Over the years, Ms. Chao has repeatedly used her connections and celebrity status in China to boost the profile of the company, which benefits handsomely from the expansive industrial policies in Beijing that are at the heart of diplomatic tensions with the United States, according to interviews, industry filings and government documents from both countries. Now, Ms. Chao is the top Trump official overseeing the American shipping industry, which is in steep decline and overshadowed by its Chinese competitor.
What USC Code does this violate? Boosting the profile of a company is not illegal.
I thought I'd add, I have a bit of personal experience with how these insider trading schemes work.
Without going into too much detail, a former well-connected client forwarded me an email and asked me to look into the stocks mentioned. The wife of a well-known politician was on the email chain, and when I read through the chain, I told the client we'd have to part ways.
What USC Code does this violate? Boosting the profile of a company is not illegal.
The STOCK Act was modified on April 15, 2013, by S.716. This amendment modifies the online disclosure portion of the STOCK Act, so that some officials, but not the President, Vice President, Congress, or anyone running for Congress, can no longer file online and their records are no longer easily accessible to the public. In Section (a)2, the amendment specifically does not alter the online access for trades by the President, the Vice President, Congress, or those running for Congress.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/insider-trading-by-members-of-congress-during-financial-crisis/
https://www.salon.com/2019/06/12/mitch-mcconnell-and-elaine-chaos-empire-of-corruption-is-this-what-normal-looks-like-joe-biden/
Thank you.
What USC Code does this violate? Boosting the profile of a company is not illegal.
The way it's phrased, none. But there's a lot more beneath the surface from what I can ascertain.
National security implications to start with.
All of these schemes are set up so that there is plausible deniability, but sometimes the connections are just a bit too insidious.
You asked for proof. I gave you anecdotes. That's all we've got absent a real investigation, which I'm not holding my breath for.
This article does a pretty good summary on Mitch's activities. Very much worth reading and click through for a deeper dive.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/01/04/beware-senator-mitch-mcconnell/
I thought I'd add, I have a bit of personal experience with how these insider trading schemes work.
Without going into too much detail, a former well-connected client forwarded me an email and asked me to look into the stocks mentioned. The wife of a well-known politician was on the email chain, and when I read through the chain, I told the client we'd have to part ways.
They were front-running grants.
Expose that shit, wtf? Or give people information to do it for you to stay out of it
I share your sentiment. That's all I should say on the subject.
The STOCK Act was modified on April 15, 2013, by S.716. This amendment modifies the online disclosure portion of the STOCK Act, so that some officials, but not the President, Vice President, Congress, or anyone running for Congress, can no longer file online and their records are no longer easily accessible to the public. In Section (a)2, the amendment specifically does not alter the online access for trades by the President, the Vice President, Congress, or those running for Congress.