It seems as though the guy who Trump wants to head up HHS has got some questions to answer related to his investment portfolio.
Donald Trump’s Pick for Health Secretary Traded Medical Stocks While in House
Now...lets be clear. I oppose this man for HHS secretary based on his staunch opposition to the ACA and his history of doing the bidding of lobbyists in the health care industry. But...I wouldn't be suggesting that Trump rescind his nomination for those reasons.
Insider trading, however, ought to give Trump pause.
It's not insider trading.
Insider trading does not apply to the government
Edited to include "not."
Yes it does.
STOCK Act - Wikipedia
From your link:
"The bill prohibits the use of
non-public information for private profit, including insider trading by members of Congress and other government employees."
The point of the original poster's link, said only that he was working on legislation that would affect the companies whose stock he owned.
Not that he had any non-public information. We all get the non-public information aspect. If someone inside the company tells you that the new contract with India fell through, and you sell off all your stock before that information is public, that is insider trading.
There is absolutely no evidence this happened....
at least not that I have seen yet from the original poster, or the link he posted.
Instead it only said he worked on legislation that affected stock price. That isn't insider trading, because everyone knows what bills are being worked on, what bills are introduced, and are amended, and voted on, and passed.
It is all public.
Thus, this is not insider trading.
If you have new evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
It's not public at the time he is making his decisions. He's using his information of what is going to happen, and what WILL become public, BEFORE it becomes public...
He is making decisions? I was not aware he had dictatorship powers.
Last I checked he had to submit a bill before congress. Last I checked, congress can vote up or down, or modify any bill in any number of ways, all of which are public.
You can track any bill from the moment it is introduced, publicly.
Countering Online Recruitment of Violent Extremists Act of 2016 (S. 2418)
This is a bill to authorize the department of homeland security, to establish a program for student developed anti-terrorism recruitment.
The bill was sent to committee where they do a report on various aspects of consequences of the bill, to give to the Senate, on what the bill will do.
Then they debate the bill. Then they vote on the bill.
Then it is sent to the House. The house may have a committee report on it, or they may use the Senate report to debate the bill.
In both the House and Senate, they can amend the bill, change it, modify it, add to it, take away from it.
If the bill is passed by both House and Senate, then if there are any differences between the House bill and the Senate bill, then they reconcile the bill.
IF they succeed in reconciling, then it is passed, and sent to the President who can sign it.
The bill I referred to above, was introduced in December of 2015. It's now still in Committee report. They have yet to debate it, amend it, change it modify it, or anything else, 12 months later.
Yet we know exactly what the bill says. You can read the original text. You can read the updated text. You can even read the Senate report on the bill.
When they debate the bill, you'll be able to read the amendments and even debate comments.
When it is passed, you'll be able to read the final text of the passed bill (assume it even passes).
Then the entire thing happens all over again for the house, and you can read the text at any time during that process.
.... now do tell... if you can.... where in this completely open and public system, do you suggest Tom Price had the ability to make decisions that were not public, that affected company stock prices?
Nowhere. There is nothing he would have known, that wasn't public, from the moment he introduced the bill. And given it can easily take 6 months to a year, for a bill to be passed, and given there is no way to know how the bill will ultimately turn out.... what specific non-public knowledge would he have, that would give him any real advantage in the market?
And if you consider simply introducing the bill, to be insider trading (because that's the only time he had non-public information, is before the bill is introduced)..... then effectively you are saying everyone in government is guilty of insider trading. They all pass bills every month, that can effect the value of stocks they hold, and they all hold stocks and trade routinely.
Now granted, maybe there is some information not shared by the article that was posted... but given what I know right now... that's nothing. Another witch hunt.
