Of course there are no really rich people physically day trading. That's obvious. But they are giving buy and sell orders on the stocks they directly affect with their votes. Trump isn't doing that. His trust is buying and selling on public information.
That's exactly the distinction I was asking about.
Nobody serious thinks members of Congress are sitting there manually day trading on Robinhood between votes.
The concern has always been whether they, their spouses, or their trusts (and yes, plenty of people in Congress listed on that AI site are using trusts just like Trump) are making trades in companies or sectors they directly affect through legislation, committee work, regulation, investigations, appropriations, or access to nonpublic information.
If Trump's trust is trading solely on public information and operating independently of him, then fine. But that's where I notice a different standard being applied.
When it's members of Congress, people immediately assume influence, coordination, hidden knowledge, and indirect control through spouses or trusts.
When it's Trump, people immediately assume complete separation, no influence, no knowledge, and no involvement whatsoever.
Maybe Congress is innocent. Maybe Trump is innocent. Maybe neither is. Who really knows?
My point is that the standard should be the same.
If we're going to be skeptical of congressional trades because officials may have access to information or influence outcomes, then we should apply the same scrutiny to everyone in positions of power. If we're going to presume innocence because assets are held in a trust, then that presumption should apply consistently as well.
The question isn't "rich person owns stocks."
The question is access, influence, timing, control, and whether different rules are being applied depending on whose name is attached to the account.
It really bothers me that so many people seem to be having such a hard time coming to terms with the concept of one standard for everyone. Is it REALLY that bizarre a concept?
Of course there are no really rich people physically day trading. That's obvious. But they are giving buy and sell orders on the stocks they directly affect with their votes. Trump isn't doing that. His trust is buying and selling on public information.
That's exactly the distinction I was asking about.
Nobody serious thinks members of Congress are sitting there manually day trading on Robinhood between votes.
The concern has always been whether they, their spouses, or their trusts (and yes, plenty of people in Congress listed on that AI site are using trusts just like Trump) are making trades in companies or sectors they directly affect through legislation, committee work, regulation, investigations, appropriations, or access to nonpublic information.
If Trump's trust is trading solely on public information and operating independently of him, then fine. But that's where I notice a different standard being applied.
When it's members of Congress, people immediately assume influence, coordination, hidden knowledge, and indirect control through spouses or trusts.
When it's Trump, people immediately assume complete separation, no influence, no knowledge, and no involvement whatsoever.
Maybe Congress is innocent. Maybe Trump is innocent. Maybe neither is. Who really knows?
My point is that the standard should be the same.
If we're going to be skeptical of congressional trades because officials may have access to information or influence outcomes, then we should apply the same scrutiny to everyone in positions of power. If we're going to presume innocence because assets are held in a trust, then that presumption should apply consistently as well.
The question isn't "rich person owns stocks."
The question is access, influence, timing, control, and whether different rules are being applied depending on whose name is attached to the account.
It really bothers me that so many people seem to be having such a hard time coming to terms with the concept of one standard for everyone. Is it REALLY that bizarre a concept?
Congress is full of criminals. Trump isn't one. Trump is not voting on bills that affect stock prices. Congress is. It actually is that simple.
Again, completly missing the point. I don't think repeating my stance yet again is going to make any difference
I didn't miss the point. You somehow think that Trump should be examined, when only Congress can vote to affect stock prices.