With this type of thing running rampant, it's no wonder people have fled the market. It's completely corrupt. And Cramer is a total and complete A-Hole who I hope lands in jail.
Further, what Jon Stewart was castigating Cramer (and the rest of CNBC) for was their not reporting on the stock manipulation.
Well, if you actually watched his show, which I'm assuming you don't since you obviously dislike him immensely, then you would know that he DOES talk about this stuff all the time on the show. I think you can fairly criticize cramer for not defending himself well on Stewart's show, but that doesn't mean Stewart is right. Cramer has a long history of talking about hedge fund manipulation on his show, on other people's shows, and in web videos like the one Stewart showed.
As one who does watch the show every night, I'm calling you out on your lies. On Wednesday night, Stewart castigated Obama at length. He certainly has on other nights as well. If you watched the show as you claim, you'd know that. Or perhaps you did know and simply chose to bald-face lie in your post.
Jeez, go take your meds or something! Sorry I criticized folks you revere, but if in your heart you believe that if you laid out all the content of TDS for a week, month, whatever, and categorized who got skewered into liberal and conservative piles that the piles would be roughly equal, well, I'd say that you need to UP your meds even more.
That's why I hate one-way shows such as Bill O'Reily or Hannity or Olberman, and why I don't read one-way columnists like E. J. Dionne or Robert Novak. They just throw gas on partisan fires, which not coincidently, keep them in business (like, duh!). As for me, I'm skeptical and borderline cynical of them all, and I detest the corrupt from Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham to Democratic Congressman William Jefferson.
Cramer caved on the program, which was very sad to see. I guess he was intimidated. I'd like to see Jon Stewart go on his show or a neutral location and the two of them sit down with no audience and hash this out like adults rather than children.
Did you happen to see Stewart on "Crossfire" before it got canned? The dude may be small, but he has gargantuan titanium nads. He doesn't need home court advantage to state his case with fire. Stewart has been digging at Cramer and CNBC for some time now, it wasn't an ambush. I could be wrong, but I believe Stewart invited Cramer on his show, Cramer didn't invite Stewart on his (although it's possible Cramer asked to come on TDS, some how, I doubt it).
Anyway, Cramer is certainly no shrinking violet. I have a feeling he can hold his own in any setting. Like all talk show guests, he went on the show to serve his own agenda. I don't know if what he did was caving as much as it was offering a mia culpa. Maybe that was his agenda. Generally, one offers a public apology because they have something to apologize for.
Did you happen to see Stewart on "Crossfire" before it got canned? The dude may be small, but he has gargantuan titanium nads. He doesn't need home court advantage to state his case with fire. Stewart has been digging at Cramer and CNBC for some time now, it wasn't an ambush. I could be wrong, but I believe Stewart invited Cramer on his show, Cramer didn't invite Stewart on his (although it's possible Cramer asked to come on TDS, some how, I doubt it).
Yeah, you're probably right. But, I said I'd like to see them discuss this like adults, not children. If either party insisted on making it about rhetoric and polemic rather than facts or constructive dialog, then, no, I guess it wouldn't serve any purpose. Stewart is clearly the best at that sort of thing, and I have never seen Cramer show any skill at that sort of hatchet work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut
Anyway, Cramer is certainly no shrinking violet. I have a feeling he can hold his own in any setting. Like all talk show guests, he went on the show to serve his own agenda. I don't know if what he did was caving as much as it was offering a mia culpa. Maybe that was his agenda. Generally, one offers a public apology because they have something to apologize for.
He apologized for offending the almighty Stewart, like Michael Steele apologizing for offending the almighty Rush. That isn't the same thing as admitting guilt of any crime. It's just prostrating yourself. It's not pretty, but it's not criminal either.
I'm just curious as to what you think Cramer is doing that is illegal? Reporting on stock price manipulation is not a crime. If you have any evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing, what is it?
According to the article, Cramer admitted to making up false claims in order to manipulate the stock. When he admits that he intentionally did it, and said it was easy to do, that is illegal. If you don't think so, then study and take the Series 63 exam.
Of COURSE they'll AAPL bash. They have "funding" to think of.....
