The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-29-2013, 02:10 PM   #1
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,940
Default SEC destroyed 9/11 documents re insider trading

Securities & Exchange Commission destroyed documents regarding pre-9/11 insider trading

For years I've been saying the SEC covered up the evidence for insider trading just prior to 9/11.

We now have the proof. Indeed -- it's been posted for awhile -- though I just learned of it.

In response to a 2009 freedom of Information Act request by Mr David Callahan for documents pertaining to footnote 130 of chapter 5 of the 9/11 Commission Report -- which discussed the insider trading issue - the SEC admitted that those documents have been destroyed.

Here's the SEC letter:

http://maxkeiser.com/wp-content/uplo...sponseGIF1.gif
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 04-29-2013, 03:19 PM   #2
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,294

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Why didn't you post the 911 commission response to the insider trading?? It clearly shows what the investigation found. I have posted the footnote below.

Can you see why there isn't a conspiracy? Hint for Gaffney, The logic is contained within the underlined sentence. Read it carefully before going into one of your usual knee jerk responses.

Quote:
130. Highly publicized allegations of insider trading in advance of 9/11 generally rest on reports of unusual pre-9/11 trading activity in companies whose stock plummeted after the attacks. Some unusual trading did in fact occur, but each such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation. For example, the volume of put options—investments that pay off only when a stock drops in price—surged in the parent companies of United Airlines on September 6 and American Airlines on September 10—highly suspicious trading on its face. Yet, further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly,much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.These examples typify the evidence examined
by the investigation.The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments.These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous. Joseph Cella interview (Sept.
16, 2003; May 7, 2004; May 10–11, 2004); FBI briefing (Aug. 15, 2003); SEC memo, Division of Enforcement to SEC Chair and Commissioners,“Pre-September 11, 2001 Trading Review,” May 15, 2002; Ken Breen interview (Apr. 23, 2004); Ed G. interview (Feb. 3, 2004).
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 03:59 PM   #3
houghtam
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Why didn't you post the 911 commission response to the insider trading?? It clearly shows what the investigation found. I have posted the footnote below.

Can you see why there isn't a conspiracy? Hint for Gaffney, The logic is contained within the underlined sentence. Read it carefully before going into one of your usual knee jerk responses.
It all depends whose definition of "conceivable" you're using...
houghtam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 04:27 PM   #4
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,294

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
It all depends whose definition of "conceivable" you're using...
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-29-2013, 04:35 PM   #5
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,905

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

The facts rarely generate the necessary fear. They dine on fear.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:27 AM   #6
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,940
Default

As I showed -- the explanation given by the 9/11 Commission -- does not withstand scrutiny.

Black 9/11: A Walk on the Dark Side

Second in a series
by Mark H. Gaffney


http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...e-dark-side-2/
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:31 AM   #7
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,940
Default

It turns out that the SEC has been routinely destroying documentary evidence in corruption/criminal cases for many years. Even though they are supposed to save all evidence for at least 25 years.

The only rational conclusion is that the SEC was captured long ago by the financial elite -- and ever since has collaborated in financial crime -- and this includes 9/11.

MHG

Is the SEC Covering Up Wall Street Crimes?


Matt Taibbi: A whistle blower says the agency has illegally destroyed thousands of documents, letting financial crooks off the hook.

By MATT TAIBBI
AUGUST 17, 2011

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...#ixzz2RyNN6bM7
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Imagine a world in which a man who is repeatedly investigated for a string of serious crimes, but never prosecuted, has his slate wiped clean every time the cops fail to make a case. No more Lifetime channel specials where the murderer is unveiled after police stumble upon past intrigues in some old file – "Hey, chief, didja know this guy had two wives die falling down the stairs?" No more burglary sprees cracked when some sharp cop sees the same name pop up in one too many witness statements. This is a different world, one far friendlier to lawbreakers, where even the suspicion of wrongdoing gets wiped from the record.

