Wasn’t the ban get lifted quietly shortly later?
If ever there was a dog-bites-man story, this would be it.
Duh.
Pelosi didn’t get rich on her wages.
Not to mention that the SEC may have been instructed....
Why else would Congresscritters from BOTH parties quietly urge the IRS to suppress the Tea Party?
I hope this whistleblower has his or her life insurance paid up.
This could be the one and only thing Obama did that I approved of.
Stopped clock? probably.
When was the practice of insider trading banned? That law, passed with fanfare by Obama in 2012, was virtually gutted on April 15, 2013, when the requirements on transparent reporting of stock purchases by Congressmen and Senators were rescinded.
Have you noticed any “public servants” retiring poorer than when they entered office? Term limits should have been passed decades ago so these office holders would have been limited to 8 years and 12 years to feather their nests.
"PUBLIC SERVICE" MY AUNT TILLY---California's Di/Fi and her husband (using a different name to dupe taxpayers) made billions on inside info.
DiFi and her hubby know a thing or two about putting their lives ahead of everyone else's......using her Govt status and
influence to steer business and profits to enrich themselves.
Perhaps there's the prospect of their lives being inconvenienced...... maybe by empaneled FBI agents with Grand Jury subpoena power investigating things like how her husband/s investment group managed to obtain several Billion dollars taxpayer-funded govt contracts .....
BACKSTORY: Back in Sept 2014, Senate intel head Di/Fi was whining about the CIA looking through her computers and taking documents. Clearly, the CIA had plenty on her----even BEFORE the shocking Chi/Com missile scandal brke involving a Cali state Senator.
Di/Fi's known aversion to guns did not prevent her from honoring Sen Leland Lee's co-defendant, Raymond Chow---Chow is the key figure in Cali's Demorat state Sen Yee's shocking sub rosa missile deal w/ China (Yee is a notorious grabber of American guns).
INCONVENIENT FACTOIDS:
<><>Feinstein heads the Senate Intel Committee;
<><> Her hubby Richard Blum made million as the lawyer for Chinese interests and from tax-funded govt contracts;
<><> Did Di use her access to valuable US security data improperly?
<><> Hubby Richard Blum made millions in China deals in past years. How'd he do that?
<><> Is hubby cutting new deals w/ the Chi/Coms?
=======================================
FBI TIP PAGE https://tips.fbi.gov
=======================================
LIFE CAN BE BEAUTIFUL IN THE FEDERAL SECTOR ---Di/Fi and husband profit for 15 years from federal funds
NY Post | 1/19/15 | Richard Johnson / FR Posted by Libloather
My report Sunday on the lucrative deal Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s husband has to sell 56 post office buildings barely scratched the surface of her conflicts of interest. The California Democrat’s financier husband, Richard C. Blum, is estimated to be a billionaire from his shrewd investments in companies that profit from federal policies.
“For at least 15 years, Feinstein has appeared to support government contracts that push federal funds toward companies co-owned or governed by her powerful, billionaire husband, Richard C. Blum,” Breitbart News reported. (Excerpt) Read more at pagesix.com ...
What’s so shocking? You only need to deal with the IRS once to know that there’s a whole lot of shady business going on in that agency, and it’s brazen enough that they don’t care if you know it.
How does the IRS get info on a merger to acquisition before it happens?
Bookmark
This is a very big deal.
Yes, we knew that Congress critters could legally use insider information.
But people high up in the IRS? Nobody knew about that.
It is a huge story.
I would like to see evidence and an investigation.
What will fix the problem is if we required all public officials (including judges, elected representatives, agency employees, public school teachers, firefighters, police officers; along with their spouses) to invest at least 90% of their assets, not counting personal use assets (i.e. personal residence, vehicles, jewelry, personal items), in US Treasuries and state/municipal bonds. If we don’t have enough of those types of securities available (i.e. the government actually pays the debts down quite a bit) then I’d expand the list to include GSE mortgage backed securities and then mutual funds fully controlled by federal/state employee pension fund managers. They should have 90 days from the time they start to show compliance. If they have assets that are “hard to sell” then its because their asking price is too much. And if they are too devoted to those assets to put the American people first then maybe its best that we elect/choose people to serve in those posts who can be more focused on the American people than those distracted by their outside special interests.
About teachers - if most schools were charter or private schools then we wouldn’t need so many government employees working as teachers.
There are no morals and no virtue in a secular humanist state. Without morality, there is no respect for law. When government officials have no respect for the laws they devise there is corruption. Corruption and lawlessness leads to tyranny.
Swamp is too nice a term to describe the Wash DC area and it’s people. Cesspool is much more accurate.
I think the ban wasn’t forever. They still do insider trading and it’s perfectly fine. (I never will be able to wrap my head around that concept.)
"This may sound crazy but remember: Up until a few years ago members of Congress were allowed to trade stock based on information they got while performing their public duties."
"“Back in 2003-5 a memo was created within the IRS noting who was permitted to participate in ‘insider trading’,” says this whistleblower."
With respect to powers that the states have expressly constitutional delegated to the Congress, lawmakers don't necessarily need permission from constitutionally undefined federal regulatory agencies like the IRS for example, to do something.
In other words, the above excerpts from the article are probably intended to mislead voters to think that "law abiding" lawmakers properly got permission from a "higher authority" to manage their personal financial portfolios based on insider information that they received while doing their jobs — it's a snow job by post-17th Amendment ratification lawmakers folks.
Also, noting that I'm not a stock market legal expert, the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate the stock market imo.
Corrections, insights welcome.
My opinion is based on the 19th century Supreme Court clarification that regulating contracts is not within the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the contract are domiciled in different states.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
So the IRS gave lawmakers "legal" access to insider information based on stolen state powers imo.
Are we having fun yet? =^P
Patriots, we need to treat ourselves to a new Congress in the 2018 midterm elections, a state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will also support Pres. Trump's vision for MAGA.
When may we cease using extraneous adjectives like shocking and bombshell?