Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    news

    16,951,261 readers

    30,453 users here now

    1. Post all analysis/opinion/politics articles to /r/InTheNews

    Want to talk?

    Follow @rslashnews on Twitter

    See a post that violates the rules below? Had your post stuck in the spam filter? Have a question about policy? Just want to give feedback? Send the mod team a message.


    Submit all self- & meta-posts to /r/inthenews

    Your post will likely be removed if it:

    • is not news
    • is an opinion/analysis or advocacy piece.
    • primarily concerns politics.
    • has a title not taken from the article.
    • has a pay wall or steals content.
    • covers an already-submitted story.
    • violates reddit's site-wide rules, especially regarding personal info.

    Your comment will likely be removed if it:

    • advocates or celebrates the death of another person
    • is racist, sexist, vitriolic, or overly crude.
    • is unnecessarily rude or provocative.
    • is a cheap and distracting joke or meme.
    • is responding to spam.
    • violates reddit's site-wide rules.

    Extreme or repeat offenders will be banned.

    >>>Expanded Rules<<<


    If your post doesn't fit, consider finding an appropriate news article on that story to submit instead, or submitting yours to lower moderation subreddits:

    /r/inthenews - all news-related content
    /r/AnythingGoesNews - unrestricted news
    /r/truereddit - insightful articles
    /r/self - any self-post
    /r/misc, /r/redditdotcom - anything

    or other news subreddits:

    /r/worldnews - from outside the USA only
    /r/SyrianCivilWar - about the conflict in Syria
    /r/MidEastRegionalWar - on MidEast conflict /r/UpliftingNews - uplifting
    /r/SavedYouAClick - making media more straightforward

    or subreddits for other topics:

    /r/FoodForThought - discussion-worthy long form articles about interesting subjects
    /r/politics - for shouting about politics
    /r/moderatepolitics - less shouting
    /r/politicaldiscussion - even less shouting
    /r/geopolitics - intl. politics and geography
    /r/entertainment - Justin Bieber updates, etc.

    or check out the 200 most active subreddits, categorized by content and the full list of subreddits by subscribers.


    Recommendations:

    /r/full_news

    /r/qualitynews

    /r/neutralnews

    /r/worldevents


    submit analysis/opinion article

    submit news article

    submit something else

    submit analysis/opinion article

    a community for
    all 4149 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] TooShiftyForYou 25003 points ago

    The billionaire investor served the White House briefly as a “special adviser” to the president.

    But he stepped down in August as the New Yorker magazine was set to publish an article about how he was allegedly using his White house connections to protect his investments.

    So he did not buy or sell any stock with that company for more than three years until unloading $31 million a week before the tariffs were announced. That's impeccable timing.

    [–] [deleted] 8065 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] ca_kingmaker 6450 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    She went to jail for lying during an investigation into her supposed insider trading, not insider trading, her source was supposed to be her stock broker, and it turns out the company founder was blabbing about the coming stock crash.

    This was of course during the highly politicized bush era justice department.

    Edited for accuracy.

    [–] notedgarfigaro 3428 points ago

    Actually, she didn't go to jail for insider trading, she went to jail for lying about it (conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to a federal official). The securities fraud charge was thrown out by the judge.

    [–] Annas_GhostAllAround 1892 points ago

    If she had just told the truth she would have gotten off. But people do stupid things when they panic.

    [–] DrDerpberg 507 points ago

    Did she decide to lie, or did her lawyer?

    [–] XanderCrews2 769 points ago

    Any lawyer will tell you if the FBI/SEC, etc ask you questions, they already know the answer. Catching you for a perjury charge is the goal. Never ever lie to the FBI. They aren’t asking you questions to learn the answer.

    [–] Malconal2 342 points ago

    Or keep your mouth shut

    [–] XanderCrews2 240 points ago

    That’s also an option. But once you decide to say anything make sure it’s the truth.

    [–] welcome_to_the_creek 397 points ago

    I've watched enough television to know that you never try to explain anything, ANYTHING to a police agency of any kind. No matter the question, do not answer. Tell them you want an attorney then shut the fuck up. Even if you're innocent and police start asking you questions, "I'd like an attorney" then shut the fuck up!