That, it now appears, is exactly how the Securities and Exchange Commission has been treating the Wall Street criminals who cratered the global economy a few years back. For the past two decades, according to a whistle-blower at the SEC who recently came forward to Congress, the agency has been systematically destroying records of its preliminary investigations once they are closed. By whitewashing the files of some of the nation's worst financial criminals, the SEC has kept an entire generation of federal investigators in the dark about past inquiries into insider trading, fraud and market manipulation against companies like Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and AIG. With a few strokes of the keyboard, the evidence gathered during thousands of investigations – "18,000 ... including Madoff," as one high-ranking SEC official put it during a panicked meeting about the destruction – has apparently disappeared forever into the wormhole of history.

Under a deal the SEC worked out with the National Archives and Records Administration, all of the agency's records – "including case files relating to preliminary investigations" – are supposed to be maintained for at least 25 years. But the SEC, using history-altering practices that for once actually deserve the overused and usually hysterical term "Orwellian," devised an elaborate and possibly illegal system under which staffers were directed to dispose of the documents from any preliminary inquiry that did not receive approval from senior staff to become a full-blown, formal investigation. Amazingly, the wholesale destruction of the cases – known as MUIs, or "Matters Under Inquiry" – was not something done on the sly, in secret. The enforcement division of the SEC even spelled out the procedure in writing, on the commission's internal website. "After you have closed a MUI that has not become an investigation," the site advised staffers, "you should dispose of any documents obtained in connection with the MUI."

for the rest...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...rimes-20110817
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:37 AM   #8
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,940
Default

Idiots like Brit think the SEC is above board - actually doing its job. Ain't true.

Check out this great film about how the SEC failed to bust Bernie Madoff -- even though they had all of the necessary evidence to do so.

MHG

Chasing Madoff - part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfwJ06hc0_8


Chasing Madoff - part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ITxDjOiSm0
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 12:00 PM   #9
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,294

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Idiots like Brit think the SEC is above board - actually doing its job. Ain't true.

Check out this great film about how the SEC failed to bust Bernie Madoff -- even though they had all of the necessary evidence to do so.

MHG

Chasing Madoff - part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfwJ06hc0_8


Chasing Madoff - part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ITxDjOiSm0
So the best you can do is name call? My question to you had nothing to do with the SEC. An organization I long ago mistrusted.

As you duck and avoid a simple question, I'll ask you this really simple question:

If you knew that 911 was about to take place, would you buy stock in American Airlines??
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 03:35 PM   #10
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,054

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Why didn't you post the 911 commission response to the insider trading?? It clearly shows what the investigation found. I have posted the footnote below.

Can you see why there isn't a conspiracy? Hint for Gaffney, The logic is contained within the underlined sentence. Read it carefully before going into one of your usual knee jerk responses.
So WHO profited in this transaction(s)? Does it list whom the "buyer" is/was?

Just for fun:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh3_wWmS6lk

Last edited by alkemical; 04-30-2013 at 03:38 PM..
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 04:10 PM   #11
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,294

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alkemical View Post
So WHO profited in this transaction(s)? Does it list whom the "buyer" is/was?
Contrary to the 'troofers' nonsense, it looks like a wash.

The investor who bought the 'puts' (betting the stock would go down within a certain period of time) also bought 115,000 shares of American Airlines.

Which indicates he was gambling that American shares would recover from the recent hit they had taken in Sept 01 and that United's stock price would drop. That is a common strategy when buying puts.

Of course, troofers like Gaffney are clueless and decided to ignore the American share purchases as it didn't 'fit' the conspiracy. The later 'puts' of American Airlines were a result of an investment newsletter recommendation that was circulated around the same date. It was their subscribers who were buying.

Both events looked suspicious at first glance, but had simple explanations that were investigated by several agencies and not just the SEC. Naturally, when there is nothing illegal going on, the investors identity are kept 'private.'

