alt.hn

4/20/2026 at 1:50:35 AM

The insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency

 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cge0grppe3po

by blondie9x

4/20/2026 at 3:22:25 AM

> Some analysts say it bears the hallmarks of illegal insider trading, whereby bets are made by people based on information that is not available to the general public. > Others say the picture is more complicated and that some traders have become more adept at anticipating the president's interventions.

This and the title are journalistic malpractice. This is an article designed to report on obvious insider trading, and the writer clearly knows and agrees that it's obvious, but goes out of their way to throw in concessions and a build a veil of neutrality. You are legally allowed to accuse public officials of crimes. You do not have to gesture at "looming suspicions." A neutral reporting of the facts would make such an accusation, and tie it into the broader pattern of criminality. But it's more important to perform neutrality than to be honest, so we get this garbage. "Mr President, would you please comment on the allegations that-" "Shut up, piggie."

by idle_zealot

4/20/2026 at 3:56:01 AM

It may be different in the UK. They have defamation laws that seem insane to a USA person. (Burden of proof on the speaker to prove what they said is true iirc)

by awakeasleep

4/20/2026 at 5:59:31 AM

I never understood this. Basically every country, including the US, has libel and slander laws, and almost the same everywhere in the West. People were thrown to jail even in America for "a single tweet", the exact same way as in the UK. And for example, saying that you support violence in specific cases, like there is an ongoing riot, and you tweet "kill them all", that's not protected by any free speech laws in the world, not even the American, or any states' in America.

by ruszki

4/20/2026 at 6:22:43 AM

You can actually tweet/write agreement with acts of violence and advocate for it in a general sense in the US. The legal standard is whether that speech is a threat to imminent violence (encouraging violence at a specific place and time): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

Furthermore, defamation/libel is not covered under criminal law, it’s considered a tort so it would be a civil suit.

So no, not at all like the UK.

EDIT: But yeah sure if you want to try to defend your point, start linking cases to support the claim.

by joecool1029

4/20/2026 at 10:10:48 AM

What on earth does defamation being a civil offense have to do with anything? It's a civil offense in the UK too, criminal defamation hasn't been a thing since 2010 and was barely a thing before then. If you want to confidently post how one thing is not at all like the other thing it might be a good idea to know the most basic facts about the other thing.

by amenhotep

4/20/2026 at 4:15:52 AM

Allegations of insider trading are not the same as convictions of insider trading. No publication should be in the business of allocating criminal responsibility in advance of legal proceedings. If a crime is suspected then it should be reported to the authorities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

by testfoobar

4/20/2026 at 5:42:45 AM

Justice or Just ICE?

The rule of law hasn’t been an impediment for some, when the legal machinery has been co-opted

by zeristor

4/20/2026 at 5:52:56 AM

What if they just said "insider trading (the act)" and not "insider trading (the crime)"?

by cosmicgadget

4/20/2026 at 5:30:41 AM

I don't understand this response. Certainly they shouldn't say "Mr. John Smith is guilty" if a court hasn't found that. But there's nobody in particular being named here, just clear evidence that someone must have done it. If the police find a dead body, should newspapers pretend the victim might be alive somehow to avoid allocating criminal responsibility for murder?

by SpicyLemonZest

4/20/2026 at 1:12:18 PM

> just clear evidence that someone must have done it

I would love to hear more about this clear evidence. There is smoke, sure, but clear evidence, I would love to hear more on your investigation.

I've been algorithmically trading for several years now, collecting data, running machine learning prediction algorithms and whatnot. Anyway, I made 4500% off a high risk 1 DTE options play between Thursday/Friday. This trade was put in right before the geopolitical announcements sent the Russell 2000 into Captain Insano mode overnight. This isn't the first time I've done this - it's a valid trading strategy with the continuous drama/volatility that Mr DJT brings to the markets. I'm sure if there are any insider trading flags I set them off on Friday, and for people who have no idea how markets work and what volume normally looks like, it would definitely look like an insider.

I realized long ago that to make money doing this, all bias/emotions need removed and the only thing that can be relied on is math. Have you ever considered that some of the bigger prop shop trading firms with a lot of buying power are just extremely good at what they do?

by Shocka1

4/20/2026 at 5:58:42 AM

By researching, writing and publishing this article both the reporter and the news org believe there is significant public value in publishing this information.

But it is a higher and more restricted standard to say a crime has been committed. Journalists can uncover and publish evidence that a crime has been likely committed.

