They're trying to drag Senator Fienstein into the stock sale scandal to be "fair and ballanced"

[maxrandb]

One problem with that.

She wasn't telling the public one Rosy Story while telling others how fucked we truly were in private.

She wasn't parroting the "everything is fine, it's a hoax" White House spin.

I'm pretty sure she was sounding the alarm as to how bad this was going to be.

Now, if she used her position to financially benefit while telling the rest of the world that everything was going to be fine, she needs to be held to account for that.

Our media doesn't do context.

I guarantee you that the first thing that the media thought of when they heard the secret recording of Senator Burr WAS NOT "damn, this is a huge and potentially deadly story for a Retrumplican Senator".

The media's first thought in all of these stories is "how can we include a Democrat in this so we don't get accused of bias".

That is how the relentless and sustained Retrumplican attack on our press pays off for them.

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Recrecrec

Link to tweet

[uponit7771]

5. +1

[Thekaspervote]

24. Thank you for posting the CORRECT story!

[paleotn]

29. Looks like normal stock trading to me....

21.72 is the lowest it's been in 5 years....and during a bull market. Looks He simply dumped an under performer. Total hogwash lumping Feinstein in with Burr and his cronies.

[blm]

2. Exactly what they do.

[uponit7771]

3. K&R, also her husband sold at a loss !!!

[3Hotdogs]

13. Whether he sold at a loss or not is not the issue.

If he sold to prevent further loss and the sale was based on inside information, it is also illegal.

If he sold based on stock chart, information based on public disclosure or based on Nancy Reagan's astrologer, that would be legal.

[Demsrule86]

18. The stock market was tanking of course he sold to prevent further loss... and it is legal.

If he was getting intel from his wife, he would have sold it earlier...I suggest all here remember Feinstein is a Democrats before trashing her...it plays into GOP hands and having looked into it ...not true either...Bashing Democrat public figures can not happen on this forum.

[leftstreet]

4. Honestly, right now they ALL just make me fucking sick n/t

[uponit7771]

6. no, the M$M and faux news are conflating Fiensteins husband sold at a deep loss. That's not the same

... as pumping a sector and dumping the same sector at the same time like Burr

[leftstreet]

7. Bad time to be reminded our elected reps are millionaires

While the rest of us are out looking for toilet paper

Not saying you're wrong - it's just depressing

[uponit7771]

9. +1, I know its just really sloppy for the M$M to conflate all trades. Burr knew some shit was ...

... coming and was dumping a sector at the same time glad handing the public.

That's some shit there

[ChiTownDenny]

36. +1

[ChiTownDenny]

34. +1

[oldsoftie]

19. A "deep loss" compared to the stock price NOW?

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. Yes. When her husband sold, it was at a multi-year low. Then it went up (and down again).

[ChiTownDenny]

33. +1

[mcar]

8. Her husband sold stock in a biotech company

Who would do that if they knew this was coming. Also, Dems weren't in on the briefing.

Link to tweet

?s=20

Folks, go slow on the DiFi stuff. Her husband sold some stock in a medical company in January...when the stock was at its low point. It went up after that. That doesn't exactly look like cashing in on inside information.

[paleotn]

17. Interesting. Thanks.

[iluvtennis]

10. Before we Franken Feinstein...let's see the facts

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213135954

[Zoonart]

51. Despicable scalp hunting on both the right and

the far left.

[jalan48]

11. Unfortunately, the damage has been done. Most Americans aren't going to go past the headline.

[mcar]

12. Kick!

[The Magistrate]

14. And We MUST Not Co-Operate With Them Sir!

All fire must be concentrated on the enemy.

DO NOT DO THE ENEMY'S WORK FOR HIM!!!

"The only good Republicans I ever saw are dead."

[maxrandb]

22. It was soooo subtle on MSNBC

Kind of dropped her name as an afterthought.

I knew as soon as that happened, they'd be trying to "bothsiderism" this.