Which of course, has troofers jumping up and down screaming 'conspiracy!!'

The markets were a mess prior to 911. The Dow had lost around 8%-10% in Aug/Sept and there was a lot of pessimism about where the markets were heading. A bear market is prime for 'puts' and both United and American had already seen their stock prices dropping.



American Airlines had already lost more than 10% in the month before 911, again a prime time to buy their stock or puts, depending on which way you think the stock is heading.



The only 'conspiracy' is the troofer scam to sell more books.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 05:30 PM   #12
StugotsIII
O-H
 

Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,535

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Your Mom
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Idiots like Brit think the SEC is above board - actually doing its job. Ain't true.

Check out this great film about how the SEC failed to bust Bernie Madoff -- even though they had all of the necessary evidence to do so.

MHG

Chasing Madoff - part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfwJ06hc0_8


Chasing Madoff - part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ITxDjOiSm0


I'm totally on board with everything you are saying, and honestly I think you are a breath of fresh air on this site littered with conservative hate mongering.

With that said..why do you think the South Eastern Conference wants to get into insider trading? I'm really interested in reading more of what you have to say.

PS. Remember all that "you are a breath of fresh air stuff?" Yeah, I lied…I can't ****ing stand you and wish you would stop posting on this site.

Thanks for ****ing off in advance.
StugotsIII is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 06:11 PM   #13
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,940
Default

As I pointed out in my heavily sourced article (which you did not read), American was only one of 38 stocks on the SEC's suspect list. Even if American was hedged -- what of the other 37 stocks? The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of them.

The only wash was by the 9/11 Commission.

Their cursory dismissal of the insider trading issue was later exposed by three published studies -- by various experts who concluded that insider trading had indeed occurred. Three separate published studies -- all of which agreed.

Fools of course will continue to see what they wish to see.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 06:24 PM   #14
Rohirrim
Partisan
 
Rohirrim's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Twixt Hell & Highwater
Posts: 53,905

Adopt-a-Bronco:
CJ Anderson
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StugotsIII View Post
I'm totally on board with everything you are saying, and honestly I think you are a breath of fresh air on this site littered with conservative hate mongering.

With that said..why do you think the South Eastern Conference wants to get into insider trading? I'm really interested in reading more of what you have to say.

PS. Remember all that "you are a breath of fresh air stuff?" Yeah, I lied…I can't ****ing stand you and wish you would stop posting on this site.

Thanks for ****ing off in advance.
"...conservative hate mongering..." Thanks.
Rohirrim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 08:08 PM   #15
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,294

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
As I pointed out in my heavily sourced article (which you did not read), American was only one of 38 stocks on the SEC's suspect list. Even if American was hedged -- what of the other 37 stocks? The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of them.

The only wash was by the 9/11 Commission.

Their cursory dismissal of the insider trading issue was later exposed by three published studies -- by various experts who concluded that insider trading had indeed occurred. Three separate published studies -- all of which agreed.

Fools of course will continue to see what they wish to see.

MHG
Your 'article'? You mean 'fairy tale'.

Explain why the investor who shorted United stock, bought 115,000 American Airline stock?? Insider trading??

Step up Gaffney, or at least admit you're full of ****!!
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 10:05 AM   #16
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,940
Default

Brit thinks our government is truthful to us -- the biggest fairy tale of all.
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 10:24 AM   #17
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,901

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Brit thinks our government is truthful to us -- the biggest fairy tale of all.
As usual, once gaff-o's nonsense crumbles around him -- yet again -- he starts to lash out like the petulant child that he is.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 10:55 AM   #18
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,294

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Brit thinks our government is truthful to us -- the biggest fairy tale of all.
Again, explain how an investor shorting United and buying American stock is 'insider trading??

You wrote a 'heavily sourced article' so this should be easy for you, right?
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 02:42 PM   #19
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,054

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Contrary to the 'troofers' nonsense, it looks like a wash.