Journalists cannot make a legal determination that a crime has or has not been committed. This is left for courts.

by testfoobar

4/20/2026 at 7:46:14 AM

That's ludicrous hair splitting.

If I have evidence that a crime has been committed based on my layperson understanding of the law, I will surely inform others before the case is even brought to courts. Journalists can and should do the same.

By your logic, reporting based on evidence provided by whistleblowers shouldn't exist. Things like Watergate would likely have never happened.

Journalists shouldn't accuse anyone of committing a crime, and goes without saying that facts shouldn't be fabricated, which is unfortunately common nowadays as well, but they should report events that happened based on the information they have, whether these happen to be related to crimes or not.

by imiric

4/20/2026 at 9:26:56 AM

Reporting based on evidence is definitely allowed in the UK. Any accusation of libel/slander could be defended by producing the evidence and thus proving that the statements were true.

Going beyond the evidence and jumping straight to the crime is where the situation becomes tricky as the defense would be unlikely to prove beyond doubt that the accused person was actually guilty - that's why terms are used such as "alleged child abuser". Alternatively, the evidence/facts can be reported e.g. "Trump featured in many victim reports as an abuser".

by ndsipa_pomu

4/20/2026 at 10:17:53 AM

The term is sanewashing.

None of this kleptocracy is normal, or sane, or acceptable.

by imglorp

4/20/2026 at 3:40:00 AM

Once you start seeing all the "both sides" and "sanewashing" you can't unsee it. And they lean on both so hard.

by davidw

4/20/2026 at 12:58:47 PM

who is "they"?

by red-iron-pine

4/20/2026 at 5:36:46 AM

yeah, and Trump will no doubt retort that this is BBC fake news in the light of their legal battle over (improperly) editing his speech

the BBC is required by its charter to provide a “balanced” view and this often result in unbearable smugness and vaulting to “we are the ultimate arbiters of truth”

this is a big pity, because the alternative is Fox News / GB News

by librasteve

4/20/2026 at 5:42:59 AM

> the BBC is required by its charter to provide a “balanced” view

I find this hilarious; the BBC has rarely provided a balanced view on many things. Indians (at almost every point in the political and social spectrum) will easily notice the bias and smug holier-than-thou attitude on India-specific news/opinion.

by sometimes_all

4/20/2026 at 6:23:01 AM

well yes, balanced as in the net Islington dinner party

by librasteve

4/20/2026 at 6:26:36 AM

as a brit that has lived in the US and EU and visited many places (not yet India) … I can well imagine that the BBC looks like the British imposing our views with a wrapper of intolerable righteousness … please allow me to apologise on behalf of all us licence payers

by librasteve

4/20/2026 at 6:44:27 AM

Why would you have to apologize? If I had to apologize on behalf of all the drivel Indian newspapers write, it'd take me more than a month.

It's pretty clear that newspapers around the world are now decoupling from the actual wishes and necessities of their subscribers/licensees. The latter are not to blame, especially when they are willing to pay for their news.

Plus I don't have to read the BBC if I don't want to, but media literacy, combing through nonsense and finding the actual necessary bits, etc. are important, and that needs me to read news from different sources and countries, including that of BBC sometimes.

by sometimes_all

4/20/2026 at 9:32:46 AM

You clearly haven't spent long enough in Blighty to identify sarcasm.

by GJim

4/20/2026 at 9:57:47 AM

Apologies. I haven't even spent a minute in Blighty, so I took their post in good faith. I should've learned from my experiences with their news...

by sometimes_all

4/20/2026 at 9:30:06 AM

>the BBC is required by its charter to provide a “balanced” view

You say this like it is a bad thing.

The BBC journalism is rather good and quite rightly seeks to be as impartial as possible. To compare the likes of Rupert Murdoch as a credible alternative to be BBC (or indeed, any news media which lacks a 'fairness doctrine') is simply idiotic.

by GJim

4/20/2026 at 3:42:17 AM

Thank you. I was going to simply comment "Suspicions"!?!

… but you've explained it more thoroughly.

by dlenski

4/20/2026 at 2:37:04 AM

Given the scope of all government officials it should just be the case that you cannot trade individual equities, stocks or have any outside investments wholesale.

