4 ms·

They should all be locked up. Look what they did to Martha Stewart for insider trading.

• haunter 4y ago
  >... she served five months in federal prison and was released in March 2005. There was speculation that the incident would effectively end her media empire, but in 2005 Stewart began a comeback campaign and her company returned to profitability in 2006 So nothing? lol I'd rather forcibly retire any public office holder once they reach age 70. 82 years old shouldn't have any leading position in the government in any form
• jc_811 4y ago
  Martha Stewart was actually not tried nor sentenced for insider trading. Her charges were related to obstructing the investigation and lying to federal agents. [1] https://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdict/ https://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdi...
• maerF0x0 4y ago
  Rules for thee but not for me
• wyclif 4y ago
  It should be totally illegal. It's probably the one issue I share with Elizabeth Warren.
  • vba616 4y ago
    I don't have the impression that people who are against insider trading have a clear definition in their heads, agree with others on a definition, or know what the law is now in the US (let alone other countries, which can be notably different in law or principles). Why would you ever buy or sell anything unless you thought you knew something other people didn't? But, if that's not insider trading, then what is, and why? When I write "what is", I mean both as a matter of current law, and as a platonic ideal. When big investors talk to company management, what are they doing if not getting inside information? Why is this legal? Is it legal? Should it be legal? Isn't it kind of peculiar if someone that supposedly owns something can't talk to the people managing it?