This guy just gets better and better:
Republican Vice Presidential Pick Paul Ryan sold shares in a number of financial companies including Citigroup, General Electric, Wachovia, and JP Morgan Chase on the same day as then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke held a closed meeting with congressional leaders during the financial crisis.
At issue are the sale of troubled banks like Wachovia and Citi, as well as General Electric’s struggling capital unit, dated on September 18, 2008 — the same day as the meeting with Bernanke and Paulson according to the Associated Press.
According to The New York Times, the meeting was held in the evening, which raises significant doubt if any member in attendance would have been able to act on the conversation.
Ryan’s 2008 financial disclosures, which are publicly available on OpenSecrets.org, were analyzed by Business Insider (Via The Richmonder).
The sales total as much as $60,000 — although they could be considerably less. The House disclosure forms do not require specific values from members.
I guess we can add insider trading to Ryan’s greatest hits. No wonder Mitt picked him.
beltane
What a scumbag.
Robert Waldmann
Yeah so it was legal before the moochers and looters passed the STOCK act. Daring job creating Republican Congressmen need some incentives to actually attend meetings.
Ken Pidcock
I’ll stay loose on this for the time being. It was pointed out elsewhere that the August 18 meeting was held after markets closed on that date.
Comrade Mary
Sorry, John.
1) Even if he traded after the meeting, it wasn’t illegal for a member of Congress to pull this shit back then. (Cite: someone in an earlier thread today. Reveal yourself and take credit!)
2) Apparently the meeting was in the evening and the trades were during the day.
3) There seems to be a pattern of similar trades mid-month going back to July. I saw someone claim that this could reflect a dollar cost averaging strategy, but I have no idea if this is plausible.
But as shitty as it seems, if the meeting happened after the trading day ended, this doesn’t seem to be a smoking gun.
FormerSwingVoter
The funny thing is, that he took money out of the weaker banks and put it into the strong banks like Goldman – despite knowing that even the strong banks were in trouble.
My point is that he can’t even do insider trading right. What a maroon.
TenguPhule
And if he didn’t have advance knowledge of this, he wouldn’t be in Washington.
Information leaks. But it leaks more for some then others.
PeakVT
The meeting happened in the evening, but it’s possible that an outline of the issues was passed around or discussed over the phone before the actual meeting.
But it wouldn’t have been a leap in the dark to think that G$ would be protected since Paulson was a former CEO of G$.
cckids
@TenguPhule:
Amen. To add Orwell to our Randian morning/afternoon.
Kevin
I say keep hitting them..but this is pretty weak. He traded big banks before the meeting, not after, and, anyone with half a brain at the time (admittedly, Mr Ryan has probably 1/4 if that…) could see the banks were toxic and bad things were happening and going to get worse. If he did it after, then that would be bad (notwithstanding the fact that again, it was obvious to anyone that banks were going down), but it looks like he made a buzzer beater here (and if true about shedding these stocks since the early summer, then it is even more benign).
So not to be all Glenn Kessler, but this doesn’t seem to hold much water. I won’t give you any pinnochio’s, just think you should move on to the more tangible and disgusting things that he did do.
Tractarian
@Comrade Mary:
Of course it’s still a smoking gun. Best case scenario for Ryan is this: Congressman sells tens of thousands of dollars worth shares at certain firms and later that same day attends a private meeting with the Treasury Secretary where they discuss how said firms are tanking.
Voters can put two and two together. And no matter the chronology, this stinks.
Could be considerably more then, too, huh?
Davis X. Machina
I think we should Teach The Controversy.
Because It’s Out There.
Comrade Mary
Yeah, I would suspect a pre-meeting leak, too, but I don’t think there’s much mileage in using this specific set of trades on Ryan. Pity. I actually gasped when I saw the first reports.
Ash Can
I too believe that this is pretty much a nothingburger. There may be a little optics-related blowback, but that’s about it. It doesn’t look like he did anything wrong (technically), and it’s the kind of thing everyone would like to be able to do themselves.
JustAnotherBob
How many times have I gone into a major meeting without having some prior knowledge of what would be discussed?
I can’t think of any. In fact, many meetings are “pre-met” among the principals or their assistants.
Tractarian
DougJ, observe: This is your modern Democratic Party.
Afraid to press on a demonstrably true and potent line of attack because…. why? It was technically legal? Fear of Pinnochios? Worried that it will crowd out the “more tangible and disgusting things”?