You don't seem to realize what you're talking about. They would bash it to then BUY it before it went back up. Also, he wasn't making the comment on CNBC, it was on thestreet.com, which is owned by Cramer. Microsoft didn't have anything to do with this.
He is describing HOW THIS STUFF IS DONE. This is NOT the same thing as doing it. Quite the opposite, it is alerting people to the danger.
I see you just joined today. Are you Jim Cramer?
Cramer himself floated a false story immediately after the iPhone's launch that Apple's wireless partner Cingular (later renamed as AT&T) would provide a year and a half of free mobile service for the iPhone. The story was picked up by blogs and widely publicized on syndication sites like Digg. A myth busting report on the scam noted, "Saying that Cingular will give away $1440 worth of free service to perhaps ten million subscribers in order to earn just $480 from them across two years is an insane prediction."
Yeah, you're probably right. But, I said I'd like to see them discuss this like adults, not children. If either party insisted on making it about rhetoric and polemic rather than facts or constructive dialog, then, no, I guess it wouldn't serve any purpose. Stewart is clearly the best at that sort of thing, and I have never seen Cramer show any skill at that sort of hatchet work.
He apologized for offending the almighty Stewart, like Michael Steele apologizing for offending the almighty Rush. That isn't the same thing as admitting guilt of any crime. It's just prostrating yourself. It's not pretty, but it's not criminal either.
Common now. Hatchet work? Well, if you mean Cramer is a puss, face to face, I guess your right You've seen Cramer tear people a new one on his show before (Bernankie for one). If he can do it to others, he should be able to hold his own face to face when he's on the hot seat himself. If not, he's just a paper lion. I'd say the Stewart interview was exactly the kind of adult discussion you're calling for. Clearly, Stewart is left leaning to put it mildly. He still digs at liberals. But this was not a case of liberal vs. conservative. Even when Stewart has a guest on that he has philosophical disagreements with, he's no O'reilly-ish tyrant that insults his guests and cuts them off before they finish opening their mouths.
Stewart was obviously angry at this mess (who isn't?), but he was calm (or at least capable of self-restraint), rational, and all around well spoken. He did what he usually does with guests. He made a point, stopped, passed the ball to Cramer and waited for a response. No matter what you think of Stewart, he offers folks on his show equal time. It's up to them to take that time and speak up. Of course if they sit there and say nothing, he'll take the ball back to keep it going—it's only a half hour show. Cramer, being someone who is clearly a super smart dude with a razor sharp wit of his own had every chance to state his case. If all he did was offer apologies, than that's all he had to offer.
I wasn't claiming he was apologizing for criminal activity. He was apologizing for his poor showing as a journalist (or analyst whatever he calls himself) and CNBCs role. However, if he did engage in the activities he described—Stewart (paraphrasing): "It looks like we're watching a guy [in the video] who is himself engaged in the activities he's talking about, or at leas has at some point."—then he is guilty of criminal activity.
Cramer's response was not a denial, it was subterfuge. All he offered as clarification was, "I was inarticulate." If he hadn't done those things, I think he would have offered a little more on the subject.
Cramer's response was not a denial, it was subterfuge. All he offered as clarification was, "I was inarticulate." If he hadn't done those things, I think he would have offered a little more on the subject.
Fair enough. I personally can't leap to the conclusion that because a guy is flustered and unable to defend himself that is somehow evidence of a crime, but I can certainly agree that Cramer looked really bad last night, and that does make him "look" guilty, for whatever that's worth. Having watched Cramer for years, he strikes me as a guy who, it wouldn't surprise me, engaged in some very nefarious activities back in the day, but is now doing some excellent reporting and work on his show. He told people to get out of this market when the dow was still above 10,000. He told people six months ago that any money they will need for the next 5 years should not be in stocks. He was screaming about the financial crisis back in August of 2007 (and ever since), long before the market topped. These calls have all been very prescient. If they are coming from a crook, well, I guess that's just sad. But, if he is a crook, I certainly want to know that and I am still digging through some of these linked articles looking for evidence of such. (I don't trade based on cramer's recs, but it would still be good to know, obviously.) But so far, I haven't seen any evidence yet that would make me take the word of an anonymous netizen over his. Not yet, but I'm still looking.
