The Paul Ryan Insider Trading Story Won’t Die Because It’s Legitimate

[xchrom]

Last edited Sat Aug 18, 2012, 08:52 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/paul-ryan-insider-trading-story-wont-die-because-its-legitimate



Ever since the Richmonder blog posted a story last weekend pointing to suspicious-looking stock trades made by Paul Ryan on September 18, 2008 – the day Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson met with Congressional leaders to warn of an economic collapse and the need for a giant bailout – the press has been at sixes and sevens. Was it insider trading? Wasn't it? First the story circulated rapidly. Then, when the Romney/Ryan campaign quickly issued denials, some journalists, most notably Benjy Sarlin of Talking Points Memo , leapt to “debunk” the story. Matt Yglesias of Slate , who first credited the story, apologized and backed off.

Earlier this week, I posted an article challenging the denials made by the Romney/Ryan campaign.

John Carney, a senior editor at CNBC.com has responded to my piece on Paul Ryan’s insider stock trades in September 2008. Unlike the Romney campaign, he does not try to claim that Congressman Ryan did not have time to do the trades before markets closed at 4pm. (There is, of course, the possibility that Ryan traded afterhours; that was no part of my story.) Nor does he take refuge in the pathetic argument that some anonymous trustee did it. His objection is that Congressman Ryan’s trading that day followed a larger pattern evident in other transactions that year.

[avebury]

1. Kick! nt

[Kalidurga]

2. This should be getting more traction...

Even if it wasn't insider trading there is no way it was ethical. This is truly the do as I say not as I do party.

[Carolina]

3. K&R

[Honeycombe8]

4. This isn't a story until it appears in the big news orgs...AP, CNN, NBC, etc. Even then...

who would care? A few, but not most, IMO.

[Genghis_Sean]

5. Clearly

I thought it was obviously Insider Trading, but it's legal for Congressmen to do it, isn't it? If it is, then regardless of how disgusted it makes us, it's a much smaller story.

[BlueStreak]

7. No. It was never "legal"

If by "legal" you means laws on the books. It is just that the laws on the books don't apply to rich or powerful people in most cases, and this is one of them. The law they passed recently was mostly grandstanding. It didn't really change the law that much. Insider trading was illegal before and it still is, and they will probably still keep on doing it.

[qb]

6. Debunking the debunkers

A good reminder that "debunkers" need to be fact-checked too.

[xchrom]

10. corrected. nt

[BlueStreak]

8. Link in OP is wrong. Here's the correct one.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/paul-ryan-insider-trading-story-wont-die-because-its-legitimate

[dawg]

9. So was the George W. Bush insider trading story.

Nothing came of that one. Martha Stewart went to jail for less.