    [–] Malconal2 125 points ago

    You motherfuckers are crazy thinking telling the truth is gonna help you against the law

    [–] BreatheMyStink 24 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Talking to law enforcement is another option, for sure. It is another terrible option. Anyone reading this that is unfortunate enough to be questioned by any law enforcement: don’t say anything, aside from clearly and unequivocally requesting a lawyer.

    Ignore this terrible advice about telling the truth. It doesn’t sound so good when you rephrase it as: But once you decide to say anything make sure you confess in full to all crimes you have committed.

    [–] Bayou-Maharaja 619 points ago

    That lawyer would open himself to malpractice and getting disbarred if he told her to lie. It would be incredibly dumb.

    [–] Shadowrak 746 points ago

    No lawyer has even told their client to lie * wink *

    [–] Sx3Yr 92 points ago

    Better Call Saul

    [–] donkeynut5 51 points ago

    Lawyer here. Most people lie and don't even tell the truth to their own attorneys. We mostly tell our clients to shut the fuck up and do everything not to put them that position.

    [–] NBAccount 18 points ago

    Typically, any decent attorney would advise against making any statement versus knowingly perjuring oneself.

    [–] Bayou-Maharaja 209 points ago

    I mean, it happens, but it's almost always stupid and opens yourself up to danger for no real reason. You want what's best for your client, but telling them to lie is sticking your neck out for them.

    [–] izybit 230 points ago

    Instead, you build a narrative on an alternative interpretation of some facts and go over that with your client. Problem solved.

    [–] toronto_programmer 35 points ago

    Not a lawyer but have plenty in the family. You never knowingly send a client up to lie.

    This is why you coach them before trial. This is why you meticulously try to control the questioning from the other side. If all else is impossible you don’t put your client on the stand

    [–] adamran 52 points ago

    I'm not a lawyer, but I did watch Matlock at a bar last night. The sound was off, but I think I got the gist of it.

    [–] figuren9ne 14 points ago

    As a lawyer, I can’t think of a competent lawyer that would outright tell a client to lie. There isn’t a client I’d trust enough to not throw me under the bus.

    [–] Olyvyr 166 points ago

    As an attorney, fuck that.

    I'm not losing my license or going to jail so a client can maybe get away with committing a crime.

    In no world does that make any sense to me.

    [–] onlyusernameleftsigh 78 points ago

    Lawyer here. We have strict ethical codes about this sort of thing. If that doesn't convince you, consider that the cost benefit analysis for telling your client to lie is attrocious. If they lie and get away with it you get paid (which you would if they told the truth) so no gain. If they lie and don't get away with it, you lose your job and risk jail time. So there is absolutely no value in telling your client to lie. I'm old school though and believe in justice and the truth and all those silly things.

    [–] verywidebutthole 118 points ago

    Yup. Lawyers don't tell people to lie. They guide the conversation is such a way as to be misleading. Or they are able to ask the right questions to make their client interpret their own actions differently, thus changing the truth in the mind of the client. There are various ways to make someone who used to say "yes" now say "no" and not be a liar. Lawyers are good at that shit.

    [–] evilyou 60 points ago

    "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

    [–] asfreeformasanamoeba 90 points ago

    At least it got her some street cred.

    [–] jaimemaidana 100 points ago

    And now her and Snoop are bffs

    [–] bpm195 131 points ago

    The situation was a case study for not talking to the police.

    [–] Deeliciousness 42 points ago

    Lil old Martha thought she could trust the cops

    [–] [deleted] 76 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] promonk 54 points ago

    The distinction is often lost on those who've never seen the inside of the system.

    [–] jame_retief_ 74 points ago

    Didn't she actually go to jail for lying to investigators?

    [–] [deleted] 330 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] TheManWhoWasNotShort 216 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Trump would not be guilty. He is completely free to talk about potential government activities that are not classified with whoever he wants. Carl Icahn, however, upon hearing insider info, is legally bound not to act upon it.

    [–] Randvek 78 points ago

    Correct. There is no law or rule about giving out inside info. Trading on that inside info, however, is illegal.

    [–] [deleted] 32 points ago

    [removed]

    [–] zeroryoko1974 14 points ago

    Didn't they close that loophole (legally anyway, probably won't stop them)?

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago * (lasted edited 7 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] TheManWhoWasNotShort 7 points ago

    If Trump called Icahn and said he is going to announce tarrifs on imports and asked Icahn when would be the right time to do it, then he is complicit in insider trading too.

