No she didn’t. She went to prison for obstruction of justice (in that she lied to the FBI to protect her broker). She realized as soon as the FBI explained the reason for their interview that her broker, an old friend, had disclosed insider information. Illegal for him, legal for her to trade on if she had no way of knowing it was insider info.
The government charged her anyway, and the judge immediately threw that charge out.
I wonder if this scheme, even though legal under anti-corruption laws, may be considered solicitation of bribes. He is offering official information early in exchange for payment. This sounds like bribe-seeking to me.
I agree, Audrey. I say this as a criminal prosecutor (CA) with over thirty years of experience. Dems should say now that they will investigate and prosecute both Trump and his collaborators as well as the banks for bribery.
It’s corrupt as hell and anyone who plays his game is corrupt as hell, too. Do not play his f-king games. People rise up and fight this illegal corrupt administration.
I think voters will tolerate corruption out of apathy and so long as they feel good about their economic situation. When people feel like their leaders are enriching themselves but they are not doing well then it’s a problem.
Wow… brazen is right!! Agree this one should be easy for Dems. to sell. A big reform target when D’s get back in power! Also feel that corruption is fertile common ground with unhappy Trump voters. In a recent conversation with an Alabama Trump supporter, he railed against corporate corruption in our political system naming Big Pharma as an example among many. He stated “both sides” were at fault. I agreed with him… it was a sliver of a beginning. At the end of a week of vacationing with a small group of Alabamians, they pronounced me the nicest D. they had ever spent time with. 😜 Maybe next time, we can move the corruption discussion a bit further… like explain Citizen’s United, etc.
The tie between cost of living and Trump corruption is so clear to me:
If you’re wondering where your money went, ask at the people who have all the money.
The visual that immediately pops into my mind is Trump and his oligarchs at the inauguration. They represent a sea of bribes, insider trading, no-bid contracts, and pay-to-play government favors.
It seems to me the more interesting legal questions may lie from the corporation’s perspective rather than Trump’s.
Imagine I’m the CEO of a public company and the President learns confidential information about a major government contract that will materially affect my stock price. If I know he’s about to selectively disclose that information to paying subscribers before my company can make a proper public disclosure, my lawyers are probably in full panic mode. Public companies are subject to Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure), which is designed to prevent selective disclosure of material information. Do we rush out an 8-K? Notify the SEC? Try to stop the disclosure?
Obviously, no one expects Trump’s own executive branch to investigate or prosecute him. But what about the traders paying for this early access? They know they’re receiving material, nonpublic information before the rest of the market. In virtually any corporate setting, that would raise obvious insider-trading questions. Does the fact that the source is the President rather than a corporate insider eliminate those concerns entirely? I’d genuinely like to hear from securities experts on that point.
Whatever the legal answers, this seems like exactly the sort of conduct that a Democratic House should investigate thoroughly when we regain control of Congress. The factual record—who paid, what they received, when they received it, and how it was marketed—would be important both for possible legislative reforms and, if warranted, for any future administration’s consideration of which laws were violated.
One small point of terminology. This is technically not insider trading. (Sorry for the hair-splitting).
An “insider” isn’t just anyone with market-moving information. The term “insider” describes someone who owes a legal duty of trust and confidence regarding material, nonpublic information—for example:
* a corporate officer or director;
* an employee with access to confidential market-moving information;
* an outside professional such as a lawyer, accountant, consultant, or investment banker brought into such matters; or
* another person who has assumed the same duty of confidentiality.
These people know they are insiders. I was designated sn insider from time to time when I participated in certain projects, such as the early stages of an acquisition. Most of the time, I was not an insider.
Trump doesn’t really fit that framework. He isn’t trading on confidential corporate information; he’s the President creating market-moving information through his official actions.
That doesn’t make the conduct any less troubling. If anything, it’s worse. The more accurate description is that a public official monetizing privileged access to presidential communications through a private company from which he personally profits. That less like insider trading than public corruption and self-dealing.
SCOTUS has said that an outsider who knows or should know that information is improperly shared insider info can be prosecuted for trading on it. This is why Martha Stewart wasn’t tried for trading on insider info. She was convicted of obstruction of justice for lying to shield her broker.
Corruption is a concern for voters the same way democracy is—they usually view the other party as the worst offenders, regardless of the actual facts of the matter. And Trump’s corruption is so extreme and transparent, it may be even easier for R’s and MAGAs to dismiss as baked in, just part of the equation.
Corruption is also an issue that leadership can set the conversation on and make it more important to voters. It needs to be. And, it's all tied together. These people that are going to use this access are often the same ones influencing the cost of goods, which then affects prices for people. So, it's the same old story. Republicans' government always helps super wealthy people get more access to things that end up screwing over the rest of us.
Hungary is a proof point. As Scot Nakagawa argues in "Hungary’s Reckoning", Peter Magyar successfully connected the dots from Orban’s unfair corruption to voters’ daily economic frustration.
“Magyar did not win by running on democracy. He won by running on corruption, economic stagnation, and the material deterioration of ordinary Hungarians’ lives. His campaign was relentlessly domestic, addressing kitchen-table issues, healthcare, the cost of living, and the oligarchs enriching themselves while public services collapsed. In other words, it was not just conceptual and abstract, but visceral and grounded in the experiences of ordinary Hungarians’ lives."
The fact that markets move based on what DJT says, is itself insanity. Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, gobbledygook or will probably be reversed. How is this useful to anyone?
Martha Stewart went to prison for insider trading. But the wannabe king can do no wrong?!?
No she didn’t. She went to prison for obstruction of justice (in that she lied to the FBI to protect her broker). She realized as soon as the FBI explained the reason for their interview that her broker, an old friend, had disclosed insider information. Illegal for him, legal for her to trade on if she had no way of knowing it was insider info.
