| ▲ | ck2 7 hours ago |
| What's the statute of limitations on such things? Because it won't be prosecuted by 2029 but could be afterwards Personally I think it's a bigger problem when the President sues his own government for billions and then orders them to pay it out Because -that- is not an official act. It could be prosecuted but no-one will touch it even after 2029 |
|
| ▲ | cheschire 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Doesn’t matter. They’ll be pre-pardoned. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/5829203-presidential... |
|
| ▲ | TZubiri 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| War crimes probably have their own statute of limitations. |
|
| ▲ | cbg0 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Unless somebody snitches there's no real way to prosecute insider trading. You can say you just felt like making a trade, or that you read one of Trump's posts the moment he put it up on Truth Social and you just happened to have the trade ready to go. Unless they're absolute morons, the people doing insider trading for large sums of money will have already built a strong alibi. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Unless somebody snitches there's no real way to prosecute insider trading. You can say you just felt like making a trade If you have perfect opsec, sure, you'll just waste a few years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in court. If you texted a friend, or told a friend who then texted a friend, or traded too soon after receiving privileged information, you're probably fucked. > Unless they're absolute morons At least in securities, the dirty secret is most insider traders are in Congress and/or morons. | |
| ▲ | oa335 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Unless they're absolute morons, the people doing insider trading for large sums of money will have already built a strong alibi. My theory is they are banking on preemptive presidential pardons in Dec 2028. | | | |
| ▲ | ZeroGravitas 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In some nations just gambling on a war that your soldiers have died in would ruin people's careers and possibly their lives permanently as they are shunned by society. In other nations you can illegally sell arms to Iran in order to illegally evade congress's attempts to stop you supplying money to terrorists, illegally shred evidence and lie to congress under oath about it all and get a job as a pundit on Fox News. | |
| ▲ | bdcravens 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm not convinced there won't be someone with a chip on their shoulder eager to snitch. Trump has been known to leave folks out to dry once they're used up (for example, Ruby Giuliani and Mike Lindell). Just today there's been discussion about how Kash Patel feels like he's on the chopping block: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47813001 | |
| ▲ | paulpauper 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | you can say you just felt like making a trade, or that you read one of Trump's posts the moment he put it up on Truth Social and you just happened to have the trade ready to go. An employee with access to Truth Social's backend can in theory do this by reading the tweets he's writing before he sends them. |
|
|
| ▲ | SwellJoe 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Given Trump has promised blanket pardons for any illegality from his administration during his term, I think the question will be whether pardons for crimes not yet investigated/charged are covered by the pardon and whether anyone will pursue those investigations and convictions. Democrats have historically not really been willing to do anything if there's any plausible sounding reason for doing nothing, so I'm guessing they'll jump at the opportunity to wave away the insider trading stuff. Let bygones be bygones, you know, in the spirit of bipartisanship and comity. They slow-rolled prosecuting the crimes of the first Trump administration. So slow that he was re-elected before anything began to happen. |
|
| ▲ | Bud 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
