AlterNet: Story on Ryan "Insider Trading" Apparently Not "Debunked" After All?!?

[ProSense]

AlterNet: Story on Ryan "Insider Trading" Apparently Not "Debunked" After All?!?

by lowkell

This past Saturday, The Richmonder posted a fascinating story providing evidence of possible insider trading by Willard Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, just prior to the 2008 stock market crash. As The Richmonder explained:

... Ryan attended a closed meeting with congressional leaders, Bush's Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on September 18, 2008. The purpose of the meeting was to disclose the coming economic meltdown and beg Congress to pass legislation to help collapsing banks.

Instead of doing anything to help, Ryan left the meeting and on that very same day Paul Ryan sold shares of stock he owned in several troubled banks and reinvested the proceeds in Goldman Sachs, a bank that the meeting had disclosed was not in trouble. This is the guy Republicans want one heartbeat away from the presidency? He seems more than a little shady to me.

On Monday, The Richmonder's story "went viral," as they say in social media lingo, with blogs and newspapers all over the world picking it up. But then...(cue ominous music)...the story was (supposedly) "debunked" by Benjy Sarlin of Talking Points Memo (TPM). The supposed "debunking" was based on one key fact, that "the meeting with Bernanke took place in the evening after trading hours, meaning Ryan wouldn’t have had time to execute the move if he wanted to." In addition, not that we should care what pathological liar Willard's campaign has to say about anything, but they claimed "Ryan had nothing to do with the trades in the first place." Whatever.

So, based on this TPM "debunking," The Richmonder's story died. Except now it's apparently un-"debunked," thanks to great work by Lynn Parramore of AlterNET:

On Monday, The Richmonder's story "went viral," as they say in social media lingo, with blogs and newspapers all over the world picking it up. But then...(cue ominous music)...the story was (supposedly) "debunked" by Benjy Sarlin of Talking Points Memo (TPM). The supposed "debunking" was based on one key fact, that "the meeting with Bernanke took place in the evening after trading hours, meaning Ryan wouldn’t have had time to execute the move if he wanted to." In addition, not that we should care what pathological liar Willard's campaign has to say about anything, but they claimed "Ryan had nothing to do with the trades in the first place." Whatever.

So, based on this TPM "debunking," The Richmonder's story died. Except now it's apparently un-"debunked," thanks to great work by Lynn Parramore of AlterNET:

<...>

What I find so pathetic here is how quick progressives and Democrats often are to back off on a story, even when there's a lot of evidence that it very well might be serious, at the slightest "denials" and "debunking" by Republicans, accepted (gullibly?) by a fellow, normally excellent, progressive website. In stark contrast, Republicans keep going and going and going on verifiable lies (e.g., their fallacious, insane claims on welfare, Medicare, Obama's "birth certificate," global warming "denial," etc, etc.), even after voluminous evidence, by non-partisan, unbiased fact checkers (and/or the CBO) has come out obliterating their claims. It's maddeningly frustrating, although of course it's also a healthy sign - in stark contrast to the right wing - that progressives actually care about honesty, the truth, empirical evidence, science, etc.

In this case, what JC Wilmore ("The Richmonder&quot did wasn't to prove anything definitively, but to dig out information that looks really suspicious, and basically put it out there for others to look into more deeply. Obviously, a small blog like The Richmonder doesn't have the resources of a major news organization, to dig in and really investigate this stuff. And, with all due respect to TPM, I strongly doubt they do either. Which is why for Benjy Sarlin to claim the story was "debunked," based on not much at all (the Romney campaign denials are utterly worthless, and I hope Sarver didn't give them any credence at all), is (far) less than convincing.

Fortunately, others - Brad DeLong, AlterNET - have looked more closely at Ryan's activities and seen through the holes in Sarlin's supposed "debunking." Having done so, they've resurrected the Ryan insider trading story to where it should have been all along: highly suspicious behavior by Romney's running mate, behavior that bears serious investigation, and ultimately legal action if appropriate (although my understanding is that Congresscritters exempted themselves from laws that would have sent you and me to jail for the same exact behavior. Nice, huh?).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/15/1120424/-AlterNet-Story-on-Ryan-Insider-Training-Apparently-Not-Debunked-After-All

Romney campaign lied in response to Ryan insider trading story

by JCWilmore

I am J.C. Wilmore, and I am the Richmonder.

When I posted early Saturday afternoon about the possibility that Paul Ryan may have traded on insider information on September 18, 2008, the day key members of Congress were warned about the impending bank crisis, I had no idea what I'd touched off. That first day, traffic to my site was up significantly, I got perhaps a week's worth of traffic in a day. On Sunday, traffic was up even more and then on Monday the story exploded and I received a year's traffic in 24 hours. I was blown away.

And then at 4:35 pm, Benjy Sarlin of TPM Mucker announced to the world that he had "debunked" my story. Not only did Benjy claim to have debunked it, he said he had done it "quickly." Well Benjy, not so fast.