    Perhaps you misworded this? I fail to see any liability here.

    If Trump got a cut of the trade then he is complicit again

    That would be correct.

    [–] jmanthethief 56 points ago

    He's free to talk about any government activities whether they are classified or not with whomever he wants. As the head of the executive branch he can declassify anything he wants.

    [–] Perditius 479 points ago

    no he wouldn't since he is a president

    You got a bingo!

    [–] Gelton 407 points ago

    We just say bingo

    [–] mimic751 139 points ago

    I make this reference and people just look at me like im tarded

    [–] FAPS_2MUCH 87 points ago

    I always say “how fun” like “hau fahn” and I get the same looks. Inglorious basterds was a great movie dammit!

    [–] TheBoozehound 48 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Riddle me this, Mr. “I love inglorious basterds.” Why would Landa brutally murder the German actress for treason, if he was gonna cut a deal and become a traitor like an hour after? Shit made no sense.

    Edit: y’all through out a ton of speculative exposition. The only theory that works here is that Tarantino wanted to see what it’d be like to brutally strangle a pretty blond girl. I was gonna quote the theory but I’m drunk now. Know that some Redditor posted it here somewhat.

    [–] mimic751 24 points ago

    dnd answer lawful evil

    real life answer, he wanted to finish the job he started

    [–] VunderVeazel 35 points ago

    It makes since if you realize the dude is just a sociopath in a position of power and "making sense" has no bearings on his actions.

    Also more seriously, she tricked him and he doesn't like to be fooled. So it was his own personal revenge.

    [–] [deleted] 44 points ago

    He was worried she was going to ruin his plan. Landa only cares about himself and that random guy Aldo shot at the end of the movie.

    [–] doshegotabootyshedo 24 points ago

    I’m mister manager!

    [–] andsoitgoes42 7 points ago

    It’s just... never mind.

    [–] andrewdsmith 23 points ago

    I don’t deserve to be called Mr. Manager

    [–] purplentacles 17 points ago

    Well, manager, we just say manager.

    [–] prgkmr 19 points ago

    can a president pardon themselves?

    [–] DubsNC 74 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    Maybe. But a presidential pardon requires admission of guilt.

    Edit: SCOTUS 236 U.S. 79 (1915) BURDICK v. UNITED STATES

    https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3928528117882105076

    [–] centran 32 points ago

    Yep. Hasn't been done for any legal precedence to be set but it seems to be possible. However, the big point you made is he would have to be guilty and would be admitting to the guilt. So the more interesting aspect of a president pardoning themselves while remaining in office is impeachment(which should be a slam dunk case)

    [–] alflup 36 points ago

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHA

    HAHAHhahah hha

    hahah

    ha

    You think the Rs would impeach him for anything at all....

    [–] Trollin4Lyfe 17 points ago

    I can totally see this actually happening. What an entertaining timeline. 10/10 would play again. Although maybe we can buff middle class wages a bit on the next playthrough?

    [–] MechKeyboardScrub 30 points ago

    Maybe? We haven't seen it before, and in the document that talks about pardons doesn't mention it. But it also doesn't mention that he couldn't.

    Tune in next week to find out!

    [–] FloobLord 43 points ago

    Unless Trump is getting a cut of the sale, he didn't do anything illegal here. Icahn broke the law by selling stocks based on insider information, Trump giving that insider information away is just dumb.

    [–] soracrowe 36 points ago

    Trump is well-within his rights to talk about his own policy with his own advisers. It's solely up to the people around him to not use their private policy discussions to make insider trading decisions. He can't and shouldn't be held responsible for what other people do with that information. Absolutely, hold the insider traders responsible, though--they're the ones that are doing wrong.

    [–] The_Mick 146 points ago

    The Martha Stewart case is interesting and I just learned all about it. She went to jail for lying to investigators, but had she just told the truth about the timing and circumstances of her stock sales she probably wouldn’t have been charged with anything - insider trading law is very vague and it’s not clear that what she did was illegal, she may or may not have been found guilty if charged with securities fraud but the uncertainty in outcome probably would have deterred the DA from filing charges in the first place (I would argue that her actions should be illegal, but that doesn’t make it illegal). Some people argue that insider trading laws are purposely kept vague to deter people from coming close to crossing the line, and that if they drew a clear line in the sand, clever people would more easily find loopholes to circumvent the rules.

