| ▲ | k310 3 hours ago |
| Nabbing the little guy for show, very much like Henry Hill taking one for Paulie and the gang. The same gang that robbed the Lufthansa vault at JFK Airport, stealing six million dollars in cash and jewelry. When the history of this administration is written, provided that history itself has not been completely rewritten a la "1984," Goodfellas will be required reading/watching. And the highly profitable daily mood-induced oil price bets will just be forgotten. Wilhoit's Law: Wilhoit's law. “Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” https://pylimitics.net/wilhoits-law/ |
|
| ▲ | jandrewrogers 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > nabbing the little guy Politics aside, he isn't a "little guy". He apparently holds the rank of master sergeant. That's a senior battalion-level role and somewhat political. This isn't some random E-4 getting dragged. |
| |
| ▲ | herewulf an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | This might burst some bubbles but this is absolutely a little guy because anything below a field grade officer (or the CSM sidekick below brigade) is a little guy and a battalion is actually quite low on the food chain. Yes, there are some hard working NCOs and junior Os out there that make shit happen, but they are not the decision makers and make for great fall guys when shit hits the fan. | |
| ▲ | 9x39 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Compared to a member of US Congress, or the senior executive branch, or the CEO class, they’re still nobody and the “little guy”. Not that it’s defensible behavior. | |
| ▲ | dmschulman an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I read this as "why are they going after a soldier who made $30k when they could be going after guys who made seven figures off of expertly timed trades on going to war with Iran" | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent [-] | | He profited $400K. Pursuing this case doesn’t mean they’re excluding other cases. If you read the article this case was very clear because he made amateur moves and didn’t conceal his identity at all. This was an easy nab. All leaks should be pursued regardless of who did it. | | |
| ▲ | jghn an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Trump's insiders own't be investigated | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | There is zero chance this escalates further off this guy. | | |
| ▲ | spydum 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You could place a prediction bet probably. | |
| ▲ | defrost an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Careful, you'll have Ka$hPatel wondering who to throw under a bus just for the giggles, the p0wn, and the extra $100 for his stripper lounge charity. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | appplication 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Master sergeant is a respectable rank (first of senior NCO) but it’s not exactly a high ranking position. Speaking from AF experience, you’ll have a couple of them or higher in a 50 person squadron, and levels like group/wing command they’re oftentimes among the lowest ranking person in the room. This is absolutely a low level soldier getting dragged. | |
| ▲ | DASD 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If he was "behind the fence", at most he would be a team sergeant or maybe even assistant team sergeant. Talking 4-6 members max. | |
| ▲ | bmitc 15 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | According to Google Gemini, there are over 16,000 master sergeants. Might as well be some random, especially when it's literally the president himself, cabinet members, congress, and other cronies directly doing the same and even worse things. | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | A master sergeant is not remotely significant in the world of politics. |
|
|
| ▲ | janalsncm an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| One soldier being arrested does not prevent others from being arrested. If anything, it sets a precedent. Yesterday, people could justifiably say that betting on polymarket had essentially no consequences. Today, we learned there can be consequences. If in a year’s time this is the only person to ever be charged, that’s a different story. |
|
| ▲ | nickburns 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They don't call 'em cannon fodder for nothin'! |
|
| ▲ | gabagool 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Per Goodfellas, "Paulie and the gang" ended up in jail while Henry Hill received witness protection. So, it wasn't just for show |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As other comments said, this wasn’t exactly a “little guy” in rank. He also made it all very obvious and traceable for them through the email addresses he used. From the report it doesn’t appear that he made any effort to conceal his identity or hide his tracks until afterward, by which time it was too late. |
| |
