Tom Price Insider Trading Story Seems to be Debunked

[hanger4]

Trump to CNN: Retract “blatantly false story” on Tom Price

Price played no role in the decision to purchase the stock, which was executed under a broker-directed account by Morgan Stanley, according to a knowledgeable source. The stock purchase was by his brokerage firm during a regular rebalancing of accounts.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/18/trump-to-cnn-retract-blatantly-false-story-on-tom-price/

Much more at the link, names, dates, timelines.

[Cigar]

Seems ...

[The Xl]

CNN is the leader of fake and misleading news.

[ripmeister]

Giving him the benefit of the doubt should he not have instructed his broker to avoid areas where he had a political role to play?

[ripmeister]

CNN is the leader of fake and misleading news.
Simply not true.

[hanger4]

Simply not true.

Pushing unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo is pretty fake.

[Chris]

Politics is appearances so Price should probably not take the position.

CNN should lose whatever credibility it ever had.

[ripmeister]

Pushing unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo is pretty fake.
To what do you refer?

[hanger4]

To what do you refer?

1) The CNN story about Tom Price. All the facts contained in this OP are easly verified and CNN didn't bother.

2) And unrelated to this thread the Trump dossier story which all other major MSMers refused to run due to unsubstantiation.

[Subdermal]

Giving him the benefit of the doubt should he not have instructed his broker to avoid areas where he had a political role to play?
There is no need to 'give him the benefit of the doubt'.

The facts are clear: CNN knowingly promulgated another bullshit story, and the usual prog parrots are running with it.

Leftists don't care that this stuff is true, they merely want to smear their opponents. They're dishonest piles of crap, and they continue to demonstrate it.

[Subdermal]

Politics is appearances so Price should probably not take the position.

CNN should lose whatever credibility it ever had.

I could NOT disagree more. What message does that send? Merely creating bullshit can derail a worthy candidate?

HELL no. Trump has amply demonstrated that politics is NOT about appearances. Politics is about punching piles of crap in the NOSE.

[Subdermal]

Simply not true.
...CNN could help your case by demonstrating honesty.

Too bad they haven't.

[Chris]

I could NOT disagree more. What message does that send? Merely creating bullshit can derail a worthy candidate?

HELL no. Trump has amply demonstrated that politics is NOT about appearances. Politics is about punching piles of crap in the NOSE.

Well, appearances plays into trust.

[ripmeister]

1) The CNN story about Tom Price. All the facts contained in this OP are easly verified and CNN didn't bother.

2) And unrelated to this thread the Trump dossier story which all other major MSMers refused to run due to unsubstantiation.
I watch CNN along with PBS and Fox on occasion. Regarding the good doctor all they reported was the connection between the stock purchases and his involvement in legislation that was related. They even stipulated that the purchases were made by his broker and that they did not know the details. Regarding the Trump dossier what they reported was that Obama and Trump had been notified of the existence of possible dossiers via the Russians. No specifics, no claims beyond that. Your beef is with Buzzfeed not CNN.

[ripmeister]

There is no need to 'give him the benefit of the doubt'.

The facts are clear: CNN knowingly promulgated another bull$#@! story, and the usual prog parrots are running with it.

Leftists don't care that this stuff is true, they merely want to smear their opponents. They're dishonest piles of crap, and they continue to demonstrate it.

My take on this is exactly the same as all the controversies surrounding Hillary. Lets see the facts and go from there. If someone were to tell me that the good doctor bought Stryker stock days or weeks before voting on legislation that would have had a material impact on Stryker that would be a red flag and require further investigation. I certainly wouldn't reject in out of hand as you would seem want to do.

I'll ask again to see if you answer this time. Shouldn't he have instructed his broker not to make purchases in industrys under which a potential conflict of interest exists? Wouldn't that have been the smart and prudent thing to do?

[ripmeister]

...CNN could help your case by demonstrating honesty.

Too bad they haven't.

Ok, so using Hangers two examples where was CNN dishonest? Where is what they reported factually untrue?

[MisterVeritis]

Politics is appearances so Price should probably not take the position.

