3 ms·

> but prohibitions on Congressmen remain in force [i.e. 2020 congressional insider trading] Is it really "in force" when, despite much ado, no charges were bro

> but prohibitions on Congressmen remain in force [i.e. 2020 congressional insider trading] Is it really "in force" when, despite much ado, no charges were brought in the linked scandal [1][2]? I don't really have a horse in this race, I just took issue with the particular example you referenced. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/us/politics/senators-stock-trades-investigation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/26/us/politics/senators-stoc... [2] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/19/doj-will-not-charge-sen-richard-burr-for-covid-stock-trades.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/19/doj-will-not-charge-sen-rich...

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> when, despite much ado, no charges were brought in the linked scandal A Senator’s phone was subpoenaed by the FBI. That’s substantial. (The allegation was Burr had insider information on broad market movements. Absent direct evidence he misappropriated privileged information, that’s a tough charge to bring. Had he bought e.g. Moderna shares, prosecutors may have had a case.) The whole thing, moreover, came to light because of the STOCK Act. There are now calls for bans on individual stock trading by Congressmen as a result of the evidence from these scandals. I’m not defending the status quo. But it’s definitely improving and not a free for all.