Fortunately, I don’t think the Obama campaign subscribes to this sort of concern troll-ism.
Comrade Mary
@Tractarian: I’m not a Democrat. I’m a Canadian. I can’t donate money and until my work situation improves, I can’t afford to cross the border to knock on doors, but I can still give my opinion on such things.
At the moment, this story looks like weak sauce. I love how the Obama campaign is hammering hard in a number of areas, but why waste time, money, media cycles and a soupçon or more of credibility on this when there are other things that will be much more effective, vicious and credible.
liberal
Still, the best lines of attack:
(1) Romney is hiding something in his tax returns; and he wants _you_ to pay more taxes while he cuts it for his rich friends
(2) Romney and Ryan want to end Medicare as we know it
Anton Sirius
Because it was “technically legal” and of “dubious chronology”, this isn’t something the campaign should probably run with.
On the other hand, this kind of mud-flingi… err, excuse me, vetting, seems to be exactly why SuperPACs exist. That’s who needs to push these kinds of attacks.
Kevin
NOt afraid at all. Paul Ryan has a history of awful horrible ideas. This is saying that he traded some shares hours before a meeting. It could sound bad, maybe, but honestly, i’d rather focus on the real stuff, there is sooooo much. Charles Pierce’s “dead-eyed granny starver” nickname for him is so accurate, and that is where the focus should be hammered and hammered until you aren’t even hitting the nail anymore, it’s been driven home so well.
I don’t care about the Pinnochios, just think this (as it stands in the passage quoted) doesn’t quite make much of a difference.
(and if you think I”m weak, I’ll say that I’m entirely for the ads showing former Baine employees partly blaming Romney’s deplorable business practices with deaths in the family, and i’m all for destroying Ryan and Romney for what they plan on doing with Medicare and especially Medicade (and for Ryan, the entire budget if he gets his way and drops it by 10%, from 13% to 3% of GDP)
Tractarian
@Comrade Mary:
You’re a Canadian who supports Democrats (that’s what you mean by donating and knocking on doors, right?). So the point stands.
In any case, I guess I just disagree with your premise. I think Ryan-insider-trading is a very “effective, vicious and credible” line of attack, and I seriously doubt that pushing this line of attack could be considered a “waste” of time or resources.
It won’t hurt the campaign’s credibility, such as it is, either. Everything the voters need to know is on the public record and Ryan’s disclosure form. I’m not suggesting the Obama campaign call Ryan a criminal; I’m suggesting that they recite the known facts and let voters sort it out. Even under the most rosy view of the facts, this looks bad for Ryan.
(And taking advantage of the other side’s “bad optics” isn’t somehow out-of-bounds or below the belt; it’s what politics is all about.)
Tractarian
@Kevin:
You think the Obama campaign should ignore (technically-legal) insider trading and instead run with “dead-eyed granny starver”?
Let me just say I’m glad you are not working for the campaign.
Kevin
Also think hitting them on the tax returns for the rest of the campaign is brilliant. Ryan couldn’t even lie about it, he said he gave many years to Romney (so did T-Paw), yet he’ll only release 2 years to the public.
Hit them there until the election and people will really start to wonder what is so bad in there that they need to hide. Ryan probably has little to hide since he’s been on the government payroll forever (dude loves his hammock), but Romney can’t hide, and if every interview doesn’t start with “why do you require more years of tax returns to vet your VP choices then you are willing to provide the public?”, the media will have failed (well, failed more than they already have)
Tractarian
@liberal:
I agree that these two lines of attack are more potent than Ryan’s (technically legal!) insider trading.
However, I fail to see why that fact means Ryan’s (technically legal!) insider trading should not be discussed by the campaign.
@Anton Sirius:
But the whole point of this – the reason it is a good line of attack – is that you can tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and it still looks bad for Ryan.
I don’t understand why a campaign needs to shy away from accusing an opponent of doing “technically legal” things, as long as you don’t accuse him of being a criminal.
sammy
To be fair to the guy, he’s never worked in the private sector, so he didn’t know this was wrong.
Kevin
@Tractarian:
Really? Buddy, not going to argue much, but the special election in NY +6 Republican never elected a democrat since Jesus time showed how effective running against Ryan is. His plan for medicare and medicade is toxic. TOXIC.