BTW - Olbermann is apparently going to declare a first-ever "worst person of the week" tonight. 3 guess who it will be. (I don't know, but I have a hunch.)
Cramer himself floated a false story immediately after the iPhone's launch that Apple's wireless partner Cingular (later renamed as AT&T) would provide a year and a half of free mobile service for the iPhone. The story was picked up by blogs and widely publicized on syndication sites like Digg. A myth busting report on the scam noted, "Saying that Cingular will give away $1440 worth of free service to perhaps ten million subscribers in order to earn just $480 from them across two years is an insane prediction."
Assuming the above is true (I don't know), it's not a crime. You are allowed to be wrong. It would only be a crime if it was a deliberate deception AND he made trades based off of that deception. Since he wasn't allowed to trade at that time (outside of his charitable trust, where, again, he can't day-trade), that seems highly unlikely. If you have evidence that he was trading at that time, in a secret account, or a friends account or some such, well, that by itself (as I understand it) would be a crime, regardless of whether or not he tried to profit from this story he "floated". And, of course, I'd like to see some evidence that he knew it was false.
According to the article, Cramer admitted to making up false claims in order to manipulate the stock. When he admits that he intentionally did it, and said it was easy to do, that is illegal. If you don't think so, then study and take the Series 63 exam.
Sorry... I combed through that article line by line, and I can't find any place that says Cramer admitted to this. He talked about how easy it was to do, but that's not the same thing. Having been in that business, I'm sure he saw plenty of it. That doesn't mean that he did or didn't do it. That said, I wouldn't be all that surprised if he did - on his show he very often says words to the effect "I know what these guys do because I used to be one of them." (He did so again tonight.) But, I'd like to see some real evidence, not speculation or opinion.
I can point out one factual inaccuracy in the article, however - it claims that Cramer "specifically cited the example of stirring up rumors that Apple's iPhone would be rejected by both AT&T and Verizon Wireless". I call this as an inaccuracy, and not an outright lie, because it strongly insinuates (without coming right out and saying) that Cramer himself spread this rumor. Watch the video - he talks about the rumor, but clearly describes it as a rumor meant to manipulate stock. At no point does he claim to have spread that rumor, nor does he remotely imply or suggest that the rumor is true. As I have pointed out numerous times in this thread, he wasn't allowed to do any trading at that time, so it's hard to see how he could have benefited from this, and so, hard to see why he would do it.
Yup, it's clear that the new fundamentals of the American economy are about finding loopholes in the system to exploit for quick gain rather than fostering the creation of innovative businesses which provide goods and services the world actually wants/needs.
Is it any wonder that no one has faith in the American economy these days? I guess it's really no surprise that in a country where the importance of media & entertainment are placed so far above education & rational thought, the pinnacle of success is based on strategic manipulation of public opinion rather than actually building a strong, competitive business.
What's unclear is how such a scheme could possible work with two big, glaring, painfully obvious flaws:
A) He didn't have a hedge fund at the time, or any other trading account on which he could have profited from the trade. He was out of the trading business for something like 4 or 5 years when that clip was filmed. Since he is a TV commentator, he isn't allowed any trading accounts except a charitable trust, in which he is not allowed to day-trade, so this scheme couldn't work there. So, unless you are alleging that he has some secret account somewhere, I am "unclear" how he could have profited from this scheme.
He very clearly, plainly describes it as a MANIPULATION (your word)- how can you profit from any rumor or manipulation when you clearly identify it as such? Would you (or anyone you know) buy or sell a stock based on news that was clearly identified as being false and intended to manipulate the stock?
He is describing HOW THIS STUFF IS DONE. This is NOT the same thing as doing it. Quite the opposite, it is alerting people to the danger. It's just silly to think that a stock manipulator would operating by posting videos on the web that are publicly available to everyone, including the SEC, in which he plainly states that he is spreading a phony rumor. How could you profit from that? Presumably that's the point, isn't it? To make money without getting arrested?
Again, I'd like to see actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing. I am certainly open to that possibility. But so far all I am seeing are torches and pitchforks.
