A) Yes, "insider trading" was my term, not theirs. But: What if not that do they imply with the whole article?

B) Yes, the article notes Walmart:

He sold $25 million of Walmart stock in his personal account, even as Berkshire almost doubled its stake

As I mentioned at the very end of my post (after accidentally pasting everything in that post a 2nd time which was confusing so that you might not have continued to that end): What exactly is the point here? What's his wrongdoing, his profiting from insider knowledge by doing the opposite of Berkshire?

Because that, without using the term, is what the whole article implies: That Buffett profited from insider knowledge/trading --- without that article providing any hard facts supporting that. Wouldn't it be the most natural thing with their leaked IRS records to provide the exact dates of those trades, the exact details for those alleged "at least 3 occasions"? Why don't they give us those dates/details which would enable everyone to judge for oneself?