Minnesota is drowning in fraud.

[iluvatar5150]

I'm about to reply to every individual thing here but can we just pause here for a second and zoom out? Nancy Pelosi's annualized return in the last 5 years is 22.8%.

No, it isn't. Congressional financial disclosure don't list asset values in specific dollar amounts. They assign them extrememly broad ranges. I can't remember what the sub-$500k brackets look like, but IIRC, above that, they go:

• $500k-$1m
• $1m-$5m
• $5m-20m

Some of Pelosi's investments over the last few years have ticked up from one bracket to the next. Every article I've seen has done the math as if the actual value was the ceiling of each of those brackets.

IOW, if the value of one of her investments went from $999,999 to $1,000,001 (i.e. enough to move it from the $1m bracket to the $5m bracket), then the NY Post et all would treat is as having increase 400%, from $1m to $5m, which is ludicrous.

I've seen some pieces that calculate her investment returns as if she started with the wealth she had upon entering congress and then never invested any more money after that. Also ludicrous.

Berkshire Hathaway, the best investment firm in the WORLD's annualized return of the last 5 years is 13.6%, nearly HALF that.

What are you talking about? 1.) BH isn't "the best investment firm in the world." 2.) The S&P 500 return from 2019-2024 was 13.2%. The "best investment firm in the world" only beat the market average by 3%?

There are three options here:

1. Occam's razor: She trades on nonpublic information that she has access to by being a politician/insider
2. She is an 85 year old house of representatives member fishing for geriatric Facebook approval by pulling stunts like this who also moonlights as one of the greatest investment geniuses of our time on the side
3. She just got lucky with a few stocks

Don't avoid the question, North. I genuinely wanna see which one you pick

No, there are other options:
The people reporting on her returns are making faulty assumptions and doing poor math (which is demonstrably true).
Her husband is a professional investor / venture capitalist and is likely to have made some bets that paid off well.

 

[rambot]

Are Minnesota taxpayers funding a Somali terror group?

The allegations against former nonprofit Feeding Our Future are among the most serious COVID-related claims.

www.newsnationnow.com

Federal authorities who spoke with NewsNation on the condition of anonymity say al-Shabbab takes a cut of funds sent to Somalia.

EAsy enough to say; VERY easy to give an anonymous quote. Does the anonymous source at LEAST show the mechanism of how it could be done OR provide evidence it is actually happenning or is it just chum 4 da angry?

 

[another_lost_guy]

No, it isn't. Congressional financial disclosure don't list asset values in specific dollar amounts. They assign them extrememly broad ranges. I can't remember what the sub-$500k brackets look like, but IIRC, above that, they go:

• $500k-$1m
• $1m-$5m
• $5m-20m

Ok, I made a claim that her annualized return in the last 5 years was 22.8%. It's up to you to disprove that. How am I supposed to interpret this and how does it disprove what I said?

Some of Pelosi's investments over the last few years have ticked up from one bracket to the next. Every article I've seen has done the math as if the actual value was the ceiling of each of those brackets.

So what is her actual return then?

IOW, if the value of one of her investments went from $999,999 to $1,000,001 (i.e. enough to move it from the $1m bracket to the $5m bracket), then the NY Post et all would treat is as having increase 400%, from $1m to $5m, which is ludicrous.

I've seen some pieces that calculate her investment returns as if she started with the wealth she had upon entering congress and then never invested any more money after that. Also ludicrous.

I'm still not seeing a specific percentage return...

What are you talking about? 1.) BH isn't "the best investment firm in the world." 2.) The S&P 500 return from 2019-2024 was 13.2%. The "best investment firm in the world" only beat the market average by 3%?

1.) Historically speaking, under the management of Warren Buffett, it is. There are a lot of ways to judge an investment firm by strategy, size, diversification etc; but hands down Berkshire Hathaway is historically one of the best investment firms, it has famously outperformed the S&P500 consistently for about 60 years, something that doesn't sound impressive but actually is very impressive given the fact that less than 15% of hedge funds beat the market over a period of 10 years.

2.) When adjusted for such a large amount of assets under management and the risk entailed with managing such a size, yes. As I have mentioned before, consistently outperforming the S&P500 by even 3% with ANY amount of money is a monumental task that people pay BILLIONS of dollars for. Yet Pelosi was seemingly born with this amazing gift, lol

No, there are other options:
The people reporting on her returns are making faulty assumptions and doing poor math (which is demonstrably true).

Not yet demonstrably true given the fact you have neither demonstrated it yourself or provided me the resources to find someone who did demonstrate it. As far as this article goes, she has had a return of 22.8%. It's up to you or someone else to disprove that, you can't just say it isn't true without giving a conflicting return number yourself

Her husband is a professional investor / venture capitalist and is likely to have made some bets that paid off well.

