Nancy Pelosi's husband

rambot · Sep 26, 2024

https://moneywise.com/news/investin...st-2-months-before-the-dojs-antitrust-lawsuit

Get this garbage out of politics. Nobody should be using their (or their spouses) positions to create wealth.

I want to believe this is a bipartisan post....but we'll see

Laodicean60 · Sep 26, 2024

rambot said:
https://moneywise.com/news/investin...st-2-months-before-the-dojs-antitrust-lawsuit

Get this garbage out of politics. Nobody should be using their (or their spouses) positions to create wealth.

I want to believe this is a bipartisan post....but we'll see

I heard about this last night. Friends in high places. I've tried to look for congresspeople to see if they did they did the same because it's insider information. The serfs have no clue what's coming down the pipe and lose.

iluvatar5150 · Sep 26, 2024

The stock is currently above where he sold it and the mild drop in the wake of the lawsuit is merely one of at least a dozen of similar magnitude over the last several years.

RocksInMyHead · Sep 26, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
The stock is currently above where he sold it and the mild drop in the wake of the lawsuit is merely one of at least a dozen of similar magnitude over the last several years.

Eh, the fact that the stock didn't actually fall (significantly) in response to the lawsuit doesn't really change the fact that this looks fishy. Especially because it's not the first time he's sold a significant amount of a company's stock a short time before that company faced an anti-trust lawsuit.

Yeshua HaDerekh · Sep 27, 2024

rambot said:
https://moneywise.com/news/investin...st-2-months-before-the-dojs-antitrust-lawsuit

Get this garbage out of politics. Nobody should be using their (or their spouses) positions to create wealth.

I want to believe this is a bipartisan post....but we'll see

Agree! He and Nancy should be held to account for insider trading! Hunter should for using his father's position to get paid!

iluvatar5150 · Sep 27, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
Eh, the fact that the stock didn't actually fall (significantly) in response to the lawsuit doesn't really change the fact that this looks fishy. Especially because it's not the first time he's sold a significant amount of a company's stock a short time before that company faced an anti-trust lawsuit.

It did fall in response to the lawsuit, but it had already risen quite a bit since the time he sold it. And the lawsuit dip wasn’t that big.

Whyayeman · Sep 27, 2024

Such trades are generally based on judgments about the relevant shares - unless there is inside knowledge. To substantiate the story it behoves the journal to demonstrate that such information had been acquired. There is none in the article.

I am not very keen on these speculative activities as a general rule, but a capitalist economy encourages them. Most of us want to live in a market economy - this might be part of the price we have to pay for the privilege.

RocksInMyHead · Sep 27, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
It did fall in response to the lawsuit, but it had already risen quite a bit since the time he sold it. And the lawsuit dip wasn’t that big.

Again, "I predicted incorrectly" isn't really a defense against allegations that you're trading based on insider information. Information is just information - even if you have inside information, you still have to predict what the response to that information becoming public will be. To be clear, I'm not saying that this is definitely insider trading, just that it looks fishy and that the defense you're putting forward isn't really a defense.

rambot · Sep 27, 2024

Yeshua HaDerekh said:
Agree! He and Nancy should be held to account for insider trading! Hunter should for using his father's position to get paid!

Bringing up hunter?

Seriously?
Both parties do it

iluvatar5150 said:
The stock is currently above where he sold it and the mild drop in the wake of the lawsuit is merely one of at least a dozen of similar magnitude over the last several years.

View attachment 355072

He couldn't have predicted the magnitude of the effect though

Laodicean60 · Sep 27, 2024

iluvatar5150 said:
It did fall in response to the lawsuit, but it had already risen quite a bit since the time he sold it. And the lawsuit dip wasn’t that big.

When negative news or earnings are published no one knows the impact and he may have just taken some profit but he and the government people knew of the antitrust lawsuit before I did. Maybe this is part of the reason people get richer on government salaries. This is all very suspicious in my eyes and it's not the first time.

iluvatar5150 · Sep 27, 2024

RocksInMyHead said:
Again, "I predicted incorrectly" isn't really a defense against allegations that you're trading based on insider information.

Nor is selling shares some time before a bad event evidence that you possessed or acted on that information. When he sold the shares, the stock had climbed for a year and a half to an all-time peak at the beginning of February and then proceeded on a slow descent. He sold at the beginning of July.

RocksInMyHead said:
Information is just information - even if you have inside information, you still have to predict what the response to that information becoming public will be. To be clear, I'm not saying that this is definitely insider trading, just that it looks fishy and that the defense you're putting forward isn't really a defense.

