4 ms·
To be clear, here, this form of "manipulation" is kind of impossible to really deal with? Or do you have something in mind that should be able to more smoothly
by taeric 2y ago
To be clear, here, this form of "manipulation" is kind of impossible to really deal with? Or do you have something in mind that should be able to more smoothly work with this?
- kevin_thibedeau 2y agoSEC has reversed suspicious trades in the past.
- taeric 2y agoFrom the president of the united states? Especially knowing that controlling tariffs and such are easily argued to be in his core powers, in the current setting, what authority would they possibly have to do something on this?
- mdhen 2y agothey can reverse the options trades that look like they had insider info. This is a thing that the SEC does.
- taeric 2y agoBut they would have to prove insider info? Which would require discovery against communications to/from the president. Which you know they would argue against. So, let me rephrase, do you think it is likely that they would do anything?
- zerd 2y ago> easily argued to be in his core powers I'd say arguably. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_administration#Legality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_second_Trump_ad...
- taeric 2y agoAny action they are taking around deciding whether or not there is a national security interest in managing tariffs is easily covered by everyone's understanding of what is in the presidential duties. As such, it is fully off limits for any review, per last year's immunity ruling. No? Now, congress can take away that delegation. They could also cancel any declarations. But actions taken by the admin in pursuing this will almost certainly be seen as core duties by the supreme court. As such, I don't see any real opening for review in this?