Reuters, BBC report on the resignation of Rep congressman Chris Collins before the enquiry into insiders trading
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Chris Collins, a Republican U.S. congressman from New York state, resigned on Monday ahead of his expected guilty plea in a criminal insider trading case.
A senior Democratic aide speaking on condition of anonymity said Monday that the office of U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi had received Collins' letter of resignation, and that it would become effective Tuesday.
Collins, 69, is scheduled to appear in Manhattan federal that day to enter his guilty plea, court records show. Collins' son, Cameron Collins, and another man, Stephen Zarsky, are also scheduled to plead guilty in the case on Thursday.
Chris Collins, an early supporter of President Donald Trump, represents New York's 27th Congressional District, which includes areas surrounding Buffalo and Rochester. He won reelection last November, three months after he was criminally charged.
He was arrested by the FBI last August after prosecutors alleged that he alerted his son to a failed drug trial, allowing him to divest and avoid more than $500,000 (£406,000) in losses.
Prosecutors allege that he called his son in June 2017 after receiving an email during the congressional picnic at the White House, informing him of the failed drug trial results involving Innate Immunotherapeutics, a company in which his son owned thousands of shares.
Mr Collins immediately told the trial failure news to his son, who in turn told his fiance, Lauren Zarsky, and her parents, Dorothy and Stephen Zarsky, prosecutors allege.
...
Prosecutors said the congressman was "virtually precluded" from trading, in part because he already faced a congressional ethics probe over Innate.However, prosecutors said others used the insider information to avoid more than $768,000 in losses when Innate's share price plunged 92 per cent after news of the drug's failure became public.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Tuesday October 01 2019, @09:01PM (10 children)
You do know that harboring a fugitive is also a felony, don't you?
How many Democrats just happily turn over their criminal kids/relatives to the police when they show up with a warrant?
I thought not.
This isn't a matter of a person trying to turn a profit over insider information. It's someone who understandably went into a stupid panic when he found out his child was going to LOSE a whole lot of his life savings.
If you can find a way to really be honest with yourself, you would admit that you would be tempted to do the same thing he did.
Just like Chris Rock is often quoted, "I'm not saying he should've done it, but I understand."
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday October 01 2019, @09:07PM
Ah yes, the magical someone, somewhere, who probably did something similar makes this all totally fine!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @09:09PM (3 children)
So this is where we're at in 2019.
Conservatives would rather defend criminal behavior than make the country better. So driven by hate you will hurt yourselves just to hurt "the libs." Not cool, not legal, not smart.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday October 02 2019, @02:01AM (2 children)
2019? Try 1972. The rot goes back to Nixon if not further...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:20AM
1968.
You forgot Humphrey's nomination. The dems stuck it to the libs before Nixon and the republicans.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday October 02 2019, @02:38PM
"If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it." J. Caesar.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @09:44PM
I live in Collins' district. I have not voted for him, although in this (mostly rural) district, my vote hasn't had much effect.
> It's someone who understandably went into a stupid panic when he found out his child was going to LOSE a whole lot of his life savings.
If this was true, then why did he initially advise his son to get into the (almost "penny") speculative stock in the first place?
Collins, imo, is just another rich & power-hungry bastard that bought his election. For the last several years (before the inside trading came out), he quit having any kind of town meeting with constituents--claimed these meetings were "counterproductive". Instead he comes to town, hangs out in his McMansion and meets with party cronies to decide how he should vote in Congress.
I'm looking forward to the special election that has been announced to fill the seat--maybe the Dems can put up a good candidate this time around. Their last-minute candidate in the last election nearly won over the indited Collins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @10:41PM
Happily? None that I can think of. On the other hand, I expect everyone to obey the law, regardless of party affiliation. I especially expect our elected representatives to obey the law; IMHO any elected official who decides not to abide by the law is unfit for office. If elected persons don't respect legal due process then how the hell do they expect any one of the rest of us to do so?
Actually, that is precisely what it looks like.
I still expect him to do things the legal way. If he can't do that then he has no business acting as an elected representative.
Tempted? Perhaps. But that doesn't change the fact that what he did was illegal.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday October 01 2019, @11:13PM
As long as you make the difference between understanding and acceptance, I suppose it's fine.
But you will.need to make the difference, not only accept that the difference exists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01 2019, @11:55PM
Provide a single example of this happening. Not just with D's but with R's too.
What's that? You can't? Because it hasn't happened?
That's not even a strawman, just inane blather.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:51AM
If the kid is an adult, as in this case, you don't have a parental right to be present during questioning.
Of course you turn them over. Hiding them makes them look guilty, and gets you on harbouring a fugitive, so you make a shitty character witness. That doesn't help your kid.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.