Otherwise how could you stop it? It’s not like when you work at big co and you just stop trading their stock. You get access to information that clearly will be material potentially months in advance.

by amazingamazing

4/20/2026 at 2:40:30 AM

How about we start with congress and see how that goes? Been a point of discussion for a long, long time and politicians do not seem to be interested in regulating themselves at all.

by stingraycharles

4/20/2026 at 2:42:43 AM

Yeah. Lots of problems. If I could only get three wishes I’d choose implementation of score voting for presidential election and congress, introduction of recall votes and introduction of national ballot questions.

Those should fix most of the problems with time.

by amazingamazing

4/20/2026 at 3:26:06 AM

I'd add to that list the option to vote "no confidence". About half of Americans do not vote, and I strongly suspect that for a large chunk of them it's because they feel there's no candidate which represents their interests.

by helterskelter

4/20/2026 at 3:04:28 AM

Until money and politics are commingled there will be no solution

by KumaBear

4/20/2026 at 3:07:23 AM

I think you may mean disentangled?

by Avicebron

4/20/2026 at 5:07:48 AM

Which is almost the same as saying "until money and power become disentangled", which is very unlikely to happen in our lifetimes (if at all).

by stingraycharles

4/20/2026 at 3:07:30 AM

Personally I think they’re inherently linked. How exactly would it look like for money and politics not to be linked? Money is political. There are some low hanging fruit though like corporate personhood and super pacs.

by amazingamazing

4/20/2026 at 4:21:58 AM

Start with public campaign financing, and saner election procedures. Primaries, caucuses, first last the post, and electoral college? It all contributes.

by bediger4000

4/20/2026 at 3:03:22 AM

Ok, let's make it Congress and everyone working an elected position or political appointment in the executive branch as well. All good!

by eli_gottlieb

4/20/2026 at 3:48:03 AM

They'll just do something similar to what some engineering managers do in the software industry. They'll tip off their cousin or friend of a friend of some opportunity (like needing to hire 10 engineers for a new initiative) and when they make money by acting on the information they reward the tipper with cars, vacations, homes, etc.

Sometimes managers will only hire through staffing agencies owned by family friends and get indirect kickbacks.

When I first heard about this my initial question was how do they not get caught when the assets are gifted or transferred to the manager's name. Turns out they don't actually transfer the assets to their name but they effectively own it through free usage.

by phyzix5761

4/20/2026 at 3:03:22 AM

My spouse was a minor elected official in california, so we had to fill out form 700. I was already pretty much ready to go on broad based mutual funds, but needing to fill that out for anything that isn't a broad based mutual fund put any thoughts of individual equities out of my mind. (Other than employment based stock, which we reported out of caution, even though my employer had no operations in or near the district)

by toast0

4/20/2026 at 2:59:39 AM

Nit: MNPI (material, non-public information) has strict definitions. Not all internal information are considered MNPI.

by yegle

4/20/2026 at 3:04:07 AM

The vast majority of government employees would not have access to MNPI.

by jonstewart

4/20/2026 at 2:38:47 AM

The problem is Trump’s family and friends and donors and people who have otherwise bribed him all can benefit from actions the administration takes. It’s not as simple as restricting the current officials.

by SilverElfin

4/20/2026 at 2:39:24 AM

Why does making this rule matter? The pardon makes it all irrelevant.

by renewiltord

4/20/2026 at 3:01:05 AM

Why do any rules matter for government officials? Should we just make all laws not apply to them because of the pardon?

by gdhkgdhkvff

4/20/2026 at 5:21:22 AM

I think adding any new rules on them is going to have no effect if we expect the laws to constrain exactly those people who are likely to be pardoned, yes.

by renewiltord

4/20/2026 at 2:40:06 AM

My hot take is that the presidential pardon will be eliminated in our lifetime.

by amazingamazing

4/20/2026 at 2:49:03 AM

I suspect in the aftermath of this administration, the power of the President as a whole is going to be massively stripped back.

by ocdtrekkie

4/20/2026 at 2:52:57 AM

Has not happened after other catastrophic administrations. Each party likes the power when they get hold of it.

by oatmeal1

4/20/2026 at 3:12:50 AM

Congresscritters like personal power. Trump has neutered even his own party's legislators and they do not like it, even if they fall in line out of fear. Keep in mind even when Trump is in power, his own party goes through processes like "pro forma" sessions which prevent him from making recess appointments.

by ocdtrekkie

4/20/2026 at 3:00:41 AM

That seems highly questionable given how little pushback Trump got in congress, and it was almost entirely along party lines. What makes you think they'll suddenly grow a spine in 3 years?

by gruez

4/20/2026 at 4:24:13 AM

They're probably counting on the majority of the current Congress losing their seats over this.

by sofixa

4/20/2026 at 3:07:28 AM

The issue is people are afraid of him. There was plenty of Republican opposition to Trump but people either fell in line or got pushed out. (The main problem is that people didn't have the courage to oppose him all at once, he can easily handle one threat at a time.)