| ▲ | ElProlactin an hour ago | parent [-] | | Well, if people in Congress, the Supreme Court, the administration, etc. don't have to conceal their "activities", why should this guy? He wasn't a "little guy" but apparently his only mistake was not being high enough. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I don’t know why people are trying to defend this guy. We should be upset when anyone tries to use confidential information for personal gain. It’s also a security risk if anyone is incentivized to place bets based on confidential info. I know you’re trying to make a separate point about Congress, but it’s silly to try to turn this into a class warfare thing. Congress didn’t even have this information at the time. | | |
| ▲ | jrumbut 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I haven't seen anyone defend his conduct, but it is natural to discuss his political clout because of this line on TFA: > Today’s announcement makes clear no one is above the law What others are saying, IIUC, is that no reasonable person believes an enlisted soldier (even a senior one) is above the law and that in fact there is a history of them being used as fall guys or scapegoats for people who do enjoy protection on the basis of their social class or government position. Without this specific statement from the FBI director, then it would be "soldier gets caught doing bad thing" and the other part would be off topic. But the article itself introduces the idea of class and impunity. | |
| ▲ | ElProlactin 15 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nobody is defending this person. > ...but it’s silly to try to turn this into a class warfare thing. You can ignore the class warfare but the class warfare isn't ignoring you/your country. |
| |
| ▲ | janalsncm an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because the path to Rule of Law is not deleting/refusing to enforce all laws. Rule of Law means no one is above the law. In practice this is an aspiration (in the U.S. and everywhere else) but giving up on that isn’t going to make the world better. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | bluegatty 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Everything about this statement is completely wrong. False, conspiratorial, dogmatic, juvenile. The arrest and indictment of someone for betting on Polymarket - which has not yet been tested in court - is going to give huge attention and precedence to the likely illegal activities of some of Polymarket shenanigans coming out of the white house. Edit: if this was political, it would be pushed in the other direction. This is the NY DOJ doing their jobs. |
| |
| ▲ | NikolaNovak an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | ... I don't think this is going to be Hacker News fascinating discourse, but the current USA administration is so openly, brazenly, continuously, gleefully corrupt; continuously fire people with ethics and competence and bring in the in-group of equally corrupt ; and have continuously been rewarded for that behaviour; that I feel the OP is merely observationally factual. | | |
| ▲ | 34 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | bluegatty an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The current Executive is 'brazenly criminal', yes, but there is nothing much 'factual; about the OP's comment. None of this remotely has to do with 'Conservatism', it's certainly not ideological, and it's likely not political either. This indictment is going to cause a massive headache for White House as they have likely been involved in 'insider trading'. This is actually regular Justice, finally seeing some movement, to cynically characterize it as otherwise, totally against common sense (aka it's bad for the WH) is just unsound. I think it demonstrates the kind of bubble a lot of people live in, which is maybe understandable in the current climate, where horrible behaviours have gone unpunished. But still. This is the story of a state doj doing their job. |
| |
| ▲ | behringer 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What? Military trials are not necessarily public. | | |
| ▲ | bluegatty an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | It's by the Southern District of NY and the case will get national attention. This is a hugely negative thing for the Administration, as District Attorneys, SEC staff, etc. are going to be actively seeking how this could parlay into investigations and indictments of the people in the White House making Polymarket and other speculative bets just before government actions. There are 100's lawyers reading that right now getting inspired on how they can take action to turn their investigative powers onto whoever those actors are aka family members or associates of those in the White House / Cabinet. An investigation could be done at the State Level, away from the control of the DoJ, and, if it yields evidence, it wouldn't have to even make it's way through the courts in order to be political destructive. The suggestion by the OP this has anything to do with ideology or the ruling power throwing one under the bus is ridiculous. Note that the ruling regime isn't above such a thing, but that's not what is happening here because it definitely does not serve their interests - it's the total opposite. This could turn into a political nightmare that crashes the party. Edit: if we want to be 'hopefully cynical' - recognize that this could absolutely be the vector that takes the man down, or even many of them. Imagine how many WH, Cabinet Members, family members could get investigated for this and under purvue of state investigators where the investigation can't get shut down. | |