CNN should lose whatever credibility it ever had.
You write many dumb things. I count this among them. Appeasement is what squishy Republicans do. It is time for a bare knuckles fight.

[MisterVeritis]

Well, appearances plays into trust.
This doubles down on your earlier nonsense.

[MisterVeritis]

I'll ask again to see if you answer this time. Shouldn't he have instructed his broker not to make purchases in industrys under which a potential conflict of interest exists? Wouldn't that have been the smart and prudent thing to do?
The purpose of a blind trust is to eliminate connections. No. Price did the right thing. Nothing else is relevant. But it is time to go after the liars.

[Subdermal]

My take on this is exactly the same as all the controversies surrounding Hillary. Lets see the facts and go from there. If someone were to tell me that the good doctor bought Stryker stock days or weeks before voting on legislation that would have had a material impact on Stryker that would be a red flag and require further investigation. I certainly wouldn't reject in out of hand as you would seem want to do.

I rejected it "out of hand"? Uh no, you don't get to make stuff up. What is with leftists and their proclivity to invent indignance?

The information that refuted this nonsense story wasn't vague; wasn't ambiguous. It was declarative. It was final. Not only did Price not have control over the fund that purchased the stock - blind trust - the timing of the purchase doesn't fit the narrative attempted by the left.

This is a dead claim. Final.


I'll ask again to see if you answer this time. Shouldn't he have instructed his broker not to make purchases in industrys under which a potential conflict of interest exists? Wouldn't that have been the smart and prudent thing to do?

What part of "this purchase was made before this became a Congressional issue" do you not understand?

[hanger4]

I watch CNN along with PBS and Fox on occasion. Regarding the good doctor all they reported was the connection between the stock purchases and his involvement in legislation that was related. They even stipulated that the purchases were made by his broker and that they did not know the details. Regarding the Trump dossier what they reported was that Obama and Trump had been notified of the existence of possible dossiers via the Russians. No specifics, no claims beyond that. Your beef is with Buzzfeed not CNN.

All this is in the link provided;

"Importantly, Price played no role in the decision to purchase the stock, which was executed under a broker-directed account by Morgan Stanley, according to a knowledgeable source. The stock purchase was by his brokerage firm during a regular rebalancing of accounts.
The congressman — who for two decades was an orthopedic surgeon — also went on record opposing the CMS regulation six months before the stock selection had been made.
On Sept. 21, 2015 Price joined 60 Democrats and Republicans who questioned the Obama administration’s new, controversial Medicare reimbursement policy. In the letter, the group asked Andy Slavitt, the CMS acting administrator, to delay the regulation.
Further, Price introduced his legislation before he knew of the stock purchase. He was the chief sponsor of the HIP Act and he introduced it on March 23, 2016, according to House records. But Morgan Stanley did not inform Price of the Zimmer Biomet stock until April 14, according to House financial disclosure forms on the Georgia congressman’s transactions.

That does tend to put a hole in the conflict-of-interest story, especially the last bullet. How can there be a conflict of interest when the principal is unaware of the interest?

CNN published a story full of innuendo. All the above facts were easily verifiable. CNN published without said verification. Fake News

.................

From the CNN story;

Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him.

Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/

That's pretty damning, and CNN knew it was ALL uncorroborated, unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo. In short Fake News, so fake in fact all other MSMers refused to publish.

[nathanbforrest45]

You don't really think the truth matters to the Progressive Nazi's do you? All they care about is what they can sell to the public.

Heard Elizabeth Warren grilling Trumps choice for Education Secretary. She insultingly asked her if she had ever applied for a student loan or had her children done so, as if being poor and/or stupid was a qualification for a cabinet position

[hanger4]

My take on this is exactly the same as all the controversies surrounding Hillary. Lets see the facts and go from there. If someone were to tell me that the good doctor bought Stryker stock days or weeks before voting on legislation that would have had a material impact on Stryker that would be a red flag and require further investigation. I certainly wouldn't reject in out of hand as you would seem want to do.

I'll ask again to see if you answer this time. Shouldn't he have instructed his broker not to make purchases in industrys under which a potential conflict of interest exists? Wouldn't that have been the smart and prudent thing to do?

