went to prison because she lied to federal investigators about her trade.

It is and they are exempt bu law.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You might note, Martha is a private citizen and falls under the law. Senator Burr, like all members of Congress cleverly exempted themselves. Yet another example of Congressional and, indeed governmental, amorality. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of Congress did the same thing. Or, in Saint Nancy’s case, her husband did. She’s quite wealthy.

If he did, he is a private citizen and so not exempt from the law.

For Burr I guess you could examine all his "friends and family" and find any that strangely "without any idea why" decided to make similarly large portfolio moves.

Seriously, Congress should fall under all same laws they pass except in specific and exempted only with a vote by the public.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You might note, Martha is a private citizen and falls under the law. Senator Burr, like all members of Congress cleverly exempted themselves. Yet another example of Congressional and, indeed governmental, amorality. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of Congress did the same thing. Or, in Saint Nancy’s case, her husband did. She’s quite wealthy.

If he did, he is a private citizen and so not exempt from the law.

For Burr I guess you could examine all his "friends and family" and find any that strangely "without any idea why" decided to make similarly large portfolio moves.

Seriously, Congress should fall under all same laws they pass except in specific and exempted only with a vote by the public.

Tugg

26 years ago, a guy named Gringrich took the Congress from years of Democratic rule making just that one of his platforms—any law passed by Congress applied to Congress. Didn’t happen.

Years later, I asked Rep O’Neil (D-MA) about it, he and his EA, Kevin Kennedy, laughed. Why would a Congressman vote that way? They have no incentive to do so. Your vote matters not one wit.

But, but, but he is a Politician and they are special people, or are they?

They’re emphatically not special, but that we allow them to be. I’d make the work unpaid, in Bismarck ND, in winter. I’d eliminate the Secret Service and have the president fly coach like every other government employee. To see Ivana cooking dinner would be priceless

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Senator Burr, like all members of Congress cleverly exempted themselves.

Pure BS. - Individually members of Congress/ Senate are not exempt from the law.

Yes, in times past, some federal laws included provisions to exempt the Congress as an organization, from having to comply with some laws. That pretty much ended in the 90s.

The Congressional Immunity principle is written into the Constitution

...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

This Immunity from Arrest is only for the time in which Congress is in session.The reason for this article is the past practices in England of arresting members of Parliament so that they could not vote opposite the wishes of the King or leadership.

Just last year or so three Republican Members of Congress have been forced to resign as they were prosecuted for various federal crimes, including Rep Chris Collins from New York who plead guilty to insider trading.

Congressmen and Senators have been prosecuted for crimes throughout most of the 20th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes

But so far as the initial post, I've seen no evidence listed of insider trading, or use of insider information. Just speculation that he had to have used inside information because he sold stock. As a career politician of some 16 years in the House and Senate, Burr has relatively little wealth. A net worth estimated at around $1.7 to 3 million. Compare that to the rest of Congress.

Burr's sale did not come until after many people had started to sell, but a week or two before the big sell off started. Interesting timing, but certainly not unique or unusual.

And no, I'm not a fan of his or his views/ policies. Would be very happy for him to be out of office.

But so far, there is not even a stink of a possible crime, in my opinion..

Yes, he told the public something one day, some others something slightly different a few days later, others more dire predictions a couple weeks later.

What were your views on this virus, and it's impact six weeks ago, five weeks ago, three weeks ago?

Please tell me if you've not adjusted your views as more and more is revealed.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Or, in Saint Nancy’s case, her husband did. She’s quite wealthy.

Can't help yourself can you, someone does something that would put a regular person in jail and you have to deflect and start pointing at Obama/Clinton/Pelosi, even though they exactly nothing to do with this and yes, in the grand scheme of things her husband (a San Fransisco real estate developer and venture capitalist) are quite wealthy but when it comes down to it, no, not really, she is only at #23 on the list of richest congress people.

Oh well, anyways, yes nothing will happen, in fact there is more potential for me to get into trouble if I do not follow the law exactly when doing a trade involving my company, sad, but it is the way it is an NEITHER side will hold anyone accountable.

Turns out more people followed Burr's lead, including the Senate's newest member (Loeffler of GA), and other Senators like Inhofe (OK) and Johnson (WI).

How nice it must be to have access to privileged information, tell people that everything is fine, while ordering stock sales behind the scenes. I'm sure it's all coincidence because these Senators have full confidence in Trump and would NEVER attempt to be part of the swamp that Trump promised to drain.

They are just good at making money and there is no connection.

^ Positively sycophantic.