| ▲ | bonsai_spool an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | This was charged by DOJ not under a military tribunal |
|
|
|
| ▲ | akudha an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When the history of this administration is written I often think about how much we can trust history 20-30 years from now. It is hard to trust history from hundreds of years ago, either because it was written by victors or because there just isn't enough material in the first place. I suppose we have the opposite problem now (and in the future) - too much noise and junk, whole bunch of it generated by AI slop - where does one even start? |
| |
|
| ▲ | JohnTHaller an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For everyone saying this isn't some little guy... compared to the administration which is engaging in the same thing, it's a little guy designed to be a distraction. |
|
| ▲ | busterarm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Authority-wise, a MSG in the army isn't exactly a little guy either. That's quite a senior role. In their battalion they likely head either operations, intelligence or supply. This isn't joe schlub making side bets here. This is a senior late-career enlisted in an extremely sensitive position violating all of their trust and authority to cash out big. |
| |
| ▲ | herewulf an hour ago | parent [-] | | That MSG works for a Captain or a Lieutenant. If said MSG is good, there might be a future of advising a commanding officer on uniforms and length of grass at increasingly higher echelons. The rank is not newsworthy. |
|
|
| ▲ | RhysU 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wilholt's essay is a nice one. But it amounts to defining the opposition in a way that's easy to tear apart followed by tearing it apart. It's a cute trick but isn't much of a basis for serious discussion. Watch: Wilholt's essay consists of exactly and only one indefensible, rhetorical sleight of hand. Consequently, no one can honestly defend it. Attempts to do so are undeserving of serious scrutiny. After tearing down a strawman, he claims high ground: > The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone. But you'll get a fair bit of support for Wilholt's so-called anti-conservative principle from a fair number of prominent conservative thinkers. |
| |
| ▲ | zaptheimpaler 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The modern US conservative party really does seem to believe only in that one principle and nothing else. They will pardon actual sex traffickers like Andrew Tate and worse as long as they're on their side. They will defend any action at all by Trump, no matter how vile or illegal or stupid or wrong. It's not a sleight of hand if its true. | | |
| ▲ | RhysU 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Go read a few months worth of the National Review. Many prominent conservative thinkers are not particularly big fans of Trump. They like portions of his initiatives and policies but not him as a standard bearer, because he does dumb, ill-principled stuff at odds with conservatism. Peggy Noonan of the WSJ can't write two sentences without letting you know how much she disdains Trump, e.g. | | |
| ▲ | zaptheimpaler 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I guess I should clarify it to the modern US conservative party. I know there are a few dissenters even there, but 95% of them vote the way he wants and of course we could have impeached Trump and many cabinet officials long ago if they voted that way. They unquestionably enable this administration. I think its fair to say they represent the conservatives broadly, certainly they are the people the nations conservative citizens elected and continue to support. | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | paulpauper 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I made a similar argument and was downvoted. Yeah, the well-connected pay a fine when caught. This guy's mistake was not knowing he did not belong to that club. He amounted to no more than a fall guy. |
|
| ▲ | jongjong an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There seems to be a pattern that if someone who was not pre-selected by some elites ends up making their own money (I.e. real 'self-made') they are swiftly attacked by the system. On the other hand, look at Nancy Pelosi; she didn't get into any trouble. Are people allowed to be self-made anymore? For me personally, after years of planning and hard work, I once managed to secure myself about $40k of passive income from a blockchain in crypto; this lasted a few years but eventually the founders suspiciously abandoned the entire tech stack (for no reason) and switched to Ethereum; this destroyed the opportunity for me; literally lost that stream entirely. Now, recently, I was able to re-establish a passive income stream of about $10k per year from a non-crypto source; this is from an opportunity I took over 10 years ago... I'm worried about that being taken away somehow. |
|
| ▲ | george916a 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Oh, and let’s not forget the politicians like Pelosi, the Clintons and many other top Democratic Party politicians, repeatedly engaged in insider trading of stocks, often times using classified information, for multi million dollars profits. Almost never investigated. Practically never convicted. |
| |