I don't think the parent mentioned military secrets in particular? But the insider trading is already well documented e.g. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cge0grppe3po
replyPretty sure Count 1 through 5 above cover insider trading by administration officials too.
replyThe problem is "insider trading" has a definition and acting based on knowledge of government secrets isn't what it is.
replyAnd what I am saying is that the same articles of prosecution as in the soldier's case are applicable for their case too. Not going after them is a choice.
replyIANAL but what you state seems to literally fall under the STOCK Act of 2012. It is one kind of insider trading.
reply> the insider trading
replyThe suspect hasn't been charged with insider trading. (OP said those "in DC seem to be able to do everything listed.")
> The suspect hasn't been charged with insider trading.
replyI think that was the point GP was making.
deleted
replyI don't know who, but there are a lot of news articles about high volume oil trading activities shortly before publicly military action.
replyThere's plenty of evidence of it happening, if you consider the odds of surges of pre-market trading of oil futures 20 minutes before Trump tweets on Iran happening coincidentally. The actual finding of who's who has to be done by the U.S. law enforcement, who aren't really interested.
reply> plenty of evidence of it happening
replyThere is circumstantial evidence. We need to collate that. But nothing trumps direct evidence. If someone has that I will bend over backwards to find a way to securely connect them with, at the very least, a reporter who can document it so it shows up in an internet search when an empowered staffer starts down this path.
The problem with this administration is that what you're saying will eventually happen. It will come out they were trading on this. And not a damned thing will happen.
replyYou don’t think the Trump admin leaked any secrets at all? No chats on signal? Nothing like that?
reply