8 ms·

Rule of law means, more than anything else, that there are consequences for the rich and powerful. > Other major figures in the case settled years ago, includi

Rule of law means, more than anything else, that there are consequences for the rich and powerful. > Other major figures in the case settled years ago, including the builder and the owner of the private lockups and their companies, in payouts totaling about $25 million. When you can settle for "just the cost of doing business" prices, the rule of law is clearly weak enough that you know corruption is accelerating. Nothing has made America's lack of rule of law more apparent to me than the "rule of law" party's 2nd most powerful person standing in front of news cameras and confidently saying "My husband and I have a right to trade stocks with insider information, despite numerous professionals being restricted from doing so. Rules for thee, but not for me, because I'm a congresswoman." How are we supposed to fight corruption, systemic or otherwise, when the people most equipped to fight it won't even look at themselves? Our leaders are failing to lead by example.

moneywoes 4y ago
Did they ban that congressional trading yet?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
IIUC, insider trading your own corporate stock is illegal (depending on your position at the company). This doesn't apply to what you're talking about, though. The more common crime is giving insider information. Not acting on it - which would be what congress does. Am I wrong? Assuming Pelosi is giving her husband insider info (and come on - why NOT assume) - congress has pretty clear laws on things that cannot be shared. IIUC - giving INSIDER info is only illegal when you either 1) work at the company or 2) obtain the info illegally. Congress people do not work at these companies, and they also are not getting the info illegally. Is anything we're assuming she's sharing breaching any law? I can get behind banning Congress from trading - but what about their spouses? What about their cousins and friends? Where do you draw the line?
- nickff 4y ago
  The law surrounding insider trading is incredibly opaque and hard to understand. The way things are currently interpreted, Congress members cannot be guilty of insider trading for acting on confidential information acquired as part of their official duties.
  - missedthecue 4y ago
    Have you heard of the STOCK Act? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  I don't know. I am a layman. There is clearly a conflict of interest when a person who has the power to kill competition via regulation, or give corporate handouts via incentives and subsidies can invest in those very same companies. I was wrong to state trading with insider information (although knowing what regulation will happen certainly seems like a form of privileged information) was the root problem here. The conflict of interest is what is corrosive to society.
nkingsy 4y ago
I was always under the impression that the GOP claimed the title "rule of law party" Also, your paraphrasing of her quote is uncharitable at best. I believe she said “We are a free-market economy. [Congress] should be able to participate in that”
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  The GOP says "law and order" which has connotations of use of force to ensure order. "Law and order" tends to reference the idea of a dominance hierarchy, and that the authority of the dominance hierarchy is absolute. We saw "law and order" referenced frequently with BLM to put down protests because they were disorderly. "Law and order" means "might makes right." Those with might make the "laws" and enforce them to ensure order. "Rule of law" is a different concept which references a set of values codified as law which apply equally to everyone.
  - salawat 4y ago
    You're making distinction without difference. Both GOP and Dems value "Law and Order" equally. The Rule of Law bit is far more squishily applied by both parties, however. The whole private prisons settling as cost of doing business, however, is one reason the LLC and the legal fiction of corporations as completely seperate from the people operating them was controversial in the first place, as it served as what could be used as a layer of protection from the Courts/Justice System.
  - jrs235 4y ago
    Correct. I don't care much for law and order. I want orderly justice.
- TomSwirly 4y ago
  > “We are a free-market economy. [Congress] should be able to participate in that” No, you should NOT allowed to be trade on inside information that no one else has access to just because you are "important". No, you should particularly not be allowed to trade in securities that you are writing legislation on. All legislators should be obliged to put their investment assets into a blind trust, administered by a complete stranger that they aren't allowed to contact. If they won't do this, fine - there are plenty of people for which this would not be any sort of problem at all.
cortesoft 4y ago
The two judges were sentenced to 28 years and 17.5 years in prison, so it is more than just the cost of doing business they ended up facing.
- kelnos 4y ago
  I think they were referring to people and companies who owned the private juvenile prisons. Seems like they got away with fines, and those fines were directed toward the companies, not the individuals involved.
  - candiodari 4y ago
    There were also many people in the "justice apparatus" (ie. the prosecutor, police, a GREAT many social workers of two dozen different organizations, schools, ...) that were intimately involved with this practice. They got away with it because they didn't get paid. But their "duty" is to "protect the interest of the children" (literally from the law). To say they utterly failed their duty is vastly understating what happened. Half a dozen children committed suicide because of them. Frankly, if that happened because of a private citizen ... they would have been dragged before the court on charges of murder and faced decades in prison. If all it takes is one bad actor (e.g. a more-and-more drunk elderly judge) to create this practice for 5 years, which then goes unpunished for another 10 years ... then we've lost all semblance of justice.
- DethNinja 4y ago
  These people are very old though, and probably lived a great life with all the money they made. 28 year sentence at age 70+ is not really a huge amount of justice.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    It's a life sentence. Is there anything harsher short of the death penalty?
    - 4y ago
kelnos 4y ago
Seriously; the people involved on the private prison side should also see jail time. And if the scheme was pervasive or high-up enough, the government should have dissolved the companies entirely.
amf12 4y ago
> "My husband and I have a right to trade stocks with insider information, despite numerous professionals being restricted from doing so. Rules for thee, but not for me, because I'm a congresswoman." I agree with your message, but one nitpick would be to not use quotations for something not really said by the person you are referring to. I was confused for a moment if that was a real quote.
al2o3cr 4y ago
Nothing has made America's lack of rule of law more apparent to me than My congratulations to you on waking up from a coma that's lasted since 2015. Good job!
- DiggyJohnson 4y ago
  How does this comment add anything to the discussion?

