It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

#DNCLeaks - Possible Insider Trading by DNC

page: 1
24

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   


In a folder titled CNBC in the new DNC leak, there was a list of stocks with possible earnings. This guy has dug a little further into it and is speculating that it was insider trading as the estimated earnings were far to accurate to be otherwise.

He goes on to link different political actions that gave companies big contracts (hence more profit) and that their companies were on the list of stocks.

One company in particular, Hillary happened to give a speech at.

I'm not an investor, but I'm sure there are people here that can look this over with a hawks eye.

Here is a link to his blog post where he outlines why it looks like insider trading. It's written like a time line and towards the bottom it shows this quote from an investor friend of his;




My contact concluded by saying that the DNC was almost certainly engaging in insider trading:

Talked to another friend. Has more friends than I in high-up places in the finance world. He confirms that there is no way it’s just analysts’ opinions for that earnings spreadsheet, every friend he has on the Street would kill to be as accurate as they (the DNC) almost always were. This is insider trading for sure.


Ghost




posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

Well we know Congress is Immune to Insider Trading investigations, and "Birds of a Feather" so...



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Members of Congress are legally allowed to engage in insider trading.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

their staffers are apparently exempt from Insider Trading laws as well!



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   
a reply to: FamCore

Yea which I hate, but both sides do it so no point in trying to call out the DNC for it.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

Did you read Forney's blog? He's not very detail oriented or concerned with facts. He's essentially just pointing to documents and then offering up complete mischaracterizations and baseless speculation. I guess I missed my calling — I should have been a blogger because this is pure garbage.

Here's the meat of his dubious theory (there should be tags for enclosing disinformation) a brief statement from an "expert" that is utterly meaningless:


Okay, so it looks like the data is based on earnings plays. The DNC or someone at the DNC is making stock trades based on earnings dates… for some stocks that are highly risky. Could be signs of insider trading. The equities file seems to be what they are holding long term


What about the material actually points to insider trading? Absolutely nothing. He found an "expert" (an unidentified "expert" of his choosing) that said it "could be signs of insider trading" and that's true, in that any spreadsheet with stock data could be evidence of insider trading.

The problem is there's nothing in the data that actually points to insider trading. That's 100% his wishful thinking. This guy should be on Ancient Aliens. His statements could be prefaced with "As Ancient Astronaut theorists believe" because they are equally non sequitur, perhaps more so.
edit on 2016-9-14 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

We're both in agreement that it's speculation. Hence why I put "Possible" in the title.

A lot of his argument is based on the 'expert' that he has. I have no reason to believe that the expert had any intention of relaying a false accusation on insider trading. How much experience he has and how valuable his opinion is, that's another question since he's anonymous. It would have been nice to see exactly why his opinion is insider trading, by the numbers.

What I gathered is that the estimated earnings are far too accurate to be made by an analyst. That's the sum of why insider trading is speculated.

What would be more convincing, is the actual earning reports side by side to the estimated earnings. Along with any political influence that affected the company during the time DNC had them in their stock portfolio.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ghostrager

I wouldn't even say that it hinges on the expert per se. There's nothing about the material that points to insider trading as opposed to regular trading.

For instance, there's not even any that indication that stock was sold prior to a drop in its price or purchased before an increase. We don't need an expert to know the basics of how insider trading benefits a trader.

That would be a bare minimum for the accusation. Beyond that, you'd have to prove whose files these were and then prove that the owner of the files had an inside source for information. There's none of that.

This doesn't even rise to the level of rational speculation imo. Notice also that he was tweeting before even talking to the alleged expert that he had found evidence of insider trading while admitting that he's clueless about finances. That speaks volumes about Forney's credibility wouldn't you say?



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Perhaps I'm NAIVE here, but isn't the system itself MADE to go for that?
The Admiralty LAW sure supports it via money,it's an easy fix now.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
Members of Congress are legally allowed to engage in insider trading.


You get mad at businesses lobbying, but insider trading is part of that corrupt cycle and here you go defending it by saying, "It's legal."

Maybe you could learn that legal doesn't always mean right. After all, slavery used to be legal too. Would you have been here defending slave owners demanding their "property" be returned to them? Was Dred Scott properly decided?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Kali74
Members of Congress are legally allowed to engage in insider trading.


You get mad at businesses lobbying, but insider trading is part of that corrupt cycle and here you go defending it by saying, "It's legal."

Maybe you could learn that legal doesn't always mean right. After all, slavery used to be legal too. Would you have been here defending slave owners demanding their "property" be returned to them? Was Dred Scott properly decided?


Problem is legal never means illegal. Right or wrong if it's legal than nothing more to be said other than maybe we need to try to change the law. And looking at this I don't even see insider trading who supposedly bought the stock?? See this seems more like company getting preferential treatment do to donations. Of course thr DNC is going to push companies that gave them money be stupid for them to push stocks that gave money to the RNC. I'm just tired of all these stupid attacks from both sides. You want Hillary there are plenty of real facts to attack her with like pugery and obstruction of justice. Most if thr Clinton foundation stuff is just speculation. Though I will concede puts her in a bad light I doubt they did anything blatantly illegal for god sakes they are both attys. And as we know they bend the law but rarely break it.




top topics



 
24

log in

join