You're missing a lot. The complete interview [The Street.com Interview] was about how Hedge Funds work. Cramer admitted through the ignorance of the SEC and the loose language of the law it was deemed legal; and even if not, the SEC was too stupid to figure out the legality.
He further claimed on Stewart's interview to not doing so, then having to eat crow as the private interview became public knowledge.
Sorry... I combed through that article line by line, and I can't find any place that says Cramer admitted to this. He talked about how easy it was to do, but that's not the same thing. Having been in that business, I'm sure he saw plenty of it. That doesn't mean that he did or didn't do it. That said, I wouldn't be all that surprised if he did - on his show he very often says words to the effect "I know what these guys do because I used to be one of them." (He did so again tonight.) But, I'd like to see some real evidence, not speculation or opinion.
I can point out one factual inaccuracy in the article, however - it claims that Cramer "specifically cited the example of stirring up rumors that Apple's iPhone would be rejected by both AT&T and Verizon Wireless". I call this as an inaccuracy, and not an outright lie, because it strongly insinuates (without coming right out and saying) that Cramer himself spread this rumor. Watch the video - he talks about the rumor, but clearly describes it as a rumor meant to manipulate stock. At no point does he claim to have spread that rumor, nor does he remotely imply or suggest that the rumor is true. As I have pointed out numerous times in this thread, he wasn't allowed to do any trading at that time, so it's hard to see how he could have benefited from this, and so, hard to see why he would do it.
Cramer got sandbagged by that A__hole Stewart. That's the entire story here.
Don't worry, your man Jim will soon start his new show "SAD (& pathetic) MONEY with Jim Cramer. Get over it.
On the non-whining, non-partisan, other hand, Cramer knew exactly what he was in for as did anyone familiar with Stewart. He took his licks as a good scapegoat should. He knows, like anyone in public life, that when overall public sentiment is against you, which for Cramer it most certainly is, contrition is the only way to go. Had he really tried to fight back he would've looked an even bigger douche than he already is perceived to be by the non-CNBC watching public. Your boy Jim could have come out guns blazing but would have lost even harder in the court of lay-public opinion. Stewart pointed out, as several on AI have too, that it was unfair to single out Cramer in a sea of douchebaggery but that was where the debate had got to.
I don't like Cramer but I respect him a bit for coming on and putting his hands up. That said, I don't think it hurts him in his core demographic so there wasn't much at risk.
Comments
Further, what Jon Stewart was castigating Cramer (and the rest of CNBC) for was their not reporting on the stock manipulation.
Well, if you actually watched his show, which I'm assuming you don't since you obviously dislike him immensely, then you would know that he DOES talk about this stuff all the time on the show. I think you can fairly criticize cramer for not defending himself well on Stewart's show, but that doesn't mean Stewart is right. Cramer has a long history of talking about hedge fund manipulation on his show, on other people's shows, and in web videos like the one Stewart showed.
As one who does watch the show every night, I'm calling you out on your lies. On Wednesday night, Stewart castigated Obama at length. He certainly has on other nights as well. If you watched the show as you claim, you'd know that. Or perhaps you did know and simply chose to bald-face lie in your post.
Jeez, go take your meds or something! Sorry I criticized folks you revere, but if in your heart you believe that if you laid out all the content of TDS for a week, month, whatever, and categorized who got skewered into liberal and conservative piles that the piles would be roughly equal, well, I'd say that you need to UP your meds even more.
That's why I hate one-way shows such as Bill O'Reily or Hannity or Olberman, and why I don't read one-way columnists like E. J. Dionne or Robert Novak. They just throw gas on partisan fires, which not coincidently, keep them in business (like, duh!). As for me, I'm skeptical and borderline cynical of them all, and I detest the corrupt from Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham to Democratic Congressman William Jefferson.
So there.
Cramer caved on the program, which was very sad to see. I guess he was intimidated. I'd like to see Jon Stewart go on his show or a neutral location and the two of them sit down with no audience and hash this out like adults rather than children.