The media will do anything to not risk being accused of bias.

We need to stamp this out now, or it will become another example of "butter emails"

[paleotn]

15. That is true....

For those who parroted IQ45, it's not exactly insider trading. The information wasn't secret. Like before the mortgage meltdown, anyone could put 2 and 2 together from publicly available info and come up with 4. It's more like a market manipulation scheme. A variant on the old pump and dump. Funny thing is, those most likely to believe Burr, IQ45, et. al., are most likely average, Republican voters. And they got creamed. Doesn't break my heart. Dems and the average, non-political Jane and Joe? That does break my heart.

[oldsoftie]

16. She & her husband sold between 3-6 million in stock. Oddly timed for such an amount.

And it was the same time frame. Regardless of gain or loss at the time of the sale, i would be pretty sure that whatever they sold is priced MUCH lower today.
NONE of them should be able to do things like this.

[Ms. Toad]

21. ***She*** did not sell stock.

Her investments are held in a blind trust over which she has no control.

Feinstein did not attend the meeting at which the information was disclosed. Her husband sold his personal investments, not hers. And the stocks sold are not the ones a semi-intelligent investor would sell based on this kind of information.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dianne-feinstein-3-senate-colleagues-sold-off-stocks-before-coronavirus-crash-reports

[oldsoftie]

27. Thats the same thing the others have said.

the look just isnt a good one considering when it was done.

[Ms. Toad]

28. Whether it is a good look or not,

Once you place your assets in a blind trust, you have no control over sales our purchases of investment vehicles. That's the entire point of a blind trust.

A spokesman for Ms. Feinstein said that she played no role in the decision to sell the stock. “All of Senator Feinstein’s assets are in a blind trust,” a spokesman, Tom Mentzer, said in a statement. “She has no involvement in her husband’s financial decisions.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/19/us/politics/richard-burr-stocks-sold-coronavirus.html

In addition, I see no indication the others are claiming any such thing.

In a series of posts on Twitter, Mr. Burr accused NPR of twisting his comments into a “tabloid-style hit piece.” He argued that the report made him look duplicitous for sharing information at a publicly advertised event that was consistent with the message members of the Trump administration were then trying to promulgate. He did not address his stock sales.

Inofe's are clearly not in a blind trust:

He said that when he became chairman of the Armed Services Committee in late 2018, he had instructed his financial adviser to begin selling off all equities in favor of mutual funds and that the January sales were a part of that transition.

Loeffler's are closest to claiming the same thing - BUT - any politician know the term blind trust and would have used it if that is what it was. It sounds more like the arrangement my spouse has with her investments - she has signed a document allowing them to buy and sell without consultation. That is not the same thing, since such an arrangement is permissive - at any time the investor can direct the purchases and sales.

"Loeffler does not make investment decisions for her portfolio,” the statement said. “Investment decisions are made by multiple third-party advisers without her or her husband’s knowledge or involvement.”

[oldsoftie]

31. In that case, were the other three also set up the same way?

Because Burr & Loeffler have both said the same thing. Havent heard anything from Inhoffe

[Ms. Toad]

37. I edited my earlier post

Burr did not say the same thing - he made no comment at all.

Inohoffe acknowledged directing his financial advisor to sell stocks (to shift to mutual funds). The fact that he is directing his financial advisor (and did not call it a blind trust) suggests he had ultimate control.

Loeffler said the transactions took place without her knowledge - which is different from a blind trust in which the beneficiary cannot exercise control. Since a blind trust is a recognized vehicle to avoid conflicts of interests, her failure to use that name strongly suggests it wasn't one. (It sounds like my spouse's arrangement - she has the ability to control, but has told her financial advisor to buy and sell without consulting her {she didn't realize that what the document she signed did . . . and I have not been able to convince her to dump her idiot advisor. But that's another story}

[oldsoftie]

38. Then Inhoffe should be in a lot of hot water, even fi it was "only" 400k

[Ms. Toad]

39. I'm sure the details will all shake out.

But I haven't heard a single Republican indicate their assets were in a blind trust.