The government charged her anyway, and the judge immediately threw that charge out.
She went to prison. Doesn’t look like a thrown out charge
She went to prison for obstruction of justice, not insider trading.
I wonder if this scheme, even though legal under anti-corruption laws, may be considered solicitation of bribes. He is offering official information early in exchange for payment. This sounds like bribe-seeking to me.
In a sane world, this is public corruption. Trump has SCOTUS to thank for being immune from such charges.
I agree, Audrey. I say this as a criminal prosecutor (CA) with over thirty years of experience. Dems should say now that they will investigate and prosecute both Trump and his collaborators as well as the banks for bribery.
It’s corrupt as hell and anyone who plays his game is corrupt as hell, too. Do not play his f-king games. People rise up and fight this illegal corrupt administration.
I think voters will tolerate corruption out of apathy and so long as they feel good about their economic situation. When people feel like their leaders are enriching themselves but they are not doing well then it’s a problem.
Wow… brazen is right!! Agree this one should be easy for Dems. to sell. A big reform target when D’s get back in power! Also feel that corruption is fertile common ground with unhappy Trump voters. In a recent conversation with an Alabama Trump supporter, he railed against corporate corruption in our political system naming Big Pharma as an example among many. He stated “both sides” were at fault. I agreed with him… it was a sliver of a beginning. At the end of a week of vacationing with a small group of Alabamians, they pronounced me the nicest D. they had ever spent time with. 😜 Maybe next time, we can move the corruption discussion a bit further… like explain Citizen’s United, etc.
The tie between cost of living and Trump corruption is so clear to me:
If you’re wondering where your money went, ask at the people who have all the money.
The visual that immediately pops into my mind is Trump and his oligarchs at the inauguration. They represent a sea of bribes, insider trading, no-bid contracts, and pay-to-play government favors.
How hard can it be to message this?
It seems to me the more interesting legal questions may lie from the corporation’s perspective rather than Trump’s.
Imagine I’m the CEO of a public company and the President learns confidential information about a major government contract that will materially affect my stock price. If I know he’s about to selectively disclose that information to paying subscribers before my company can make a proper public disclosure, my lawyers are probably in full panic mode. Public companies are subject to Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure), which is designed to prevent selective disclosure of material information. Do we rush out an 8-K? Notify the SEC? Try to stop the disclosure?
Obviously, no one expects Trump’s own executive branch to investigate or prosecute him. But what about the traders paying for this early access? They know they’re receiving material, nonpublic information before the rest of the market. In virtually any corporate setting, that would raise obvious insider-trading questions. Does the fact that the source is the President rather than a corporate insider eliminate those concerns entirely? I’d genuinely like to hear from securities experts on that point.
Whatever the legal answers, this seems like exactly the sort of conduct that a Democratic House should investigate thoroughly when we regain control of Congress. The factual record—who paid, what they received, when they received it, and how it was marketed—would be important both for possible legislative reforms and, if warranted, for any future administration’s consideration of which laws were violated.
One small point of terminology. This is technically not insider trading. (Sorry for the hair-splitting).
An “insider” isn’t just anyone with market-moving information. The term “insider” describes someone who owes a legal duty of trust and confidence regarding material, nonpublic information—for example:
* a corporate officer or director;
* an employee with access to confidential market-moving information;
* an outside professional such as a lawyer, accountant, consultant, or investment banker brought into such matters; or
* another person who has assumed the same duty of confidentiality.
These people know they are insiders. I was designated sn insider from time to time when I participated in certain projects, such as the early stages of an acquisition. Most of the time, I was not an insider.
Trump doesn’t really fit that framework. He isn’t trading on confidential corporate information; he’s the President creating market-moving information through his official actions.
That doesn’t make the conduct any less troubling. If anything, it’s worse. The more accurate description is that a public official monetizing privileged access to presidential communications through a private company from which he personally profits. That less like insider trading than public corruption and self-dealing.
SCOTUS has said that an outsider who knows or should know that information is improperly shared insider info can be prosecuted for trading on it. This is why Martha Stewart wasn’t tried for trading on insider info. She was convicted of obstruction of justice for lying to shield her broker.
“And it’s something Democrats should scream from the mountaintops about.”
Oh, how many issues have I been saying this about. Yet crickets.
Corruption is a concern for voters the same way democracy is—they usually view the other party as the worst offenders, regardless of the actual facts of the matter. And Trump’s corruption is so extreme and transparent, it may be even easier for R’s and MAGAs to dismiss as baked in, just part of the equation.
Corruption is also an issue that leadership can set the conversation on and make it more important to voters. It needs to be. And, it's all tied together. These people that are going to use this access are often the same ones influencing the cost of goods, which then affects prices for people. So, it's the same old story. Republicans' government always helps super wealthy people get more access to things that end up screwing over the rest of us.
Hungary is a proof point. As Scot Nakagawa argues in "Hungary’s Reckoning", Peter Magyar successfully connected the dots from Orban’s unfair corruption to voters’ daily economic frustration.
“Magyar did not win by running on democracy. He won by running on corruption, economic stagnation, and the material deterioration of ordinary Hungarians’ lives. His campaign was relentlessly domestic, addressing kitchen-table issues, healthcare, the cost of living, and the oligarchs enriching themselves while public services collapsed. In other words, it was not just conceptual and abstract, but visceral and grounded in the experiences of ordinary Hungarians’ lives."
The fact that markets move based on what DJT says, is itself insanity. Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, gobbledygook or will probably be reversed. How is this useful to anyone?
Question for Dan: is there any way/hope that this can backfire before the midterms in a very public noisy way?