The investor who bought the 'puts' (betting the stock would go down within a certain period of time) also bought 115,000 shares of American Airlines.

Which indicates he was gambling that American shares would recover from the recent hit they had taken in Sept 01 and that United's stock price would drop. That is a common strategy when buying puts.

Of course, troofers like Gaffney are clueless and decided to ignore the American share purchases as it didn't 'fit' the conspiracy. The later 'puts' of American Airlines were a result of an investment newsletter recommendation that was circulated around the same date. It was their subscribers who were buying.

Both events looked suspicious at first glance, but had simple explanations that were investigated by several agencies and not just the SEC. Naturally, when there is nothing illegal going on, the investors identity are kept 'private.'

Which of course, has troofers jumping up and down screaming 'conspiracy!!'

The markets were a mess prior to 911. The Dow had lost around 8%-10% in Aug/Sept and there was a lot of pessimism about where the markets were heading. A bear market is prime for 'puts' and both United and American had already seen their stock prices dropping.



American Airlines had already lost more than 10% in the month before 911, again a prime time to buy their stock or puts, depending on which way you think the stock is heading.



The only 'conspiracy' is the troofer scam to sell more books.


How does that fit with what the Company (Convar) who was recovering data from WTC Hard Drives - said they found insider trading evidence, to now they can't comment.

(It's in the video I linked to - that you didn't comment on).

To Clarify my position on this topic:

There is/was a cover up - but it had to do with a Saudi or Mossad tie in - and our gov't didn't want to look worse than they did - by dropping the ball - and also due to vested interests/relationships. Seeing the Saudi's fly out during 9/11 is sort of a sticking point with me.
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 02:57 PM   #20
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alkemical View Post
Seeing the Saudi's fly out during 9/11 is sort of a sticking point with me.
Didn't happen.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp
W*GS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 03:07 PM   #21
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,294

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alkemical View Post
How does that fit with what the Company (Convar) who was recovering data from WTC Hard Drives - said they found insider trading evidence, to now they can't comment.

(It's in the video I linked to - that you didn't comment on).

To Clarify my position on this topic:

There is/was a cover up - but it had to do with a Saudi or Mossad tie in - and our gov't didn't want to look worse than they did - by dropping the ball - and also due to vested interests/relationships. Seeing the Saudi's fly out during 9/11 is sort of a sticking point with me.
I did see the video....sorry, I forgot to address it.

I have no idea what they found or how it contradicts the investor I mentioned. I do know that troofers have been exaggerating the extent of the 'put' options: They claimed the 'puts' were 90 times greater than normal, when the actual number was 4 times the norm.

I was watching the markets during the period before 911, and the volatility was already there. It looked like an opportunity both as a short seller and a stock buyer.....and then 911.

As the buyers of the 'puts' cannot be anonymous, it was easy to investigate and no one is disputing the 115,000 shares of American that the short seller also purchased.

Buying Airline stock of that magnitude obviously meant he had no prior knowledge of 911.
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 04:35 PM   #22
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
I did see the video....sorry, I forgot to address it.

I have no idea what they found or how it contradicts the investor I mentioned. I do know that troofers have been exaggerating the extent of the 'put' options: They claimed the 'puts' were 90 times greater than normal, when the actual number was 4 times the norm.

I was watching the markets during the period before 911, and the volatility was already there. It looked like an opportunity both as a short seller and a stock buyer.....and then 911.

As the buyers of the 'puts' cannot be anonymous, it was easy to investigate and no one is disputing the 115,000 shares of American that the short seller also purchased.

Buying Airline stock of that magnitude obviously meant he had no prior knowledge of 911.
Correct. You have no idea because your head is a zillion miles up yer ass.

Both CNN and Reuters carried reports about Convar in Dec 2001. CNN and Reuters exaggerated nothing.

Nor did the three published academic studies.