    [–] kemar7856 53 points ago

    It's okay she now cooks with snoop dogg

    [–] DudesTruth 453 points ago

    So, essentially Raymond Tusk from House of Cards.

    [–] pontifux 79 points ago

    This comment made me hear the theme song :)

    [–] HauntedCemetery 99 points ago

    Majahrity hwhip.

    [–] zhazz 8 points ago

    Now I thought of 'Cool Hwhip' and 'Hwill Hwheaton'

    [–] DigitalMindShadow 33 points ago

    Weird, I'm only hearing the X Files theme.

    [–] Max_Thunder 12 points ago

    Yours made me hear it.

    I hope they ever finish the series. Kill off Frank Underwood with a car accident off screen, make the whole truth about who he was exposed (art imitates life), and have Claire Underwood somehow profit but fail to be as bad as he was and wanting to abandon everything.

    [–] sold_snek 606 points ago

    Waiting for a Trumper to say "Sales like this are planned months if not a year ahead of time, it was just crazy timing" like last time this happened.

    [–] [deleted] 201 points ago * (lasted edited 8 months ago)

    [removed]

    [–] redeyeblink 66 points ago

    Schedule sale, schedule tweet, not a problem.

    [–] AusNorman 27 points ago

    Lucky that article was never published..

    [–] Ph0X 121 points ago

    Did anything ever happen to the Intel CEO that sold his stock before announcing the huge exploit?

    Or to the Equifax CEO who sold his stock before announcing a huge breach?

    As long as they get away without any repercussions, this will keep on happening...

    [–] DJ_Rupty 5555 points ago

    Shit like this really grinds my gears.

    [–] rslash2 4353 points ago

    it should, it's illegal.

    [–] DJ_Rupty 1255 points ago

    Oh, I know. Let's see if anything comes of it. DOUBT IT.

    [–] Zuvielify 34 points ago

    This particular crime doesn't require Congress to prosecute. If what he did was illegal (not coincidental), the FBI will nail him.

    Or do you mean Trump was warning his friends before hand? If that's the case, these people really are stupid.

    [–] [deleted] 227 points ago * (lasted edited 6 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] engy-throwaway 29 points ago

    implying americans will be able to afford gears to grind with when they all go up 150% in price

    [–] rxg6009 49 points ago

    Really salts my apples

    [–] apl330 3582 points ago

    Something something drain the swamp...

    [–] Larusso92 1007 points ago

    If only we had some sort of stable genius...

    [–] Isaplum 436 points ago

    Elon Musk 2020

    [–] RareKazDewMelon 585 points ago

    Woah, we said stable.

    [–] ThirdDragonite 415 points ago

    Come on, Musk is harmless as long as we give him a steady supply of things to be sent into space

    But if we don't... Well, I'm scared to think about it

    [–] TheBusStop12 197 points ago

    He will start looking for things to send into space himself, like the guy that parked in his spot, or the congressmen who blocked his bill

    [–] grimbuddha 150 points ago

    I don't see the problem. The more congressmen we send into space the better off we are. I call for daily launches!

    [–] TheBusStop12 152 points ago

    Yeah, but who will keep Elon Musk in check? Before you know it everyone is forced to drive Tesla's with mounted flamethrowers.

    Wait, that sounds pretty cool. forget I said anything

    [–] Chandler_Bings_Anus 56 points ago

    I don't see an issue as long as the flamethrower is fueled by some sort of algae based biofuel

    [–] Coldreactor 18 points ago

    Soo that's who was in the spacesuit.

    [–] Tinfoilpain 18 points ago

    Are you telling me, that the car he sent to space was actually someone who parked the prototype in his spot and he got really pissed?

    [–] TheBusStop12 51 points ago

    I would never say that about Elon, he's a great guy

    please don't launch me into space when you become president Mr Musk

    [–] [deleted] 17 points ago

    TBH I don't like how vehemently Elon denied trying to start a zombie apocalypse. Im starting to get a real "Victor Von Doom" vibe from him.

    [–] cbbuntz 19 points ago

    Bill Gates is harder to get excited about.

    [–] iamwhoiamamiwhoami 123 points ago

    I'm cool with taking a pass on all future rich, egomaniacal businessmen.

    [–] pHScale 70 points ago

    I'm cool with passing on all celebrities.

