Pelosi slammed for selling Google stocks right before DOJ announced antitrust suit

[WVK]

I recall Rush Limbaugh addressing this issue.. he pointed out that $174,000  yr is chump change  in DC.  They’re interacting with lawyers , lobbyists and others who make the big bucks.  Temptation.  

[preacherman76]

On 1/26/2023 at 8:22 PM, Agent0range said:

Dang.  She's a terrible trader.  Alphabet is up like $14 since she sold it....

Her trading record out matches Bill Gates and Warren Buffet by a long shot. 

[preacherman76]

15 hours ago, Gromdor said:

We looked the other way with the emoluments clause, we said nothing when they shot down the last bill to curb this, and we said nothing when they gutted the Congressional Ethic Office.  Seems to me that we shouldn't be complaining about what came from our own complacency.

Speak for yourself. I’ve been complaining about this for decades. 

[preacherman76]

6 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Yes yes yes… for the duration of their service, they can’t invest. 
Yay. 
Where does the blind trust stop? Children? Parents? Uncles/Aunts? What stops the insider trading? 
****ing nothing. 
This is theatre for the masses, to make it look like they’re doing something while ensuring there are enough loopholes for business as usual

Yep

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, preacherman76 said:

Speak for yourself. I’ve been complaining about this for decades. 

Saying something and then voting for the very people that do this are two different things.

[preacherman76]

7 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Saying something and then voting for the very people that do this are two different things.

I dig it. It’s been a rock and a hard place, till recently. 

[+DieChecker]

10 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Yes yes yes… for the duration of their service, they can’t invest. 
Yay. 
Where does the blind trust stop? Children? Parents? Uncles/Aunts? What stops the insider trading? 
****ing nothing. 
This is theatre for the masses, to make it look like they’re doing something while ensuring there are enough loopholes for business as usual

I don't think its really possible, not without strict monetary oversight of all politicians. 

Nancy could easily just tell Joe Schmoe to invest in X, or sell Y, and then Joe Schmoe hands her 15%. Which looks like a donation, or a gift, or like payment to someone else in the family for a bogus job position. So many legal ways to gather illicit money.

[+OverSword]

10 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

What stops the insider trading? 

Law

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Law

How’s that working out?

[HandsomeGorilla]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

How’s that working out?

Laws were made for people who couldn't afford to buy their freedom. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, HandsomeGorilla said:

Laws were made for people who couldn't afford to buy their freedom. 

Laws never apply to those who make the laws, it’s always been that way.

[Golden Duck]

So the separation of powers doesn't work?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

36 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

So the separation of powers doesn't work?

No it works, they’ve used thei4 powers to seperate themselves from consequences.

[Golden Duck]

1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

No it works, they’ve used thei4 powers to seperate themselves from consequences.

Cynicism doesn't resolve that this an issue about the investments of those in Congress.

The problem is that there was potentially information exchanged inappropriately. If Pelosi really did get a tip-off who gave it to her? Whybdid she have a need to know.

The issue is mishandling of information. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

Cynicism doesn't resolve that this an issue about the investments of those in Congress.

nothing will. 
We might get a bromide in the form of a sacrificial goat, potentially the soon-to-retire Pelosi being “forced out” or barred from office. But nothing has changed, nothing will change.

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

The problem is that there was potentially information exchanged inappropriately. If Pelosi really did get a tip-off who gave it to her? Whybdid she have a need to know.

 

1 hour ago, Golden Duck said:

The issue is mishandling of information. 

And when those guilty are those setting the tune and deciding their own fate and punishment … there will be nothing changed.

[Golden Duck]

12 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

nothing will. 
We might get a bromide in the form of a sacrificial goat, potentially the soon-to-retire Pelosi being “forced out” or barred from office. But nothing has changed, nothing will change.

 

And when those guilty are those setting the tune and deciding their own fate and punishment … there will be nothing changed.

As others have pointed out, The PELOSI Act is unlikely to fix anything.

If the mishandling of information continues then so will the misuse of information. 

[Michelle]

23 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

If the mishandling of information continues then so will the misuse of information.

Since decisions are debated among committees or congress and voted on, a wide variety of people know the outcome beforehand. The only misuse of information is by our government officials who are privy to such information as a matter of protocol. They are insider trading which is already against the law.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Michelle

[Golden Duck]

3 minutes ago, Michelle said:

Since decisions are debated among committees or congress and voted on, a wide variety of people know the outcome beforehand. The only misuse of information is by our government officials who are privy to such information as a matter of protocol. They are insider trading which is already against the law.

Which committee was Pelosi a member of that required her to be informed, or warned, about operations of the executive?

What was her need to know?

[Michelle]

19 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Which committee was Pelosi a member of that required her to be informed, or warned, about operations of the executive?

What was her need to know?

She is the Speaker of the House and a member of Congress where all these decisions are made. The executive/president is irrelevant and may or may not even know what is being debated.

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, Michelle said:

She is the Speaker of the House and a member of Congress where all these decisions are made. The executive/president is irrelevant and may or may not even know what is being debated.

The DOJ answers to POTUS, no?

[Michelle]

Just now, Golden Duck said:

The DOJ answers to POTUS, no?

It has nothing to do with the DOJ unless their is an investigation into wrongdoing.

[Golden Duck]

8 minutes ago, Michelle said:

It has nothing to do with the DOJ unless their is an investigation into wrongdoing.

It has even less to do with Congress.

Congress makes the Law.  The Executive enforces it.

[Michelle]

How Federal Laws Are Made

Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government and makes laws for the nation. Congress has two legislative bodies or chambers: the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Anyone elected to either body can propose a new law. A bill is a proposal for a new law.

cont...

https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made

The only thing the president does is veto or sign after all of the details get ironed out.

Edited January 29, 2023 by Michelle

[Golden Duck]

1 minute ago, Michelle said:

How Federal Laws Are Made

Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government and makes laws for the nation. Congress has two legislative bodies or chambers: the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Anyone elected to either body can propose a new law. A bill is a proposal for a new law.

cont...

https://www.usa.gov/how-laws-are-made

Yep, that's my point.

Thank you.

[Michelle]

1 minute ago, Golden Duck said:

Yep, that's my point.

Thank you.

Then we must have different definitions of various words. The president certainly doesn't enforce the laws. He's little more than a figurehead.