It is well known that Pres. Trump has used his position to make millions in revenues for his properties from the government and by those looking for favored treatment, his daughter getting certain trademark rights from China, cutting taxes to wealthy persons like him and so on. There should be strict 'blind trusts' and strict ethics laws for high level public officials to limit the use of position and inside info to buy/sell stocks or other investments.

Apparently a bunch did it, including Diane Feinstein. Scumbags, all of them, regardless of their political affiliation.

Tugger wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

You might note, Martha is a private citizen and falls under the law. Senator Burr, like all members of Congress cleverly exempted themselves. Yet another example of Congressional and, indeed governmental, amorality. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of Congress did the same thing. Or, in Saint Nancy’s case, her husband did. She’s quite wealthy.

If he did, he is a private citizen and so not exempt from the law.

For Burr I guess you could examine all his "friends and family" and find any that strangely "without any idea why" decided to make similarly large portfolio moves.

Seriously, Congress should fall under all same laws they pass except in specific and exempted only with a vote by the public.

Tugg

Why? That’s totally unfair! Conservative politicians should always be able to game the system and then offer a simple apology “I wasn’t aware” or something similar.

Isn’t that the benefit of being a conservative politician in power in just about every country around the world? It is here!

All politicians doing this stuff deserve harsh penalties.

N757ST wrote:

Apparently a bunch did it, including Diane Feinstein. Scumbags, all of them, regardless of their political affiliation.

Did she sell it after assuring people everything is fine too?

Does the rest of the bunch have the stock in a blind trust like Feinstein?

Best regards
Thomas

Andrew Yang FTW:

If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move is to adjust your stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public interest.

https://twitter.com/andrewyang/status/1 ... 09250?s=21

by Seahawk
They are just good at making money and there is no connection.

Spalter

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

It is and they are exempt bu law.

This is not the hill you want to die on.

N757ST wrote:

Apparently a bunch did it, including Diane Feinstein. Scumbags, all of them, regardless of their political affiliation.

Maybe it was just a good time to sell (it was). If they are not allowed to sell when dark clouds appear, then they shouldn't be allowed to own any stocks. Or something. I understand haters are trying to make this political but it is not just eeevil Republicams.

So this thread is full of the usual finger pointing but what does the law say, specifically?

mham001 wrote:

N757ST wrote:

Apparently a bunch did it, including Diane Feinstein. Scumbags, all of them, regardless of their political affiliation.

Maybe it was just a good time to sell (it was). If they are not allowed to sell when dark clouds appear, then they shouldn't be allowed to own any stocks. Or something. I understand haters are trying to make this political but it is not just eeevil Republicams.

So this thread is full of the usual finger pointing but what does the law say, specifically?

We have no oversight in Congress. That is: We The People can not pass laws to hold members of Congress accountable for antitrust laws. IMO, no elected official or member of the cabinet should hold any stock in any company while they are in office period. I see that as a conflict of interest. But, we can't do that because Congress holds the power to make laws governing themselves.

Opinion aside, the "both sides do it" falls flat here. Republicans standing up saying 'everything is fine, move along, nothing to see here, we have everything under control" while selling off shares is hardly the same thing as a financial planner decided to move money from one account to another. Unless there is proof somewhere that Finstein got on the horn and started screaming "SELL!!!" when the Republican leadership news conference was on.

N757ST wrote:

Apparently a bunch did it, including Diane Feinstein. Scumbags, all of them, regardless of their political affiliation.

You should check the truth before you post. Senator Feinstein:

During my Senate career I’ve held all assets in a blind trust of which I have no control,” Feinstein tweeted. “Reports that I sold any assets are incorrect.”

Meanwhile her husband, which she stated she has no control over his investment "her husband, investment banker Richard Blum, sold shares in Allogene Therapeutics, a biotechnology company, according to her financial disclosures. They sold shares on Jan. 13 and Feb. 18. The stock subsequently rose in value, peaking in early March."

https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/ar ... 145862.php

I remember all the hoopla years ago when the clamps were put on Congressionals for Insider Trading (which was legal up to that point).

Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

It's official title:An Act To prohibit Members of Congress and employees of Congress from using nonpublic information derived from their official positions for personal benefit, and for other purposes

Can't be any clearer than that.

Well that was a big waste of paper and paychecks...but we are living in the Age where select people can ignore Lawful Subpoenas, flaunt the Law..so there you go, many laws aren't worth the paper they printed on...and Burr and others know they were wrong and broke the law, but GREED reigns above all.

BN747

Loeffler’s husband is the NYSE CEO? Wow you can’t make this stuff up