1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

FBI, SEC investigate Mickelson in insider trading probe

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by LongTimeListener, May 30, 2014.

  1. CD Boogie

    CD Boogie Well-Known Member

    Yeah, the smarm basically sweats from his pores.
     
  2. goalmouth

    goalmouth Well-Known Member

    ^^^^^ It's comments like these that make this site worth reading.
    It's comments like this that make this board worth reading.
     
  3. jr/shotglass

    jr/shotglass Well-Known Member

    I think the dislike for Mickelson is very similar to the way everyone wanted the other shoe to drop with Steve Garvey in his prime -- which it did, in spades.

    As Adam Ant once asked, "You don't drink, don't smoke, what do you do?"
     
  4. swingline

    swingline Well-Known Member

    subtle innuendos follow
    there must be something inside
     
  5. TheSportsPredictor

    TheSportsPredictor Well-Known Member

  6. lcjjdnh

    lcjjdnh Well-Known Member

    This is a shockingly bad article by Toobin.

    First, and most important, he completely misunderstands the Supreme Court opinion he claims could have led to Mickelson being prosecuted, if only it had been issued earlier. He says: "In a unanimous decision in December 2016, the Supreme Court rejected the Newman rule and held that recipients of inside information could be prosecuted even if they didn't know what the original tipper received." Wrong. The Supreme Court expressly declined to answer that question. From the first footnote of its opinion: "The Second Circuit also reversed the Newman defendants’ convictions because the Government introduced no evidence that the defend- ants knew the information they traded on came from insiders or that the insiders received a personal benefit in exchange for the tips. 773 F. 3d, at 453–454. This case does not implicate those issues."


    Second, how can he know that Davis "lied" when he spoke to investigators the first time, and not that he merely changed his tune later only to curry favorable treatment?

     
  7. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page