"and require further investigation"

^^ There in lies the point, CNN did not do the further investigation. They ran with innuendo.

[nic34]

My take on this is exactly the same as all the controversies surrounding Hillary. Lets see the facts and go from there. If someone were to tell me that the good doctor bought Stryker stock days or weeks before voting on legislation that would have had a material impact on Stryker that would be a red flag and require further investigation. I certainly wouldn't reject in out of hand as you would seem want to do.

I'll ask again to see if you answer this time. Shouldn't he have instructed his broker not to make purchases in industrys under which a potential conflict of interest exists? Wouldn't that have been the smart and prudent thing to do?

Bingo.

[Peter1469]

CNN is the leader of fake and misleading news.

They know that a lot of people will miss the retraction....

CNN may not be part of the WH press briefings soon.

[hanger4]

Bingo.

Two things nic34, you should read up on a blind trust and read the OP link provided to understand the timeline.

[Peter1469]

Giving him the benefit of the doubt should he not have instructed his broker to avoid areas where he had a political role to play?

The best thing is not to discuss investment at all when you have a blind trust. Just check your balances.

[MisterVeritis]

Two things nic34, you should read up on a blind trust and read the OP link provided to understand the timeline.
I wonder why you didn't offer him any useful advice. As long as his head is up his ass nothing else is going to make a difference.

[del]

Two things nic34, you should read up on a blind trust and read the OP link provided to understand the timeline.

you should read up on blind trusts and realize that price doesn't have one

[hanger4]

I wonder why you didn't offer him any useful advice. As long as his head is up his ass nothing else is going to make a difference.

Well, as the ol saying goes; You can lead a horse to water, but ya can't make it drink. Or comprehend for that matter.

[del]

When tiny Australian biotech firm Innate Immunotherapeutics needed to raise money last summer, it didn’t issue stock on the open market. Instead, it offered a sweetheart deal to “sophisticated U.S. investors,” company documents show.
It sold nearly $1 million in discounted shares to two American congressmen sitting on House committees with the potential power to advance the company’s interests, according to company records and congressional filings. They paid 18 cents a share for a stake in a company that was rapidly escalating in value, rising to more than 90 cents as the company promoted an aggressive plan to sell to a major pharmaceutical company. Analysts said the stock price could go to $2.

One of the beneficiaries was Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican poised to become secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, which regulates pharmaceuticals. Price told HHS ethics officials Thursday that if appointed, he will divest himself of the Australian stock as well as stock in about 40 other companies that could pose conflicts. He said he would sell within 90 days of appointment and abstain from any decision-making about companies in which he or his family has had an interest.
He has already seen about a 400 percent paper gain in his investment in Innate Immuno, stock trading records show.

https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/13/tom-price-innate-immunotherapeutics/




WASHINGTON ― Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), President-elect Donald Trump (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/donald-trump)’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, admitted on Wednesday that he decided to buy stock in an Australian biotech firm (https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/13/tom-price-innate-immunotherapeutics/) after receiving information from Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), a board member of that company.

Price’s admission that he personally chose to purchase stock in Innate Immunotherapeutics contradicts the Trump transition team’s defense of another questionable stock trade (https://www.scribd.com/document/336909453/Tom-Price-Fact-Sheet-from-Trump-transition) Price made. The transition team had previously said Price held a broker-operated account with Morgan Stanley and did not direct his stock trades.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/tom-price-stock-trades_us_587f9ec5e4b0cf0ae8813191


i totally believe that price knew nothing about the trades

i also believe in the easter bunny

[hanger4]

you should read up on blind trusts and realize that price doesn't have one

You are correct it is broker-directed account. nic34 make note read up on broker-directed accounts not blind trusts.

[del]

You are correct it is broker-directed account. @nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572) make note read up on broker-directed accounts not blind trusts.
then you can try explain away his decision to purchase innate at a sweetheart price.

[hanger4]

then you can try explain away his decision to purchase innate at a sweetheart price.

From what I've read these investments in Innate Immunotherapeutics were made in 2015 and 16 with all the proper disclosures and filings. Seems odd to me that it's only now there's concern.

