this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
637 points (99.7% liked)

politics

29166 readers
3828 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 7 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Someone more knowledgeable clarify this to me ?

"Pete Hegseth tried to make a LOSING insider trade on his advance knowledge of Trump's Iran war plans, which he advised to start," Grant Stern, managing editor of Occupy Democrats, posted on X. "This is the height of criminality and incompetence."

How was the trade losing ? whatever stock it was went down ? was it something akin to weapons manufacturing ? and if I understand correctly, it was expected to go up because of their involvement in the "war effort" ?

[–] Shirasho@lemmings.world 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can gamble on whether a stock price will rise or fall. When going to war, stock prices for war companies rise because they are expected to get a lot of business, but if that call to war is suddenly canceled, then the stock price for that company decreases.

If he made a losing bet, one of two things happened:

  1. The value of the stock was going to drop way below the value it started at, so he would earn a large payout on that gamble.

  2. He was funneling large amounts of money to other insider traders.

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Thank you. I didn't know that was possible. How do you do such a gamble, practically ? Is it something that banks offer, or something you can do from a smartphone app ?

Additionally, how does #2 work ?

[–] Shirasho@lemmings.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You can trade outside of trading hours by paying extra for the trade. When you do this, you can buy/sell only to others who have also paid extra. This means you have some extra control over who gets your shares and when. In addition, you can sell shares directly to other people anytime if you physically own them.

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 1 points 2 hours ago

Thanks for all the details. So there's largely room for abusing the system

[–] swab148@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You can get a brokerage app, exactly what app and how they work are dependent on your region.

#2 just involves knowing the right people.

[–] BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are ways to make money when stocks go up, of course, but there are also ways to make money when stocks go down. We don't know the details, but the bottom line is that he bet one way, and the market went the other.

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 2 points 23 hours ago
[–] regedit@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Don't have to be a good criminal to do crime! Dude's an amateur at insider-trading!

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Martha Stewart did this shit. You might argue she is more competent than Hegseth. And she went to prison.

[–] regedit@lemmy.zip 1 points 21 hours ago

That was in the before times when actions of the rich still had some consequences.

[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

She didn’t even mean to and she was better at it

[–] Hadriscus@jlai.lu 2 points 1 day ago

Even I think I could do better, after an internship at the white house

[–] 8oow3291d@feddit.dk 2 points 1 day ago

The tweet is linked, but doesn't give any details. So we don't know - and it might well not be true. What can be asserted without proof, can be rejected without proof.