US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8686

On September 08 2017 08:13 farvacola wrote:
If management legitimately dumped stock in expectation of a downturn only they had knowledge of, that's pretty close to the definition of illegal insider trading lol

Three Equifax Inc. senior executives sold shares worth almost $1.8 million in the days after the company discovered a security breach that may have compromised information on about 143 million U.S. consumers.

The credit-reporting service said late Thursday in a statement that it discovered the intrusion on July 29. Regulatory filings show that three days later, Chief Financial Officer John Gamble sold shares worth $946,374 and Joseph Loughran, president of U.S. information solutions, exercised options to dispose of stock worth $584,099. Rodolfo Ploder, president of workforce solutions, sold $250,458 of stock on Aug. 2. None of the filings lists the transactions as being part of 10b5-1 pre-scheduled trading plans.

Equifax said in the statement that intruders accessed names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and driver’s-license numbers, as well as credit-card numbers for about 209,000 consumers. The incident ranks among the largest cybersecurity breaches in history.

Equifax shares tumbled 6.2 percent to $133.90 in extended trading at 5:50 p.m. in New York. Marisa Salcines, a spokeswoman for the Atlanta-based company, didn’t immediately return a call for comment.

On September 08 2017 07:53 sc-darkness wrote:


If that nation's citizens are uneducated, have no higher education and do worse job, how are they better than a foreigner with higher education who can do the job better? Your logic is flawed.

Foreigner with higher education will almost always outperform someone who is less educated and they can contribute more. It's better for country and economy. I see no benefit in "nation should protect its citizens" in this case. You're fighting a losing battle here.

Special counsel Robert Mueller has approached the White House regarding interviews with individuals who were aboard Air Force One when staff drew up a misleading statement on the meeting Donald Trump Jr. had with Russians promising dirt on Hillary Clinton, CNN reported Thursday.

CNN cited three unnamed sources familiar with the conversations between Mueller’s team and the White House.

Trump Jr. originally claimed the June 2016 meeting, which was attended by a mix of Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to Russia, concerned adoption policy. Eventually, emails he released over Twitter showed Trump Jr. agreed to the meeting after being told there was damaging information about Hillary Clinton to be had as a part of a Russian government effort to help his father’s campaign.

Trump Jr. told Senate investigators in a prepared statement Thursday that he had accepted the meeting over his concern about “the fitness, character or qualifications of a presidential candidate,” namely Hillary Clinton. He spoke with investigators with the Senate Judiciary Committee for roughly five hours.

The Washington Post previously reported that, on a flight home from the G20 summit, the President “personally dictated” the misleading statement. According to the Post, Trump’s intervention derailed what was otherwise an attempt to get ahead of the story with a statement that was truthful and couldn’t be repudiated later.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said last month that President Donald Trump had “weighed in as any father would” on his son’s original, misleading statement that the meeting was about adoption. That raised flags about potential obstruction of justice.

CNN reported that two of the sources said Mueller wanted to know “how the statement aboard Air Force One was put together, whether information was intentionally left out and who was involved.”

On September 08 2017 07:53 sc-darkness wrote:


If that nation's citizens are uneducated, have no higher education and do worse job, how are they better than a foreigner with higher education who can do the job better? Your logic is flawed.

Foreigner with higher education will almost always outperform someone who is less educated and they can contribute more. It's better for country and economy. I see no benefit in "nation should protect its citizens" in this case. You're fighting a losing battle here.

On September 08 2017 08:18 kollin wrote:

Why are you surprised people within that country are voting against this system though? Immigration, while overall having a fairly negligible net effect on wages, causes the wages of most natives to go down, especially the ones already at the bottom end of the scale. I'm not arguing that it's right the H-1B program is being limited, but surely you can see why this 'losing battle' is still being fought.

On September 08 2017 08:41 NovaTheFeared wrote:
The Equifax CFO makes 2.6m a year and risks that to protect 60k? Those are some elite math skills from the CFO.

On September 08 2017 08:16 farvacola wrote:
Hot damn, heads are gonna roll.