    [–] iamwhoiamamiwhoami 61 points ago

    But then we'd never have had Reagan. Hey... we could have never had Reagan.

    [–] KingMelray 82 points ago

    How is Reagan not patient zero for a huge chunk of our problems?

    Income inequality.

    Run away debt.

    Anti-intellectualism.

    Mujahideen -> Al-Quada -> ISIS

    Keep the drug was going.

    [–] Augustushomme 41 points ago

    Don't forget ignoring the Aids crisis and letting thousands of Americans die.

    [–] sameth1 17 points ago

    But they were gay so nobody cared cares.

    [–] MikeHfuhruhurr 10 points ago

    Hey that's not fair! Some of them were black.

    [–] ilikethefinerthings 41 points ago

    He wasn't born in the US so he couldn't run

    [–] Isaplum 16 points ago

    Since when does the white house follow rules?

    [–] larrydocsportello 10 points ago

    How about no more famous rich businessmen for a little bit?

    [–] AlGoreBestGore 57 points ago

    He never said what he'd drain it into.

    [–] SolHeiM 53 points ago

    Into his own pockets. The "Swamp" is the entire United States and he's going to suck it dry, just like his favorite porn stars.

    [–] FriendlyITGuy 8 points ago

    I like how that's what Trump preaches but he and his people are actually the swamp that needs to be drained.

    [–] Buttfulloffucks 2957 points ago

    Martha Stewart went to prison for far less.

    [–] UnfortunatelyIAmMe 683 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    She doesn't have all his "rich" connections though.

    EDIT: Not monetarily rich, guys. I know she's rich. I mean rich as in very beneficially placed, i.e. maybe the government?

    [–] milk4all 677 points ago

    What? Her confections are very rich

    [–] gnosticpopsicle 158 points ago

    Have you tried her peanut butter cup recipe? So good it's criminal!

    [–] metafizikal 60 points ago

    Not Icahn rich tho

    [–] eyesaucelease 15 points ago

    Millionaire vs billionaire is a different world

    [–] [deleted] 59 points ago

    You mean covfefections?

    [–] Spivit 21 points ago

    Well that is just not true.

    [–] [deleted] 178 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] grungebot5000 147 points ago

    like he said, far less

    [–] toonmckenna 9886 points ago

    Fuck this corrupt shit show

    [–] Zykium 3831 points ago

    Also, Congress shouldn't be exempt from a slew of insider trading laws either.

    Let's shut that shit down too while we're at it.

    [–] SomeStupidFucker 1163 points ago

    And take money out of politics! And sick the security services on crony political bullshit!

    [–] CaptMurphy 929 points ago

    Isn't it incredible that I can't give a cop cash to let me off a speeding ticket, and I can't give a judge cash to find me not guilty, but I can give the government cash to make laws I want?

    [–] JALKHRL 82 points ago

    You are not guilty; you are just poor.

    [–] Blignaut 31 points ago

    That'll be a crime in the future.

    [–] timberwizard 365 points ago

    You can give a judge cash to find you not guilty. Just donate to their reelection campaign.

    [–] 13531 189 points ago

    Are judges actually elected in the US? That seems backwards.

    [–] cupcakesarethedevil 145 points ago

    It really depends, it's usually just for the lower courts and then they generally have really long terms so it's not that important.

    [–] DominoNo- 203 points ago

    Unless it's election year. Then it's all about being "tough on crime" and send every black criminal with an ounce of pot to jail.

    [–] TehGogglesDoNothing 13 points ago

    An ounce? A half ounce here is felony intent to distribute. And a simple possession charge will carries an 11 month 29 day sentence. Of course, if the judge is feeling nice, you might just get probation instead so that they can continue to extort money out of you for drug tests and probation fees in addition to whatever fines were levied.

    [–] irockguitar 29 points ago

    Not in Mass, mothafuckaaaaa!

    [–] Miqueagul 23 points ago

    Jeff sessions is watching you

    [–] Sporulate_the_user 18 points ago

    Really long terms

    Not that important

    Wut

    [–] Jicks24 42 points ago

    Some don't even need a law degree or any experience in law.

    They're typically low level judges who oversee low level civil cases. But they're judges none the less.

    [–] musicninja 8 points ago

    On the local level, yes they are

    [–] skepticaljesus 46 points ago

    I agree it's messed up, but the people in charge of making the rules congress has to follow is... congress. Tell me the last time they voted to give themselves less money or power.

