Nancy Pelosi caught with her hand in the cookie jar

With a $50+ billion bill before Congress to subsidize the computer chip industry, Nancy Pelosi’s husband has purchased millions of dollars’ worth of chip maker stock. She claims she never told her husband anything about the pending legislation, but the timing is decidedly suspicious.

Pelosi claims that she didn’t know anything about the stock trades and that she doesn’t own any stock. Given that California is a join property state, that is false, and she knows it. Yet, the main stream news media ignores the story.

I can remember when Jim Wright and Newt Gingrich were forced to resign for stuff that looked not as bad as this. Yet, Pelosi has many Democrat wagons surrounding her.

This isn’t the first time that Pelosi has been caught using her knowledge of legislation to benefit from stock trades. Yet, she continues in office. Will she get the ax this time? I doubt it. There are two sets of laws, one for Republicans and much more forgiving one for Democrats.

And you for radical leftists who hate rich people, Pelosi is worth at least $100 million.

I just found out the recently approved Commissioner of the Security and Exchange Commission was a long time aid to Nancy Pelosi. He will look into her possible violation of the insider trading laws. So Nancy has it covered. She can break the law and sneak under the wire. :smiley:

“Sneak?” I thought their current MO is to blatantly break the law and lie through their teeth about it.

1 Like

Few thoughts…And let me start with the most important part first.

Congresspeople and their immediate families should only be able to invest though blind holdings in large a reputable firms (not your cousin, or best friend from college). I totally and 100% support disallowing congress people and their spouses and adult children from investing. If they don’t like that stipulation and don’t want to let their money be invested in a blind trust, then don’t run for Congress.

Now onto the fun part.

PURE UNADULTERATED HYPOCRACY.

Trump refused to divest from his own company. Allowed members of his family to take positions in his administration and profit.

Members of Trump’s cabinet had to quit in disgrace after being caught investing in companies they had political influence over. You don’t care about that…

So please, please give me a FU***** BREAK. You don’t care about ethics or accountability. Your just running a hit piece on Pelosi.

I don’t hate rich people. That’s the kind of things that you do. radically over generalize lumping 100’s of thousands if not millions of people into the same group and acting as if you know what they all think and want.

No, I hate rich people that use their wealth to purchase influence and corrupt our legal and political systems for their own benefit at the expense of others.

If your wealthy and don’t do those things, I don’t dislike you.

Evidence? What I was hearing in the news is that he was in fact divesting himself from his own companies. Mind you, I don’t rule out that you’re right. On the other hand, I never wanted nor voted for Trump anymore than I did for Biden (although the latter was an easy decision).

Notice the game he is playing here.

There is a specific allegation concerning the timing of Nancy Pelosi’s husband’s investments. This prompts him to give us platitudes about how it’s wrong for members of Congress to be investing in the stock markets, which they have been doing for a long time and will continue to do.

Then we pivot to Trump without ever commenting about the issues with Pelosi. The result is that he blows off the Pelosi issue, which is what the media at large is doing with the issue.

Pelosi has done this before and gotten away with it. Using tactics like this, she will continue to get away with it. There is one standard for Democrats, which, short of outright bribery, is them to do what they want. There is a much tougher standard for Republicans.

Democrats can use their position to get wealthy and powerful. This also applies to RINO Republicans. Republicans who speak up about the issues must take a vow of poverty and leave office in worse financial condition than when they took office.

I didn’t realize there were people who weren’t aware of this…

And now we know that two Chinese nationals were making straw donations with Chinese money.

Please don’t resort to attacking the sources.

What, he promised? Scouts honor?

So we take Trump’s word, but not Pelosi’s?

Well we can agree that the candidates from each party offer less than stellar options.

I said I thought it was wrong. That said, "timing isn’t proof the law was broken, but the law in this case will rarely if ever catch politicians unless they are stupid which is why I said I’d support disallowing politicians and presidents from using their positions and their vote to vote on legislation that coincides favorably with their investment choices.

image

No, it was reported that he did. And in spite of the headline, that Forbes article you linked seems to say just that.

If we get DeSantis, I’ll disagree. But if it’s Trump, then yeah.

It says that he handed over control to his sons, that’s not the same as divesting.

DeSantis is just Trump with a little bit more common sense. But he’s still an authoritarian.

Notice how “he who shall not be mentioned” continues to ignore the Pelosi stock option issue. As for the DeSantis “authoritarian” comment, in his own words, “That’s rich!”

Supporters of the Democrat - Socialist Party have no room to talk. All of their party’s leadership are authoritarians, except for abortions and crime. On those issues, they are quite permissive.

It is so far as I can tell.

I don’t even come close to agreeing.

It is not. To divest is to sell off your assets in a business or put those assets in a trust. He did neither.

I am still waiting for “he who shall not be mentioned” to demonstrate any healthy curiosity concerning the Pelosi family chip investments. I fear that it will be like Waiting for Godod. His curiosity about political wrongdoing runs parallel that that of Representative Adam Schiff, who wears similar blinders.

According to my Merriam-Webster, the relevant definition is “to deprive or dispossess esp. of property, authority, or title.” So far as I can tell, he did that. It would be different if the family members he turned it over to weren’t legal adults; but as I understand, that isn’t the case. You may say: “But he still has influence.” I would agree. But definitionally and legally, I believe he did divest himself of said properties.

The definition is correct, however you are incorrect. He did not divest.