Which is exactly the problem. You'll get no argument from me there, lol.

Cool Voltron pic by the way!

 

[Say it aint so]

That didn't happen.

Trump Frees Fraudster Just Days Into Seven-Year Prison Sentence ​

David Gentile had been found guilty for his role in what prosecutors described as a $1.6 billion scheme that defrauded thousands of investors.​

​

....More than 1,000 people submitted statements attesting to their losses, according to prosecutors, who characterized the victims as “hardworking, everyday people,” including small business owners, farmers, veterans, teachers and nurses.​

​

“I lost my whole life savings,” one wrote, adding, “I am living from check to check.”​

​

And he's just one of many pardoned by Trump

 

[Say it aint so]

No. It is not.

From your FOX blip:​

​

Last month, an investigation conducted by Ryan Thorpe and Christopher F. Rufo of the Manhattan Institute uncovered a web of fraud involving Minnesota’s Medicaid Housing Stabilization Services program, Feeding Our Future and other organizations in a bombshell report.​

​

Thorpe and Rufo noted that, in many cases, members of Minnesota's Somali community were perpetrators of fraud. They added that federal counterterrorism sources confirmed that millions of dollars in stolen funds were sent back to Somalia, which is how Al-Shabaab got the cash.​

​

The same authors are of reference from the same story.

 

[Say it aint so]

No proof that has been released by the DOJ.

Or maybe there is no proof. You and the authors are making a positive claim that "X" is happening, when there is zero proof provided.

 

[BPPLEE]

EAsy enough to say; VERY easy to give an anonymous quote. Does the anonymous source at LEAST show the mechanism of how it could be done OR provide evidence it is actually happenning or is it just chum 4 da angry?

This is not a courtroom

 

[Say it aint so]

Simply proclaim they were politically prosecuted and Trump will pardon them.

I can just hear the "they were treated very unfairly" from Trump.
Just like he just did in pardoning the ex-Honduran president who was working directly with El Chapo flooding the US with drugs killing Americans.

 

[NxNW]

I'm about to reply to every individual thing here but can we just pause here for a second and zoom out? Nancy Pelosi's annualized return in the last 5 years is 22.8%. Berkshire Hathaway, the best investment firm in the WORLD's annualized return of the last 5 years is 13.6%, nearly HALF that.

13.6% is more than half that, not nearly half.

There are three options here:

1. Occam's razor: She trades on nonpublic information that she has access to by being a politician/insider
2. She is an 85 year old house of representatives member fishing for geriatric Facebook approval by pulling stunts like this who also moonlights as one of the greatest investment geniuses of our time on the side
3. She just got lucky with a few stocks

Don't avoid the question, North. I genuinely wanna see which one you pick

4: Her husband manages her investments.

And I'm sure it's going to be a real picnic to prosecute a highly powerful person based on their private thoughts

They convicted Martha Stewart, didn't they?

You've said nothing. We both admit she has nonpublic info on companies right? And we both admit she trades stocks? So where is the hang up? That alone is enough to warrant insider trading on a moral basis, if not a legal basis

Did she personally trade in those stocks using that knowledge?

It wasn't an argument, it was an informative statement.

Just not very informative.

 

[another_lost_guy]

13.6% is more than half that, not nearly half.

Both can be true.

4: Her husband manages her investments.

And does so without consulting her at all? Please, North.

They convicted Martha Stewart, didn't they?

I actually looked more into Martha Stewart and it turns out she was never actually even convicted for insider trading either. Her broker was. Congrats! You've conceded the entire argument.

Did she personally trade in those stocks using that knowledge?

Did Martha Stewart?

Just not very informative.

At least you acknowledge it wasn't an argument now.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Ok, I made a claim that her annualized return in the last 5 years was 22.8%. It's up to you to disprove that. How am I supposed to interpret this and how does it disprove what I said?

It should be on you to actually read into the numbers a little bit before posting them, but I suppose that's too much to expect around here these days.

The problem I'm seeing with your medium.com piece is that it doesn't really cite any data. It just makes claims without actually backing them up. It gives the valance of backing up the claims by citing pieces from Daily Caller and other sites that don't actually show their work, but rather just keep linking back to their own progessively less-informative pieces without explaining where the numbers come from. The only thing close to a "source" I can find in there is the UnusualWhales site that makes projections (which is all they are) based on the official financial disclosures that I already described.

So what is her actual return then?



I'm still not seeing a specific percentage return...

We can't know her actual rate of return without knowing her precise contributions and the precise valuations of her assets - details that aren't reported to Congress. Every time you see somebody making a claim about the return rate of her investments, it's a guess, unless you happen to know other details like the precise time she got into and out of a particular publicly-traded asset.

Not yet demonstrably true given the fact you have neither demonstrated it yourself or provided me the resources to find someone who did demonstrate it. As far as this article goes, she has had a return of 22.8%. It's up to you or someone else to disprove that, you can't just say it isn't true without giving a conflicting return number yourself

Again, no, it should be on the authors to substantiate that claim, not throw up a smokescreen of nonsensical citations.

Here's a post I made on this subject a few weeks ago, with links to her 2023 & 2024 disclosures, showing how NY Post's estimates of her returns were bogus:

Pelosi made more than $130 million in stock profits in 37 years, return of 16,930%

https://nypost.com/2025/11/08/us-news/nancy-pelosi-made-130-million-in-stock-profits-in-her-37-years-in-congress-a-profit-of-16930/ One of the most incredible stock picking examples in the history of our country.

www.christianforums.com

 

[another_lost_guy]

It should be on you to actually read into the numbers a little bit before posting them, but I suppose that's too much to expect around here these days.

At least I have a number.

The problem I'm seeing with your medium.com piece is that it doesn't really cite any data. It just makes claims without actually backing them up. It gives the valance of backing up the claims by citing pieces from Daily Caller and other sites that don't actually show their work, but rather just keep linking back to their own progessively less-informative pieces without explaining where the numbers come from. The only thing close to a "source" I can find in there is the UnusualWhales site that makes projections (which is all they are) based on the official financial disclosures that I already described.

You don't have any projections at all.

We can't know her actual rate of return without knowing her precise contributions and the precise valuations of her assets - details that aren't reported to Congress.

Perhaps they should be to prevent stuff like this from happening. But Pelosi and her sycophants are against it

Again, no, it should be on the authors to substantiate that claim, not throw up a smokescreen of nonsensical citations.

No, if you have a problem with the claim, it's up to you to dispute it

Here's a post I made on this subject a few weeks ago, with links to her 2023 & 2024 disclosures, showing how NY Post's estimates of her returns were bogus:

Pelosi made more than $130 million in stock profits in 37 years, return of 16,930%

https://nypost.com/2025/11/08/us-news/nancy-pelosi-made-130-million-in-stock-profits-in-her-37-years-in-congress-a-profit-of-16930/ One of the most incredible stock picking examples in the history of our country.

www.christianforums.com

You can literally go to pelositracker.app and follow the purchases she makes in real time. You can recreate her returns and see for yourself. People have made an entire business model centered around tracking her trades. Is that not enough for you?

 

[iluvatar5150]

At least I have a number.

No, you don't. You have something that somebody else made up based on assumptions that are, at best, questionable.

You don't have any projections at all.

That's because I appreciate the limitations of my own knowledge.

Perhaps they should be to prevent stuff like this from happening. But Pelosi and her sycophants are against it

Perhaps.

No, if you have a problem with the claim, it's up to you to dispute it

In that case, I saw you molesting a kid. Disprove it.

Thankfully, our legal system isn't set up that way, else anybody could be sent to jail merely on an accusation. Anybody can make up anything.

You can literally go to pelositracker.app and follow the purchases she makes in real time. You can recreate her returns and see for yourself. People have made an entire business model centered around tracking her trades. Is that not enough for you?

sigh

1.) It's not real-time. Congressional reporting rules require transactions over $1,000 to be disclosed within 30-45 days. So there is some delay.

2.) The exact amounts aren't reported. They're still only reported in the aforementioned brackets. From this, you can get an ROI on an individual asset, but not on the entire portfolio. Because it's impossible to tell where in the bracket a particular asset lies, it's impossible to make anything but an extremely rough comparison between the values of two different assets, which is what's required to value the portfolio.

3.) This tracker only works for publicly-traded securities. If you'd read her disclosures (as I have), you'd see that a significant chunk of her wealth (likely over half) is in real estate and other private businesses. The stock holdings she's reported are largely the same suite of big tech firms that dominate most of the top-performing ETF's (e.g. Microsoft, Nvidia, Netflix, Alphabet, etc)

 

[another_lost_guy]

No, you don't. You have something that somebody else made up based on assumptions that are, at best, questionable.

pelositracker.app go and recreate the returns yourself

That's because I appreciate the limitations of my own knowledge.

What is limiting you from going to pelositracker.app?

In that case, I saw you molesting a kid. Disprove it.

This is libel

Thankfully, our legal system isn't set up that way, else anybody could be sent to jail merely on an accusation. Anybody can make up anything.

It's not an accusation. It's credible public info based on publicly disclosed congressional financial filings. Unlike the accusation you made against me

sigh

1.) It's not real-time. Congressional reporting rules require transactions over $1,000 to be disclosed within 30-45 days. So there is some delay.

But the app is updated daily.

