Where's the petri dish thread?

[Deleted User 89]

Burr and Loeffler’s Corona Cash Out

https://thebulwark.com/burr-and-loeffle ... -cash-out/

[W]hat we have here is a tale that perfectly encapsulates the Trump era in Washington:

* Trump’s solipsistic focus on ensuring that everyone testifies to how wonderful he is led him into a grotesquely irresponsible public relations centered approach to dealing with the pandemic.
This approach was solely focused on maintaining the rising stock market that is central to his self-worth and his reelection prospects.

* As always, Trump refused to brook any opposition to his party line that concern about the virus was being overblown by an evil media who was exaggerating the crisis because they were hell-bent on taking out the the strong, brilliant, stable-genius who, through no fault of his own, has been continually thwarted by his own staff and other assorted dopes, weaklings, and Never Trumpers.
In the face of this, two Republican senators realized, through their briefings with government experts, that the president’s line was wrong and that America was in great danger.

* However, they were afraid of finding themselves on the receiving end of mean tweets from Trump. So they not only refused to tell their constituents what they knew publicly, but they actively participated in Trump’s gaslighting.

* Meanwhile, they took the time to protect their families’ riches from the consequences that would follow once the crisis manifest on America’s shores.

* All of which adds up to a scam where officials with inside knowledge of the truth sold their stocks to protect themselves while the president, his son, and his chief economic advisor were telling the public that everything was wonderful and that they should be buying stocks. All right before the market cratered and decimated—actually, much more than decimated—the savings of any marks who had signed on with Trump University’s White House stock market masterclass.

* But the best part—the cherry on top, really—is that Burr and Loeffler betrayed their country and their constituents in order to help sell Trump’s disinformation. And yet the moment they became liabilities, Trump’s posse on Twitter and Fox—and reportedly the President himself—turned on them. They let Trump hide his tax returns, they protected him from impeachment, they humiliated themselves defending him—only to be stiffed like a couple of Trump hotel contractors.

This is the story of what happens when you put a career scam artist in charge of the indispensable nation and he finds himself in a historic crisis. That’s on Trump and the voters who chose him.

But the other half of the scandal is that the people in a position to stand up to Trump and protect the American people from the impending crisis were too worried about their pocketbooks, access, or Twitter mentions to do anything about it. This is a story not about Trump, but about the total and complete corruption of the Republican party itself.

Maybe I'm naive and a little oversensitive at the moment, but this pisses me right the fuck off.

it should

[Deleted User 89]

and this all wouldn’t be so political if not for the politicians making it so

[DCHawk1]

Maybe I'm naive and a little oversensitive at the moment, but this pisses me right the fuck off.

It SHOULD piss you off. Everything about these pricks should piss you off.

That said, the case against Loeffler falls apart a bit upon non-hysterical (i.e. non-Bulwark) examination. "they took the time to protect their families’ riches," is a rather silly charge to make against someone who neither took time to do anything (stocks were sold by a third-party manager) nor "saved" much of her family's riches (since she and Sprecher have an estimated net worth of over $500 million).


As for Burr, well, fuck him.

[CrimsonNBlue]

Maybe I'm naive and a little oversensitive at the moment, but this pisses me right the fuck off.

It SHOULD piss you off. Everything about these pricks should piss you off.

. . .


As for Burr, well, fuck him.

This may have already been posted, but as a friend directed me to yesterday, how 'bout this fucking guy?

[jfish26]

Maybe I'm naive and a little oversensitive at the moment, but this pisses me right the fuck off.

It SHOULD piss you off. Everything about these pricks should piss you off.

That said, the case against Loeffler falls apart a bit upon non-hysterical (i.e. non-Bulwark) examination. "they took the time to protect their families’ riches," is a rather silly charge to make against someone who neither took time to do anything (stocks were sold by a third-party manager) nor "saved" much of her family's riches (since she and Sprecher have an estimated net worth of over $500 million).


As for Burr, well, fuck him.

I don't think having a lot of money means you're allowed a free pass on things like this. Maybe blind trusts should be a requirement for anyone with a certain amount of personal wealth.

[Shirley]

[Geezer]

Not exactly like the Bartlett administration.

[DCHawk1]

Maybe I'm naive and a little oversensitive at the moment, but this pisses me right the fuck off.

It SHOULD piss you off. Everything about these pricks should piss you off.

That said, the case against Loeffler falls apart a bit upon non-hysterical (i.e. non-Bulwark) examination. "they took the time to protect their families’ riches," is a rather silly charge to make against someone who neither took time to do anything (stocks were sold by a third-party manager) nor "saved" much of her family's riches (since she and Sprecher have an estimated net worth of over $500 million).


As for Burr, well, fuck him.

I don't think having a lot of money means you're allowed a free pass on things like this. Maybe blind trusts should be a requirement for anyone with a certain amount of personal wealth.

