Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | NetMageSCW's commentslogin

You are definitely ranting. The facts that might be there are buried in the rhetoric.

I thought those were on very solid ground commonly used by past administrations?

Section 122 has rarely been used. State AGs announced lawsuits today: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/05/trump-tariffs-state-ags-sue-...

Trump doesn’t have those powers.

What evidence do you have that those tariffs were proposed by him?

He bragged about it, and certainly didn't spoke out against them

So I pitch these ideas, and he says, ‘Let’s do it.’ ” Why not replace the I.R.S. with an External Revenue Service, which will collect tariffs and other levies from foreign sources instead of taxing citizens?

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/07/28/donald-trumps-...


I really hope those companies that passed the tariff to consumers are required to refund the increase to those same consumers, regardless of whether they sold their refund or not.

There’s a long way from businesses like predictable stable climates (and that ship has long sailed) and business won’t survive. There’s no reason to believe the latter is true.

At a guess you are not operating a business that adds value to real goods subject to overnight surprise tariffs then.

Coulda woulda shoulda.

They could have just been smarter than average and found an angle others didn’t see that paid off for them.


Ya, that's why this will be impossible to show off as insider trading.

Based on what?

>with (partially non-public) knowledge they've acquired

What partially non-public information did he have? Be specific.


> What partially non-public information did he have? Be specific.

How would I know? I'm neither Lutnick nor his son.

My point is that there is an extremely obvious conflict of interest here. If your family business is directly affected by decisions and information of the public office that you hold, then the very obvious risk is that you are going favor official decisions that help your business (possibly to the detriment of the majority), and that you leverage non-public information for personal gain.

For this specific case, insider knowledge could be a precise understanding on the "shakiness" of the initial tariffs combined with an insider picture of ongoing legal cases against them (progress and expected success rate).

I'm not saying that Lutnick & sons comitted some kind of crime, but if you let your family business overlap with your public office this much, then the resulting scrutiny is more than justified, and you could make a strong point that such a situation should be avoided in the first place.


Where can I get a new M2/M3 MacBook Air for $599?

It's probably a hoax, unless it's used

Used, yeah

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: