• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Former Wake Forest football player, Senator Richard Burr

..
 
80deacon said:
I think we are convicting before proven guilty. Seems I read somewhere he had filed to sell several weeks back with the proper channels for such as a senator. He also bought some hotel stocks in the transaction, like he sold resort stocks and bought cheap hotel stocks....something like Wyndham and Comfort Inns....
Click to expand...

PhDeac said:
..
Click to expand...

Yes. I am very curious where that story came from??? Please share?
:popcorn:
 
80deacon said:
I think we are convicting before proven guilty. Seems I read somewhere he had filed to sell several weeks back with the proper channels for such as a senator. He also bought some hotel stocks in the transaction, like he sold resort stocks and bought cheap hotel stocks....something like Wyndham and Comfort Inns....
Click to expand...

Minideac said:
I bet they never mentioned that Feinstein’s stocks are in a blind trust.
Click to expand...

Were her husband’s?
 
From le reddits.
342ffb145f7102923d5a09839b0021e8.jpg
 
This was either a crime or it wasn't. If it wasn't, you all should be ashamed for declaring the man a criminal.

There is no heightened standard here. Every 65 year old with limited means had the info on the Corona in mid February. Most chose to sell and understandably so at their age. The media then sets the consumer up with the false report that Burr only knew about this from his meetings--when it was clearly long in the public domain.

The big picture here is whether a retiring Senator should be required to hold all stocks in a time of crisis--regardless of tax ramifications to him or his own needs. We have decided as a country that he is not required to do so. If we want to revisit that, and make no stock transfers for Congress folk the law, we can. But we haven't. If we do, I would guess even less qualified people would run for Congress. That's probably part of the reason the law is what it is here.

I would probably be in favor of changing the law. What I think is despicable though is holding Burr to a law that isn't there.
 
Something doesn’t have to be illegal for folks to be pissed about it. Otherwise why do you constantly complain about the OCA and Wes Miller?
 
From the WS Journal article
https://www.journalnow.com/news/ele...cle_4b352198-cc46-5199-860c-e1936a7bae01.html

Selected quotes below

"The reporting documents showed some of the stock Burr sold on Feb. 13 included separate transactions valued at between $15,001 and $50,000, and between $50,001 and $100,000 of shares of Wyndham Hotels and Resorts.
Other companies whose stock Burr sold Feb. 13 in the range of $50,001 and $100,000 were biopharmaceutical company AbbVie Inc., automobile coatings company Axatla Coatings Systems Ltd., telecommunications company Centurylink Inc., insurer Everest RE Group Ltd., and alcoholic beverages manufacturer Constellation Brands Inc, Class A shares

On Feb. 4, Burr bought between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of stock in Extended Stay America, but also sold stock valued between $15,001 and $50,000 that same day

Multiple media outlets said there is no evidence that Burr sold the stock on the basis of any insider information gained from his chairmanship."

So while he did sell up to $100k in hotels, it is important to note it was Wyndham, which has most of its resort hotels outside the U.S....and a large part in China. It wouldn't be odd to have sold this stock at this juncture.

He likewise sold about $100k in automobile coatings, a pharmaceutical company (which would not make sense if based on a pandemic), and telecommunications.
 
Last edited:
Public officials should be held to a higher standard. What do we know?

He recieved a briefing that regular american citizens did not.

He made public statements contrary to what he learned in that private briefing.

He sold stock for a lot of money immediately prior to the market free fall.

All during a global health care crisis.

He should resign effective immediately. Unfortunately, the gop does not hold its members to much of any ethical standard. Whether it's legal or not is a question for others.
 
deaconson said:
Public officials should be held to a higher standard. What do we know?

He recieved a briefing that regular american citizens did not.

He made public statements contrary to what he learned in that private briefing.

He sold stock for a lot of money immediately prior to the market free fall.

All during a global health care crisis.

He should resign effective immediately. Unfortunately, the gop does not hold its members to much of any ethical standard. Whether it's legal or not is a question for others.
Click to expand...

What we don't know:
1. The total value of his stock portfolio. I imagine he's likely been in the market 40+ years with good managers. I don't think it farfetched that his total value is $50-100m. If so, such a selloff is 1-2%. Richard grew up around many wealthy people in his church....mainly Reynolds people. There are many multimillionaires in WS who have had Reynolds stock 40+ years.
2. Has he ever in those 40 years made a selloff of a similar amount? (I wouldn't be surprised if he had.)
3. What was every senator and congressman's stock transactions that day or within a week's span?
 
Last edited:
donaldross said:
This was either a crime or it wasn't. If it wasn't, you all should be ashamed for declaring the man a criminal.

There is no heightened standard here. Every 65 year old with limited means had the info on the Corona in mid February. Most chose to sell and understandably so at their age. The media then sets the consumer up with the false report that Burr only knew about this from his meetings--when it was clearly long in the public domain.