Did you happen to see Stewart on "Crossfire" before it got canned? The dude may be small, but he has gargantuan titanium nads. He doesn't need home court advantage to state his case with fire. Stewart has been digging at Cramer and CNBC for some time now, it wasn't an ambush. I could be wrong, but I believe Stewart invited Cramer on his show, Cramer didn't invite Stewart on his (although it's possible Cramer asked to come on TDS, some how, I doubt it).
Anyway, Cramer is certainly no shrinking violet. I have a feeling he can hold his own in any setting. Like all talk show guests, he went on the show to serve his own agenda. I don't know if what he did was caving as much as it was offering a mia culpa. Maybe that was his agenda. Generally, one offers a public apology because they have something to apologize for.
Did you happen to see Stewart on "Crossfire" before it got canned? The dude may be small, but he has gargantuan titanium nads. He doesn't need home court advantage to state his case with fire. Stewart has been digging at Cramer and CNBC for some time now, it wasn't an ambush. I could be wrong, but I believe Stewart invited Cramer on his show, Cramer didn't invite Stewart on his (although it's possible Cramer asked to come on TDS, some how, I doubt it).
Yeah, you're probably right. But, I said I'd like to see them discuss this like adults, not children. If either party insisted on making it about rhetoric and polemic rather than facts or constructive dialog, then, no, I guess it wouldn't serve any purpose. Stewart is clearly the best at that sort of thing, and I have never seen Cramer show any skill at that sort of hatchet work.
Anyway, Cramer is certainly no shrinking violet. I have a feeling he can hold his own in any setting. Like all talk show guests, he went on the show to serve his own agenda. I don't know if what he did was caving as much as it was offering a mia culpa. Maybe that was his agenda. Generally, one offers a public apology because they have something to apologize for.
He apologized for offending the almighty Stewart, like Michael Steele apologizing for offending the almighty Rush. That isn't the same thing as admitting guilt of any crime. It's just prostrating yourself. It's not pretty, but it's not criminal either.
Of COURSE they'll AAPL bash. They have "funding" to think of.....
I'm just curious as to what you think Cramer is doing that is illegal? Reporting on stock price manipulation is not a crime. If you have any evidence of actual criminal wrongdoing, what is it?
According to the article, Cramer admitted to making up false claims in order to manipulate the stock. When he admits that he intentionally did it, and said it was easy to do, that is illegal. If you don't think so, then study and take the Series 63 exam.
MSNBC/CNBC=Micro$oft.
Of COURSE they'll AAPL bash. They have "funding" to think of.....
You don't seem to realize what you're talking about. They would bash it to then BUY it before it went back up. Also, he wasn't making the comment on CNBC, it was on thestreet.com, which is owned by Cramer. Microsoft didn't have anything to do with this.
He is describing HOW THIS STUFF IS DONE. This is NOT the same thing as doing it. Quite the opposite, it is alerting people to the danger.
I see you just joined today. Are you Jim Cramer?
Cramer himself floated a false story immediately after the iPhone's launch that Apple's wireless partner Cingular (later renamed as AT&T) would provide a year and a half of free mobile service for the iPhone. The story was picked up by blogs and widely publicized on syndication sites like Digg. A myth busting report on the scam noted, "Saying that Cingular will give away $1440 worth of free service to perhaps ten million subscribers in order to earn just $480 from them across two years is an insane prediction."
Yeah, you're probably right. But, I said I'd like to see them discuss this like adults, not children. If either party insisted on making it about rhetoric and polemic rather than facts or constructive dialog, then, no, I guess it wouldn't serve any purpose. Stewart is clearly the best at that sort of thing, and I have never seen Cramer show any skill at that sort of hatchet work.
He apologized for offending the almighty Stewart, like Michael Steele apologizing for offending the almighty Rush. That isn't the same thing as admitting guilt of any crime. It's just prostrating yourself. It's not pretty, but it's not criminal either.
Common now. Hatchet work? Well, if you mean Cramer is a puss, face to face, I guess your right
Stewart was obviously angry at this mess (who isn't?), but he was calm (or at least capable of self-restraint), rational, and all around well spoken. He did what he usually does with guests. He made a point, stopped, passed the ball to Cramer and waited for a response. No matter what you think of Stewart, he offers folks on his show equal time. It's up to them to take that time and speak up. Of course if they sit there and say nothing, he'll take the ball back to keep it going—it's only a half hour show. Cramer, being someone who is clearly a super smart dude with a razor sharp wit of his own had every chance to state his case. If all he did was offer apologies, than that's all he had to offer.