[del]

From what I've read these investments in Innate Immunotherapeutics were made in 2015 and 16 with all the proper disclosures and filings. Seems odd to me that it's only now there's concern.

yeah, why would it be a concern that the hhs nominee is getting sweetheart deals and introducing legislation that benefits companies he owns stock in?

buy bigger pads

[Tahuyaman]

Pushing unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo is pretty fake.


But its it's also not unusual.

[hanger4]

yeah, why would it be a concern that the hhs nominee is getting sweetheart deals and introducing legislation that benefits companies he owns stock in?

buy bigger pads

Yup, the pollies called it a sweetheart deal with no details and all rhetoric.

The "legislation that benefits companies" was refuted in the OP link, the timeline doesn't fit.

[del]

Yup, the pollies called it a sweetheart deal with no details and all rhetoric.

The "legislation that benefits companies" was refuted in the OP link, the timeline doesn't fit.

just because you don't want to see it doesn't mean there isn't any detail, goober

[hanger4]

just because you don't want to see it doesn't mean there isn't any detail, goober

Post/link the detail del, how simple is that ??

[ripmeister]

I rejected it "out of hand"? Uh no, you don't get to make stuff up. What is with leftists and their proclivity to invent indignance?

The information that refuted this nonsense story wasn't vague; wasn't ambiguous. It was declarative. It was final. Not only did Price not have control over the fund that purchased the stock - blind trust - the timing of the purchase doesn't fit the narrative attempted by the left.

This is a dead claim. Final.



What part of "this purchase was made before this became a Congressional issue" do you not understand?
What did I make up? You are entitled to your opinion but not to facts. One thing I do know is that if Clinton had done something like this you and your ilk would question it as it should be.

[ripmeister]

The purpose of a blind trust is to eliminate connections. No. Price did the right thing. Nothing else is relevant. But it is time to go after the liars.
This was a hearing. This situation was a red flag. Are you saying that the subject should not have been questioned?

[ripmeister]

All this is in the link provided;

"Importantly, Price played no role in the decision to purchase the stock, which was executed under a broker-directed account by Morgan Stanley, according to a knowledgeable source. The stock purchase was by his brokerage firm during a regular rebalancing of accounts.
The congressman — who for two decades was an orthopedic surgeon — also went on record opposing the CMS regulation six months before the stock selection had been made.
On Sept. 21, 2015 Price joined 60 Democrats and Republicans who questioned the Obama administration’s new, controversial Medicare reimbursement policy. In the letter, the group asked Andy Slavitt, the CMS acting administrator, to delay the regulation.
Further, Price introduced his legislation before he knew of the stock purchase. He was the chief sponsor of the HIP Act and he introduced it on March 23, 2016, according to House records. But Morgan Stanley did not inform Price of the Zimmer Biomet stock until April 14, according to House financial disclosure forms on the Georgia congressman’s transactions.

That does tend to put a hole in the conflict-of-interest story, especially the last bullet. How can there be a conflict of interest when the principal is unaware of the interest?

CNN published a story full of innuendo. All the above facts were easily verifiable. CNN published without said verification. Fake News

.................

From the CNN story;

Intel chiefs presented Trump with claims of Russian efforts to compromise him.

Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/

That's pretty damning, and CNN knew it was ALL uncorroborated, unsubstantiated rumour and innuendo. In short Fake News, so fake in fact all other MSMers refused to publish.
Ok, so it would appear that things were on the up and up. Those questions needed to b answered. CNN reported about the briefing. Is that not true?

[ripmeister]

"and require further investigation"

^^ There in lies the point, CNN did not do the further investigation. They ran with innuendo.
There was no innuendo in terms of the reporting of the briefing.

[ripmeister]

I wonder why you didn't offer him any useful advice. As long as his head is up his ass nothing else is going to make a difference.
Feeling surly again?

[ripmeister]

you should read up on blind trusts and realize that price doesn't have one
Oops

[hanger4]

Ok, so it would appear that things were on the up and up. Those questions needed to b answered. CNN reported about the briefing. Is that not true?