I don't know what he did or didn't do, but nobody has even established that Nancy knew anything about the investigation, much less that she told him about it.

Whyayeman · Sep 27, 2024

Laodicean60 said:
This is all very suspicious in my eyes and it's not the first time.

I think we need more than that. I think the Moneywise article is clickbait. It presents nothing to establish the claim.

Laodicean60 · Sep 27, 2024

Whyayeman said:
I think we need more than that. I think the Moneywise article is clickbait. It presents nothing to establish the claim.

I think the Democrats had a good idea of going after Trump's tax return because I feel all politicians must be transparent and ALL politicians should provide tax returns. Maybe this is clickbait but it does happen and there is a reason that laws were created.

Whyayeman · Sep 27, 2024

Laodicean60 said:
I think the Democrats had a good idea of going after Trump's tax return because I feel all politicians must be transparent and ALL politicians should provide tax returns. Maybe this is clickbait but it does happen and there is a reason that laws were created.

I agree. There should be openness in the financial affairs of politicians.

Nancy Pelosi declared this transaction. That has not been disputed. As far and I know her tax returns have not been problematic.

We cannot say the same about Trump's tax returns because he broke with the customary openness with the American public and refused to disclose his tax situation on becoming President.

bèlla · Sep 27, 2024

There's no way you can run in those circles and not be informed. Who do you think they're talking to? They're engaging with their peers and discussing their work as others do. The ability to capitalize on those conversations is where they from the rest. To expect they won't occur is unrealistic.

~bella

Whyayeman · Sep 27, 2024

bèlla said:
There's no way you can run in those circles and not be informed. Who do you think they're talking to? They're engaging with their peers and discussing their work as others do. The ability to capitalize on those conversations is where they from the rest. To expect they won't occur is unrealistic.

~bella

I agree. We do need some hard evidence when it is alleged. Innuendo such as the article in Moneywise doesn't cut it.

Arcangl86 · Sep 27, 2024

Visa had dropped 5% in the week before he unloaded his shares, which btw wasn't all the visa stock he held apparently. He was just trying to reduce his potential losses if the drop had continued. It would have been something else if Visa was rising like gangbusters and he dumped, but the opposite is what happened.

bèlla · Sep 27, 2024

Whyayeman said:
I agree. We do need some hard evidence when it is alleged. Innuendo such as the article in Moneywise doesn't cut it.

The only time you'll get it is when they've stepped on the wrong person's toes like Martha did and they're trying to prove a point. Otherwise you'll see things like this. One of the perks of being a politician is access. The same holds true for venture capital. Combine the two and you get the Pelosi's.

~bella

Whyayeman · Sep 27, 2024

bèlla said:
The only time you'll get it is when they've stepped on the wrong person's toes like Martha did and they're trying to prove a point. Otherwise you'll see things like this. One of the perks of being a politician is access. The same holds true for venture capital. Combine the two and you get the Pelosi's.

~bella

So no actual evidence required? One is a politician and the other a an investor. Ergo . . .

There may have been inside information. I just prefer even a smidgeon of evidence.

bèlla · Sep 27, 2024

Whyayeman said:
So no actual evidence required? One is a politician and the other a an investor. Ergo . . .

There may have been inside information. I just prefer even a smidgeon of evidence.

I think we understand the difference between ideal and reality. Let's pretend you're a successful business man and I'm in the industry and we're having lunch. You mention wanting to add something new to your portfolio that has potential but hasn't caught on and asked what I'd recommend.

See the problem? If we're friends I'll mention a few worth considering. Much like you'd query an expert in real estate, construction or any subject you didn't know much about. No one would think odd if you asked the others. People do it all the time.

But my knowledge carries more weight and has the potential to increase your net worth. As would the others if you're an investor. But society is less accommodating about the market because it's harder and view assistance as an unfair advantage. The aid you received from a friend isn't possible for most.

You're more likely to know a broker, agent or contractor than a financial professional. If they're helping their friends get ahead it's harder for the little guy and that breeds resentment. It's okay to know a broker who helps you flip houses. But doing the same in the market will warrant scrutiny.

Consider the beneficiaries...

You and your spouse
Your children and grandchildren
Your parents and siblings
Your friends and associates
Charitable organizations

You can impact more people by sharing advice than anything else. Few would turn it down and that's the dilemma. It's a monopoly of sorts if done intentionally.

~bella

Nancy Pelosi's husband

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Men dream of truth, find it then cant live with it

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

❤️

Well-Known Member

Newbie

❤️

Well-Known Member

❤️

Similar threads