The Romney campaign rapidly issued denials, based on three separate -- and clearly false -- claims: 1) the trades were not individual stock trades, but trades made as part of an index that trades big blocs of stocks according to preset formulas; 2) the meeting took place in the evening, after markets were closed, so the meeting could not have played a role in Ryan’s trading decisions; and 3) the stocks traded within a trust over which Ryan had no direct authority.

In many quarters, acceptance of the denials came almost as fast as the news of the original report. Benjy Sarlin of Talking Points Memo issued a report “debunking” the Richmonder story, stating that “the rumor, which spread rapidly across the Internet, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.” Matt Yglesias over at Slate, who had first credited the story, backtracked, apologizing that he had been too “credulous” in accepting the Richmonder report.

Please read the entire story at Alternet.

It nows appears that Benjy Sarlin was misled by the Romney/Ryan campaign and he bought their explanation hook, line, and sinker.

I here now repeat the accusation I made on Saturday, August 11, 2012, specifically: that Paul Ryan received advanced knowledge of the coming banking disaster and he traded on that knowledge before it became public in the hopes of improving his financial position. Whether or not he succeeded in enhancing his financial position as a result of these trades is--to me--irrelevant. The fact is, in a tight spot for the country, Paul Ryan thought of himself first, which is precisely what his philosophical role model Ayn Rand would have wanted him to do.

It must be stated that at the time Paul Ryan carried out those trades they were completely legal--even ethical by the very low standards of Congress. But they were also potentially very politically damaging and that is why the Romney/Ryan campaign reacted the way they did: with lies and a coverup.

The coverup is now the real story, and credit for figuring out that the Romney/Ryan people were lying to Benjy Sarlin goes to Brad DeLong and Lynn Parramore. It was my friend Lowell Feld of Blue Virginia who brought Ms. Parrymore's story to my attention this morning and I want to thank Lowell for sticking by me for the last few days--his support meant a lot to me during a stressful period. I also want to reiterate that the real credit for this story should go to the good people at OpenSecrets.org who originally posted Ryan's financial report online where I could find it: without their hard and often thankless work there would have been nothing for me to find.

Let me leave you with this final thought: I found this story by looking at Paul Ryan's Wikipedia profile (don't bother looking for it now because the Romney/Ryan folks have since completely sanitized Ryan's entry there). There was a reference to potential insider trading on September 18, 2008 and all I had to do was following the footnote link to OpenSecrets.org--it really was as simple as all that. The presence of such damaging material on Ryan Wikipedia profile nearly six hours after his selection as VP begs the question: was Paul Ryan properly vetted by the Romney campaign, or do we have another Sarah Palin situation on our hands? What else is there we don't know about Paul Ryan? The Romney/Ryan campaign has shown that we cannot trust them to honsetly answer questions about Ryan's past.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/15/1120456/-Romney-campaign-lied-in-response-to-Ryan-insider-trading-story

Not surprising. I noticed how easy it is for the Romney campaign to simply say something is false and how willingly everyone is to take his word for it. The factchecking organizations did that with the Bain stories.

Here's a case of everyone simply repeating Romney lies.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021131079




Note:

Kos Media, LLC Site content may be used for any purpose without explicit permission unless otherwise specified

[Animal Chin]

1. K & R

(I hope I'm using that term correctly)

Need to get this story out there and get an investigation going. Email the SEC or FINRA.

[Politicalboi]

2. I bet Ryan told some of his friends

I bet if they start looking into this, it will have huge legs.

[lovuian]

25. I bet they did too

WOW! Ryan stepped into the lion's den

[Xyzse]

3. They really should go back in to it

I am annoyed that I don't see much articles about Romney's taxes any more either.
Nor his tenure in Bain which he is running on.

[Scuba]

4. Taxes, Bain, Insider Trading, Medicare - so many targets. Hammer 'em all !!!!!!!!!

[formercia]

5. Just like ACORN

The apologists are willing to kill the story if anyone goes BOO!

I don't think this is random. There seems to be a network in place to destroy the alternative media and keep everyone on the same page,

Discrediting the messenger has been a tactic used for a long time, with great effect. I think it's time to put the disinformation network down.

[grantcart]

6. Its time to get a deposition and get people to make statements under oath. Remember Martha Stewart

She went to jail for her cover up and not for her inside trading.

[cbdo2007]

7. It isn't the timing of the meeting that debunked this.....

it's that he was trading regularly in C and GS all year before this and LOST MONEY ON PRACTICALLY ALL TRADES. Even the GS stock that he bought on 9/19 he resold a month later for less money. GS lost 2/3 of it's value AFTER he bought their stock.

If he was really getting insider information he would have sold all his stocks that day or shorted the banks he thought would lose, not put them into something else that crashed as well. That doesn't make any sense (or cents).

[WCGreen]

10. If he is on the committees that has anything to do with the economy....

he should have put his stuff in a blind trust.

You know they just put a Democratic County Commissioner in jail for 24 years because he had a few favors done for him. The total amount of money and favors amounted to a few thousand dollars.

The point is not that he didn't deserve to be punished because he sure did, it's that guys like Ryan and Romney never get investigated for all the shit they pull off...

