Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 170 posts

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#121

Post by testfoobar »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #111
testfoobar wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allegations of insider trading are not the same as convictions of insider trading. No publication should be in the business of allocating criminal responsibility in advance of legal proceedings. If a crime is suspected then it should be reported to the authorities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

I don't understand this response. Certainly they shouldn't say "Mr. John Smith is guilty" if a court hasn't found that. But there's nobody in particular being named here, just clear evidence that someone must have done it. If the police find a dead body, should newspapers pretend the victim might be alive somehow to avoid allocating criminal responsibility for murder?

By researching, writing and publishing this article both the reporter and the news org believe there is significant public value in publishing this information.

But it is a higher and more restricted standard to say a crime has been committed. Journalists can uncover and publish evidence that a crime has been likely committed.

Journalists cannot make a legal determination that a crime has or has not been committed. This is left for courts.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#122

Post by cosmicgadget »

yanhangyhy wrote: post #119

Can anyone tell me why a great democratic system is unable to prevent this kind of problem? Even when it happens, there seem to be no effective measures to deal with it.

The pardon power is absolute, so his accomplices have an out. The president has broad immunity that likely applies here or at least would be years of litigation. The only way to stop this is impeachment and 2/3rds of the Senate voting to convict. It is hard to imagine anything that would get the GOP to convict their president.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#123

Post by ruszki »

awakeasleep wrote: post #88
idle_zealot wrote: post #62

> Some analysts say it bears the hallmarks of illegal insider trading, whereby bets are made by people based on information that is not available to the general public. > Others say the picture is more complicated and that some traders have become more adept at anticipating the president's interventions. This and the title are journalistic malpractice. This is an article designed to report on obvious insider trading,…

It may be different in the UK. They have defamation laws that seem insane to a USA person. (Burden of proof on the speaker to prove what they said is true iirc)

I never understood this. Basically every country, including the US, has libel and slander laws, and almost the same everywhere in the West. People were thrown to jail even in America for "a single tweet", the exact same way as in the UK. And for example, saying that you support violence in specific cases, like there is an ongoing riot, and you tweet "kill them all", that's not protected by any free speech laws in the world, not even the American, or any states' in America.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#124

Post by jmyeet »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #117
jmyeet wrote: post #80

Here are the lessons: 1. The Supreme Court is not some neutral arbiter of a hallowed intractable document. They are political actors. Just like history books now write about the disastrous Court of the 1850s that went completely off the rails (Reconstruction wasn't much better), history will likewise write about the Roberts court as (IMHO) the worst in American history, particularly Citizens United and Trump v. Unite…

> My personal opinion is that nothing will be solved. It's too late to do anything about this with electoral politics. Democratic politicians and the mainstream media has spent more effort attacking Hasan Piker in the last month than attacking Trump's foreseeably disastrous war or outright corruption with insider trading and pardons. What? This is obviously untrue. You can add up every piece of Hasan Piker content CN…

Democratic politicians have been remarkably silent on the war as a policy issue. The complaints are primarily around process. Even the milquetoast War Powers Resolution, which was doomed to fail anyway, was just process.

Back in the presidential election, Kamala called Iran our greatest threat. Today’s leaders are variations of this.

The most prominent race in this time has been the Michigan Democratic Senate primary where Al-Sayed is against it but I’ve honestly seen more hit pieces about Piker campaigning with him than anything about Iran as an issue in the race.

Look past all the stories like “this is the Strait of Hormuz”, “it’s open/closed”, “rising gas prices” and peace talks. Those are just telling you what’s going on.

What Democrats have you really seen that have talked about being against the actual policy? It’s surprisingly little.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#125

Post by cosmicgadget »

dwd wrote: post #75

While insider trading is always a possibility, what often happen is trades are made in anticipation of an announcement without knowing what the announcement actually is, and Trump really is fairly predictable. You know hes going to TACO, question is when. I would be more interested to know if the traders had insider knowledge of timing of the announcement or if it was leaked.

