Post

Conversation

James Surowiecki
@JamesSurowiecki
I don't understand how this does not violate insider-trading laws. Trump is disclosing information (in this case, information about some of his future public statements as president, including statements about policy) that belongs to the US government in exchange for money. That violates his duty of trust and confidence to his employer (the govt), and is illegal. And anyone who pays for the feed is knowingly paying for misappropriated information, which is illegal as well.
Image
49.4K
Views
View quotes
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

James Surowiecki
@JamesSurowiecki
A CEO who sold early access to his public statements to market traders would obviously be fired and prosecuted for insider trading. There's no meaningful difference between that and what Trump is doing.
4.7K
Crazy Fenak
@CrazyFenaker
Trump can disclose anything he wants, he's President - and all he's selling here is faster access to that same information so I think it's legal. The whole thing is highly unethical though. He's very unpresidential in every imaginable way. Has brought a lot of shame to the office
1.1K
James Surowiecki
@JamesSurowiecki
He can't disclose official information - which is what his pronouncements as president are - in exchange for money without violating insider-trading laws. Because of SCOTUS' decision in Trump vs. US, he may be legally immune from prosecution, but he's definitely violating the
1.1K
Old Greasy
@OldNGreasy
This is honestly not _that_ weird of a thing in the context of trumps presidency. The guy really likes to make important announcements on social media. Twitter used to have a similar mechanism to this where they charged extra for faster access.
197
beg for the end
@BegForTheEnd
That’s the near part! it is insider trading, but when you control the DOJ you control the laws. Seemingly. There are two justice systems in America. One for billionaires, the other for the rest of us.
182
Valley Kid
@valley_kid1
Because it’s publicly available information, just received seconds faster. UNLESS it’s not. That is unclear. But it is MARKET MANIPULATION. With this they admit that Trump’s posts move markets. And with this traders who spent $$$ for these post WILL act on his posts.
325
Rey Caban
@CabanRey
The Republican controlled Congress has become a rubber stamp for Trump's actions and desires. Non-MAGA Republican voters need to do their part come November, and let balance be restored to our government.
23
Duel Citizen
@duelcitizen2024
it does. however, a prosecutor has to bring a case. he operates in: D.C-where Judge Winebox is the current federal and local prosecutor FLA-C'mon gimme a break NJ-District Judges' pick Frazer? Not likely. SEC-Chair is too busy promoting Crypto, cutting regulations
40
Joe Skubisz
@JoeSkubisz45540
Its great . The person with the world’s largest balance sheet and military is a day trader. Can’t wait to see him ‘ Bangin the close’. Clown World
16
Starlifter
@starliftr
It does. It is absolutely illegal, but the overall consensus is that Trump and with him his entire family cannot be prosecuted. One Republican lawmaker allegedly said that it would be like prosecuting Jesus Christ for turning water into wine without paying tax for the wine.
270
Charles Signorile
@CharlieSigs
I’ve been a Republican my entire life, for the first time ever I am actively rooting for Democrats to take control of the House and Senate, only because Republicans are to weak to stop the blatant corruption they are pretending they don’t see.
20
@ijbailey
@ijbailey
It is. He knows it. We know it. But it’s obvious there are no checks and balances. He knows he can do this because the people he put in charge of the DOJ won’t do a damn thing about it.
98
𝐓𝐗𝐌𝐂
@TXMCtrades
There's a long standing precedent that sitting presidents don't get prosecuted for crimes they commit in office. They could be impeached by Congress and prosecuted after leaving, but that's still a couple years away. This is on Congress to react to.
616
Frank Fuhrig
@FrankFuhrig
Long list of anti corruption measures need to be passed. Seems like a ripe target for 2026 campaign proposals. One thing I haven’t seen anyone mention is legislation to implement the foreign emoluments clause, which has never been enforceable for lack of a mechanism.
84
Martin Snyder
@bluelaser2
The President may not disclose anything he wants only to a specific group of persons, in exchange for money. That is illegal.
41
Doug Campbell
@TradeandMoney
It's the "hiding in plain sight" theory of corruption. If he Fed inside info to a hedge fund secretly in exchange for money (which I believe he also does), it would obviously come across as illegal. This is just announcing it publicly so it comes across as ok. I actually
119
Vuk Vukovic
@wolf_vukovic
It gets worse, he’s basically selling noise.
Quote
Vuk Vukovic
@wolf_vukovic
Here’s something you should be aware of if considering buying this alleged insider info. As an experiment I asked our quant team at @OraclumCapital to run Trump’s tweets against market reactions to see if there are any meaningful signals from them. Spoiler: there aren’t. The x.com/marionawfal/st…
1K
HOAs are evil
@winfordwnt
Easy answer. The people responsible for enforcing the laws don't believe Trump and his cronies need to follow laws. The law enforcement are going to make a law that trump and allies no longer have to pay any taxes
27
CosmologyAstrology
@CosmologyAstro
If we had some sort of opposition party to voice those things in unison as they happen .. instead it's all based on midterm miracles and impeachment. This only empowers more corruption and abuse
25
josh
@XennialTrader
I don't support what he's doing at all. I find it just ridiculous. However, I don't think you have even read the definition of insider trading. This is not that. At least look it up before you post something like this.
81
Jason Jividen
@jjividen
It does violate insider trading laws. But nobody’s going to prosecute it as long as the criminal in charge of this is also in charge of the DOJ, SEC, and FTC.
6
Jim Lux
@jimlux
Per SCOTUS, if the president does it (within the perimeters) it’s legal. And it’s not like Congress is leaping up to make a specific law to prohibit it. So you’ve correctly identified the ethical/moral problem, but sadly, it is most likely perfectly legal.
8
JB
@bordoj18
It does, but if nobody arrests or prosecutes, there are no repercussions.
16
FPL_Furious
@Fpl_Furious
They probably do. But on the evidence of the last 12 months, nobody either cares, or has the will/means/desire to do anything about it.
26
CitizenCeltica
@CitizenCeltica
This isn't really true. The posts are treated as public statements as soon as they are made, and there's no evidence that the API provides new post content before it's available on the platform instead of simply simultaneously. I wouldn't put it past him, but you gotta prove it.
371
Owen
@ellbur_k_a
It's not obvious to me whether it's technically insider trading, but it is clearly selling public property for private gain.
313
Felix Zaslavskiy
@FZaslavskiy
They are probably skirting the spirit of the law. It's meant for statements about publicly registered companies. Law does not directly address public officials.
28
JLS IV
@Slotter
Im not a big conspiracy theorist but Trump planning this Fauci thing so that it distracts from this would make a ton of sense.
10
Preacher
@PreacherBTC
Somebody want to clue this child in on how the world works. Unless you're saying you want to take the whole system down, I'm all for that. Otherwise, sit down.
251
Pelham
@PelhamKS
Of course it's insider trading. But there's decades of precedence in the form of Bloomberg Terminals, which simply offered advance posting of standard Bloomberg News items for users able to pay thousands of dollars a month. It stinks.
10
Tony Wayland
@Fullyfallible
He'll be dead or inculpably gaga by the time any legal process concludes. A dying man can get away with all kinds of nasties and never do jail time. Many millions of wicked old men are intently watching his progress.
7
Marc Fagel
@Marc_Fagel
There’s a defensible argument (albeit not slam-dunk) that this is insider trading, and historically the SEC enforcement staff (speaking from personal experience) would be tripping over each other to investigate it. But like all things, Trump has broken the SEC. Maybe in 2029.
169