Jump to content

Josh Hawley introduces the PELOSI ACT. Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act.


Recommended Posts

On 1/25/2023 at 2:59 PM, Deluge said:

It's a poison pill only if it isn't true. Perhaps Nance is an egregious abuser of epic proportions. 

Even you are bright enough to realize the name is both an insult and an accusation leveled at Nancy Pelosi.  That’s not how you get a bill passed in a bipartisan Congress.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Even you are bright enough to realize the name is both an insult and an accusation leveled at Nancy Pelosi.  That’s not how you get a bill passed in a bipartisan Congress.  

It's just grand standing, it will go nowhere with that name, the democrats control the Senate and Biden has a veto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/watters-world-investigates-nancy-pelosis-315-million-in-assets

Pelosi Act - need it.

Again with the GREAT timing.

Meh.

A $2M investment just two weeks before Microsoft got a $22B contract from the federal gov't? What amazing timing, huh? So lucky.....

That's why it's called the Pelosi Act. 

In 2007 that was NOT illegal. "The Stock Act" passed almost unanimously and signed by Obama made it illegal in 2012.

Edited by robosmith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Deluge said:

It does send a message, though - Nancy Pelosi is one of the worst human beings I've ever seen. 

It does send a message. Unfortunately for everyone, that message is that Hawley is a sophomoric twit instead of a leader or statesman. Which is not news, but still...

You know there are a bunch of other proposed pieces of legislation with this general intent floating around, right? Including a Dem+Rep teamup that has been around for a while. I think Elizabeth Warren has one. I'm sure there are several more I've never heard of. Those would be sincere efforts, whereas this is just a publicity stunt. Hawley is a classic "bro" though and has no idea his antics make him look like a jackass.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hodad said:

It does send a message. Unfortunately for everyone, that message is that Hawley is a sophomoric twit instead of a leader or statesman. Which is not news, but still...

You know there are a bunch of other proposed pieces of legislation with this general intent floating around, right? Including a Dem+Rep teamup that has been around for a while. I think Elizabeth Warren has one. I'm sure there are several more I've never heard of. Those would be sincere efforts, whereas this is just a publicity stunt. Hawley is a classic "bro" though and has no idea his antics make him look like a jackass.

Nah, I like it. That silly bithc, had the audacity to tell us that we had to pass a bill before we could see what's in it. I like what Hawley's doing; he's attached a bill to a total scumbag, and I hope it goes through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

It does send a message. Unfortunately for everyone, that message is that Hawley is a sophomoric twit instead of a leader or statesman. Which is not news, but still...

You know there are a bunch of other proposed pieces of legislation with this general intent floating around, right? Including a Dem+Rep teamup that has been around for a while. I think Elizabeth Warren has one. I'm sure there are several more I've never heard of. Those would be sincere efforts, whereas this is just a publicity stunt. Hawley is a classic "bro" though and has no idea his antics make him look like a jackass.

What is being proposed that was not already covered by "The STOCK Act" in 2012?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Nah, I like it. That silly bithc, had the audacity to tell us that we had to pass a bill before we could see what's in it. I like what Hawley's doing; he's attached a bill to a total scumbag, and I hope it goes through. 

And you don't even understand what that MEANS do you? Take a GUESS before I school YOU. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 11:51 AM, Rebound said:

I didn’t support Trump’s harassment, I supported his impeachment, because he is a criminal.  

Uh, excuse me,  BAT GUANO FOR BRAINS, but hurting the feelings of snowflakes like this

4kjpau.jpg

is not a crime. Trump committed NO CRIMES while in office.

Unelected Joe, on the other hand, committed EXTORTION and even admitted to it on video.

The only criminals are on YOUR Neo Nazi side of the aisle.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, robosmith said:

What is being proposed that was not already covered by "The STOCK Act" in 2012?

Differences are rather dramatic. The STOCK act basically says that members of congress are prohibited from using their insider information to make trades. Then there are some disclosure requirements. 

Bills that have been floated since actually prohibit members from trading. Essentially, we don't trust them to obey the STOCK act and apparently many of them do no trust each other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/25/2023 at 10:17 AM, Hodad said:

What doesn't compute? What do you not understand about the concept of two incomes? Paul Pelosi was a successful businessman and investor long before Nancy Pelosi ever ran for office. He made lots of money before she was elected, and continued to do so after. Her modest salary doesn't really figure into it. 

