logoalt Hacker News

burkamanyesterday at 3:28 PM6 repliesview on HN

He presumably did not have access to the court's opinion before it was released, but he did have access to internal White House legal opinions before the tariffs were announced ("Mr. President this is illegal and very likely to be overturned by the courts"), and he obviously had access to the entire federal legal team during the court cases.

I can't prove that there was any White House advisory memo before the tariffs were announced, but hypothetically, would this not be considered material nonpublic information? It seems the same as a corporate insider dumping stock because a company lawyer privately told them "we're definitely going to lose this case".


Replies

gruezyesterday at 3:34 PM

>I can't prove that there was any White House advisory memo before the tariffs were announced, but hypothetically, would this not be considered material nonpublic information?

Was the hypothetical "White House advisory memo" produced using any proprietary information? If not, why should it be any different than if I hired a bunch of top lawyers to produce a private report for me?

show 3 replies
phkahleryesterday at 3:32 PM

So a Whitehouse insider is going to get a bunch of tarrif refund money?

show 1 reply
bryanrasmussenyesterday at 8:17 PM

>but he did have access to internal White House legal opinions before the tariffs were announced

yes but the opinion that it was illegal was the received wisdom by everybody with any sort of legal expertise in the subject. It would have been completely insane if the white house staff didn't believe the same. So I guess I'm actually surprised at the white house staff believing what everybody else did?

show 1 reply
rayineryesterday at 3:43 PM

You’re piling speculation on speculation. First of all, there was no such memo saying the tariffs were “very likely to be overturned.” The Supreme Court decision was 7-3, with two Bush appointees voting to uphold the tariffs. The appellate court decision was 7-4, with two Obama appointees and two Bush appointees dissenting. Second of all, there is no evidence that this legal analysis was leaked to Cantor.

show 2 replies
danielmarkbruceyesterday at 3:32 PM

White House legal opinions aren't any better than other legal opinions. Opinions are not "information".

show 4 replies
seizethecheeseyesterday at 6:07 PM

Prediction markets already had it as more likely than not that the court would rule against the tariffs