By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This article details a significant purchase of Axon Enterprise stock by President Trump shortly before Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued a notice for a substantial contract that appeared to be specifically tailored to Axon’s products, particularly conductve-energy weapons. Despite White House assertions of no conflicts of interest, ethics experts have raised concerns about the appearance of impropriety due to the timing of Trump’s investment and the ICE procurement notice. This situation unfolds as Axon seeks to expand its federal contracts beyond Tasers into broader policing technology and surveillance systems, a growth strategy that has also involved increased lobbying efforts in Washington.
Read the original article here
It appears there’s a significant development concerning Donald Trump and his financial dealings, specifically involving Axon, the company that manufactures Tasers and police body cameras. Reports suggest that Trump acquired a substantial amount of Axon stock, as much as $5 million worth, in the period leading up to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seeking a considerable $220 million contract for Tasers from the company.
This timing naturally raises questions and has sparked considerable discussion. The core of the issue revolves around the potential for insider trading. When significant financial decisions are made just before a major government contract award to a specific company, it’s hard not to draw a connection. The perception is that such a move, if based on non-public information about the impending deal, could constitute illegal insider trading.
The narrative suggests a pattern that some find deeply concerning. The argument is that if decisions about stock trades are influenced by information about future government contracts, rather than the other way around, it fundamentally undermines the integrity of the market and the government procurement process. It’s a line that, legally and ethically, is often considered a bright one, and crossing it carries serious implications.
Looking back, events of this nature, especially in previous decades, would have been considered a massive scandal, capable of ending careers. However, the current climate, for a segment of the population, seems to react differently. The idea of him giving up his presidential salary is often brought up, which some view as a sacrifice, while others see it as a mere formality for someone who has amassed significant wealth through other means.
There’s a strong sentiment that this entire situation represents a colossal “heist” of American resources, with the nation being “robbed blind.” The suggestion is made that independent financial advisors might have genuinely seen value in Axon stock at that particular price point, implying no foreknowledge of the ICE deal. However, the pervasive skepticism, often laced with sarcasm, questions the idea that Trump would operate without any insider knowledge, invoking the notion of the “art of the steal.”
For those who support Trump, this is often framed as proof of his astute business acumen. It’s a perspective that views such maneuvers not as corruption, but as shrewd deal-making. This viewpoint is contrasted with the idea that such actions are essentially a form of legalized theft, akin to the infamous “Peanut Farm” deal of past political lore. The sentiment extends to a broad criticism of Republicans, with some labeling them as “traitors to the Constitution.”
The hope is expressed that Trump will soon turn his attention to more pressing economic issues, such as lowering grocery and gas prices, and fixing the broader economy, while the MAGA movement continues to cheer him on. The very nature of insider trading is being debated: is it still insider trading if the decisions are made based on stock trades rather than the other way around? The prevailing view is that, yes, it is, regardless of how legalistic arguments might try to circumvent the intent.
Adding another layer to the complexity, Axon is noted to have ties to Israel, a detail that some observers find relevant in the broader geopolitical context. The expectation is that such potential irregularities, if they were to occur in another administration, would be thoroughly investigated. However, there’s a cynical prediction that in this case, it will be met with a dismissive “nothing to see here,” drawing parallels to the handling of other sensitive investigations.
This observation leads to a broader critique of the “conspiracy theory” crowd. The irony is highlighted: while some are busy deciphering hidden meanings in obscure data, they seem to overlook the more overt instances of corruption and financial impropriety happening in plain sight. The question is posed: why would Trump seek the presidency if not for personal gain and the enrichment of his associates?
The implication is that this publicly known financial maneuver is just the tip of the iceberg, with countless other undisclosed “deals” likely having taken place. This is seen as the ultimate form of corruption, and there’s a fervent hope that the next administration will not let such matters slide “in the name of healing” but will pursue full prosecution. The current level of corruption is described as unprecedented in American history, with Congress often seen as failing in its oversight duties.
Comparisons are made to historical scandals like Watergate, which now seem like minor incidents in comparison to the current perceived level of malfeasance. The idea of draining a “swamp of corruption and insider trade” is brought up, albeit with a jaundiced view of Axon itself, labeling it as a disingenuous “good company” that actively manipulates its stock price, partly through employee stock compensation plans.
It’s felt that in a different era, such actions would have been career-ending. The current reality, however, suggests that this might not even be the most egregious act of the day. A strong sentiment exists that politicians should be prohibited from engaging in stock trades while in office. In any other administration, this would have been a monumental scandal, prompting significant reforms. The lack of accountability is lamented, with the wish that those involved would face imprisonment and asset seizure.
There’s a plea for Trump supporters to recognize that this alleged corruption directly impacts their own finances, emphasizing that he serves only himself. The desire for personal wealth to engage in similar “insider trading” is expressed, alongside surprise that more investment isn’t made in these “scams,” as they are perceived as near-certainties.
Anecdotally, some small business owners who identify with the MAGA movement apparently view rule-breaking, like violating building codes or labor laws, as a sign of intelligence. They are said to embrace Trump’s actions in this regard. The hope is that all the ill-gotten gains will be reclaimed and redirected towards programs that those who engage in such practices would typically oppose, such as initiatives to help the poor.
The phrase “art of the insider deal” is used to describe the situation, adding it to an already extensive list of questionable dealings. The criticism isn’t limited to Trump, as it’s acknowledged that members of Congress also engage in similar practices, making his alleged actions less surprising to some.
Despite the criticisms, there’s an observation that for a significant portion of the American populace, this is viewed as a major victory for Trump. The sentiment is expressed that many people overseas either seem to dislike him intensely or, conversely, are deeply impressed by his business skills, often remaining unaware of his past financial difficulties like casino bankruptcies.
The nuance of these overseas perceptions is clarified: it’s not that half of all people abroad like him, but rather half of those who *bring him up* in conversation do. This often happens when people learn the travelers are from the US. Some overseas individuals, upon hearing the travelers are from Texas, might even offer positive remarks. The concern is that too many abroad are susceptible to believing the narrative, while a third are simply indifferent. The observation about Americans “really getting behind this” is also noted, with many seeing it purely as a sign of his business prowess.
The article then references the Teapot Dome scandal, once considered the pinnacle of political scandals, to highlight how such events are now perceived as routine in the US. The idea that some people believe they might one day receive insider tips from Trump to participate in such schemes is mentioned, showcasing a peculiar brand of aspiration. The speed at which major news cycles now move is also noted, with scandals that would have dominated headlines for months now lasting only a day.
The bar for what constitutes a scandal has indeed shifted, and there’s a call to avoid euphemisms or treating it as debatable. The current situation is unequivocally labeled as “blatant and clear cut corruption and insider trading.” However, a note of caution is raised about the need for actual proof, given the individual’s history of alleged dishonesty.
The point about Trump giving up a $400,000 salary, despite being a billionaire with numerous properties, is met with incredulity, comparing it to a famous actor accepting a modest sum for a role. The description of Trump as the “most successful mob boss in the history of this country” is offered, with the sarcastic assertion that he’s so good a businessman he can simply ignore insider information and still buy stock.
Finally, a somewhat radical suggestion is made: why not let the stock market directly vote on bills, bypassing the political process altogether? This highlights the deep distrust in the current system. The article concludes by noting Axon’s near-monopoly status in body cameras and Tasers across the US, predicting departments will be locked into expensive, long-term contracts with limited alternatives. This makes Axon a good stock to buy, unless, of course, one is privy to insider information about upcoming deals. The final question posed is who these non-Americans praising Trump’s business skills might be.