> There’s a reason I write about “everything is securities fraud” all the time. It is weird to filter US political and legal life through securities fraud; it is weird to try to find ways to fit political disagreements into the framework of securities fraud. I mean, it’s fine when my readers email me about it — I sort of ask for it! — but it’s weird when actual politicians survey their range of potential actions and think “ah yes securities fraud lawsuit.” I wrote last year that “the thesis of ‘everything is securities fraud’ is that US law is somehow more responsive to financial-market claims than it is to other, substantive claims.”
Related: "Everything, Everywhere is Securities Fraud" (also Bloomberg)<p><a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everything-everywhere-is-securities-fraud" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-26/everyt...</a><p>If I was to look for likely malfeasance, it'd be insider trading related to the tariffs.
I don't know how valid the article is, but speaking of securities fraud, I now read that DOGE is interested in the "Sudden Wealth" of so many congresscritters. I'd be interested in that as well.