3 ms·

That is absolutely not true. Your brother in law gives you insider information and you use it, you go to prison. You have no fiduciary duty, but you still had i

That is absolutely not true. Your brother in law gives you insider information and you use it, you go to prison. You have no fiduciary duty, but you still had insider information. I have seen this happen in real life.

micromacrofoot 2mo ago
it is true, look it up — the brother in law works because there's breach of duty in the chain ... in the truth social case there's no breach of duty if the president is the one shifting the market without a direct link in the chain. Companies aren't saying "hey we want you to manipulate the market for us" — the president is just outright manipulating it, telling people he knows ahead of time, and reaping the profits that way. There's no fiduciary duty involved at all, so it won't be considered insider trading... you don't even have to believe me, this is literally how it's playing out... This situation is completely untested by the courts.
- DaiPlusPlus 2mo ago
  “The chain” and “fiduciary duty”, which I feel you’re putting too much weight on, are not really relevant, IMO, because (and to my surprise, I’ll admit, “insider trading” is still not really defined in law: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11966 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11966 > Despite the attention insider trading attracts, legislators have not enacted a statutory definition for the offense. But in any event; the sitting US president certainly has a “fiduciary duty” and responsibility to all Americans; whatever he’s doing now is not that.
  - micromacrofoot 2mo ago
    the chain leading back to fiduciary duty is a pretty reliable signal, despite not being codified > But in any event; the sitting US president certainly has a “fiduciary duty” and responsibility to all Americans; whatever he’s doing now is not that. it's debatable which is why there's no mechanism allowing courts to shut it down immediately, a big part of the issue is that the information is also released to the public and the short window of time between privileged and public access hasn't been tested this way before
- sethammons 2mo ago
  > section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each executive branch employee, each judicial officer, and each judicial employee owes a duty arising from a relationship of trust and confidence to the United States Government and the citizens of the United States with respect to material, nonpublic information derived from such person's position as an executive branch employee, judicial officer, or judicial employee or gained from the performance of such person's official responsibilities https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/2038/text/statute https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/203... Seems pretty clear to me
  - micromacrofoot 2mo ago
    > nonpublic information the crux will lie here, the information is made public, and access is only restricted temporarily (possibly seconds)... this may be enough to circumvent the law as written it's not clear at all legally speaking

micromacrofoot 2mo ago

it is true, look it up — the brother in law works because there's breach of duty in the chain ... in the truth social case there's no breach of duty if the president is the one shifting the market without a direct link in the chain. Companies aren't saying "hey we want you to manipulate the market for us" — the president is just outright manipulating it, telling people he knows ahead of time, and reaping the profits that way. There's no fiduciary duty involved at all, so it won't be considered insider trading... you don't even have to believe me, this is literally how it's playing out... This situation is completely untested by the courts.

DaiPlusPlus 2mo ago
“The chain” and “fiduciary duty”, which I feel you’re putting too much weight on, are not really relevant, IMO, because (and to my surprise, I’ll admit, “insider trading” is still not really defined in law: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11966 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11966 > Despite the attention insider trading attracts, legislators have not enacted a statutory definition for the offense. But in any event; the sitting US president certainly has a “fiduciary duty” and responsibility to all Americans; whatever he’s doing now is not that.
- micromacrofoot 2mo ago
  the chain leading back to fiduciary duty is a pretty reliable signal, despite not being codified > But in any event; the sitting US president certainly has a “fiduciary duty” and responsibility to all Americans; whatever he’s doing now is not that. it's debatable which is why there's no mechanism allowing courts to shut it down immediately, a big part of the issue is that the information is also released to the public and the short window of time between privileged and public access hasn't been tested this way before
sethammons 2mo ago
> section 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each executive branch employee, each judicial officer, and each judicial employee owes a duty arising from a relationship of trust and confidence to the United States Government and the citizens of the United States with respect to material, nonpublic information derived from such person's position as an executive branch employee, judicial officer, or judicial employee or gained from the performance of such person's official responsibilities https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/2038/text/statute https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/203... Seems pretty clear to me
- micromacrofoot 2mo ago
  > nonpublic information the crux will lie here, the information is made public, and access is only restricted temporarily (possibly seconds)... this may be enough to circumvent the law as written it's not clear at all legally speaking