There was no insider information available to Senator Frist in the months prior to the stock sale. Charles Krauthammer, Mort Kondrake et al said so yesterday.
There was nothing wrong in divesting himself of the stock. Many people had been urging him to do so. But if he had timed it due to information he got from inside sources, that would be wrong. According to FNC's panel yesterday, even insiders did not know anything that could have influenced Frist to sell when he did.
The only negatives on the horizon at the time of sale were known publically. That kind of sale is perfectly legal and ethical.
You are correct. To prove insider trading would mean to prove Frist had access to information unavailable to others and that is very difficult unless it can be shown he has access to the quarterly earnings information.
"No insider information was available to Senator Frist."
Do you know the legal definition of "insider trading?" I do because before retiring I worked for Morgan Stanley in NY and also was a lawyer. Were there any conversations between Senator Frist and his brother during the year 2005? What did they discuss? Did the brother inform the Senator that he might want to sell his stock? How much money did earn from the sale? Was it $ 10 million, $ 1 million or $ 50,000? How much of an economic loss would he have suffered if the stock was not sold? Do Senate ethics rules require that he suffer an economic loss?
Another issue: The Senator did not perceive any conflicts during the period 1994 - 2004. But during that period, bills were presented for vote that impacted health care providers. All during that period, the value of his stock was increasing. Suddenly, the economic picture changed. Why would owning that stock present a conflict today there were no perceived conflicts before?
There are far too many questions that need to be answered. But right now the "appearance of impropriety" is present in the timing of the stock sale. He sold out just before the stock tanked badly. It's almost as strong as res ipsa loquitur or the "facts speak for themselves". Frist may have violated Senate ethics regulations without the intention of profiting, i.e. negligently violating the rule.
I'm not saying he will face criminal prosecution. But he might face formal censure. Democrats will be howling like wild monkeys.