I wasn't claiming he was apologizing for criminal activity. He was apologizing for his poor showing as a journalist (or analyst whatever he calls himself) and CNBCs role. However, if he did engage in the activities he described—Stewart (paraphrasing): "It looks like we're watching a guy [in the video] who is himself engaged in the activities he's talking about, or at leas has at some point."—then he is guilty of criminal activity.
Cramer's response was not a denial, it was subterfuge. All he offered as clarification was, "I was inarticulate." If he hadn't done those things, I think he would have offered a little more on the subject.
Cramer's response was not a denial, it was subterfuge. All he offered as clarification was, "I was inarticulate." If he hadn't done those things, I think he would have offered a little more on the subject.
Fair enough. I personally can't leap to the conclusion that because a guy is flustered and unable to defend himself that is somehow evidence of a crime, but I can certainly agree that Cramer looked really bad last night, and that does make him "look" guilty, for whatever that's worth. Having watched Cramer for years, he strikes me as a guy who, it wouldn't surprise me, engaged in some very nefarious activities back in the day, but is now doing some excellent reporting and work on his show. He told people to get out of this market when the dow was still above 10,000. He told people six months ago that any money they will need for the next 5 years should not be in stocks. He was screaming about the financial crisis back in August of 2007 (and ever since), long before the market topped. These calls have all been very prescient. If they are coming from a crook, well, I guess that's just sad. But, if he is a crook, I certainly want to know that and I am still digging through some of these linked articles looking for evidence of such. (I don't trade based on cramer's recs, but it would still be good to know, obviously.) But so far, I haven't seen any evidence yet that would make me take the word of an anonymous netizen over his. Not yet, but I'm still looking.
BTW - Olbermann is apparently going to declare a first-ever "worst person of the week" tonight. 3 guess who it will be. (I don't know, but I have a hunch.)
I see you just joined today. Are you Jim Cramer?
Cramer himself floated a false story immediately after the iPhone's launch that Apple's wireless partner Cingular (later renamed as AT&T) would provide a year and a half of free mobile service for the iPhone. The story was picked up by blogs and widely publicized on syndication sites like Digg. A myth busting report on the scam noted, "Saying that Cingular will give away $1440 worth of free service to perhaps ten million subscribers in order to earn just $480 from them across two years is an insane prediction."
Assuming the above is true (I don't know), it's not a crime. You are allowed to be wrong. It would only be a crime if it was a deliberate deception AND he made trades based off of that deception. Since he wasn't allowed to trade at that time (outside of his charitable trust, where, again, he can't day-trade), that seems highly unlikely. If you have evidence that he was trading at that time, in a secret account, or a friends account or some such, well, that by itself (as I understand it) would be a crime, regardless of whether or not he tried to profit from this story he "floated". And, of course, I'd like to see some evidence that he knew it was false.
According to the article, Cramer admitted to making up false claims in order to manipulate the stock. When he admits that he intentionally did it, and said it was easy to do, that is illegal. If you don't think so, then study and take the Series 63 exam.
Sorry... I combed through that article line by line, and I can't find any place that says Cramer admitted to this. He talked about how easy it was to do, but that's not the same thing. Having been in that business, I'm sure he saw plenty of it. That doesn't mean that he did or didn't do it. That said, I wouldn't be all that surprised if he did - on his show he very often says words to the effect "I know what these guys do because I used to be one of them." (He did so again tonight.) But, I'd like to see some real evidence, not speculation or opinion.
I can point out one factual inaccuracy in the article, however - it claims that Cramer "specifically cited the example of stirring up rumors that Apple's iPhone would be rejected by both AT&T and Verizon Wireless". I call this as an inaccuracy, and not an outright lie, because it strongly insinuates (without coming right out and saying) that Cramer himself spread this rumor. Watch the video - he talks about the rumor, but clearly describes it as a rumor meant to manipulate stock. At no point does he claim to have spread that rumor, nor does he remotely imply or suggest that the rumor is true. As I have pointed out numerous times in this thread, he wasn't allowed to do any trading at that time, so it's hard to see how he could have benefited from this, and so, hard to see why he would do it.
