Ex-Trump adviser sold $31m in shares days before president announced steel tariffs

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/02/carl-icahn-shares-sell-trump-steel-tariffs-announcement-timing

Looks like insider trading will be added to the list of charges Trump will be facing. This level of corruption is unprecedented and disgusting.

Reply 1

the bear

could just be a coincidence ?

:s-smilie:

Reply 2

floydd223

Original post by the bear

could just be a coincidence ?

:s-smilie:

That's what every inside trader has ever said when they get caught. "I got lucky" "I have a special algorithm" "I am very skilled at macroeconomic forecasts".

Reply 3

the bear

Original post by floydd223

That's what every inside trader has ever said when they get caught. "I got lucky" "I have a special algorithm" "I am very skilled at macroeconomic forecasts".

so nobody ever sold shares innocently then the price went down ?

:holmes:

Reply 4

username3786078

Oh yes, because no other US president's tenure was fraught with insider trading. To clarify, that was sarcasm.

I'm not in the least bit fond of Donald Trump either, but let's at least keep things in perspective.

Reply 5

floydd223

Original post by the bear

so nobody ever sold shares innocently then the price went down ?

:holmes:

No. That's not what im saying. Im telling you to connect the dots here. He's managed to avoid $6m in losses because of a timely sale.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 6

floydd223

Original post by Less(e/o)n

Please provide evidence for what you're saying otherwise retract your statement. Sounds like a generic "everyone else does it who cares?" but worse, because there's nothing to back this up.

Reply 7

the bear

Original post by floydd223

Please provide evidence for what you're saying otherwise retract your statement. Sounds like a generic "everyone else does it who cares?" but worse, because there's nothing to back this up.

you have no evidence that this sale was illegal. it makes you feel edgy and important to say it is.

Reply 8

floydd223

Original post by the bear

you have no evidence that this sale was illegal. it makes you feel edgy and important to say it is.

Maybe you're too old to see that this is pretty shady to say the least. It's okay, it'll come to you.

For starters, you replied to the wrong quote.

Reply 9

the bear

Original post by floydd223

For starters, you replied to the wrong quote.

boo hoo arrest me.

please tell us the evidence you have that this transaction was illegal.

Reply 10

floydd223

Original post by the bear

boo hoo arrest me.

please tell us the evidence you have that this transaction was illegal.

i never said there was.

The only idiot here is the one who thinks this is a wild coincidence.

Reply 11

username3786078

Original post by floydd223

Please provide evidence for what you're saying otherwise retract your statement. Sounds like a generic "everyone else does it who cares?" but worse, because there's nothing to back this up.

https://insidertrading.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002391

The very fact that laws which seek to prohibit insider trading have periodically and systematically been implemented over a great many number of years in America (as shown in the above link) suggests that there is very clear evidence for what I have asserted.

What you are asserting, on the other hand, is unclear to me. Would you care to explain?

Reply 12

floydd223

Original post by Less(e/o)n

That's not proof that previous US presidents shared inside information. Try again.

Reply 13

username3786078

Original post by floydd223

That's not proof that previous US presidents shared inside information. Try again.

I never said it was. I was making the point that insider trading occurred during the tenure of previous US presidents.

Where's your proof that Donald Trump shared inside information? The newspaper article in your opening post doesn't even confirm if Donald Trump is still in contact with this man, let alone if he explicitly shared inside information directly with him. It even points out that there are potential conflicts of interests between them, relating to their respective business holdings.