I suspect even of Republicans voting in the lines today, they don't like him or his behavior but are too self-interested to do anything about it. When a new administration comes in, between Republicans happy to avoid a Democrat or one of their own have that power again, and Democrats ready to ensure another Trump can never happen again, we'll have bipartisan support for crippling presidential power.

by ocdtrekkie

4/20/2026 at 4:31:21 AM

There are plenty of rules in place today which say the President cannot do X thing. I do not see how adding rules to the book changes anything if the Congressional/judicial enforcement becomes so impotent to use the tools at their disposal.

by 3eb7988a1663

4/20/2026 at 2:50:37 AM

I think it'll be interesting to see what the consequences are. In India, it used to be (I haven't lived there in decades) pretty par for the course for a new party to come into power and jail all the previous party's heads for corruption and then when it yoyos over the inverse would happen. That would be a worse outcome for the US, I think. It would stall any significant action from the government.

by arjie

4/20/2026 at 3:04:07 AM

I think we allowed a sense of decorum and a hope we could just "move on" to avoid that happening in 2021, and now we are suffering the wrath of not doing it. I suspect we will not make the same mistake in 2029.

by ocdtrekkie

4/20/2026 at 3:26:38 AM

[flagged]

by nailer

4/20/2026 at 5:36:02 AM

What is the purpose of posting like this? Do you think we're going to forget he was being punished for launching a coup in 2021 if you don't mention it?

by SpicyLemonZest

4/20/2026 at 2:00:39 PM

No, because that's a deranged conspriacy theory. Trump didn't sieze control of the military, a column of tanks didn't descent upon Washington, and Trump told protesters to stand back and stand by.

For the record, I think Trump is a jackass. How did your suposed coup compare with Turkey? With Prigozhin in Russia? You clearly have zero knowledge and zero experience with coups.

by nailer

4/20/2026 at 2:14:31 PM

It didn't work well because Trump didn't prepare well, seeming to genuinely believe that he could deploy his dealmaking skills to convince various decisionmakers to fabricate an election victory. Now he is in control of the military, has extensively replaced its professional leadership with toadies, and National Guard troops from states he considers to be politically reliable have been deployed in Washington for the past 8 months.

I think it compares quite well, and I worry that the same quislings who refuse to see it are going to be there in 2028 insisting that we should just let him cancel the election results to avoid bloodshed.

by SpicyLemonZest

4/20/2026 at 3:24:53 AM

That might work out well for the Republicans - "rule by executive order" started under the Obama administration.

by nailer

4/20/2026 at 2:58:29 AM

I thought that would happen after the first Trump term. It did not.

The second one has made an even stronger case for doing so though.

by simonw

4/20/2026 at 2:36:53 AM

Despite the apathy of Americans, I continue to have hope that there will be consequences for all recent and past actions. It's unfortunate that recent events are only the tip of the iceberg, too many to even remember.

by e2le

4/20/2026 at 2:53:20 AM

What were the consequences after 2008 financial crisis?

by zx8080

4/20/2026 at 3:14:32 AM

We created a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to try to head off that kind of crisis before it happened again.

We got rid of it last year.

by jfengel

4/20/2026 at 2:56:25 AM

Nothing

Stock market at all time highs

Miami houses selling north of $150,000,000.00

No one cares about that crisis anymore

The markets keep ripping no matter what

Just some hiccups along the way

by r0fl

4/20/2026 at 3:18:59 AM

You’re correct, but this is unsustainable.

by josuepeq

4/20/2026 at 3:00:03 AM

Well, in order to go up, first it must go down…

by night862

4/20/2026 at 3:03:47 AM

Yeah both Bush and Obama ignored those crimes

by malshe

4/20/2026 at 2:55:12 AM

What were the crimes you believe were committed in 2008 and who do you think committed those crimes?

by chollida1

4/20/2026 at 3:17:47 AM

You seem to think you’ve found some sort of gotcha. There were plenty of crimes committed in the MBS world. See GS, Credit Suisse, and others. However very few were prosecuted at the individual level.

