4 ms·

You're making a very serious allegation, that a politician has been using insider trading to make money on the stock market. Do you have any evidence of this,

You're making a very serious allegation, that a politician has been using insider trading to make money on the stock market. Do you have any evidence of this, or are you repeating something you read on Reddit/Twitter/Facebook etc?

disambiguation 5y ago
I'm not aware of any direct evidence, but I think there's plenty of indirect evidence that should prompt an investigation. Senators dumping stocks prior to the pandemic shutdowns, for example. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488593-four-senators-sold-stocks-before-coronavirus-threat-crashed-market https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488593-four-senators-sol...
- Freskis 5y ago
  Do you think that people should be calling for the death of a politician based on "indirect evidence"?
  - disambiguation 5y ago
    Personally I'm against the death penalty, so I don't think we should listen to people that call for any ones death, for any reason. Reading between the lines, however, I do think people have a right to be upset due to indirect evidence.
publicexecution 5y ago
[flagged]
Rebelgecko 5y ago
Which part are you doubting? That Pelosi has access to material nonpublic information? Or that she's making money on trades after she attains that knowledge? The latter is public record. She and her husband have drastically outperformed the market for years. I think the former is undeniable given her job. Just a comment about an industry she likes or doesn't like can impact share prices.
- Freskis 5y ago
  Again, you are making an incredible claim (Pelosi has made money illegally) without providing any evidence. I understand that this rhetoric is normal on some low-quality websites that you may frequent, but there's generally a higher standard of discourse here.
  - Rebelgecko 5y ago
    Based off of your tone I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but I'm going to give your comment the benefit of the doubt. They don't make it easy to link to specific queries, but you can pull up her financial filings here: https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/PublicDisclosure/FinancialDisclosure https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/PublicDisclosure/Financi... For evidence that she has inside information, I'd encourage you to read the wiki article for Speaker of The House, especially the sections that go over their legislative and committee-steering powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_H... There's no smoking gun audio recording where Nancy Pelosi specifically says "Hey Paul, I'm gonna launch an investigation against Facebook and accuse them of being a monopoly tomorrow, so sell your shares now!" I could lose my job for insider trading even without that direct proof of causality, just trading stock with material insider info leads to a presumption of wrongdoing. Since Pelosi nominally works for us, maybe she (and the rest of Congress) should be held to the same standard? I don't think the claim is particularly incredible like you claim: around 50 members of Congress have been punished for violating the STOCK Act with fines often as high as $200.

disambiguation 5y ago

I'm not aware of any direct evidence, but I think there's plenty of indirect evidence that should prompt an investigation. Senators dumping stocks prior to the pandemic shutdowns, for example. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488593-four-senators-sold-stocks-before-coronavirus-threat-crashed-market https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/488593-four-senators-sol...

Freskis 5y ago
Do you think that people should be calling for the death of a politician based on "indirect evidence"?
- disambiguation 5y ago
  Personally I'm against the death penalty, so I don't think we should listen to people that call for any ones death, for any reason. Reading between the lines, however, I do think people have a right to be upset due to indirect evidence.

publicexecution 5y ago

[flagged]

Rebelgecko 5y ago

Which part are you doubting? That Pelosi has access to material nonpublic information? Or that she's making money on trades after she attains that knowledge? The latter is public record. She and her husband have drastically outperformed the market for years. I think the former is undeniable given her job. Just a comment about an industry she likes or doesn't like can impact share prices.

Freskis 5y ago
Again, you are making an incredible claim (Pelosi has made money illegally) without providing any evidence. I understand that this rhetoric is normal on some low-quality websites that you may frequent, but there's generally a higher standard of discourse here.
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  Based off of your tone I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but I'm going to give your comment the benefit of the doubt. They don't make it easy to link to specific queries, but you can pull up her financial filings here: https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/PublicDisclosure/FinancialDisclosure https://disclosures-clerk.house.gov/PublicDisclosure/Financi... For evidence that she has inside information, I'd encourage you to read the wiki article for Speaker of The House, especially the sections that go over their legislative and committee-steering powers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_H... There's no smoking gun audio recording where Nancy Pelosi specifically says "Hey Paul, I'm gonna launch an investigation against Facebook and accuse them of being a monopoly tomorrow, so sell your shares now!" I could lose my job for insider trading even without that direct proof of causality, just trading stock with material insider info leads to a presumption of wrongdoing. Since Pelosi nominally works for us, maybe she (and the rest of Congress) should be held to the same standard? I don't think the claim is particularly incredible like you claim: around 50 members of Congress have been punished for violating the STOCK Act with fines often as high as $200.