26 replies to this topic

[onbekende]

I guess Chris Collins forgot to invoke this magically "insider trading immunity".

 

In Belgium they recently (read 3y, I think) started asking any politician with a gov seat (lowest being town mayor) to disclose any job (salaried or not) they have BESIDES there political job. Sadly thusfar it is still public shaming (which works) when they either forget or are found to be mooching just a tad to much, but it is something I guess. Also we have a party going for de-cumul, aka 1 person => 1 job, others want to make it kinda restrictive but not total (basically no to a minister + X, but yes to a senator + local parish counclir).

[Lysistrata]

I guess Chris Collins forgot to invoke this magically "insider trading immunity".

Chris Collins used his position as a Board Member of the company to alert his son that he was soon to lose his fortune... information a Congressman would not receive. His immunities do not apply here. Once again, you keep taking careful aim, but your pistol just shoots blanks. For the record, given the same choice, I would have done the same thing. Collins had a higher priority to protect his son from financial disaster. I respect that.

 

Since the recent attacks on my wife, I have a new policy to not feed the trolls. I just couldn't help myself to correct you once again.

[onbekende]

You said immunity, you didn't discuss where they got the info from in the first place. And do they really have such immunity or is this rather a "politicians can do X" statement? Genuine curiosity.

 

Aren't board members in the US in general prohibited from both divulging and acting on insider knowledge they might receive prior to public acknowledgement? Offcourse I see the desire to act before you or someone close loses money, still the rule got placed there for reasons.

[Lysistrata]

You said immunity, you didn't discuss where they got the info from in the first place. And do they really have such immunity or is this rather a "politicians can do X" statement? Genuine curiosity.

 

Aren't board members in the US in general prohibited from both divulging and acting on insider knowledge they might receive prior to public acknowledgement? Offcourse I see the desire to act before you or someone close loses money, still the rule got placed there for reasons.

Every time the Securities and Exchange Commission tries to do anything to anyone in Congress they are halted immediately, saying their employees are "absolutely immune" from having to comply with subpoenas from the SEC. There are laws in place, they really shouldn't use the information to make money, many have refused to, many can't help themselves... but nothing can ever be done to them. There is no mechanism that can get through to punish any of them.

[onbekende]

That is immunity by being a congress member...

[Lysistrata]

That is immunity by being a congress member...

Okay, listen up. If I'm a Congressman, and I know a piece of legislation that's coming up for a vote that will increase the value of a stock or piece of land, and I know it is sure to pass... I can go out and buy some of that stock or property, and get rich. There is nothing anyone can do about it.

 

If I'm a Congressman, and I'm on the Board of Directors of a pharmaceutical company, and I receive a report in advance that a drug the company is testing didn't work out, and I then call my son and tell him to sell all his stock because it's gonna crash... I just committed a crime. Can you see the difference now?

[onbekende]

First is also public knowledge cause it is publicized. I see no issue...

 

Think we are talking besides eachother here