by uncivilized

4/20/2026 at 3:35:26 AM

I wasn't looking for a gotcha at all. I was wondering what specific individuals are you referring to and what crimes you think they committed.

by chollida1

4/20/2026 at 5:25:32 AM

It's a fair question that I used to ask, but it's a very answerable one. To pick one example (https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-59.htm), the SEC believes that one Fabrice Tourre was primarily responsible for the mortgage fraud committed at Goldman Sachs. But either they never referred him to the DOJ for prosecution or the DOJ declined to prosecute him.

by SpicyLemonZest

4/20/2026 at 12:35:54 PM

The US people have difficulty to understand how easy is for a politician to take advantage of his position. This government sends a specific signal of corruption (glorious words, deactivation of control agencies, insider trading and who knows what else dye to pre-election commitments)

by tsoukase

4/20/2026 at 5:51:03 AM

Can anyone tell me why a great democratic system is unable to prevent this kind of problem? Even when it happens, there seem to be no effective measures to deal with it.

by yanhangyhy

4/20/2026 at 7:49:05 AM

When all three branches of government fall under the grip of corrupt officials and their elected enablers, the checks and balances meant to safeguard the republic become little more than decorative machinery.

by mktk1001

4/20/2026 at 5:59:07 AM

The pardon power is absolute, so his accomplices have an out. The president has broad immunity that likely applies here or at least would be years of litigation. The only way to stop this is impeachment and 2/3rds of the Senate voting to convict. It is hard to imagine anything that would get the GOP to convict their president.

by cosmicgadget

4/20/2026 at 9:23:34 AM

[dead]

by GJim

4/20/2026 at 2:35:15 AM

Why bother reporting this - it's obviously happening and it's obvious that nothing is going to happen about it.

by none2585

4/20/2026 at 3:04:46 AM

For sure nothing will happen with the defeatist attitude

by malshe

4/20/2026 at 3:16:23 AM

It does encourage you to focus on something that you might be able to fix, instead of being constantly dragged from one outage to the next.

by jfengel

4/20/2026 at 3:27:12 AM

Or we can use this camel's straw to finally draw a bit of inspiration from our French compatriots. The power these people wield is artificial, and we're capable of taking it away.

by hansvm

4/20/2026 at 2:40:42 AM

Nothing will happen until the mid terms or 2028.

This administration highlights why the pardon provisions of the constitution need amendment.

by rubyfan

4/20/2026 at 3:04:12 AM

In such a scenario, people shouldn't acquiesce. Be creative and find ways of bringing hurt to those in this administration who feel they can dodge consequences. If no example is made of them, it will happen again.

by e2le

4/20/2026 at 3:19:32 AM

The pardon is limited to federal offenses, state prosecution is still viable.

by rubyfan

4/20/2026 at 2:56:12 AM

[dead]

by realitz

4/20/2026 at 2:36:49 AM

Well, given it’s a federal crime, pardons will happen.

by fnordpiglet

4/20/2026 at 3:16:42 AM

Is it a crime?

by jfengel

4/20/2026 at 2:58:12 AM

lol touché

by none2585

4/20/2026 at 2:30:02 AM

"Suspicions" doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

by N_Lens

4/20/2026 at 7:33:38 AM

In the sense of extreme understatement, yes, which is amusing since the "heavy lifting" is the other way around.

Much like "There are looming suspicions over the effectiveness of colored quartz and homeopathic water." [0]

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

by Terr_

4/20/2026 at 9:52:17 AM

s/is the other way/is usually the other way/

by Terr_

4/20/2026 at 3:00:11 AM

There were bets on BRL/USD exchange rates just prior to Trump's tariffs announcement too. No doubt some people made a lot of money.

by matheusmoreira

4/20/2026 at 3:11:53 AM

Add onto all that Trump suing the IRS for $10 billion.

by ipython

4/20/2026 at 3:32:59 AM

While insider trading is always a possibility, what often happen is trades are made in anticipation of an announcement without knowing what the announcement actually is, and Trump really is fairly predictable. You know hes going to TACO, question is when.