2.) The exact amounts aren't reported. They're still only reported in the aforementioned brackets. From this, you can get an ROI on an individual asset, but not on the entire portfolio. Because it's impossible to tell where in the bracket a particular asset lies, it's impossible to make anything but an extremely rough comparison between the values of two different assets, which is what's required to value the portfolio.

Wow you just found a major flaw in the Pelosi tracker business model! I guess all those thousands of subscribers they have are all reaping in absolutely worthless profits, lol

3.) This tracker only works for publicly-traded securities. If you'd read her disclosures (as I have), you'd see that a significant chunk of her wealth (likely over half) is in real estate and other private businesses. The stock holdings she's reported are largely the same suite of big tech firms that dominate most of the top-performing ETF's (e.g. Microsoft, Nvidia, Netflix, Alphabet, etc)

Irrelevant

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Or maybe there is no proof. You and the authors are making a positive claim that "X" is happening, when there is zero proof provided.

At least you went from, "There is no proof," to "maybe there is no proof." Progress has been made.

 

[Say it aint so]

At least you went from, "There is no proof," to "maybe there is no proof." Progress has been made.

I am saying rather than you claiming there is DOJ proof and the are not providing, "maybe" you should consider there is no proof at all.
The claim was looked at by Minnesota Auditors. They found nothing. When they asked the claimants for proof, they did not provide any.
Meaning, there is no proof of claims made by the article authors. Post #45

 

[Vambram]

From your FOX blip:​

​

Last month, an investigation conducted by Ryan Thorpe and Christopher F. Rufo of the Manhattan Institute uncovered a web of fraud involving Minnesota’s Medicaid Housing Stabilization Services program, Feeding Our Future and other organizations in a bombshell report.​

​

Thorpe and Rufo noted that, in many cases, members of Minnesota's Somali community were perpetrators of fraud. They added that federal counterterrorism sources confirmed that millions of dollars in stolen funds were sent back to Somalia, which is how Al-Shabaab got the cash.​

​

The same authors are of reference from the same story.

Here is more information that I would not be surprised if you dismiss.

Comer targets Walz in new House investigation, citing nearly $1B in alleged Minnesota fraud

The House Oversight Committee under Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., has opened a probe into Minnesota’s handling of a massive COVID-relief program

www.foxnews.com

 

[iluvatar5150]

pelositracker.app go and recreate the returns yourself



What is limiting you from going to pelositracker.app?

Not only did I go to the site, but I apparently read it and understood it much more thoroughly than you did.


I don't see why beating the S&P 500 is just a big deal, especially over the last few years. Tech stocks have exploded over that time. I've been weight overweighted in tech for a while and according to Fidelity, my retirement accounts have averaged about 30% annualized returns over the last 3 years (which is as far back as their 401k performance tracker goes)

Wow you just found a major flaw in the Pelosi tracker business model! I guess all those thousands of subscribers they have are all reaping in absolutely worthless profits, lol

lol, argumentum ad populum much?

Dave Ramsey has even more subscribers and his investment advice is garbage. Subscriber count means nothing.

Irrelevant

It's not irrelevant if you're trying to describe the return rates on her entire portfolio. Because your piece(s) obfuscate their sources so much, it's unclear to me whether they're always referring to just her stock portfolio or her entire net worth. Other pieces I've seen have been more clearly about her entire net worth.

 

[Say it aint so]

Here is more information that I would not be surprised if you dismiss.

Comer targets Walz in new House investigation, citing nearly $1B in alleged Minnesota fraud

The House Oversight Committee under Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., has opened a probe into Minnesota’s handling of a massive COVID-relief program

www.foxnews.com

It is referring to the same article as basis for the FOX article. Same authors. Same article. There is no new information.

 

[another_lost_guy]

Not only did I go to the site, but I apparently read it and understood it much more thoroughly than you did.

So you admit the site is not within the limitations of your knowledge

I don't see why beating the S&P 500 is just a big deal, especially over the last few years. Tech stocks have exploded over that time. I've been weight overweighted in tech for a while and according to Fidelity, my retirement accounts have averaged about 30% annualized returns over the last 3 years (which is as far back as their 401k performance tracker goes)

The key word here is 'overweighted'. There is significant risk associated with attributing that much weight to a specific sector. This is why the vast majority of hedge funds do not outperform the S&P over a period of 10 years.

lol, argumentum ad populum much?

Not at all. If the service was truly useless as you seem to imply there would be no benefit to using it. Are you arguing there is a benefit to following Pelosi's portfolio or not?

Dave Ramsey has even more subscribers and his investment advice is garbage. Subscriber count means nothing.

He does way more than investment advice

It's not irrelevant if you're trying to describe the return rates on her entire portfolio. Because your piece(s) obfuscate their sources so much, it's unclear to me whether they're always referring to just her stock portfolio or her entire net worth. Other pieces I've seen have been more clearly about her entire net worth.

Other pieces such as...