"CNN reported about the briefing. Is that not true?"

They did more than just report about the briefing. Read again what was c&p'd from their link.

[ripmeister]

You are correct it is broker-directed account. @nic34 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=572) make note read up on broker-directed accounts not blind trusts.
UhOh!

[hanger4]

UhOh!

???

[ripmeister]

???
You said read up on blind trusts, then brokered accounts not blind trusts. Just wondering which one.

[hanger4]

You said read up on blind trusts, then brokered accounts not blind trusts. Just wondering which one.

It's rather obvious. :rollseyes:

[ripmeister]

It's rather obvious. :rollseyes:


Yes it is.:wink:

[MisterVeritis]

This was a hearing. This situation was a red flag. Are you saying that the subject should not have been questioned?
Right. Price complied with the law. The slimy Democrat wanted the appearance of wrong-doing. Price was under oath. He was required to tell the truth. The slimy Democrat was not under oath. The slimy Democrat is NOT always the liar. But that is the way to bet.

[MisterVeritis]

Feeling surly again?
It is important to give useful advice if one is offering any.

[hanger4]

Yes it is.:wink:

What part of, "You are correct" (del), was over your head ??

[ripmeister]

Right. Price complied with the law. The slimy Democrat wanted the appearance of wrong-doing. Price was under oath. He was required to tell the truth. The slimy Democrat was not under oath. The slimy Democrat is NOT always the liar. But that is the way to bet.
And how exactly do you know he complied with the law without questioning the situation? Not sure how you do that. Is it because he said so?

[ripmeister]

It is important to give useful advice if one is offering any.
I was just responding to your own post to me several weeks ago about feeling a little surly in your responses. Useful advice is one of those nebulous things.

[hanger4]

And how exactly do you know he complied with the law without questioning the situation? Not sure how you do that. Is it because he said so?

How about all disclosures and filings were made and no red flags.

[ripmeister]

How about all disclosures and filings were made and no red flags.
Not sure but I don't think that is true. My understanding for a lot of the nominees is that their paperwork has not been completed and turned in or at least vetted. I know that's the case with the Ed Secretary nominee. You can talk all you want about blind trusts and independent brokers etc. but the bottom line is this guy procured stock in a company and within a few weeks cast a vote that would benefit said company. If that's not a red flag worthy of investigation I don't know what is. Perhaps its all kosher but until those questions are asked and answered we have no way of knowing. The one answer we do have is that "he said so". Would you have given Clinton that same amount of defference in a similar situation. I think we all know the answer to that.

[MisterVeritis]

And how exactly do you know he complied with the law without questioning the situation? Not sure how you do that. Is it because he said so?
I will boldy guess his broker-directed is a simple matter to confirm. I enjoy it when the Democrats lie and smear honest people. It always comes back to diminish you. Democrats hold fewer offices today than they did eight years ago. Slimy, deceitful practices is why.

[MisterVeritis]

I was just responding to your own post to me several weeks ago about feeling a little surly in your responses. Useful advice is one of those nebulous things.
Really? I cannot recall using the word surly. Which post?

[hanger4]

Not sure but I don't think that is true. My understanding for a lot of the nominees is that their paperwork has not been completed and turned in or at least vetted. I know that's the case with the Ed Secretary nominee. You can talk all you want about blind trusts and independent brokers etc. but the bottom line is this guy procured stock in a company and within a few weeks cast a vote that would benefit said company. If that's not a red flag worthy of investigation I don't know what is. Perhaps its all kosher but until those questions are asked and answered we have no way of knowing. The one answer we do have is that "he said so". Would you have given Clinton that same amount of defference in a similar situation. I think we all know the answer to that.

"nominees is that their paperwork has not been completed"

This has to do with vetting of the nominees and has nothing to do with what's required of Congressmen.

"this guy procured stock in a company and within a few weeks cast a vote that would benefit said company."

Totally debunked by the timeline of events explained in the OP link.

[ripmeister]

Really? I cannot recall using the word surly. Which post?

That was my word but it was synonymous. Don't remember which. Just funnin with you.