Posted on 08/16/2018 5:58:30 AM PDT by DFG
A whistleblower made this shocking allegation to me last week: the IRS was tipping off members of Congress to corporate takeovers so the elected officials could profit from insider trading.
My snitch also charged that higher-level employees of the IRS also used that information to enrich themselves.
This may sound crazy but remember: Up until a few years ago members of Congress were allowed to trade stock based on information they got while performing their public duties.
It wasn’t until 2012, during President Obama’s tenure, that the practice was banned.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
This might be the primary reason these lowlife Establishment types of both parties - run for office - legal graft... (Made legal by them - for them - and to the benefit of their friends and donors and the 'free press'...)
Everything you need to know about American politics is in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”. Except, in the real world the bad guy doesn’t come clean in the end. Jimmy goes to prison.
The only thing to ever come along with the power to stop it is the internet. And their first real shot back that mattered was the elimination of InfoWars.
I thought info wars was ridiculous, but I see where this will lead. If they get away with making this permanent, we’re in trouble.
LOL - good one!
I think the ban wasn’t forever. They still do insider trading and it’s perfectly fine. (I never will be able to wrap my head around that concept.)
However, if we elect representatives that represent "We The People" then the current rules would suffice.
If we continue to elect scoundrels, no rules will bind them.
"This may sound crazy but remember: Up until a few years ago members of Congress were allowed to trade stock based on information they got while performing their public duties."
"“Back in 2003-5 a memo was created within the IRS noting who was permitted to participate in ‘insider trading’,” says this whistleblower."
With respect to powers that the states have expressly constitutional delegated to the Congress, lawmakers don't necessarily need permission from constitutionally undefined federal regulatory agencies like the IRS for example, to do something.
In other words, the above excerpts from the article are probably intended to mislead voters to think that "law abiding" lawmakers properly got permission from a "higher authority" to manage their personal financial portfolios based on insider information that they received while doing their jobs — it's a snow job by post-17th Amendment ratification lawmakers folks.
Also, noting that I'm not a stock market legal expert, the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate the stock market imo.
Corrections, insights welcome.
My opinion is based on the 19th century Supreme Court clarification that regulating contracts is not within the scope of Congress's Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the contract are domiciled in different states.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” —Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
So the IRS gave lawmakers "legal" access to insider information based on stolen state powers imo.
Are we having fun yet? =^P
Patriots, we need to treat ourselves to a new Congress in the 2018 midterm elections, a state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will also support Pres. Trump's vision for MAGA.
When may we cease using extraneous adjectives like shocking and bombshell?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.