[ProSense]

14. That's actually

"If he was really getting insider information he would have sold all his stocks that day or shorted the banks he thought would lose, not put them into something else that crashed as well. That doesn't make any sense (or cents)."

...not a good defense. No one is accusing him of being smart.

[pnwmom]

16. Read the Alternet article. It made sense for him to invest as he did,

if he thought the market was about to crash. (And remember, many top Republicans, like Boehner, were OPPOSING the bailout.)

But the bailout occurred despite the Republican opposition, so Ryan's trades lost some money. But if the market had crashed, he would have been better off.

[Berlum]

8. K and R

These Republican assclowns need to serve up some answers about their financial malfeasance for America's voters.

[Fla Dem]

9. Martha Stewart went to federal prison for 5 months and was elctronically monitored for 2 years

for trading roughly $45,000 on information not available to the public. There was quite a media hubbabaloo over the whole thing. Too bad the media can't get all fired up over Paul's little foray with insider trading. And what's with the Congress exempting themselves from being held to the same standard as ordinary citizens? Who died and made them all King and Queens?

[DavidL]

12. Recommend your post if I could!

That was exactly what I was thinking, why isn't Paul Ryan in jail now?

[Fla Dem]

17. Congress made themselves exempt from insider trading laws.

Thanks for the almost recommend!!!

[DavidL]

26. What laws are Congresspeople exempt from?

I would like a list.

Then I propose legislation to fix this, every single one of those slime Republicans would be arrested in 60 days!

[Fla Dem]

27. Here are a few links explaining how they do it. 60 Minutes did a segment on it.

"Not only can members of Congress legally trade on confidential information; they do, despite the potential cost to their reputations. The U.S. television program 60 Minutes recently reported that several current members of Congress allegedly used confidential information that they acquired on the job for personal gain. While the nexus between the privileged information and the trading is difficult to prove (as it is in most insider trading cases), the timing is highly suspicious."

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/29/why-congress-can-freely-trade-on-insider-information/


"Steve Kroft reports that members of Congress can legally trade stock based on non-public information from Capitol Hill.

Power, prestige, and the opportunity to become a Washington insider with access to information and connections that no one else has, in an environment of privilege where rules that govern the rest of the country, don't always apply to them."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57323527/congress-trading-stock-on-inside-information/

"CBS’s “60 Minutes” ran an interesting piece last night on the practice of federal lawmakers making investment decisions based on inside information that the public does not have. It’s legal — members of Congress exempted themselves from insider-trading laws — but to put it mildly, the appearance of impropriety is hard to miss."

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/spencer_bachus_alleged_insider033477.php

[riverbendviewgal]

11. well, here is another story

and it should be presented again...There are far too many lies that Romney campaign are telling.

Americans should be aware of this new situation.

Another example of how the rich get richer.

[part man all 86]

13. I do not read anything Benjy the stingy has to write, period.

[The Wizard]

15. Paul Ryan and his ilk

are a bane on America. Go right to fucking jail. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $2,000,000,000.

[BlueStreak]

18. It is MORE incriminating if the trades happened EARLIER

Geesh, doesn't anybody know anything about insider trading? The whole point of insider trading is to get your trades done before the pack catches on. With something like the 1998 meltdown, events were unfolding at a furious pace. Obviously as the ranking member on the Budget Committee, Ryan was well connected to many people. To think that he didn't hear any inside information until he walked into the meeting with Paulsen is preposterous -- no, it is just stupid, naive, ignorant.

That is not how Washington works. people are trading on information ALL THE TIME.

The later the trades happened, the stronger the argument that Ryan was trading on publicly available information. The earlier the trades happened, the more that points to insider trading.

[DCKit]

20. + a gazillion. Ryan got the memo before anyone else. nt

[BlueStreak]

22. That is the definition of insider trading

He was undoubtedly in a position to get vital information before the general public. Given his position, it is inconceivable that he didn't have some special knowledge before the Paulsen meeting.

When was the Paulsen meeting called? I bet a 7PM meeting wasn't called at 6:45. It was probably called several hours earlier. If you got a call for a meeting like that, would you ask some questions? I would. And that is probably exactly the same time that he made the insider trades.

And who knows? Maybe he wanted to make sure the trades were done before that meeting so that he could claim he didn't make the trades based on something he learned during the meeting.

[Wednesdays]

19. K&R

nt

[Kablooie]

21. I noticed a few days ago that the meeting happened in the evening after stocks closed.

It was mentioned in news articles the day after.

That might have been on purpose so Congress could move their money before the official meeting which would have made it illegal.

There could have been a deliberate rumor mill about the content of the meeting earlier in the day.

Someone should check other Congressers to see if they moved their money the same day.
Ill bet a lot of them did.

[BlueStreak]

23. Something very peculiar about Ryan's trades

Last edited Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:53 PM - Edit history (1)

He pulled money out of companies that were going down. That is to be expected. But at that point, any normal investor would move the money to cash and wait to see how things developed. But that isn't what Ryan did. He moved the money to Goldman-Sachs, which was the big winner in the Bailout Games {tm}.

Was that just a lucky hunch?

[voteearlyvoteoften]

24. knr baby