@metal-brain saidStewart used information not publicly available, hence the "insider" part. Pelosi's husband *might* have used inside information he obtained from Nancy but there's no way to know that.
Then there was nothing illegal about Martha Stewart's stock purchase.
So why did she have to go to jail for it and the crooked Pelosis didn't?
https://www.rt.com/usa/483742-tulsi-burr-insider-trading/
If the chairman of the FRS doesn't buy stocks why should congress be allowed to?
Government bonds are not good enough for them? Why not? The Pelosis are wealthy. I think they can get by.
That's why I said it's shady but no way to prove the stocks were criminal.
@averagejoe1 saidYou have a point. We shouldn't make this personal.
Why do libs go personal on threads? All of you do. One can almost hear your squeaky voices, it is just eerie and wastes space. You must think that it shores up your points, if there are any?
However, it gets tiring that you never slow down to think for a moment before you post. Trading stocks have clear, easy to track paper-trails, especially in today's digital age of electronic transactions.
For you to post that stocks were "dumped" to hide some illegal activity shows you either have no understanding of this or that you don't think before you post.
Not thinking before you post is a common conservative vice. It seems you all just regurgitate propaganda from right-wing media.
But you're generally a respectful poster, so I should respond in kind.
@vivify saidSo your defense is that we cannot prove it?
Stewart used information not publicly available, hence the "insider" part. Pelosi's husband *might* have used inside information he obtained from Nancy but there's no way to know that.
That's why I said it's shady but no way to prove the stocks were criminal.
Even so, we know it is happening.
Congress people and their spouses should be banned from owning stocks. If it is good for Federal Reserve officials it is good enough for congress.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/18/fed-approves-rules-banning-its-officials-from-trading-stocks-bonds-and-also-cryptocurrencies.html
@metal-brain saidMembers of Congress and their spouses shouldn't be allowed to own stock, but right now they are.
Then there was nothing illegal about Martha Stewart's stock purchase.
So why did she have to go to jail for it and the crooked Pelosis didn't?
https://www.rt.com/usa/483742-tulsi-burr-insider-trading/
If the chairman of the FRS doesn't buy stocks why should congress be allowed to?
Government bonds are not good enough for them? Why not? The Pelosis are wealthy. I think they can get by.
Stewart got non- public information from a company official. By contrast, the semiconductor bill status was well covered in the media.
@metal-brain saidWhat part of me saying "Pelosi is a crook" don't you understand?
So your defense is that we cannot prove it?
Obviously, just because we can't prove it doesn't mean insider trading isn't happening.
@averagejoe1 saidmaybe because he had this information...
He sold the $5M in NVIDIA stock he’d bought illegally, just before the vote approving NVIDIA was passed. This is sleaze at its best. Not ONE of you turkeys will call this what it is. To avoid legal trouble, he sold at a $300K loss. To give up that kind of money, which would fuel his jet and energy bills for at least 2 months, he likely felt like a crook?
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/republican-leaders-whip-semiconductor-bill-china
@no1marauder saidwhat exactly is the status?
Members of Congress and their spouses shouldn't be allowed to own stock, but right now they are.
Stewart got non- public information from a company official. By contrast, the semiconductor bill status was well covered in the media.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
2 edits
@jimm619 saidAs we all should have learned from Richard Nixon-----
WRONG AGAIN-----MARTHA STEWART WAS FOUND
GUILTY OF FOUR COUNTS OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/law-jan-june04-stewart_03-05
https://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/05/stewart.main/index.html
Many times the cover-up is worse than the crime.
Martha is simply a celebrity, but she learned.....
I have a feeling, some politicians may be facing the
same type of charges soon..Wonder if they'll be
as tough as Martha, who did her time, never complained,
and kept her mouth shut...She does a cooking show now,
and is good friends with none other than the
(in)famous, SNOOP DOG.
.......May I Suzi..............''Oh, the irony.''
@mott-the-hoople saidSenate passed the final version yesterday; House passage is almost certain next week.
what exactly is the status?
@no1marauder saidso the a outcome is unknown at this time?
Senate passed the final version yesterday; House passage is almost certain next week.
@no1marauder
What about REPUBS with stock? Is it only dems who would be in trouble?
And is there a grandfather clause? Like stopping FUTURE stock purchases or would every member of house and senate be required to dump their stocks immediately?
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidTechnically, yes. The outcome of any vote in Congress is "unknown" until it is taken.
so the a outcome is unknown at this time?
@vivify saidHow is 'dumped' an improper way to say what he did? He got rid of the stocks. If his buying them were purely legit, why did he rush to sell something that was going to make him money? Why do anything? Why are people in-the-know questioning his paper trail, and aligning it with the process of this bill making its way through committees.?
You have a point. We shouldn't make this personal.
However, it gets tiring that you never slow down to think for a moment before you post. Trading stocks have clear, easy to track paper-trails, especially in today's digital age of electronic transactions.
For you to post that stocks were "dumped" to hide some illegal activity shows you either have no understanding ...[text shortened]... a from right-wing media.
But you're generally a respectful poster, so I should respond in kind.
Is every shady activity, of Hillary, Hunter,Schiff, Comey, Swalwell totally all cool with you? None of it is shady in your eyes? None of it is shady? Straight face,,,,tell us you believe that.
@no1marauder saidHere is a liberal saying he knows something that happened is simply not illegal. How does he know that?
As discussed in the other thread, there was nothing illegal about the stock purchase.
It is not illegal to buy stock, I buy some every week (dollar cost averaging, etc). We are talking about a person who appears to have done something illegal in the purchase of stock.
Surely you see the difference.