You think that line of attack is worse then “Paul Ryan sold some shares of banks during the banking collapse hours before he met with people who said that the banks were screwed”, where you’ll have to try to say “well, maybe there was a leak”, and “well, even though the markets were collapsing and everyone knew and he was selling off the shares all summer…” Too much explaining, not enough fire.
The attacks on cutting medicare to pay not for deficit reduction, but rich tax cuts? That line cuts deep. It’s a good thing YOU aren’t on the campaign, because they know this as well as me, and far better than you. Minutes after he was selected they started hammering on this, as did other Dems running for election.
(and it’s not even technically insider trading, hours before a meeting with the fed he sold stocks that he had been selling off all summer IS NOT the same as trading the stocks AFTER he met with them and learned what he did. Like I said above, you have to do too much “well maybe” here, not enough to hammer them with)
Tractarian
@Kevin:
You said the “focus” should be on calling Ryan a “dead-eyed granny starver”.
If what you meant was that the focus should be on Ryan’s zeal to destroy Medicare/Medicaid, I certainly don’t disagree with that.
Comrade Mary
@Tractarian:
1) Resources are limited.
2) Keeping to a small set of cohesive and highly effective messages is probably more effective at convincing voters than grabbing every longshot because …
3) If you’re going to get media concern trolls and Ryan-crushers freaking out, have them freak out over your strongest material.
4) And voters may not care that fucking much. Consider:
Obama Campaign: It looks as if Paul Ryan may have committed insider trading.
Voters: ON NOES! THAT IS DISHONEST AND ILLEGAL! IS HE BEING PROSECUTED?
Obama: Well, insider trading was actually legal back then for members of Congress.
Voters: OH NOES! YOU ARE ALL GREEDY FUCKS! WHY SHOULD I VOTE FOR ANY OF YOU?
Obama Campaign: … and we can’t actually prove this, as the meeting was after his trades, but you know information gets leaked and he could have been tipped off earlier.
Voters: …
Obama Campaign: Is this thing on?
Voters: Get back to us when you actually start talking about something that affects us, like Medicare or the economy or health care. Another one of you privileged assholes got rich. Stop the fucking presses.
Ash Can
@Tractarian: Nonsense. There’s so much more, of such greater value, to hit Ryan on, that it makes no fucking sense to focus on something that does nothing but leave your guys standing there with their pants down. That’s exactly the sort of thing Romney has been doing himself, and the sort of thing Obama has not been doing, and it shows abundantly. You don’t open yourself up to attack — Romney doesn’t understand this, and Obama does.
Kevin
@Tractarian:
Sorry, assume everyone reads Pierce (and if you don’t…you should!), and the Dead eye granny starver refers to his…well, dead eyes, but more to his awful policy goals in Medicare, Medicade and Social Security (recall that he put forth the privatization scheme in 2005 that the motherfuc***ing Bush administration described as too extreme, and would have led to millions losing their social security in the market crash, which would of course necessitate a huge bailout, with the government probably paying more then it would under the current scheme…hooray for free markets!)
Kevin
@Ash Can:
Yup, harping on this leads to “Pelosi and xxxx democrats in the house do it as well, and it wasn’t illegal until 2 minutes ago”
You hit where they have to scramble to defend. This one is a weak jab that gets countered right away.
Tractarian
@Comrade Mary:
Again, I disagree with the premise. I’m not suggesting that the Obama campaign call Ryan a criminal or even an insider-trader. I am suggesting they lay out the facts – even giving Ryan the benefit of the doubt on the timeline – and let voters decide.
And I’m not suggesting that this be the sole focus of the campaign, or even the sole focus of one day of the campaign. This is a long campaign with plenty of time to discuss issues other than jobs and Romney’s taxes. (Or is discussion of foreign policy also off-limits because “resources are limited”? What about education policy?)
All I am saying is that this issue should not be ignored by the campaign merely because Glenn Kessler might get the vapors.
I’m confident that the Obama team knows this. That’s why it has pressed forward on the Bain attacks and the tax return demands despite concern trolls like you lot concerning themselves with whether the campaign’s “credibility” might be damaged.
@Kevin:
When Republicans start saying “It wasn’t illegal until recently” and “B-b-b-b-but Pelosi did it too!”, that is what we call a victory.
Tractarian
@Comrade Mary:
By the way, not sure you noticed, but this exact theme has been remarkably effective against Romney so far this year. That’s what the Bain ads were about. Privileged asshole makes money by unsavory-yet-technically-legal means.