Is it any wonder that no one has faith in the American economy these days? I guess it's really no surprise that in a country where the importance of media & entertainment are placed so far above education & rational thought, the pinnacle of success is based on strategic manipulation of public opinion rather than actually building a strong, competitive business.
What's unclear is how such a scheme could possible work with two big, glaring, painfully obvious flaws:
A) He didn't have a hedge fund at the time, or any other trading account on which he could have profited from the trade. He was out of the trading business for something like 4 or 5 years when that clip was filmed. Since he is a TV commentator, he isn't allowed any trading accounts except a charitable trust, in which he is not allowed to day-trade, so this scheme couldn't work there. So, unless you are alleging that he has some secret account somewhere, I am "unclear" how he could have profited from this scheme.
He is describing HOW THIS STUFF IS DONE. This is NOT the same thing as doing it. Quite the opposite, it is alerting people to the danger. It's just silly to think that a stock manipulator would operating by posting videos on the web that are publicly available to everyone, including the SEC, in which he plainly states that he is spreading a phony rumor. How could you profit from that? Presumably that's the point, isn't it? To make money without getting arrested?
Again, I'd like to see actual evidence of criminal wrongdoing. I am certainly open to that possibility. But so far all I am seeing are torches and pitchforks.
You're missing a lot. The complete interview [The Street.com Interview] was about how Hedge Funds work. Cramer admitted through the ignorance of the SEC and the loose language of the law it was deemed legal; and even if not, the SEC was too stupid to figure out the legality.
He further claimed on Stewart's interview to not doing so, then having to eat crow as the private interview became public knowledge.
Hedge Funds and derivative markets are scourge.
Sorry... I combed through that article line by line, and I can't find any place that says Cramer admitted to this. He talked about how easy it was to do, but that's not the same thing. Having been in that business, I'm sure he saw plenty of it. That doesn't mean that he did or didn't do it. That said, I wouldn't be all that surprised if he did - on his show he very often says words to the effect "I know what these guys do because I used to be one of them." (He did so again tonight.) But, I'd like to see some real evidence, not speculation or opinion.
I can point out one factual inaccuracy in the article, however - it claims that Cramer "specifically cited the example of stirring up rumors that Apple's iPhone would be rejected by both AT&T and Verizon Wireless". I call this as an inaccuracy, and not an outright lie, because it strongly insinuates (without coming right out and saying) that Cramer himself spread this rumor. Watch the video - he talks about the rumor, but clearly describes it as a rumor meant to manipulate stock. At no point does he claim to have spread that rumor, nor does he remotely imply or suggest that the rumor is true. As I have pointed out numerous times in this thread, he wasn't allowed to do any trading at that time, so it's hard to see how he could have benefited from this, and so, hard to see why he would do it.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Parts I, II and III are right there for you to watch. Dead center of the inline view.
Cramer got sandbagged by that A__hole Stewart. That's the entire story here.
Yeah, why don't we just make it real simple? Stewart is an A_hole and you are real smart.
Cramer got sandbagged by that A__hole Stewart. That's the entire story here.
Don't worry, your man Jim will soon start his new show "SAD (& pathetic) MONEY with Jim Cramer.
On the non-whining, non-partisan, other hand, Cramer knew exactly what he was in for as did anyone familiar with Stewart. He took his licks as a good scapegoat should. He knows, like anyone in public life, that when overall public sentiment is against you, which for Cramer it most certainly is, contrition is the only way to go. Had he really tried to fight back he would've looked an even bigger douche than he already is perceived to be by the non-CNBC watching public. Your boy Jim could have come out guns blazing but would have lost even harder in the court of lay-public opinion. Stewart pointed out, as several on AI have too, that it was unfair to single out Cramer in a sea of douchebaggery but that was where the debate had got to.
I don't like Cramer but I respect him a bit for coming on and putting his hands up. That said, I don't think it hurts him in his core demographic so there wasn't much at risk.
For what, exactly?
Not the brightest tool in the shed, are we "beelzebob".