4 ms·
“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, “inside
by 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 agothe 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