4 ms·

Huh that’s interesting. The sycophants in DC seem to be able to do everything listed here with no repercussions.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> sycophants in DC Who? Because if you have evidence of military secrets being leaked through prediction markets, we actually need that journalistic record maintained.
- remus 6mo ago
  I don't think the parent mentioned military secrets in particular? But the insider trading is already well documented e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge0grppe3po https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge0grppe3po
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > the insider trading The suspect hasn't been charged with insider trading. (OP said those "in DC seem to be able to do everything listed.")
    - AlecSchueler 6mo ago
      > The suspect hasn't been charged with insider trading. I think that was the point GP was making.
  - varjag 6mo ago
    Pretty sure Count 1 through 5 above cover insider trading by administration officials too.
    - bandrami 6mo ago
      The problem is "insider trading" has a definition and acting based on knowledge of government secrets isn't what it is.
      - jonathanstrange 6mo ago
        IANAL but what you state seems to literally fall under the STOCK Act of 2012. It is one kind of insider trading.
      - varjag 6mo ago
        And what I am saying is that the same articles of prosecution as in the soldier's case are applicable for their case too. Not going after them is a choice.
    - enoint 6mo ago
      I think 3 and 4 are frauds on others in the prediction market agreement. As in, it’s fraud against the terms of the market.
- itake 6mo ago
  I don't know who, but there are a lot of news articles about high volume oil trading activities shortly before publicly military action.
- victorbjorklund 6mo ago
  You don’t think the Trump admin leaked any secrets at all? No chats on signal? Nothing like that?
- foo12bar 6mo ago
  There's plenty of evidence of it happening, if you consider the odds of surges of pre-market trading of oil futures 20 minutes before Trump tweets on Iran happening coincidentally. The actual finding of who's who has to be done by the U.S. law enforcement, who aren't really interested.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > plenty of evidence of it happening There is circumstantial evidence. We need to collate that. But nothing trumps direct evidence. If someone has that I will bend over backwards to find a way to securely connect them with, at the very least, a reporter who can document it so it shows up in an internet search when an empowered staffer starts down this path.
    - pixl97 6mo ago
      The problem with this administration is that what you're saying will eventually happen. It will come out they were trading on this. And not a damned thing will happen.
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > not a damned thing will happen This is more lazy nihilism. Fortunately, it remains a minority view.
benmw333 6mo ago
Hey hey now - the occasional $200? $250? fine is devastating enough on our selfless, dedicated, public servants!

> sycophants in DC Who? Because if you have evidence of military secrets being leaked through prediction markets, we actually need that journalistic record maintained.

remus 6mo ago
I don't think the parent mentioned military secrets in particular? But the insider trading is already well documented e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge0grppe3po https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge0grppe3po
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > the insider trading The suspect hasn't been charged with insider trading. (OP said those "in DC seem to be able to do everything listed.")
  - AlecSchueler 6mo ago
    > The suspect hasn't been charged with insider trading. I think that was the point GP was making.
- varjag 6mo ago
  Pretty sure Count 1 through 5 above cover insider trading by administration officials too.
  - bandrami 6mo ago
    The problem is "insider trading" has a definition and acting based on knowledge of government secrets isn't what it is.
    - jonathanstrange 6mo ago
      IANAL but what you state seems to literally fall under the STOCK Act of 2012. It is one kind of insider trading.
    - varjag 6mo ago
      And what I am saying is that the same articles of prosecution as in the soldier's case are applicable for their case too. Not going after them is a choice.
  - enoint 6mo ago
    I think 3 and 4 are frauds on others in the prediction market agreement. As in, it’s fraud against the terms of the market.
itake 6mo ago
I don't know who, but there are a lot of news articles about high volume oil trading activities shortly before publicly military action.
victorbjorklund 6mo ago
You don’t think the Trump admin leaked any secrets at all? No chats on signal? Nothing like that?
foo12bar 6mo ago
There's plenty of evidence of it happening, if you consider the odds of surges of pre-market trading of oil futures 20 minutes before Trump tweets on Iran happening coincidentally. The actual finding of who's who has to be done by the U.S. law enforcement, who aren't really interested.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > plenty of evidence of it happening There is circumstantial evidence. We need to collate that. But nothing trumps direct evidence. If someone has that I will bend over backwards to find a way to securely connect them with, at the very least, a reporter who can document it so it shows up in an internet search when an empowered staffer starts down this path.
  - pixl97 6mo ago
    The problem with this administration is that what you're saying will eventually happen. It will come out they were trading on this. And not a damned thing will happen.
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > not a damned thing will happen This is more lazy nihilism. Fortunately, it remains a minority view.

benmw333 6mo ago

Hey hey now - the occasional $200? $250? fine is devastating enough on our selfless, dedicated, public servants!