It’s an effective line of attack, even if it seems utterly banal to those of us that are politically tuned in.
Comrade Mary
@Tractarian:
Presumes facts not in evidence.
I believe in hitting hard on the big stuff. I support the Bain attacks, the focus on the tax returns (for both of them), and the ads about all the people screwed by Bain, whether by building a stage and getting fired or seeing their wife die after their health insurance vanished with their jobs. These are big, important topics to votes. They are worth spending a lot of time and money on.
This is small stuff, with potential blowback out of proportion to any advantage. The net cost isn’t worth it in this case.
Look: I want to pound Robot/Undertaker into the sand. I thought that the insider trading story was a bombshell, but it’s looking more like a damp squib. There are probably a lot of people in Congress who made similar trades, benefiting from similar leaks. This story does not differentiate Ryan from any of them. What does differentiate him — his horrendous fiscal “ideas”, his record of voting for the Bush giveaways that helped expand the deficit, his incredibly retrograde social conservatism — are not as common, and they really do reflect a potential horrendous effect on American lives.
Why flail at the small stuff that won’t gain you much and which could make you look desperate or Ryan look sympathetic?
Tractarian
@Comrade Mary:
That’s kind of the point. Congress’s job approval is at 17%. The more Ryan is seen as personifying Congress, the better.
And I just don’t see how this story could be twisted into making Ryan look “sympathetic” or making Obama look “desparate”. You could have said the exact same things about the Bain ads – or any attack ad, for that matter – and yet here we are.
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree on whether this is “small stuff.” I’ll concede that, in terms of dollar amounts, it is on the small side. But if the Obama campaign is aiming to define Ryan and his character, this is an effective way to do it, as the Bain ads showed.
Maude
@Tractarian:
Look at how the birther idea started.
I say that it doesn’t have be 100% true, but somewhere over 10% fact and the rest BS.
Implication works and Axelrod could put it in the form of a question. He is talented with tweets.
Steve
I looked up the historical prices for Citigroup. The stock closed at $16.65 on 9/18/08. The next morning it opened at $21.70, a gain of more than $5. So if Ryan sold that stock based upon insider information he’s like the worst insider trader in history.
Someone can look up the other stocks if they want, I guess, but I find the accusation implausible.
Comrade Mary
@Tractarian: No, I don’t think we’re that far apart. Maybe the emotional crash I had from this morning to afternoon is playing a part in my reluctance to exploit this in any way.
But I think Obama is already doing a great job of linking Ryan to the House Republicans, calling him the “ideological leader“, without needlessly damaging Democrats in Congress by letting people reinforce the idea, once again, that they’re all crooks and there’s not a damn dime’s worth of difference between them.
burnspbesq
@Comrade Mary:
Not so fast. Do we know that an agenda didn’t circulate in advance of the meeting?
burnspbesq
@Steve:
This is Paul Ryan we’re talking about. Why would we blithely dismiss the possibility that he could have possessed inside information and misunderstood its significance?
Bruce S
Why act on stuff that smells like desperation and, based on the article couldn’t be characterized as a “smoking gun” – we’ve got the guy’s budget. We’ve got the fact that his coupons replacing Medicare scheme INCREASES the aggregate cost of providing health care as % of GDP (not just out-of-pocket to seniors – total cost, because Medicare’s relative efficiencies are lost.)
There’s more than enough to hammer this clown with that’s central to the campaign. Can’t use an article claiming he “did” where the headline says “didn’t”.
Steve
@burnspbesq: Because we’d be idiots to accuse Ryan of leveraging his position for financial advantage if he actually lost money on the trades. Your customary skepticism appears to be enjoying a 3-day weekend for once.
Kevin
See link for Brad DeLong, no fan of the Romney Ryan team (in fact, a vicious, smart economist who shreds them on a daily bases) showing the actual facts.
This is one of the “emperor has no clothes” things. The more info, the less the story holds up.
love this line
Read the whole thing. I know it’s Huffpo, but Delong is really good.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brad-delong/paul-ryan-transactions-bank-stocks_b_1773147.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
sorry, my link didn’t post and can’t seem to see “add html” in the edit box.
maya
Better line on this would be to say that Ryan’s management of his own stock portfolio (sell low, buy high) is indicative of how his overall performance with handling our economy would be.
Would you want Ryan to be your investment adviser, Mr and Ms Real America?
Publius39
This has already been pretty much debunked already at TPM.