The big picture here is whether a retiring Senator should be required to hold all stocks in a time of crisis--regardless of tax ramifications to him or his own needs. We have decided as a country that he is not required to do so. If we want to revisit that, and make no stock transfers for Congress folk the law, we can. But we haven't. If we do, I would guess even less qualified people would run for Congress. That's probably part of the reason the law is what it is here.

I would probably be in favor of changing the law. What I think is despicable though is holding Burr to a law that isn't there.
Click to expand...

your beloved president at that point in time was telling us everything was going to be fine. many 65 year olds with limited means watch Fox News which was reporting similarly. yet Burr somehow thought differently.
 
Burr’s net worth was estimated to be $3.1 million which is less than half the net worth of Republican Senators as a whole. He did grow up around a lot of wealthy folks in BV no doubt.
 
BarcaDeac said:
your beloved president at that point in time was telling us everything was going to be fine. many 65 year olds with limited means watch Fox News which was reporting similarly. yet Burr somehow thought differently.
Click to expand...

Good predicting on his part. If I was 65 and had such limited means, I would have likely made the same decision. Nothing in some confidential meeting said "the stock market is going to crash." Bureaucrats didn't know that for sure any more than you and I.

His trades were based on what was in the public domain, his age, his limited retirement accounts, and his limited time to recoupe what was likely to be a downturn.

There are scumbags here. They are his WF friends who immediately turned on him based on fake news.
 
donaldross said:
This was either a crime or it wasn't. If it wasn't, you all should be ashamed for declaring the man a criminal.

There is no heightened standard here. Every 65 year old with limited means had the info on the Corona in mid February. Most chose to sell and understandably so at their age. The media then sets the consumer up with the false report that Burr only knew about this from his meetings--when it was clearly long in the public domain.

The big picture here is whether a retiring Senator should be required to hold all stocks in a time of crisis--regardless of tax ramifications to him or his own needs. We have decided as a country that he is not required to do so. If we want to revisit that, and make no stock transfers for Congress folk the law, we can. But we haven't. If we do, I would guess even less qualified people would run for Congress. That's probably part of the reason the law is what it is here.

I would probably be in favor of changing the law. What I think is despicable though is holding Burr to a law that isn't there.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a low standard: apparently, you can only criticize those in political office if they are convicted of a crime.




This is what Burr did:

- As the head of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, in January and early February, he received daily coronavirus briefings which foretold that the virus was out of control in China, and its spread into the U.S. and the rest of the world was imminent.

- Those briefings were not available to the public, and Burr only had access to them as the result of his position as a public servant representing interests of all Americans generally and his NC constituents specifically.

- On February 13, Burr sold over $1 million in stock (could be as much as $1.72 million of stock depending on how its valued) to protect his finances, while at the same staying silent to those he represents about his concerns about the virus and how it will impact the world economy.

- On February 24, eleven days after Burr's sell off, the markets started tank and the American public has lost trillions of dollars.

- On February 27, after the markets decline had started, Burr told a group of NC business leaders about his concerns about the coronavirus.

- Insider trading is when a person knows of "material non-public information" and uses that information to trade stock.

Burr will likely never be convicted of insider trading or violating the STOCK act, which expressly prohibits members of congress from using their position to gain an advantage in the market, because Burr will lie his ass off and claim that he independently became concerned about the spread of the virus using only publicly available information, rather than from the confidential intelligence briefings and unless there are recorded conversations or specific emails where Burr admits to using information gained from the intelligence briefings (which he did), there won't be the smoking gun needed to convict him. So, Burr will skate. That said, I am the opposite of "ashamed" for calling Burr a piece of shit, because that is what he is.
 
donaldross said:
This was either a crime or it wasn't. If it wasn't, you all should be ashamed for declaring the man a criminal.

There is no heightened standard here. Every 65 year old with limited means had the info on the Corona in mid February. Most chose to sell and understandably so at their age. The media then sets the consumer up with the false report that Burr only knew about this from his meetings--when it was clearly long in the public domain.

The big picture here is whether a retiring Senator should be required to hold all stocks in a time of crisis--regardless of tax ramifications to him or his own needs. We have decided as a country that he is not required to do so. If we want to revisit that, and make no stock transfers for Congress folk the law, we can. But we haven't. If we do, I would guess even less qualified people would run for Congress. That's probably part of the reason the law is what it is here.

I would probably be in favor of changing the law. What I think is despicable though is holding Burr to a law that isn't there.
Click to expand...
 
Pilchard's post accuses Burr of "Insider Trading." By definition under the insider statute, he is not an insider. He knows none of the internal workings or has internal info about the companies.

Here Burr was telling his "opinion" publicly at near the height of the market. What else is he to do?

It seems many of you opine that he is supposed to personally suffer just because everyone else is merely because he's a public servant. If that's what you want the law to be, make it so. Don't criticize him when you don't.
 
Did he share any of his advice with Tommy Elrod?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top