I swear man, the market, the economy, the world every single day, just gets crazier and crazier and crazier and no exception to that is media and news reporting and we just had uh something pretty fascinating, come out from business insider and it's it's. I it's honestly surprising that this came to be this is coming from insider and it is a uh acclaim against uh portnoy dave portnoy. It says this. I was literally screaming in pain, young women say they met barstool sports, founder dave, portnoy for sex and it turned violent and humiliating, and i actually have uh no dog in this in this fight right.

I'm not here to stand up for dave pornoy, i'm not here to stand up for julia black, who happens to be the reporter on this story. I'm here because i have a problem with mainstream media and a lot of the ways that they pitch different things uh with what i would say, some incentives, some conflict of interest in their own sort of way, and that's what i want to talk about here today. So in case you're not familiar, this piece came out against dave portnoy, essentially stating along the lines that he has a target of a younger uh age of women. Right he'll engage in sexual activity with young women and a couple women did come out and make statements saying that they felt uncomfortable and uh that they did not feel it was a consensual process.

Essentially, right - and my my issue with this is: is here right, julia black? She was the reporter that was behind this business insider sort of a story spent about eight months, putting together this unbiased uh sort of situation with business insider trying to stay. You know we're just kind of digging into this we're trying to make make sense of whatever the situation is. I'm dave portnoy. I have no bones to pick - let's, let's just figure out what's going on here and throughout that eight months.

Essentially, what they came up with was they reached out to a couple a dozen different women who had connections with dave, portnoy and said: hey, look, tell us the story. What do you got? What do you got for dirt on this guy and a couple came up and they drew some pretty explicit images which i'm not going to dig into here right now. But the problem for me is for eight months of substantiating research. You have to be able to back up claims that you're making, especially if they're a criminal offense you know in their story.

They have one line right here saying this. She told the police - and this is referencing - the mother of one of the the women who uh who came out and spoke about dave. Pornoy said this: she told the police go put somebody outside his door, because you're going to see every day that there's some young girl being dropped off insider viewed, police documents confirming this call and then later you have uh. This come out right here right.

This is from a different news: reporting station nantucket police spokesman, lieutenant angus uh, told nbc news. On friday the department had not received the phone call as described in the insider article. He had not spoken to black mac vigar. Also out of the department was not currently investigating portnoy and to me, that's that's that raises some questions, because if you are making some statements within this article right off the bat that don't necessarily line up with the truth, well, there's a lot of different things that Could be stretched in that same sort of way, and i want to dig into now that we kind of established that the main problem that i have with business insider is it looks like this is an inside job right, pen, p-e-n-n.

This is a company associated with dave portnoy, essentially they uh they're a gaming, slash, sort of gambling, uh business and obviously, when this news came out, the company took an absolute dump the day of uh, the news article. The stock was down 21.08 percent, but probably the wildest thing about that entire situation is, it looks like there are people that knew that was going to happen unusual wheels right. He has a great product. The unusual whales options flow tracker put this out there.

It seems someone was front loading. It too buying large put positions. Someone was seemingly planning the dip. Let me know if you need help explaining this and you look at the uh.

The options flow coming in and it was extremely extremely bearish right. It seems as if there were people that knew this news. Article was going to in fact come out and front loaded. The position now this if you're not familiar, is what i would consider pretty damning insider trading, because sure i mean it's possible.

I guess that uh tons of people just dumped tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of dollars into put positions right before that article came out. But how likely is that right? That's a coincidental sort of uh thing that i don't think is a coincidence, and on top of that you have another problem right check. This out. Dave porter dug this up about uh this gentleman right here.

His name is henry blodgett and he is the ceo of insider now check this out. In 2002, then new york state attorney general elliott, spitzer published merrill lynch emails, in which blodget gave assessments about stocks which conflicted with what was publicly publicly published in 2003. He was charged with civil securities fraud by the u.s securities and exchange commission. He agreed to a permanent ban from the securities industry and paid a 2 million plus fine, a 2 million disgorgement, and what this is essentially saying is the ceo, a business insider which put out this piece which affected a company which could have potentially been inside or Traded has a history of uh fraudulence.

I mean that's just as simple as it gets. That is pretty blanket evidence that this gentleman right here, henry blodgett, has a history of that sort of thing now, like i said this is a legend. This is me sort of connecting dots. I cannot say with absolute certainty that he's connected i'm not even i'm, not even accusing this guy, but what i'm telling you is that there's a lot of fishy things that are going on with this uh, the situation with business.

Insider, i don't think it's a coincidence that you saw this stock absolutely taken before that somebody front loaded. This that's a problem for me right. It's a problem for me that the police report uh that they said they backed up and they asked about. They didn't actually call in and ask they didn't actually uh back up that claim in the report before really putting out something that could ruin somebody's life.

If it isn't true now, i think uh, if you were to connect all these dots and sort of think about this right. What are my final thoughts on this entire situation? I think, from a ethical and moral perspective, what this article is doing right and it could be true right, it's innocent until proven guilty. In my opinion, it could be true. It may be false right, i'm not here, to tell you that this guy is or is not guilty of these claims.

What i'm saying is you have to be able to provide some damning evidence for somebody like dave, portnoy right if you're gon na make these claims, because it affects not only him but anybody who's invested in his company, and if these are wrongful claims, you just screwed Millions of people out of information and beyond that, i think it's a preying on moral and ethical grounds. Right people are going to see this they're going to read that headline they're going to think to themselves. This guy is a rapist right and there's there's no there's! No way to know that outside of hearsay, he said she said he could be lying. The other women could be lie.

It can go both ways right. I want to see evidence backing that up and then it's just absurd to me. I can't believe that you're seeing this sort of thing happen, i mean do i think, as a person that uh is 44 years old, you should be sleeping with 18 year olds, 19 year olds. No problem, it's not my! That's! Not my cup of tea.

I'll tell you that right now right, but is that illegal? These are some pretty crazy statements. These guys are making and to me it is exactly what i stated preying on people's moral and ethical grounds. Without the actual substantial evidence i mean simply put i've seen people on reddit and twitter come up with more damning evidence within a day than julia black had put together in eight months right. This from the very start, looked like a hit piece.

It just did it 100 absolutely did and if you're going to be a journalist, you can't be a blogger. You can't put out opinions and state them as if it's factual, you know that to me is problematic and i'll. Tell you what there are people in my life who have been victims of sexual assault and i'm not going to get into the details and i'm not going to talk about names or anything like that. But that's a really shitty thing.

You know it obviously sucks. It affects that person honestly sometimes for life, it's terrible, but what you're doing, if you're, putting out a piece like this without actually having the facts, is you're undermining that in and of itself and from a securities and financial perspective. It creates the opportunity for what i would consider to be securities fraud, people front loading, a massive flush on a position, sketchy stuff guys i don't know like i said i've got no dog in this dave may be guilty. He may be innocent.

What i'm here to tell you is this looks like uh. Somebody took advantage of this piece and planned on taking advantage of this piece and that's some sketchy. That's sus that sucks as it gets and that's what i've got for you so catch you guys on the next one: much love lights, apps, peace.