But she is involved in passing legislation that affects large businesses that in turn do business with the likes of Paul Pelosi. Isn't that kind of a conflict of interest to put it mildly?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, reason10 said:

The only criminals are on YOUR Neo Nazi side of the aisle.

If ^this was TRUE, Trump FAILED to do his Constitutional DUTY and enforce that LAW.

But the FACT is, Biden was implementing official US policy.

Meanwhile, Trump ACTUALLY DEMANDED a QUID PRO QUO of an announcement of an "investigation" into Biden from Zelenskyy before Ukraine received Congressionally AUTHORIZED military aid. 

Conditioning an official obligation ON CAMPAIGN HELP is ILLEGAL EXTORTION. IN FACT FOREIGN CAMPAIGN HELP IS ILLEGAL. 

If Trump actually knew about illegal acts by Biden OR HIS SON, he could have had the DoJ INVESTIGATE, but what he really wanted with THE ANNOUNCEMENT for HIS CAMPAIGN BULLSHIT.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ironstone said:

But she is involved in passing legislation that affects large businesses that in turn do business with the likes of Paul Pelosi. Isn't that kind of a conflict of interest to put it mildly?

 

Government is rife with such conflicts of interest. Which is WHY Trump was in violation of many ethical standards when HE did NOT divest his business interests.

The POTUS has much more power over policies and legislation than the House Speaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Government is rife with such conflicts of interest. Which is WHY Trump was in violation of many ethical standards when HE did NOT divest his business interests.

The POTUS has much more power over policies and legislation than the House Speaker.

We may actually be in agreement in that these activities should be considered conflicts of interest. And both sides engage in unethical behavior.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ironstone said:

But she is involved in passing legislation that affects large businesses that in turn do business with the likes of Paul Pelosi. Isn't that kind of a conflict of interest to put it mildly?

 

The point is that he was a successful investor before she was in office and he continued to be one after. That's his profession. He kept working at his profession like most spouses of congresspeople and continued to make lots of money doing so--a consistent pattern of success. So there's no mystery about how she got millions of dollars richer over the last 40 years, which is what seemed to confuse the poster to whom I replied there.

As for whether there is a potential conflict of interest, the answer is yes--for anybody in office with higher stakes the higher you go. 

The Pelosi's have been pretty vocal about separating their work lives. They know they have to make the disclosures and know that every move will be publicly (and hostilely) scrutinized, so they are not going to make any sketchy moves. He doesn't need to cheat to succeed, and frankly, what are small gains in a huge portfolio are not going to be worth doing prison time or losing office. That just doesn't make sense as a choice. 

I don't think there's anything particularly suspect about the moves Paul Pelosi made. It's not like he placed  a bet on some unknown company before it landed a market-making defense contract or something. He made bets on two enormously popular Blue Chip stocks who were not going to be moved significantly by a govt contract and IIRC, ended up losing money on both.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

Anything based in insider Congressional info came from BEFORE "The STOCK Act" which was signed by OBAMA in 2012.

Do you even have an answer to MY QUESTION which YOU QUOTED?

I could give you a better answer than the silly one you gave me to where did Nancy's money come from. "She made it before the 2012 stock act" did she?  Don't be ridiculous.

So what do they want from this new bill that they didn't get from the stock act of 2012. Actionable results preventing stuff like this:

Quote

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and her multimillionaire husband sold up to $3 million in shares of Google in recent weeks—just before the Biden Justice Department launched an antitrust probe of the tech giant.

 

The trades are the latest in a string of questionable transactions for Paul and Nancy.

They saved roughly $600,000 in June by selling shares of microchip maker Nvidia weeks before the U.S. government placed restrictions on the company's business in China and Russia. The Pelosis have seen their fortune grow $140 million since 2008, thanks largely to Paul Pelosi's stock trades, according to a Washington Free Beacon analysis.

Pelosi's stock market charades have sparked calls for tougher regulations on members of Congress cashing in on their positions of power.

https://freebeacon.com/democrats/convenient-timing-pelosi-sold-3-million-of-google-stock-weeks-before-doj-launched-antitrust-probe/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...