Maybe Slate is correct, but if they are attacking Vanity Fair for a lack of evidence I would expect them to provide something substantial to prove them "patently false". Spoiler alert they didn't and neither has the CME.
Basically the VF article is the equivalent of seeing a group of people wearing suits, suspiciously waiting in the same spot (e.g. at a pedestrian crossing) and making the absurd deduction that it must be some sort of conspiracy.
There is literally nothing of substance. They saw something that happens basically every week, a few hours before Trump did something!
What they should prove? They are a derivative exchange, it’s obvious that at any single time there are people buying and selling huge quantities of one of the most traded futures in the world...
Vanity Fair didn't prove any evidence though. They just said "trades were made". Were those trades of unusual size? Unasked. Is there reason to believe those trades were made by the same entity? Unasked. They just insinuated things without actually trying to establish anything.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
