One obvious reason being that if they did it before the election, it'd definitely be considered election interference. DOJ has a policy of not taking major enforcement action in the political sphere for some period before an election.
I would recommend not trusting an unnamed source's interpretation of another party's actions. They're not describing what they saw or what they know, they're describing what they think.
If they are going with that theory they should also investigate the pollsters who put out suspiciously positive polls that seemed designed to drive enthusiasm for Harris the week before election. I'm thinking specifically of that infamous Iowa Selzer poll.
Yes, the source is claiming that the government is likely to accuse Polymarket of rigging their predictive analysis about the election ("polls" but apparently they don't actually poll), not the election itself.
My mind also went to lawfare, which there has been so much of from this administration and various states - not just concerning Trump but also Elon.
Why care about this website that very few people have even heard of? Because it was the one place that did not predict a very close election outcome? Nate Silver accused pollsters of herding given all of them were painting every race as a toss up, and this seems like a good alternative source of information.
> Why care about this website that very few people have even heard of?
Probably because there was credible belief of a criminal act, and probably not for the reasons that an unnamed source an NYPost article is conjecturing.
I must be missing something here, I haven't found anything about this relationship that is illegal. It's cozy, perhaps not the best way to go about things, but there's nothing in here of what they are doing that is in any way illegal. It doesn't even break regulations. I get that maybe the reporter is trying to draw a parallel between private corporations working with police departments, but I'm not seeing a problem.
A billionaire is creating the impression his portfolio companies are building successful relationships in the market by providing funds to the police with which to “buy” said products.
Evidence shows they have no input on the purchases and are entirely guided by Horowitz.
In addition he is funding other police requests in return for an unspecified level of special treatment and access.
What if this doesn’t strike you as rampant corruption?
I tried to service, but it felt buggy, and I just didn't feel there was a need to switch full-time. I'm using social media a lot less, i'm trying to navigate blue sky makes me want to use it even less.