I would be more interested to know if the traders had insider knowledge of timing of the announcement or if it was leaked.

by dwd

4/20/2026 at 6:03:19 AM

> It found a consistent pattern of spikes just hours, or sometimes minutes, before a social media post or media interview was made public.

by cosmicgadget

4/20/2026 at 12:58:13 PM

"suspicions"

by red-iron-pine

4/20/2026 at 3:47:59 AM

The cult of personality is impenetrable. He won't be held to account, ever. Nor his sycophants in the administration.

by wyldfire

4/20/2026 at 2:55:52 AM

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

by oatmeal1

4/20/2026 at 2:58:19 AM

I don't think good men have been allowed near government for many decades

by throwaway27448

4/20/2026 at 3:30:20 AM

It's very nearly a contradiction of terms.

by helterskelter

4/20/2026 at 3:39:44 AM

Here are the lessons:

1. The Supreme Court is not some neutral arbiter of a hallowed intractable document. They are political actors. Just like history books now write about the disastrous Court of the 1850s that went completely off the rails (Reconstruction wasn't much better), history will likewise write about the Roberts court as (IMHO) the worst in American history, particularly Citizens United and Trump v. United States. The latter is most directly responsible for all of this. There is now absolutely no prospect of consequences for any of this. The president himself is immune and is now free to openly sell pardons for anyone gets indicted. And let's be real, nobody is getting indicted. This is brazen, unfettered kleptocracy; and

2. The Democratic Party itself, the donor class and the consultant class is completely on board with everything that's happening.f The term here is controlled opposition. Now you just feckless pronouncements like "Trump bad" but, for example, no objection to policy. Instead the objection is to process. For example, Hakeem Jeffries saying Congress should've authorized the Iran War. That's not an objection to the war. The Democratic establishment likes the war. All of these political careers are just stepping stones to their eventual private industry paydays. It's their children getting fake jobs at thinktanks, management consultancies, lobbying firms and so on.

My personal opinion is that nothing will be solved. It's too late to do anything about this with electoral politics. Democratic politicians and the mainstream media has spent more effort attacking Hasan Piker in the last month than attacking Trump's foreseeably disastrous war or outright corruption with insider trading and pardons.

This feels like a "So long and thanks for all the fish" moment.

Princeton did a study on the effect of public opinion on what Congress does, specifically the impact of popularity of a bill passing and it actually passing [1]. It should surprise no one that public opinion has almost zero impact.

[1]: https://act.represent.us/sign/problempoll-fba

by jmyeet

4/20/2026 at 4:14:31 AM

> For example, Hakeem Jeffries saying Congress should've authorized the Iran War.

Did he say, "Congress should have authorized the Iran War," or did he say "Congress should have to authorize the Iran War." Those are two very different statements.

More to the point, did he say he would personally vote to authorize the Iran War? Did he say Democrats should vote to authorize the Iran War?

by gcanyon

4/20/2026 at 4:30:58 AM

> More to the point, did he say he would personally vote to authorize the Iran War? Did he say Democrats should vote to authorize the Iran War?

Jeffries does not support the war with Iran; he has strongly criticized it as a "reckless war of choice". He is actively leading efforts to pass a War Powers Resolution to force the immediate cessation of hostilities.

by andsoitis

4/20/2026 at 4:57:33 AM

The U.S. Americans really give Hassan Piker this much importance? Wow. I thought he was just a washed up Twitch streamer.

by rcbdev

4/20/2026 at 5:06:38 AM

Respect where due, please, he's #30 on Twitch's all time list of most subscribed washed up streamers!

To the point, I'd never heard of him before this and he's clearly being used as a low bar of zero importance .. being used as such to indicate just how little effort opposition politicians and mainstream US media have devoted to Trump's biggest grifts and unforced errors.

by defrost

4/20/2026 at 5:46:08 AM

> My personal opinion is that nothing will be solved. It's too late to do anything about this with electoral politics. Democratic politicians and the mainstream media has spent more effort attacking Hasan Piker in the last month than attacking Trump's foreseeably disastrous war or outright corruption with insider trading and pardons.

What? This is obviously untrue. You can add up every piece of Hasan Piker content CNN has ever run and it won't add up to a single day of Iran war coverage. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries have not, as far as I can tell, ever so much as mentioned the guy.

We all get over our skis sometimes, but if this claim sounded even a tiny bit plausible to you, I beg you to reevaluate your media consumption diet. Someone's working hard to convince you that things are worse than they are and that Democrats stand for things they don't.

by SpicyLemonZest

4/20/2026 at 6:00:42 AM

Democratic politicians have been remarkably silent on the war as a policy issue. The complaints are primarily around process. Even the milquetoast War Powers Resolution, which was doomed to fail anyway, was just process.

