https://x.com/wallstreetapes/status/1896360261109555574?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw
If McCaul is engaged in insider trading based on information he gets due to his office, then he should be defeated at his next election (at a MINIMUM), if not prosecuted or face congressional punishment. I know Pelosi is the poster child for this sort of thing, but this should be a non partisan issue and ethics laws/rules should prevent insider trading by those in public office.
2 comments:
I will say this much: regardless of whether or not insider trading laws themselves are just or constitutional, no one should be allowed to act contrary to those laws and get away with it. If this guy is actually engaged in insider trading, he should be held to account. As I scrolled down hoping for more info, I saw the same issue mentioned which was used to suggest insider trading. That is, writing the Tik Tok ban bill and then investing in META. But there's no mention as to whether or not the bill was made public prior to his investing in META. This is important, though anyone who knows of a push to ban Tik Tok would feel compelled to invest on that news alone om anticipation of such a bill coming into existence.
I would also like to know if this guy was an investor before getting into politics. One person in the thread stated most of his wealth is from marrying into it, but that doesn't mean he wasn't possessed of wealth already. He's not corrupt because he still makes money from whatever made him money before getting elected to public office, though there's the implication that his net worth is reason enough to investigate him for corruption, or by itself, proof that he is.
Even in the case of the slimy Nancy Pelosi, charges of insider trading needs something more tangible than allegations, or we're no better than Democrats.
I am concerned that a guy with such a low rating on a scale of conservatism can still be elected as a Republican. Is he from Austin?
The simple answer is to eliminate the ability of elected/appointed federal officials from trading individual stocks while in office. Probably for a period after as well. If they push back on this, that seems to send a message about their motivation. Let them put their investments in a blind trust to be managed by a third party until they're done.
Back in the day the appearance of impropriety was enough, now it's pretty much ignored.
The point should be that this is not a partisan issue, it's wrong and should be prosecuted if possible.
Post a Comment