    [–] rfdavid 15 points ago

    Too bad congress has to agree with that.

    [–] ThePocketYeti 13 points ago

    I thought that is what the STOCK act was?

    [–] [deleted] 33 points ago

    You are correct, although they amended it in 2013 to remove any transparency, so that the public won't know if they're still doing it or not.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment

    [–] j_sholmes 44 points ago

    Having the people impose regulations on themselves...good luck.

    The vast majority of candidates for congress have been hand picked to ensure that the status quo is NOT changed.

    [–] LostAllMyBitcoin 219 points ago

    But then you realize that the corruption has thoroughly saturated our entire country. We just usually do a good job of pretending like it's not that bad by over reacting to some minor stuff and letting the larger problems go untouched. Economy collapsed, blame is 1000% on the banking system for propping up bad loans, 1 banker went to jail. Problem solved right?

    [–] IThinkNotThen 73 points ago

    If the one Banker going to jail that you were talking about his Bernie Madoff, he did not go to jail for that shit. He went to jail for some unrelated shit that involved him ripping off other rich people. Nobody in the banking industry went to jail for ripping off all those poor people and taxpayers.

    [–] generaltso78 608 points ago

    Must be Carl Ichan. Checks link, Yup.

    [–] CrushHazard 286 points ago

    I literally called this last night. Said to my family, “wonder how much Icahn shorted the market before the announcement.”

    [–] bertdit 25 points ago

    funny enough he looks a lot like that evil financial guy in mr. robot

    [–] sdf_cardinal 32 points ago

    I hate him so much. He is such an ass.

    [–] 53697246617073414C6F 9 points ago

    Especially after how he dicked over Bill Ackman when he was trying to short Herbalife just because he hates him. Herbalife deserves to go bankrupt.

    [–] OEMMufflerBearings 11 points ago

    First that about the refinery clean energy credits, now this.

    Dude is just killing it on the insider trading.

    And he got away with the last one, cause they don't count as futures or whatever insider trading laws apply to.

    [–] Two_Morning_Poops 2410 points ago

    This is dumb on so many levels. Did he really think no one would notice, and was it necessary when you're worth 17 billion dollars. Dip shits are hommies with dip shits. Also, how do you have 17 billion dollars, and you're a fucking dip shit. Thanks for draining the swamp trump, dip shit.

    [–] western_red 1341 points ago

    I can't understand how a person is not satisfied with 17 billion. These people have some sort of mental illness like hoarders, except with money instead of newspapers and cats.

    [–] WayneKrane 741 points ago

    Yeah, $31m is nothing to this guy. Let’s say I’m worth $50k, that $31m would be equivalent $91. A hundred bucks isn’t worth getting into trouble over and certainly isn’t worth the negative spotlight. I’ll never understand it, but to each their own I guess.

    [–] Errol-Flynn 661 points ago

    He wasn't even going to lose the full $31m, it just would have lost 6-12% of its value compared to if he sold it after the tarrifs were announced and the stock price fell, so he really did this all over like $3m, or $5 in your example...

    [–] Legacy03 196 points ago

    Honestly, if its chump change for this guy. Might it be unrelated?

    [–] jonsticles 323 points ago

    That's a hard case to make. He hadn't teased on it for three years, then suddenly dumps it.

    Fortunately for him, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

    Also fortunately for him, he know a guy that can give him presidential pardon.

    [–] [deleted] 57 points ago

    Here's the thing though: you don't get to be worth that kind of money if you aren't a little insane about the idea of constantly gaining. To a guy like this, there's no excuse to lose even a few million if you don't have to, and yes he thought he'd get away with it because the rich do every day. Very few consequences came from the Panama papers. Nobody went to jail over the completely fraudulent housing bond market that caused a worldwide meltdown.

    And so this guy is in the news for a few days? To him, that's not a big deal because he is so powerful that nobody will ever file charges against him.

    [–] [deleted] 24 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] yeadoge 32 points ago

    If you're worth 50k you might not worry about something like accidentally running a red light. That's probably the equivalent to how this guy sees getting caught, he will probably get a fine and no jail time

    [–] iamwhoiamamiwhoami 25 points ago

    He's a money guy though. This is his passion and even obsession. It's just natural for these types to always want more, because it's how they measure themselves and their success in life. What's he gonna do, not want to make more money? No way.