Back in the presidential election, Kamala called Iran our greatest threat. Today’s leaders are variations of this.

The most prominent race in this time has been the Michigan Democratic Senate primary where Al-Sayed is against it but I’ve honestly seen more hit pieces about Piker campaigning with him than anything about Iran as an issue in the race.

Look past all the stories like “this is the Strait of Hormuz”, “it’s open/closed”, “rising gas prices” and peace talks. Those are just telling you what’s going on.

What Democrats have you really seen that have talked about being against the actual policy? It’s surprisingly little.

by jmyeet

4/20/2026 at 6:17:13 AM

On March 2, three days after the beginning of the war, Hakeem Jeffries went on CNN to explain his objections to the actual policy (https://jeffries.house.gov/2026/03/02/leader-jeffries-on-cnn...). He said that the bombing was justified by claims that aren't true, that there's no justification for a regime change war in any case, and that the practical consequences of the war will be bad for both American strategic interests and the American people.

As he mentions, while you may consider a war powers resolution "milquetoast", it's important to understand that this is the best lever he has available to try and stop the war. It's easy for Hasan to be mean and dunk on hypocritical Republicans, because Hasan's not the one who has to convince hypocritical Republicans to cross the aisle and vote for his bills.

by SpicyLemonZest

4/20/2026 at 2:42:01 AM

[flagged]

by waynecochran

4/20/2026 at 4:01:02 AM

You mean, a person I already don't like and the things we already criticize them for? What about it?

I've seen this pattern many times in the last decade:

* Conservatives: "I don't get it, why aren't they defending their team against my critique? Are they not loyal?

* Liberals: "I don't get it, why won't they acknowledge when Their Team does something bad? Don't they have any principles?"

by Terr_

4/20/2026 at 2:42:53 AM

What does that have to do with the Trump admin?

by mostlysimilar

4/20/2026 at 2:57:14 AM

[dead]

by realitz

4/20/2026 at 2:54:58 AM

Nothing; so it raises the question, when the BBC news reports "insider trading suspicions looming over Trump's presidency", are they deliberately ignoring insider trading suspicions looming over a bunch of other high-ranking US politicians?

by JuniperMesos

4/20/2026 at 2:48:44 AM

I imagine it's because she's in the opposition and has been doing this for a long time with the justification "We are a free market economy. They should be able to participate in that" https://apnews.com/article/business-nancy-pelosi-congress-86...

So it's worthwhile to note that both major political parties believe this is acceptable.

by renewiltord

4/20/2026 at 2:46:21 AM

Political insider trading example par excellence.

by waynecochran

4/20/2026 at 2:57:13 AM

Pelosi got a free Presidential jet and scooped the inside trades on Iran?

Trump set a stratosphereic high bar for examples par excellence, I doubt all of Pelosi's husband trades add up to a signifigant fraction of Trump's crypto gains alone.

by defrost

4/20/2026 at 3:09:03 AM

You can actually buy an iOS app that mimicks Nancy Pelosi stock picks! Top that!

by waynecochran

4/20/2026 at 3:15:24 AM

Sure. This one’s free. https://www.trumpcorruptiontracker.com/

by ipython

4/20/2026 at 3:23:41 AM

That does not allow you to buy stock based on what Trump picks.

by waynecochran

4/20/2026 at 3:39:04 AM

Ha. Well in that case an ios app is small ball. For corruption on DJT scale, just become one of the top bag holders of $TRUMP to meet him and get corruption tips from the man himself. https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-dishing-out-mar-a...

by ipython

4/20/2026 at 4:09:56 AM

Now we have come full circle. Another politically blind piece of hackery journalism with a giant log in its own eye.

by waynecochran

4/20/2026 at 6:07:08 AM

Oh boy, following her trades 90 days later. Cannot be topped.

Wait, have any congressmen topped her rate of return?

by cosmicgadget

4/20/2026 at 6:18:22 AM

They sure have - see Chris Joseph's comments, the developer of the Pelosi stock tracker app, about having numerous examples from both sides of the aisles of numerous congress members who have traded more and had better returns.

by defrost

4/20/2026 at 3:14:36 AM

Irrelevant to the matter of scale - Trump's corruption easily exceeds that of Pelosi.

More to the point, this is simple what-about-ism to avoid facing up to corruption in the US government and the poressing need (for many decades now) to take effective action.

