The Ethics Manual of the United States Senate (yes, they apparently need to have one) states that it is alright for a Senator to instruct the trustee of their qualified blind trust "to sell all of an asset" if a senator believes it "creates a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof due to the subsequent assumptions of duties" by the senator.
Reportedly Senator Frist had his trustee of his qualified blind trust sell his family’s shares in HCA, Inc. The price thereafter dropped 9 percent and shows signs of further weakening.
Perhaps Mr. Frist had not read the Ethics Manual.
Insider trading is when someone, like Martha Stewart, sells or buys stock with information not available to regular investors. For example, with knowledge afore hand that the price will drop and lose money.
It remains to be seen if the Senate will allow one of its own to be held up to the same scrutiny that a home decorator had.
The SEC and the Justice Department are both looking into the charges.
At this time the Republicans are claiming that the Democrats will try to make something out of this while ignoring the fact that financial cheating goes against the grain of American sensibility.
HCA, founded by Frist’s father is the nation’s largest hospital chain.
As for the sense that Frist is a kind and gentle man the surgeon was quoted as saying, “"I can play hardball as well as anybody. That's what I did, cut people's hearts out."

lets see, anyone remember why martha stewart went to jail? it wasnt for insider trading. it was for lying to the police. Not for lying under oath mind you, but for lying to the police during the investigation. Now, if the president of the USA can lie under oath and not get fired, never mind doing jail time, do you think a senator is going to be held responsible for anything?

Originally posted by cranston36
It remains to be seen if the Senate will allow one of its own to be held up to the same scrutiny that a home decorator had.

Or to the same scrutiny ---or even 1/1000th of the same scrutiny--- that a former president was subjected to over getting a little trim on the side.

this is just political BS - if they can prove he did insider trading then fine, but the likelyhood is close to zero. Stocks go up & down. I doubt anybody would have had an issue if the stock had gone up. Just because it went down 9% doesn't indicate inside trading.

And as Trav pointed out - Martha went to the slammer for doing a cover up & lying to federal agents, not for her stock sale.

Originally posted by DrewM
Stocks go up & down. .......Just because it went down 9% doesn't indicate inside trading.

Yeah.

Why!....it's probably just an odd coincidence.

Those highly placed politicians and business people don't really pay any attention to what's going on with their stocks.

No way could Senator Frist have had any information that influenced his decision! Close to "zero" chance, actually.

Yeah.

That's it.

But if Frist should EVER have a bit of illicit sex .............boy oh boy, THEN we'll lower the boom on the evil, deceitful cheater!!!

The reason why it's unlikely is - it'd be pretty damn stupid for somebody in his position to insider trade, especially when you have your eyes on the Presidents job & you already have millions in the bank.

Much more likely is he divested the stock to remove conflicts of interest & it went down 9% a while later - the two being totally unrelated events.

So the reason you think he didn't do it is because you think that someone in his position would have to be stupid to do it?

What if he is that stupid? Just because he passed his medical exams and talked people into allowing him to cut their hearts out does not mean he is good at finances. You don't know him personally. His voting record in the Senate says to me, 'Stupid Guy.'

'Stupid is as stupid does.'

Another argument people put forth is 'He's a rich doctor. He doesn't need the money.' That's also not a good reason for assuming he didn't do it. Ghengis Khan didn't need more land. George Bush didn't need to be president. Al Capone didn't need to run the entire city of Chicago (the Mercantile Exchange would have been enough). Greed knows no bounds.

That's the definition of greed.

you are right I don't know him - neither do you.

It's certainly possible he insider traded, time will tell, but on balance you have to assume he did not do so given the facts.

time will tell, but on balance you have to assume he did not do so given the facts.

Innocent until proven guilty.