SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:09AM (8 children)
But there is a record of the conversation! The transcript is that record. Just because it is not a voice recording doesn't make it any less valid.
Look, I think you are just going to have to get used to the fact that the press is going to continue covering this story and the rest of us are going to have opinions on what we see and hear; some are going to be very vocal about their opinions. Believe it or not, that is an important part of the political process. The only real requirement on the part of the press is that they be fair and accurate in their reporting. Frankly, in my opinion it is often Trump's supporters who have gone out of their way to obfuscate and misdirect/misinform in their public statements to the press.
What do you find so distressing and/or frightening about this? That the President and his team have to answer for their words and actions? Frankly, it looks to me like what really frightens you is that they are about to be held accountable for their deeds. While I can understand how unpleasant this is going to be for everyone, I don't see much of any way around this unless you actually like having a President who is above the law. And don't give me any of this bullshit about him neither being below the law either. If anything, this President has been coddled by Republicans in Congress and his adoring base for far too long.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:34AM (7 children)
You're way off base. I know what these people are. Just show some paperwork, and I'll be right there calling for his head with all of you. For now it's just an angry mob.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:43AM (6 children)
Well hold on a second. Let's take just the facts as have been elucidated by the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG):
1. A government employee filed a whistleblower complaint perfectly legally under the appropriate law [wikipedia.org];
2. The ICIG did a cursory inspection of the complaint and deemed it "credible" and "urgent", which is the standard in the law linked above which requires the complaint to be forwarded to the House and Senate Intelligence committees;
3. The ICIG forwarded said complaint to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), as is required by the law;
4. The law requires the DNI to forward such complaints within seven days;
5. The DNI did not do so, at the direction of the White House and the DOJ;
6. The ICIG, only knowing that the law had not been followed, informed the House and Senate Intelligence committees of the existence of such a complaint, but not the contents of the complaint;
======
Elsewhere:
7. Congress demanded the complaint from the Executive Branch, who eventually complied;
8. At the same time, various news outlets broke the story about the complaint, and provided some details about what was in said complaint. I'd note that the story turned out to both true and pretty accurate;
9. The Trump Administration released a transcript of a phone call that was *part* of the issues raised in the whistleblower complaint. Such a transcript is (according to the White House and other administration officials) is created whenever the President communicates with foreign folks. In addition to whoever else is in the room with the President during the call, there are multiple staffers whose job it is to create these transcripts, with the goal that they are *verbatim*;
10. Given the allegations in the complaint, that various steps (not just the phone call) were taken by the President and members of Executive Branch to pressure a foreign government to investigate a political rival, the House made the risky decision to being Impeachment hearings.
If you believe that any of the above is false, please provide evidence to support your claims.
So. Where does that leave us? A government employee reports that they believe there is criminal activity in the government. Those within his department who are tasked with determining the credibility of such allegations come to the conclusion that these allegations are credible.
Since some of the players involved are in the White House and Justice Department, the only place where these *allegations* can reasonably be investigated (which has not been done) is Congress.
That they've chosen to do so isn't a statement that *anyone* is guilty of anything. Just that these allegations need to be investigated.
And that's just what Congress is proposing to do.
Do you object to such an investigation? I would hope not, given your stated desire for facts and evidence.
If you do object to such an investigation, why?
Inquiring minds aren't really all that interested, but I'm curious as to whether or not you can make a cogent argument one way or another.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday October 02 2019, @02:24PM (5 children)
I never objected to an investigation. Anybody who says I did is full of shit. But everything is being relayed by "people familiar with the matter to protect anonymity*. There is no credibility with bullshit like that. And the accusers, well, we should be investigating them too. I doubt the credibility of anyone that has been in congress for damn near 30 years. We have to demand more transparency, vote out the dead wood, or the doubts and the fraud will remain an indefinite problem.
I'm perfectly willing to give the thing more time, but the press has to demand to know what is happening first hand, not print gossip from ACs "familiar with the matter". Print that kind crap in the National Inquirer UFO/Michael Jackson section, not in the Post/Times
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @04:52PM (4 children)
Well, you sure as hell could have fooled me!
The whistleblower's identity is being concealed for a reason. Do you really not understand why? [nytimes.com]
So, is it really your theory that merely coming forward with an accusation is grounds for being investigated? You wouldn't happen to be posting from North Korea, would you? As for credibility and corroborating evidence, perhaps you would like to consider that there is now a publicly released transcript [cbsnews.com] verifying at least some of what the whistleblower has alleged.
And what does corruption in Congress have to do with a whistleblower complaint that the ICIG has already characterized as "credible and urgent"? The whistleblower complaint should stand on it's own, regardless of what anyone in Congress says or does.
And yet...and yet...you are now calling for an investigation of the accuser. Looks to me like you are already impatient to see an end to this.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @05:20PM (3 children)
Posting AC. Fuck it, when in Rome... try to blend in.
The whistleblower has to provide evidence! Do you really not understand why??
This is bullshit:
Oh dear! Did you hear what Martha told Sally on the telephone the other day? Oh yes! It was horrible!
You don't print the story until you have evidence. And it should be admissible in a court of law. Admitting this crap is grave mistake.
This whole thing is a bullshit grudge match, because people won't see their failures are in the damn mirror, not in Russia or D.C.
Sure hope all that cool hardware the Chinese are showing off is nothing but cardboard cutouts. You know? Because look at you people! It's classic!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @05:55PM (2 children)
Actually, all that the whistleblower has to do is make an accusation. It is Congress' job to dig for evidence. Fortunately, they already have a transcript of a telephone conversation which lends quite a bit of credence to the accusation, a transcript which BTW the President has already largely corroborated.
What I am having a hard time understanding is why you seem so willing to give the President a pass on what is apparently illegal abuse of his office while, at the same time, wanting to commence with an investigation of a whistleblower. Do you really not see the incongruity there?
Indeed it is. I am tempted to wash my hands of this whole affair and let you live in the hell you are so willing to build with your own hands. The only thing that is stopping me is that all the rest of us would have to live with it as well!
And this is just the usual Republican talking point misdirection. The issue here is not whether Democrats want to see the President removed from office. The issue is whether Trump is abusing the office of the President. Why are you not concerned about that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:37PM (1 child)
See? You're still full of shit if you think I'm giving him a pass. You are just the stereotypical angry mob. Since I can't convince you people otherwise, bye! May the best man win...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 03 2019, @01:24AM
How about "let the truth come out and the chips fall where they may" instead?
Or don't you care about the facts? It certainly seems that way. After calling this investigation "crooks investigating crooks," you were unable or unwilling to corroborate that statement with any evidence at all.
You've also repeatedly stated that evidence is *always* necessary, even demanding that *actual* evidence, legally admissible should be ignored because *you* know better than everyone else.
Or do your calls for evidence only apply to other people? That's pretty convenient for you, eh?
Do you even read what you write? Your discourse (I use that term loosely here) is a mass of unsubstantiated claims, lordly pronouncements and insults. It would be humorous if it wasn't so sad.
In your rhetoric, poor as it might be, you've alternately demonized dems and glorified L'Orange. or claimed that you think they're *all* crooks.
You've then trotted out puerile and uninformed arguments, tinged with widely debunked conspiracy theories to claim, without *any* evidence whatsoever, that you're right and anyone who doesn't agree is a shill for the corrupt ones, stupid and/or cattle.
You say 'bye!' But I don't think you *can* stop demonstrating just how uninformed and naive you really are.
One can hope, but I won't hold my breath. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.