I'm honestly shocked that anyone here would take that Vanity Fair article seriously. It made no attempt whatsoever to link the trades to one another. The events in question were diverse, and would have required access to many very disparate sources of insider information. And most importantly, the article made no attempt to establish that these trades were unusual. How common are trades of that magnitude? Such a basic question, left completely unaddressed. It's mind numbing that they would think it's acceptable to publish something that lacking in critical thinking.
You can’t link the trade the public data that CME publishes for free or under their paid service is an aggregate they will never disclose individual trades other than through their mandatory regulatory reporting.
Of course. But they could try to provide some circumstantial evidence that they were the same. Similar trade sizes, similar execution patterns, etc.. There are way they could have attempted to make their case. If they cared at all about making a case, that is.