moneywoes 4y ago

Did they ban that congressional trading yet?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

IIUC, insider trading your own corporate stock is illegal (depending on your position at the company). This doesn't apply to what you're talking about, though. The more common crime is giving insider information. Not acting on it - which would be what congress does. Am I wrong? Assuming Pelosi is giving her husband insider info (and come on - why NOT assume) - congress has pretty clear laws on things that cannot be shared. IIUC - giving INSIDER info is only illegal when you either 1) work at the company or 2) obtain the info illegally. Congress people do not work at these companies, and they also are not getting the info illegally. Is anything we're assuming she's sharing breaching any law? I can get behind banning Congress from trading - but what about their spouses? What about their cousins and friends? Where do you draw the line?

nickff 4y ago
The law surrounding insider trading is incredibly opaque and hard to understand. The way things are currently interpreted, Congress members cannot be guilty of insider trading for acting on confidential information acquired as part of their official duties.
- missedthecue 4y ago
  Have you heard of the STOCK Act? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act
hayst4ck 4y ago
I don't know. I am a layman. There is clearly a conflict of interest when a person who has the power to kill competition via regulation, or give corporate handouts via incentives and subsidies can invest in those very same companies. I was wrong to state trading with insider information (although knowing what regulation will happen certainly seems like a form of privileged information) was the root problem here. The conflict of interest is what is corrosive to society.

nkingsy 4y ago

I was always under the impression that the GOP claimed the title "rule of law party" Also, your paraphrasing of her quote is uncharitable at best. I believe she said “We are a free-market economy. [Congress] should be able to participate in that”

hayst4ck 4y ago
The GOP says "law and order" which has connotations of use of force to ensure order. "Law and order" tends to reference the idea of a dominance hierarchy, and that the authority of the dominance hierarchy is absolute. We saw "law and order" referenced frequently with BLM to put down protests because they were disorderly. "Law and order" means "might makes right." Those with might make the "laws" and enforce them to ensure order. "Rule of law" is a different concept which references a set of values codified as law which apply equally to everyone.
- salawat 4y ago
  You're making distinction without difference. Both GOP and Dems value "Law and Order" equally. The Rule of Law bit is far more squishily applied by both parties, however. The whole private prisons settling as cost of doing business, however, is one reason the LLC and the legal fiction of corporations as completely seperate from the people operating them was controversial in the first place, as it served as what could be used as a layer of protection from the Courts/Justice System.
- jrs235 4y ago
  Correct. I don't care much for law and order. I want orderly justice.
TomSwirly 4y ago
> “We are a free-market economy. [Congress] should be able to participate in that” No, you should NOT allowed to be trade on inside information that no one else has access to just because you are "important". No, you should particularly not be allowed to trade in securities that you are writing legislation on. All legislators should be obliged to put their investment assets into a blind trust, administered by a complete stranger that they aren't allowed to contact. If they won't do this, fine - there are plenty of people for which this would not be any sort of problem at all.

cortesoft 4y ago

The two judges were sentenced to 28 years and 17.5 years in prison, so it is more than just the cost of doing business they ended up facing.

kelnos 4y ago
I think they were referring to people and companies who owned the private juvenile prisons. Seems like they got away with fines, and those fines were directed toward the companies, not the individuals involved.
- candiodari 4y ago
  There were also many people in the "justice apparatus" (ie. the prosecutor, police, a GREAT many social workers of two dozen different organizations, schools, ...) that were intimately involved with this practice. They got away with it because they didn't get paid. But their "duty" is to "protect the interest of the children" (literally from the law). To say they utterly failed their duty is vastly understating what happened. Half a dozen children committed suicide because of them. Frankly, if that happened because of a private citizen ... they would have been dragged before the court on charges of murder and faced decades in prison. If all it takes is one bad actor (e.g. a more-and-more drunk elderly judge) to create this practice for 5 years, which then goes unpunished for another 10 years ... then we've lost all semblance of justice.
DethNinja 4y ago
These people are very old though, and probably lived a great life with all the money they made. 28 year sentence at age 70+ is not really a huge amount of justice.
- bryanlarsen 4y ago
  It's a life sentence. Is there anything harsher short of the death penalty?
  - 4y ago

kelnos 4y ago

Seriously; the people involved on the private prison side should also see jail time. And if the scheme was pervasive or high-up enough, the government should have dissolved the companies entirely.

amf12 4y ago

> "My husband and I have a right to trade stocks with insider information, despite numerous professionals being restricted from doing so. Rules for thee, but not for me, because I'm a congresswoman." I agree with your message, but one nitpick would be to not use quotations for something not really said by the person you are referring to. I was confused for a moment if that was a real quote.

al2o3cr 4y ago

Nothing has made America's lack of rule of law more apparent to me than My congratulations to you on waking up from a coma that's lasted since 2015. Good job!

DiggyJohnson 4y ago
How does this comment add anything to the discussion?