Having money doesn't inoculate her from the rules, obviously. But it does suggest that the amount they sold -- less than 1% of their net worth, as opposed to some 90+% of Burr's -- was not necessarily dictated by any desire to "protect" her family's "riches" as the Bulwark states.

[DCHawk1]

Not exactly like the Bartlett administration.

That's why I love you.

[jfish26]

It SHOULD piss you off. Everything about these pricks should piss you off.

That said, the case against Loeffler falls apart a bit upon non-hysterical (i.e. non-Bulwark) examination. "they took the time to protect their families’ riches," is a rather silly charge to make against someone who neither took time to do anything (stocks were sold by a third-party manager) nor "saved" much of her family's riches (since she and Sprecher have an estimated net worth of over $500 million).


As for Burr, well, fuck him.

I don't think having a lot of money means you're allowed a free pass on things like this. Maybe blind trusts should be a requirement for anyone with a certain amount of personal wealth.

Having money doesn't inoculate her from the rules, obviously. But it does suggest that the amount they sold -- less than 1% of their net worth, as opposed to some 90+% of Burr's -- was not necessarily dictated by any desire to "protect" her family's "riches" as the Bulwark states.

Agree 100%. But in many lines of work involving the public trust, there's such thing as taking reasonable measures to prevent even the appearance of impropriety.

[Geezer]

I hope you don't think Mitch's ethics committee will do anything about it. Barr's Justice??? LOL

[jhawks99]

Not exactly like the Bartlett administration.

That's why I love you.

It's good to see you two making nice nice.

[DCHawk1]

Agree 100%. But in many lines of work involving the public trust, there's such thing as taking reasonable measures to prevent even the appearance of impropriety.

We don't yet know the details of the Loeffler/Sprecher trading arrangement. But I would imagine that, as the chairman of the NYSE and chairman and CEO of its parent company, Sprecher is already required to take significant measures to prevent even the appearance of impropriety. All we know right now is that the trades were made by a "third-party manager." Obviously, the management was not "blind," since Loeffler has said she saw the trades after the fact, but I imagine there are restrictions on what HE can and cannot do that are stricter than those that apply to her.

[jfish26]

Agree 100%. But in many lines of work involving the public trust, there's such thing as taking reasonable measures to prevent even the appearance of impropriety.

We don't yet know the details of the Loeffler/Sprecher trading arrangement. But I would imagine that, as the chairman of the NYSE and chairman and CEO of its parent company, Sprecher is already required to take significant measures to prevent even the appearance of impropriety. All we know right now is that the trades were made by a "third-party manager." Obviously, the management was not "blind," since Loeffler has said she saw the trades after the fact, but I imagine there are restrictions on what HE can and cannot do that are stricter than those that apply to her.

Fair enough. But he was also not in a direct (structurally, at least) position to influence policy.

[Shirley]

I don't think having a lot of money means you're allowed a free pass on things like this. Maybe blind trusts should be a requirement for anyone with a certain amount of personal wealth.

Having money doesn't inoculate her from the rules, obviously. But it does suggest that the amount they sold -- less than 1% of their net worth, as opposed to some 90+% of Burr's -- was not necessarily dictated by any desire to "protect" her family's "riches" as the Bulwark states.

Agree 100%. But in many lines of work involving the public trust, there's such thing as taking reasonable measures to prevent even the appearance of impropriety.

For perspective, in 1976 when Jimmy Carter was elected president, he sold his peanut farm in Georgia in order "to prevent even the appearance of impropriety".

[Shirley]

[Shirley]

[japhy]

Trump was then asked by Roberts whether chloroquine had been shown to be effective against SARS during the 2002-2003 outbreak of that virus.

“It was very, as I understand that,” Trump said before turning to Fauci. “Is that a correct statement? It was fairly effective against SARS.”

Fauci then stepped to the podium to throw cold water on that characterization.

“You’ve got to be careful when you say ‘fairly effective.’ It was never done in a clinical trial that compared it to anything. It was given to individuals and felt that maybe it works,” Fauci said.

While Trump deferred to Fauci’s expertise, he also seemed to push against it at times during the briefing.

“Let’s see if it works. It might and it might not. I happen to feel good about it, but who knows? I’ve been right a lot. Let’s see what happens,” Trump said.

The FDA has yet to approve chloroquine for prescription to treat or prevent COVID-19, but Trump has been pressuring officials at the agency to speed up that process.

“We’ll use it on people who are not doing great, or even at the beginning of not feeling well,” Trump said, adding, “What do we have to lose? It’s been out there for so long. We hear good things. Let’s see, maybe it works and maybe it doesn’t.”


Seriously? And all the experts have to dance around to make sure not to insult the stable genius snake oil salesman as he opines about new medical miracles.

[jfish26]

All this could end (well, the Trump part anyway) if 20 or whatever Senators wanted it to.

[DCHawk1]

This will be ugly:

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronaviru ... e-collapse