Good piece here by Reuters Breaking Views (Reuters, Forbes, The Guardian have run some fair analysis)

“Unlike Rajaratnam and other insider traders, Gupta wasn’t caught on tape discussing wrongdoing. And though he bought into a Galleon fund, the evidence that he gained financially from his tips was thin. Yet prosecutors made the most of their circumstantial case, including phone records of Gupta calling Rajaratnam seconds before the hedgie traded Goldman shares.

It shows prosecutors can win without a smoking gun. Although that should give every would-be tip giver or user pause, it doesn’t mean it’ll stop them from taking the risk. For one, it’s still not obvious when an insider crosses the line.

Divulging information is only illegal if the divulger means to profit. Gupta didn’t clearly benefit. That the jury convicted him anyway suggests a mere desire to help his friend may have been enough. Such a fuzzy legal standard, however, makes compliance complex.”

I have been reading up about Jed Rakoff’s cases and he is a strange guy. He’s being touted by Vanity Fair and other establishment outlets as some kind of “enforcer” of Wall Street. This is a bad sign already. Think Elizabeth Warren or Alan Greenspan, for that matter. Anyone who gets touted on Time Magazine cover as a savior, including Assange, should be regarded with suspicion.

Rakoff has been involved with several cases involving the Goldman mafia. I haven’t had time to get into any depth on them. this is what I take away. He makes decisions that look tough, but then when you dig into them, you find their long-term effects are negative and would actually make enforcements more difficult. That’s what Robert Khuzami thinks. Of course, Khuzami, who went after Goldman too, has his own motives.

But in a case involving a Madoff victim and the Madoff trustee, learned opinion actually concluded that Rakoff had made it HARDER for victims to collect, shifting the burden of proof to them to show that they didn’t knowingly accept money they knew was coming from a scam (that’s my rough precis of more complex issues).

Then in another case, Bank of America, again issues have been raised about whether his method of proceeding, itself strongly criticized by some,  would actually make it harder in future and more expensive for the government.

Bank of America, in any case, was one of the banks that got targeted by the Big Boyz, and by their social media/hacker stooges on the left who are part of the new “covert government.” that is, it’s not a connected bank in the same way as JP Morgan or Goldman. In other words, the judicial system in being used selectively to enable interbank take-downs.

And that’s what we have here in the Gupta case.  Gupta is being made a target,  to distract from the real perps. Meanwhile, the jurisprudence of insider-trading is muddied up – appearing to laymen to have been tightened up, but at the same time to legal experts as having actually been weakened.

This is all tentative on my part, of course.

But Rakoff’s rulings on hearsay are puzzling many experts, the jury’s rush to judgment is breath-taking, the media framing is obvious, and the propaganda value of all this as part of a broad covert war on India is apparent to anyone who knows the political context in which this is unfolding.

In other words, Rakoff is enabling what the banksters/globalists actually want: A fuzzy environment, where they can use the law to target their enemies and make their own position even stronger.

Can’t people see what’s going on here? Please check my archives of Sept. 2008, and read about WaMu, Lehman and the rest. It was interbank cannibalism, not global collapse, as the mainstream media, for its own purposes, wanted you to believe.

Same thing here.

The guy being thrown to the wolves as though this is a take-down of Goldman, when he is actually being taken down to PROTECT Goldman.

And the jurisprudence is supposedly being tightened and toughened on insider trading, but it is really being made murkier so the ruling mafia can USE IT SELECTIVELY to pursue political enemies and commercial rivals.

That’s as simply as I can explain the big picture.