> It found a consistent pattern of spikes just hours, or sometimes minutes, before a social media post or media interview was made public.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#126

Post by cosmicgadget »

waynecochran wrote: post #48
defrost wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pelosi got a free Presidential jet and scooped the inside trades on Iran? Trump set a stratosphereic high bar for examples par excellence, I doubt all of Pelosi's husband trades add up to a signifigant fraction of Trump's crypto gains alone.

You can actually buy an iOS app that mimicks Nancy Pelosi stock picks! Top that!

Oh boy, following her trades 90 days later. Cannot be topped.

Wait, have any congressmen topped her rate of return?

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#127

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

jmyeet wrote: post #124
SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My personal opinion is that nothing will be solved. It's too late to do anything about this with electoral politics. Democratic politicians and the mainstream media has spent more effort attacking Hasan Piker in the last month than attacking Trump's foreseeably disastrous war or outright corruption with insider trading and pardons. What? This is obviously untrue. You can add up every piece of Hasan Piker content CN…

Democratic politicians have been remarkably silent on the war as a policy issue. The complaints are primarily around process. Even the milquetoast War Powers Resolution, which was doomed to fail anyway, was just process. Back in the presidential election, Kamala called Iran our greatest threat. Today’s leaders are variations of this. The most prominent race in this time has been the Michigan Democratic Senate primary…

On March 2, three days after the beginning of the war, Hakeem Jeffries went on CNN to explain his objections to the actual policy (https://jeffries.house.gov/2026/03/02/leader-jeffries-on-cnn...). He said that the bombing was justified by claims that aren't true, that there's no justification for a regime change war in any case, and that the practical consequences of the war will be bad for both American strategic interests and the American people.

As he mentions, while you may consider a war powers resolution "milquetoast", it's important to understand that this is the best lever he has available to try and stop the war. It's easy for Hasan to be mean and dunk on hypocritical Republicans, because Hasan's not the one who has to convince hypocritical Republicans to cross the aisle and vote for his bills.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#128

Post by defrost »

cosmicgadget wrote: post #126
waynecochran wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can actually buy an iOS app that mimicks Nancy Pelosi stock picks! Top that!

Oh boy, following her trades 90 days later. Cannot be topped. Wait, have any congressmen topped her rate of return?

They sure have - see Chris Joseph's comments, the developer of the Pelosi stock tracker app, about having numerous examples from both sides of the aisles of numerous congress members who have traded more and had better returns.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#129

Post by joecool1029 »

ruszki wrote: post #123
awakeasleep wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be different in the UK. They have defamation laws that seem insane to a USA person. (Burden of proof on the speaker to prove what they said is true iirc)

I never understood this. Basically every country, including the US, has libel and slander laws, and almost the same everywhere in the West. People were thrown to jail even in America for "a single tweet", the exact same way as in the UK. And for example, saying that you support violence in specific cases, like there is an ongoing riot, and you tweet "kill them all", that's not protected by any free speech laws in the…

You can actually tweet/write agreement with acts of violence and advocate for it in a general sense in the US. The legal standard is whether that speech is a threat to imminent violence (encouraging violence at a specific place and time): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Furthermore, defamation/libel is not covered under criminal law, it’s considered a tort so it would be a civil suit.

So no, not at all like the UK.

EDIT: But yeah sure if you want to try to defend your point, start linking cases to support the claim.

Re: The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

#130

Post by librasteve »

sometimes_all wrote: post #116
librasteve wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, and Trump will no doubt retort that this is BBC fake news in the light of their legal battle over (improperly) editing his speech the BBC is required by its charter to provide a “balanced” view and this often result in unbearable smugness and vaulting to “we are the ultimate arbiters of truth” this is a big pity, because the alternative is Fox News / GB News

> the BBC is required by its charter to provide a “balanced” view I find this hilarious; the BBC has rarely provided a balanced view on many things. Indians (at almost every point in the political and social spectrum) will easily notice the bias and smug holier-than-thou attitude on India-specific news/opinion.

well yes, balanced as in the net Islington dinner party
Post reply on HN