As it stands, the emoluments clause and the impeachment wrist slapping make the US a standing joke for poor definition of problem and inability to punish.

by defrost

4/20/2026 at 3:24:03 AM

Saying something over and over does not make it true.

by waynecochran

4/20/2026 at 3:31:16 AM

No, it's sadly true, the US is regarded as having an old, quaint, constitution that has deep flaws.

Eg, an inability to enforce anti corruption at state and federal levels and a weak ineffectual process of bringing heels to boot.

by defrost

4/20/2026 at 4:18:09 AM

Yet it has produced the most fruitful country the world has ever seen. The genius of the document is that it assumes the corruption of a centralized power and provides the proper counter measures to return the power to the people.

by waynecochran

4/20/2026 at 4:22:46 AM

The country that didn't even make the top 20 of the Happiest Countries in the World 2026 list?

<yawn>

> provides the proper counter measures to return the power to the people.

Wake me up when that happens.

by defrost

4/20/2026 at 5:11:13 AM

Happiest country.. there is an objective measure

by waynecochran

4/20/2026 at 5:16:16 AM

Happiest, Fruitful .. on par for objectivity really.

Glad you noticed.

by defrost

4/20/2026 at 5:24:19 AM

And you won’t believe it but the US didn’t make J D Power Best Places To Work either. In fact, I’m told that the Barclays Certified Happy Places To Live Brought To You By Standard Chartered doesn’t list a single American city.

by renewiltord

4/20/2026 at 5:36:31 AM

To the country's credit, it is rocketing up the 2026 banana republic charts.

by defrost

4/20/2026 at 5:50:00 AM

JD Power ranking American fashion brands now? Not bad.

by renewiltord

4/20/2026 at 3:08:46 AM

This feels like whataboutism. That line of argument isn’t new and is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives—do you have a more substantive point to add?

by zhoujing204

4/20/2026 at 3:12:45 AM

Or just simply pointing out the usual blind political hypocrisy ...

by waynecochran

4/20/2026 at 3:46:15 AM

Implicit in that is the false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B.

And even if that framing was accepted: okay, now we "talk about the other side", but then anything said could be countered with something about this side. It's not pointing out anything relevant, it's rather wiggling a laser pointer.

by customguy

4/20/2026 at 1:58:14 PM

> everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B.

This is a strange thing to say about someone pointing out that the problem is widespread. It's not a false dichotomy: insider trading is endemic to congress.

Also why would you write "false dichotomy that everything perceived to be somehow against American political party A can only be of interest for proponents of American political party B" when someone is replying to the most unhinged and extreme take:

> > That line of argument... is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives

If you want to talk about a false dichotomy, maybe someone engaging in ridiculous conspiracy theories about how criticising Democrats can only be of interest for proponents of the Russian regime would be a good place to start?

by nailer

4/20/2026 at 3:31:01 AM

> This feels like whataboutism.

I mean Pelosi has a higher rate of success as a stock picker than Warren Buffet.

> That line of argument isn’t new

Why are points raised previously invalid?

> and is often associated with pro-Kremlin narratives

I could write "pro-Kremlin narratives are associated with the Russiagate hoax" but that would be childish.

by nailer

4/20/2026 at 4:00:44 AM

[dead]

by zhoujing204

4/20/2026 at 3:26:56 AM

It is not. The OP just agreed that both Trump and Pelosi insider trades are unacceptable. Thus it is not "whataboutism".

Both Trump and Pelosi and all of congress doing insider trading all shows the complete corruption in US politics in the open.

It's just that one of them is better at hiding it.

by rvz

4/20/2026 at 3:36:54 AM

I don't see any actual evidence given in the story by the author.

The BBC is not exactly known for unbiased reporting. It's been accused of systemic anti-Trump bias, including the misleading 2024 Panorama edit of his Jan 6 speech for which the network was forced to apologize.

Again, proof or evidence? No direct names mentioned of insiders, or any leaks traced. I do not see it. The BBC cites trade volume spikes that were timed to the announcements and analyst opinions. But is that not how Forex and Future exchanges/trades work? Are they not driven by geopolitics? If anyone is calling for a SEC probe, then the investigation should start with the entire congressional body. If it were me, I would start by enacting term limit legislation for senate and house. I'd then start speaking to any politicians that have been expelled out or sacrificed by their own political parties. I'm sure they'll have a rather good story to tell. It will be interesting to see how many of these people will be open to public hearings on the matter.

by SilentM68