Insider Trading by Congress before '08 Crash (Not just Paul Ryan)

Article from The Free Thought Project

12 Days Before '08 Crash, Congress Was Told to Sell Off Their Stocks
By John Vibes on October 27, 2015
Read more at thefreethoughtproject.com...
thefreethoughtproject.com...

2 members are mentioned in this article: 1) Senator Shelley Capito (R) of West Virginia, and 2) Congressman Jim Moran (D) of Virginia

Apparently they are exempt from insider trading laws though!

It was revealed that Senator Shelley Capito and her husband sold $350,000 worth of Citigroup stock at $83 per share, just one day before the stock dropped to $64 per share. Another shady trader was Congressman Jim Moran, who had his biggest trading day of the year days after the secret meeting, sellings stock in nearly 100 different companies.

These actions would be illegal for any American in any other circumstance, but members of Congress and high-ranking government officials are actually exempt from insider trading laws.

Wowww.

Years later, a 60 minutes investigation aired on television which highlighted the government’s deep history of insider trading. The investigation sparked outrage, prompting Congress to pass “the STOCK Act” which was said to hold members of the government to the same standards as any American when it came to insider trading. However, Congress watered down the bill and changed key elements that would hold them accountable, allowing them to return to business as usual, and escape any consequences for their prior crimes.

I also found this older thread about Paul Ryan, also being involved in this type of activity: www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: FamCore

Yes, this was the book that prompted the original act shortly after its release.

Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison

It is my understanding that Obama was instrumental in diluting its restrictions.

a reply to: FamCore

This is why it doesn't matter how great any of the candidates sound -- it's Congress that will do the spending and they cannot be trusted with money. There's no oversight. I shudder at the thought of letting them spend $18 trillion under Bernie's plan.

(Sorry Bernie fans. It's not him, it's Congress.)

a reply to: greencmp

Just ordered this on Amazon for $5.00 Thanks for posting!

a reply to: MotherMayEye

The new budget deal is BS too, their track record sucks and they are shameless at this point

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: FamCore

Yes, this was the book that prompted the original act shortly after its release.

Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison

It is my understanding that Obama was instrumental in diluting its restrictions.

It's my understanding that the "diluting" of restrictions you speak of was actually the repeal of a requirement for certain govt. employees, (Does Not include Congress or the POTUS) to publish their financial transactions online.

The repeal, or "diluting" of that part of the STOCK act was first approved by both, the House & Senate and it was done as a result of recommendations made after a study conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration regarding the sometimes dangerous negative affects of the statute on certain government employees abroad.

The study was commissioned by Congress at the request of certain high ranking govt. employees, including those working abroad, who's lives could be endangered by publishing the information online.

The repeal of that reporting requirement for those employees in no way exempts them from any of the restrictions on insider trading or any other reporting requirements to govt. agencies mandated under the act.

It only relieves them from the requirement to publicly publish those reports online.

As far as I can tell, the only way Obama was instrumental in "diluting" the act was by signing it into law, which is how laws get enacted.

Furthermore, I'm not sure that "diluting" is the proper narrative for what took place.

IMO, they were simply fixing a glitch that could endanger the lives of Americans abroad.