> Depending on who you talk to, Lebed was either viewed as a person who knowingly abused the system and broke the law, or someone who acted no differently than Wall Street analysts acted
Both of these statements can be true at the same time.
Both of these statements can be true at the same time.
Funny how selectively quoting a bit differently makes that appear far less so.
You have to go through their kangaroo court with an ALJ, and arger likely getting a judgement against you, can you actually go to a real court.
And this is combined with different rules for different income classes.
Kid from middle income family gets smacked down hard. Whereas billionaire employees doing work on wall street either get low scrutiny, or pay 2% of what they made (Read: cost of doing business).
The "rights" of the rich are not for the rest of us.
Fun fact: adherence to law is not required in an ALJ court. If one loses in ALJ, then one may proceed to appeal in a regular court where law must be considered.
[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_law_judge_(al...
What's a billionaire employee?
They didn't say anything that implied this applied to every single emoyee of a billionaire, so the janitor who happens to work for a billionaire and happens to buy a stock doesn't change anything or invalidate that point.
The employees being referenced are the ones employed to do trades for investors or for the company itself or for the billionaire themself (which might be a person or a group or a company).
Cramer admits to doing basically an insider version of "flood finance.yahoo.com with bs" as his job