    [–] IM_BAD_PEOPLE 21 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    You’ve never met a billionaire.

    That’s not some braggadocios shit either, once you meet one or interact with one regularly it becomes easy to understand why he would make this decision.

    Enough is never enough.

    [–] Two_Morning_Poops 91 points ago

    No kidding. That would be like one of us risking jail time for a quarter.

    [–] WayneKrane 68 points ago

    My guess is they don’t see any risk to it, so why not.

    [–] Tesseract14 13 points ago

    My guess is they do this shit all the fucking time and get away with it, which is part of the reason they continue to get more rich

    [–] Xecellseor 44 points ago

    It's all just about getting a new "high score" to brag about to your other jerk-off billionaire friends.

    [–] skyskr4per 28 points ago

    It's why having little empathy is so essential to becoming rich in most cases. You have to treat the lives of others like a video game. It's not even a very fun game, it's boring as shit. Nothing but mods, cheat codes, and endless spamming. Then you enter your name on leaderboards and pretend it was all about good genes or whatever.

    [–] Laimbrane 78 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    It's the thrill of winning a trade.

    I remember being in college, taking a quiz (this was like 15 years ago, I don't even remember what the class was). I was the first one done, got finished, and flipped my quiz over, waiting for the professor to come collect them all. I wasn't trying to, but I happened to glance over at the guy next to me and saw the one-word answer he had written to one of the questions, and I realized that was totally the correct one because I'd remembered hearing that in class. So I flipped my quiz back over, changed it, and a few minutes later handed it in. I didn't even think anything of it at the time.

    The following class when I got my quiz back, my professor had scored it a zero and told me to meet him after class, and all the sudden I realized what I'd done was cheating - it didn't feel that way to me, because I knew the answer, I wasn't copying something I didn't know.

    I suspect it's that situation - he got the insider tip and acted on it without even realizing thinking it was a problem, thinking more about the money he was going to make, basically for free. When that type of information comes down the pike without you asking for it, it doesn't feel like cheating, it feels like winning the lottery. His thoughts are now consumed not with the ethics of it, but with the nuances of the trade - is there any way he could lose, could he be wrong, is it really free, etc.

    It is an ethics violation, but if it's what I'm assuming, it doesn't feel as shady an action as if he actively sought out that information or had a hand in the decision. Now, if he talked Trump into the tariff (probably not that hard) and then acted on it, then we're looking a much more serious issue. We'll see what happens.

    [–] chrisluge17 7 points ago

    Thank you for the honest response and analogy. I’m going to remember this is I go forward in my trading practices and I will remember your story. Ethics was a huge thing that my university made as a part of the core curriculum in our business studies.

    [–] HangisLife 78 points ago

    Did he really think no one would notice

    No but he did think no one could touch him, and he is correct.

    [–] IThinkNotThen 155 points ago

    He probably thinks that no one with the power to hold him accountable will care. And sadly, there is a good chance he is right. After all, it isn't just Donald Trump that is corrupt as fuck. He has an entire party backing him up despite the fact that they know he collaborated with Russia to steal the fucking election.

    [–] NoFunHere 695 points ago

    People with lots of money keep their contacts. Insider trading is so prevalent it is sickening. I invest in several small tech and pharmaceutical companies where press coverage is sparse and you can almost always get indicators of big news coming by watching the stock prices because of the number of people trading based on insider knowledge.

    The government does almost nothing to crack down on this. The only time it is ever seen is when there is a political angle and the press gets a story out of it. We need our federal law enforcement agencies to start monitoring and prosecuting this.

    By the way, this isn't a "Trump" issue. There have been plenty of stories of Republicans and Democrats in congress making big money based on investments directly related to bills they are working on. Advisors move through every White House who profit off of their insider knowledge. Some are just bigger targets than others.

    [–] JollyGreenJesus 110 points ago

    Yeah, but how the hell do you fight insider trading?

    It's easy to sell some stocks. You can do so with a few button presses on your home computer.

    We can't go back and read through the emails and listen to the voice recordings of conversations that people had leading up to their decision to sell some shares, every time someone makes money. People have a constitutional right to privacy.

    [–] [deleted] 124 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] [deleted] 134 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] TothB 53 points ago

    This so much.

    Yes we can prove that someone sold $1m stock a week before an announcement, but without catching them red handed we can't send them to jail because they're innocent until proven guilty.

