Jack Abramoff, the favorite progressive piñata of the early 1990’s, was recently interviewed by CNBC (“Congress Members Took Part In Insider Trading: Abramoff”). The scandals surrounding Abramoff were huffed and puffed by the sneering liberals who used it as a “guilt by association” weapon to benefit the Bolshevik Bumpkin, Billy Bob Clinton. During that time, a large number of Republicans, but surprisingly, NO Democrats, were named and justifiably convicted in the collateral investigations. I find this exclusion of liberal malfeasance to be all too convenient..
Of course, the “impartial” media is finally getting around to interviewing a REPUBLICAN who has been off of the world’s radar screen for years relative to a “scandal” that allegedly involved ONLY REPUBLICANS during this election cycle seems all to convenient as well..
This is not to disregard the convictions of the Republicans involved in these incidents. What I find fascinating is the “fact” that nary a Democrat was in ANY way involved with Abramoff. Even if that were even remotely true, I am willing to wager that the liberals had a few Abramoffs of their own who managed to get off Scott-Free while the attention of the “impartial” media was focused upon the REPUBLICAN Abramoff..
The “swamp” that is Washington, properly identified as such by the Marxist Medusa, Nancy Pelosi, has been a swamp for generations. The “all talk, no action” liberals used this “promise”, along with such high-falutin’ promises that gasoline would go DOWN in price if she were in charge of the House, to ride the train of tomfoolery straight into Union Station.. Needless to say, the “train” derailed and it was back to “business as usual” with the liberals in charge.. Never mind, the votes were tallied, the quotes were forgotten.. By some..
In the interview, Abramoff said “members of Congress and their aides took part in insider trading based on foreknowledge of market moving information on Capitol Hill.” This came from, as CNBC called him, “disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff”.. The inference is that the timeframe for such chicanery was limited to the early 1990’s, I am willing to say that there is NO “statute of limitations” related to the obvious abuses of those who have made their way to Washington, elected or otherwise..
This itch for “public service” has to be scrutinized a bit more carefully. In doing so, you need only peer casually at just a few examples of this desire to “serve”, a desire that turns itself into the need to “serve” THEMSELVES..
After being “forced” from Goldman Sachs, liberal investment wizard (and therefore immune from any “investigations”..) Jon Corzine spent sixty-two million of HIS OWN dollars to run for the Senate in 2000. Katherine Harris spent ten million of her own dollars whilst struggling to win a bid for the Senate in 2006.. These two examples are not standing by themselves. Including the pantsuit progressive, almost every candidate, successful or otherwise, seems to end up spending their own monies for a seat in either the House or the Senate.. What could POSSIBLY be motivating these stalwart Americans?
How did a family of “public servants” like the Kennedy’s manage to afford the Hyannis Port Compound that was last occupied by the ridiculously rotund Teddy? Then again, why would someone leave a company like Goldman Sachs while spending $60,000,000.00 of their own dollars in order to “earn” during a single term about $150,000.00? As a VERY successful “investor”, why would Corzine make what appears ON THE SURFACE to be such an unwise investment of his own money? Because it is what is UNDER the “surface”, or “under the table”, that “profits” these politicians to such a high degree..
Abramoff said “many of those members of Congress bragged to him about their stock trading prowess.” With information flowing like gravy to these “public servants” from more than just Abramoff, with these “public servants” crafting legislation that they themselves then “invest” in, it becomes much easier to understand the “need” to become “public servants” and why all of them would want to “brag” about it..
Abramoff himself “didn’t play the stock market himself-he considered it an inherently unfair ‘casino’ in which the house had far more information than the players.” It sounds as though both the Senate AND the “house” has the inside track on this not-so gambling.. A “casino” is a very apt descriptor as the “house” is set up to fleece the “player” regardless of the location of the “casino”. Abramoff “made most of his fortune representing, and as it turned out duping, Native American Tribes rich with cash from casino operations.” There you have it..
However, in the REAL world, if one goes into a casino with “insider information”, they are immediately cashiered and banned from the location for life. In the UN-real world of Washington, those who are rarely cashiered in such a manner usually end up the preverbal Phoenix as they reappear from the ashes as.. Lobbyists..
“Abramoff declined to name the members of Congress.” Why? Why wouldn’t someone want to “clear the air” so to speak? Don’t the constituents have a right to know just WHOM has been “profiting” illegally to such a degree? Maybe due to the previously mentioned “Phoenix Phactor”, our Casino Jack feels the need to be mum.. “Abramoff says he thinks trading based on inside Congressional knowledge is wrong.” However it appears to be NOT so “wrong” as to compel him to NAME those involved in what he says is “wrong”..
“These people should not be using whatever information they gain as public servants to benefit themselves, any more than they should be taking bribes..” Are you kidding? Using information and taking bribes? THESE are the two reasons WHY these people WANT to become “public servants”. It certainly isn’t for the pay that they receive according to their rarely released/fictional tax forms..
“Generally, legal analysts say that Wall Street insider trading laws do not apply to Congress. The legal assumption has long been that any member of the public can have access to information about how Congress works..” Nonsense.. The problem is, we will NEVER know how Congress REALLY “works” and that is the crux of the issue.. How they “work” in the shadows is what we should really be concerned with and here Abramoff has the chance to finally be a hero but, in using “casino” lingo, Jack opts for a “push”..
“Abramoff says that everybody on the inside knew it. ‘I think it was pretty widely known and it is pretty widely known that is it going on.’” No, it ISN’T “widely known” by the REST OF US, so why don’t you, as an “insider”, take the time to fill us in.. I mean, we can certainly GUESS..
When Hillary Clinton makes hundreds of thousands of dollars on “cattle futures” in less than one day, when Warren Buffett gets a phone call from OWEbama and then he “invests” in Bank of American and in less than one day, he clears millions of dollars, we can certainly GUESS, but a few exact details from a real “insider” might be nice..
“The most valuable type of information for congressional insider trading is held by congressional investigators who pry deeply into corporate goings on. An easy target is advance knowledge of an investigation hearing into a company. Hearings are going to have a bad impact on a company. Some of the staffers I’ve seen in the past talked about the fact that, ‘Oh, I’m gonna go out and short that company.’” Actually, the more lucrative “investments” don’t involve the short cutting of a potential loss, it involves the potential gain from “new” investing, say the “investing” by the OWEbama crowd into Solyndra and the entire “green scheme.”
As for the rest of us, according to Jack, “you don’t have all the information that you need. The casino has all the information, and you don’t..” Jack has “all the information” and even with a golden opportunity courtesy of CNBC, he isn’t “telling” either..
In the end, Jack says “as many as a dozen members of Congress and their aides took part in insider trading”.. Really. I am willing to bet, snidely using more casino parlance, that that number falls well SHORT of the actual figure, REGARDLESS of party affiliation..