I'm not so sure. Given Trump's ability to lose money running casinos, I would amend "making money" to "trying to make money".
Well someone is making very large and suspiciously well timed oil trades.
It may be that it's beyond even Trump's ability to mess that up. Though given the level of probity required to serve in Trump's inner circle Trump can't be the only suspect.
Honestly I was assuming Jared Kushner or Don Jr rather than Trump himself.
I'm not so sure. Given Trump's ability to lose money running casinos, I would amend "making money" to "trying to make money".
Well someone is making very large and suspiciously well timed oil trades.
It may be that it's beyond even Trump's ability to mess that up. Though given the level of probity required to serve in Trump's inner circle Trump can't be the only suspect.
Honestly I was assuming Jared Kushner or Don Jr rather than Trump himself.
A reasonable assumption based on past performance.
Yes, it is. It was also previously unthinkable that the U.S. would wage a war for the express purpose of an insider trading scam. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but there's a non-zero chance that is the case and that is a truly frightening thought.
Illegal in terms of legislation or illegal in terms of there being any likelihood of those involved being held accountable?
I'm wondering if promising to appoint an attorney general who will thoroughly crack down on the graft and corruption of the Trump years would be an effective campaign pledge for Democratic presidential candidates in 2028.
Given insider trading is already illegal in America, what is the purpose of the Stop Insider Trading Act that was referred to in the State of the Union address a few weeks ago?
Is it actually a watering down of antitrust regulations, dressed up as a clamp down?
The problem here is not just the insider trading, though that is problematic, but the fact that the inside information that's being used to motivate trade is military secrets. To take another example, someone with the handle "Magamyman" made a large and suspiciously well-timed wager on the assassination of former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Stock deals and internet wagers are fairly publicly visible, so the information is pretty available to anyone paying attention, including American adversaries. I'm sure it doesn't take much imagination to contemplate the likely consequences of someone placing a large bet on the exact time and place of an amphibious assault and the Iranian government noticing that such a wager had been placed.
Details about illegal insider trading, from a Google search
Illegal insider trading in the US involves buying or selling securities based on material, non-public information, violating fiduciary duties. Enforced by the SEC and DOJ under Rule 10b-5, it covers insiders, "tippees," and those misappropriating information. While legal trading by executives exists, illegal trading risks severe penalties, including prison and fines.
Key Aspects of Insider Trading in the US:
Definition:
Trading on information not available to the public that could influence an investor's decision (e.g., earnings, mergers).
Who is Liable: Corporate officers, directors, employees, and often friends or family who receive tips ("tippees").
Misappropriation Theory:
Extends liability to anyone who steals confidential information and uses it to trade, even if not a direct company insider.
Legal vs. Illegal: Corporate insiders (executives/directors) may legally buy/sell company stock, provided the trades are reported and not based on confidential knowledge.
Recent Developments (2026):
Allegations arose regarding unusual market activity on platforms like Polymarket ahead of a US-Iran ceasefire announcement, leading to calls for investigation into potential insider knowledge.
Regulatory Focus: The SEC, DOJ, and increasingly legislators (via proposed acts like the Insider Trading Prohibition Act) seek to tighten restrictions on using material non-public information (MNPI)
We would think Trump would be liable since any trading action he made or caused to be made could hardly be described as an official action as POTUS.
Does it have to be an official action? I thought the SCOTUS decision effectively places the person of the president above the law; not just the office.
Does it have to be an official action? I thought the SCOTUS decision effectively places the person of the president above the law; not just the office.
The SCOTUS decision says former presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts that fall within the president’s “core constitutional powers,” presumptive immunity from prosecution for other official acts and no immunity from prosecution for unofficial acts.
In the past, if there was even a whiff of inappropriate trading, Congress would demand and authorize a special prosecutor to investigate. But with this Republican Congress, they see no evil and hear no evil.
I would hope once there is a congressional change special prosecutor laws would be strengthened without someone's signature.
. I'm sure it doesn't take much imagination to contemplate the likely consequences of someone placing a large bet on the exact time and place of an amphibious assault and the Iranian government noticing that such a wager had been placed.
Considering these geniuses previously accidentally looped a journalist in on their top secret war plans in Yemen
Comments
Honestly I was assuming Jared Kushner or Don Jr rather than Trump himself.
A reasonable assumption based on past performance.
Yes, it is. It was also previously unthinkable that the U.S. would wage a war for the express purpose of an insider trading scam. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but there's a non-zero chance that is the case and that is a truly frightening thought.
I'm wondering if promising to appoint an attorney general who will thoroughly crack down on the graft and corruption of the Trump years would be an effective campaign pledge for Democratic presidential candidates in 2028.
Yes. Though how strict the laws are relative to other jurisdictions, I don't know.
Is it actually a watering down of antitrust regulations, dressed up as a clamp down?
We would think Trump would be liable since any trading action he made or caused to be made could hardly be described as an official action as POTUS.
I would hope once there is a congressional change special prosecutor laws would be strengthened without someone's signature.
Considering these geniuses previously accidentally looped a journalist in on their top secret war plans in Yemen
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/24/journalist-trump-yemen-war-chat-reaction
I certainly wouldn't put money on their opsec being watertight.
'But her emails' eh?