Yes, yes, yes quite so but you're talking about ethics, morality, standards of behavior. Insider trading is _law_ and Pelosi is not in breach of the _law_. App

Yes, yes, yes quite so but you're talking about ethics, morality, standards of behavior. Insider trading is _law_ and Pelosi is not in breach of the _law_. Apparently the test is that the market moving info to which you are privy has been /stolen/ from the company if you tell your bartender and they trade. Pelosi changes the legal and regulatory environment in the future in ways the company doesn't even know about! So nothing is stolen from the company and her husband /can/ and /does/ take massive positions in short dated out of the money options based on whether a law will pass or not to the financial advantage of the company and so has made a huge fortune for the Pelosis and can then laugh in your face because it is perfectly legal to do so. Pretty sure Pelosi is doing that laughing too but that part is merely like, my opinion man. Whether it /should/ be legal, whether it /should/ be classified insider trading, whether Pelosi or anyone behaving like that making tens of millions from trading on ifnfo gained in confidence performing "public service" belongs in jail is an entirely different discussion. Around here when someone points out "may be legal but definitely not ok" there are usually a string of responses to the contrary that if it's legal you can't blame a person so that discussion probably isn't worth having, nobody will change their views on it. Trump is awful and horrendous and it should be crystal clear from the above how that affects my thinking on the vile-ness of Pelosi and her ilk. How about you? Does the existence of Trump make rampant corruption elsewhere ok because it is "not Trump" in your opinion? It does seem to be the zeitgeist in many quarters.