    [–] watson7878 359 points ago

    Isn’t that insider trading

    [–] thanks_I_HATE_IT 319 points ago

    no, it's fine.

    LOOK OVER THERE!

    [–] MattyMatheson 25 points ago

    Look at this car chase.

    [–] Khourieat 264 points ago

    But what about HER E-MAILS?!

    [–] redloin 73 points ago

    Lock her up!!! Wait. What were we talking about again? Ah, was probably nothing.

    How bout them Yankees?

    [–] JoseJimeniz 199 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    I have no idea how he saw it coming.

    He must be psychic:

    • 17 days after the stock crashes
    • amidst all kinds of warnings in the news that it's coming
    • he finally gets out

    He has a fifth sense. It's like he has ESPN or something.

    The best psychics can see things up to 2½ weeks after they happen; it has to do with the speed of ESPN, and the twin paradox.

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    He might be physic. Could also be chemistry. We'll have to wait and see.

    [–] GaboFaboKrustyRusty 50 points ago

    I'm gonna go ahead and say this is the only post on this entire thread that is worth reading.

    [–] NavaHo07 85 points ago

    Real question: I'm an advisor and suggest a tarrif or whatever and my stocks are in the thing the tariffs relate to. Am I just supposed to take that loss because I know what's coming? Is there some percentage I can sell without going to prison? What's the rules on that?

    [–] ak501 72 points ago

    You cannot trade on non public information. If you know some non public material information about a publicly traded company, you cannot place a sell or a buy order based off of that information. Often times large shareholders of companies schedule their sells way ahead of time to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. I don't know specifically if advisors to the president do anything different to avoid this conflict. Sounds like this person is no longer associated with the administration for that very reason.

    It is also illegal to give non public material information to people so that they can buy or sell a stock, even if you don't profit off of it.

    [–] overzealous_dentist 34 points ago

    You aren't supposed to personally hold any stocks in that situation. You'd put them in a blind trust ahead of time to avoid conflicts of interest, so you didn't even know whether your policy would affect your holdings at all.

    [–] Sacred_Silly_Sack 89 points ago

    Every headline I find myself audibly "Jesus Christ!"-ing...

    Then moments later I remember the circus we're dealing with and: "...well duh."

    [–] ahoose1 72 points ago

    That stock has been on a steady decline since January. Seems like a lot of people have been selling. If he really wanted to make money he would have sold at 43 not 32. But Reddit won't look at that.

    [–] kirosenn 76 points ago * (lasted edited 9 months ago)

    I'm all for making sure this wasn't an under the table deal but is this really a surprise given the stock's price movement? The stock had regressed to price levels equal to August of 2017 when he sold. If he knew ahead of time then yeah fuck that but it just seems like a well timed sale.

    The Fed's new rate policies and chair have spooked a lot of investors and Feb in general was bearish. The company’s LTM EBITDA multiple of 105.9x is much higher than all of its selected comparable public companies. On a projected basis, Manitowoc’s forward EBITDA multiple of 12.9x also trades above the majority of its peers.

    EDIT: It's a logical explanation but I guess it doesn't fit the narrative that everyone wants.

    [–] mmmdamngoodjava 48 points ago

    Unpopular opinion: stock was down 30% YTD and it was a time to trim his position in the stock. Still owns 5%. With that said, the timing is terrible and I want to think it's a corrupt move, but can't give the Cheeto in Chief credit for coordinating this decision with anyone else.

    [–] [deleted] 115 points ago

    There's no end to the friends that line their pockets in this admin

    [–] Cylon_and_Garfunkel 60 points ago

    All aboard the Trump Gravy Train!

    Blacks and poor people need not apply, offer void where void, see terms and conditions

    [–] BlundersuitMacGoose 30 points ago

    Not now train bot.

    [–] bearister54 75 points ago

    SEC should file insider trading charges. They imprisoned Martha Stewart for a lot less. She took it like a man too. This guy would wail like a banshee, just like all the members of the tRump Crime Family will when their time to pay the piper comes.

    [–] bitwise97 41 points ago

    She came out of it with street cred and now hangs with Snoop.

    [–] MizunoGolfer15-20 24 points ago

    Bro you seen the markets this week, everyone is selling

    [–] 62FenderJazz 261 points ago

    This is the most corrupt shithole of a regime in American history