[Ms. Toad]

41. Here's what Burr actually said:

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1241008837479542786&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2F100213136183

In other words, he acknowledges he made the decision to sell the stocks - he just didn't use private information in arriving at the decision to sell.

[oldsoftie]

43. So then we file this under "bullshit"......

[Ms. Toad]

44. Yup. n/t

[ChiTownDenny]

42. A blind trust in which a spouse is the executor?

I'm willing to be convinced but that argument is not convincing.

[Ms. Toad]

45. No Separate investments.

SHE has a blind trust (husband is not executor)

HE has his own investments, over which she has no control.

The most significant Feinstein sales were his sales of his own personal investments, not hers. Even though she does not have control over his investments, she is obligated to, and did, report his investment transactions to the senate.

[ChiTownDenny]

47. So, you're saying...

...none of her investments were sold, only her husbands, while the MSM is reporting that her investments were sold.
I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt but I have read nothing yet that supports that doubt, only conjecture. To be clear, I believe any politician that profited from inside information while the rest of us are facing living in our cars because our investments are in the toilet because we didn't have the same information enabling us to adjust our investments ought to be behind bars.

[Ms. Toad]

49. I said two things:

Her assets are in a blind trust, over which she has no control (so "she" did not sell them. They were sold on her behalf by the trustee of her blind trust).

His assets are his assets, over which she has no control She is, however, obligated to report his sales.

There have been three sales:

1/31/20 by her spouse - $500,000 - $1 million https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/view/paper/4c78ce9f-d842-4f36-9102-48e43377166b/

2/18/20 by her spouse - 1-5 million. https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/view/paper/680b4c2d-8eea-48c5-b79e-df2754e37ac4/

1/31/20 from her blind trust - $500,000 - $1 million https://efdsearch.senate.gov/search/view/paper/1a861004-b7f4-4dbd-9186-60bc49286562/

[ChiTownDenny]

50. BTW, I like your sig line.

[Ms. Toad]

53. Thanks!

I got tired of writing the same thing over and over again.

[The Magistrate]

26. No Matter, Sir --- Attack The Enemy, And No One Else

This is important and we must learn it.

DO NOT DO THE ENEMY'S WORK FOR HIM!!!


"The only good Republicans I ever saw are dead."

[uponit7771]

32. That's a small amount of their holdings, makes them look even better.

[iluvtennis]

52. She/husband sold their stock for a loss.

Link to tweet

[kairos12]

20. With Feinstein being mentioned Barr probably woke up.

[jaxexpat]

25. Acceptance, by Democrats, of bothsiderism

is a distortion of our national conformity. It's important to deny credibility where there is lack of evidence.

[CrispyQ]

30. "Fair & balanced" is as big a crock of shit as "trickle down economics."

But Americans fell for it. We have too many gullible, ignorant people in our population. There's a reason why the GOP focused on filling positions on Boards of Education around the country back in the 80s, while the dems were running as fast as they could from the word liberal:

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans - unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."
~Karl Rove

[northoftheborder]

35. Sen. Feinstein's assets are in a blind trust over which she has no control.

Every politician should be doing the same including the Pres.

[dansolo]

46. When it is controlled by a close relative

It stinks when Trump's sons control his businesses, because it really isn't a "blind trust" when it is controlled by a close relative. In this case it is her husband. How do we know that she didn't convey information to him that led him to sell?

[FailureToCommunicate]

40. Sorry, NYTimes, your timeline of her (husband) selling stock is too fuzzy to stick on her.

[maxrandb]

48. BOOM! My point was just made by none other than Sean Spicer

During the three times a day Donnie Shit for Brains commercial.

Gee, the former disgraced White House spokesprick asking a question of his old boss.

Seems kinda incestuous.