Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread. Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Banned.......Replies to the A@P thread.

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: olivier asser who wrote (2379)	1/23/2005 5:44:29 PM
From: Pluvia	Read Replies (1) of 5425

good point. How could AP BUYING 100,000 shares to cover his short position HURT the stock price? Que? i also agree that ap's got problems if he traded on secret FBI info. BUT i believe his testimony was he reported his activities to his parole officer, and he assumed whatever info he got from royer was not "inside" info, after all it's not his responsibility to know what is or isn't "inside" info is it? that would have been royer's responsibility wouldn't it? but frankly i'm not here to argue either of those points, or stick up for elgindy. my argument is breen's definition of inside information and the implications from a guilty outcome... and breen's implication of "what is" stock manipulation ie publishing facts that are public info when you have a position in a stock. seems like if breen's right on those two points we're gonna need to re-write the constitution and re-vamp all of wall street. if breen is wong the question needs to be asked why is a representative of the us gov using the power of the us gov to make "twisted" charges and use 1/2 truths ie elgindy was involved with 911. while the elgindy brown thing smells, so does breen's behavior imo.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next