U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2009, 05:46 PM
 
34,990 posts, read 34,633,500 times
Reputation: 6163

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
Not at all true, the stock sales are precise recordings, down to a millimeter of second for transactions. Its not at all difficult to prove one way or another, no "deductive leap" needed..
No, to tie the meeting to his sale he would have had to sell INSTANTLY. Otherwise he can say "I was planning to sell anyway, just got around to it coincidentally this day" and who can argue?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2009, 05:51 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,278,649 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
No, to tie the meeting to his sale he would have had to sell INSTANTLY. Otherwise he can say "I was planning to sell anyway, just got around to it coincidentally this day" and who can argue?
Not at all true, in order to tie his sales to the meeting to prove an illegal action took place, what would need to be discussed at the meeting is when the information would become public, and one would need to prove that he sold his stock prior to the public disclosure. I could discuss next week that a company will file bankruptcy next year, and wait until December to sell my stock, and I'd still be breaking the law.

Insider trading is just that, trading upon inside information to make a profit or cut losses, prior to the public knowing information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2009, 05:55 PM
 
34,990 posts, read 34,633,500 times
Reputation: 6163
But it would be impossible to prove based on the information given in this article. He could sell his stock after the meeting and before the public discl and still it would be a he said, she said UNLESS he was out there in the hallway on his phone to his broker and someone heard him and is nonpartisan enough to qualify as a witness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2009, 05:58 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,278,649 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
But it would be impossible to prove based on the information given in this article. He could sell his stock after the meeting and before the public discl and still it would be a he said, she said UNLESS he was out there in the hallway on his phone to his broker and someone heard him and is nonpartisan enough to qualify as a witness.
The article doesnt provide enough information, but its not impossible at all to prove. Again, ask Martha Stewart, all they need to prove is that you had information prior to your sale. "I was planning to sell anyways" isnt an acceptable defense. The timing of the sale order, or the information has to come into play, if the sale order was placed, then he found out the information, he's ok, if the information came first, and then he created the sale order, prior to the information becoming public, its illegal, even if he planned to sell..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2009, 06:06 PM
 
34,990 posts, read 34,633,500 times
Reputation: 6163
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
The article doesnt provide enough information, but its not impossible at all to prove. Again, ask Martha Stewart, all they need to prove is that you had information prior to your sale. "I was planning to sell anyways" isnt an acceptable defense. The timing of the sale order, or the information has to come into play, if the sale order was placed, then he found out the information, he's ok, if the information came first, and then he created the sale order, prior to the information becoming public, its illegal, even if he planned to sell..
The transcript of the meeting would come into play, if I were Durbin's lawyer in an insider-trading trial, as would the recent headlines and public information he or his broker had been receiving. How intensely was urgency expressed in the meeting. You can lay out Durbin's history of responses under pressure - does he panic easily. Look at his trading/order placement history. The ability of your attorney defines "an acceptable defense."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2009, 06:12 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,278,649 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by delusianne View Post
The transcript of the meeting would come into play, if I were Durbin's lawyer in an insider-trading trial, as would the recent headlines and public information he or his broker had been receiving. How intensely was urgency expressed in the meeting. You can lay out Durbin's history of responses under pressure - does he panic easily. Look at his trading/order placement history. The ability of your attorney defines "an acceptable defense."
We'll never find out because no one will call for an investigation..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2009, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,464,272 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
Incorrect representation of BRK.B.
Failed attempt at deflection and hijacking. It makes NO difference which stock he purchased.

If Durbin dumped his stocks based on insider information, that should matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2009, 08:28 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,314 posts, read 39,464,272 times
Reputation: 7107
Quote:
I guess it would be a crime if he cashed out using insider information and MADE money on the deal.
Since he lost money it's a non-issue. No one asked him about it so he hasn't lied.
To qualify a potential crime based on if he made money or not, is not the issue. It makes not one bit of difference. The issue is if he sold his stocks based on information he received in a debriefing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2009, 03:23 PM
 
3,043 posts, read 6,834,294 times
Reputation: 896
^^^ Actually it does. At least at the state level. For 11 years, I was an Investigative Accountant for the State Attorney's Office working white collar crime and unless there were measurable damages, there was no crime. I don't know how the SEC works, but based on how they handled Madoff, I'd doubt they'd give this case a second look without any profit having been made. How good could the insider info have been if it was wrong? The fact that it took place during a time when everyone was moving to protect assets makes it less likely that the senator wasn't acting as a prudent individual would. I know I sold everything I had on 9/18. Perhaps if Durbin had liquidated everything he had, there might be more of a case, but $100K I suspect is peanuts for him. I'd be willing to bet he had a college tuition bill he needed to pay.

Another point is that agencies choose not to go after politicians because of the media, and that is why you wont see them being performed unless an investigation "was called for." Investigators would rather not have the aggravation. On the flip side, if there is controversy they are MUCH more likely to investigate a politician for something minor. And, investigations are up to the discretion of the agency unless Congress precipitates it.

As for Berk B, in thse days a whole lot bigger proportion Of Brk.B was financials. Not the case now, because they have all decreased in value. Would have been a bone-headed purchase at the time imo.

As for Martha Stewart, she was arrested for perjury, not insider trading, leading me to believe those insider trading cases must be a bear to prove.

Last edited by fauve; 06-14-2009 at 03:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-14-2009, 03:38 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,570,012 times
Reputation: 18036
Well ;he could be brought up on ethics but it look slike ethics is on the back bruner now with so many investigations going nowhere because the leadership is blocking them.Long long has Rangel and others been blocked now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top