Here is the original CNN story:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/in...arddrives.idg/

Here is the Reuters story:
http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/dec/17wtc.htm
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 05:14 PM   #23
alkemical
Guerrilla Ontologist
 
alkemical's Avatar
 
rorrim|mirror

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Future
Posts: 43,054

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Prima Materia
Default

wags, a quick google search provides many news sources that state they did.

just 'sayin.

EDIT:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...audi_Nationals

This is actually a nice time line with some good info -

The Answer

Matthew L. Wald, in the April 14, 2004, New York Times, wrote that the Panel had cleared the handling of the Bin Laden family on September 11th. [5]
The Commission determined that the Bush administration had properly handled the evacuation of the "six chartered flights that rushed scores of Saudi citizens out of the United States after the attacks."
"A flight on Sept. 20, 2001, carried 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Osama bin Laden, according to the statement. But all 142 passengers on the flights, mostly Saudi citizens, were screened by law enforcement officials, the statement said, to ensure that they were not security threats and not wanted for questioning. The flights were 'dealt with in a professional manner' by the government, the commission said.
"The rush by the Saudis to depart attracted notice and stirred accusations that the administration allowed it to take place to maintain good relations with the Saudis. An article in Vanity Fair magazine last October asserted that the Saudis were allowed by the White House to violate a ban on flights imposed after the attacks to fly a group from Tampa, Fla., to Lexington, Ky., in a small jet, where they would join a larger group. But the Federal Aviation Administration maintained that the ban was lifted before the plane took off.
"Among other critics, Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said last September that some of the Saudis who were allowed to leave may have had ties to terrorism. 'This is just another example of our country coddling the Saudis and giving them special privileges that others would never get,' he said.
"But according to the statement, the FBI checked 'a variety of databases' and searched the aircraft. The statement said that it was not clear whether anyone checked a watch list maintained by the State Department, but that a check after the departure showed no matches.
"The statement said the FBI concluded that no one who was allowed to depart was wanted for questioning, and that the commission had found no evidence to contradict this."

Last edited by alkemical; 05-02-2013 at 09:26 AM..
alkemical is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2013, 06:02 PM   #24
DenverBrit
Just hanging out.
 
DenverBrit's Avatar
 
Got a breath mint??

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Denver
Posts: 12,294

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Team
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Correct. You have no idea because your head is a zillion miles up yer ass.

Both CNN and Reuters carried reports about Convar in Dec 2001. CNN and Reuters exaggerated nothing.

Nor did the three published academic studies.

Here is the original CNN story:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/in...arddrives.idg/

Here is the Reuters story:
http://www.rediff.com/money/2001/dec/17wtc.htm
Now it's my turn. Gaffney, you're a ****ing idiot. The so called 'insider trading' never happened, and that has been debunked over and over, years ago.

All you have is.....nothing!! If you had anything, you would have used your so called, 'heavily sourced article' to respond to the specifics I posted regarding the 'actual investment facts.'

But as usual, you're a liar who falls back on innuendo and troofer fairy tales.
If you had hard facts to prove insider trading, you would have posted them by now.

Run along, Gaffney, you're once again caught up in your own little web of bull**** and have no response to facts.

Your deflections are pathetic!!
DenverBrit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2013, 11:06 AM   #25
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverBrit View Post
Now it's my turn. Gaffney, you're a ****ing idiot. The so called 'insider trading' never happened, and that has been debunked over and over, years ago.

All you have is.....nothing!! If you had anything, you would have used your so called, 'heavily sourced article' to respond to the specifics I posted regarding the 'actual investment facts.'

But as usual, you're a liar who falls back on innuendo and troofer fairy tales.
If you had hard facts to prove insider trading, you would have posted them by now.

Run along, Gaffney, you're once again caught up in your own little web of bull**** and have no response to facts.

Your deflections are pathetic!!
Not only has it not been debunked -- it's never been investigated.

The Convar story is but the tip of the iceberg.

MHG
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:51 PM.


Denver Broncos