ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Pelosi Should Fully Embrace Congressional Stock Trading Ban

[ Posted Wednesday, February 9th, 2022 – 15:46 UTC ]

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi made some news today, by tentatively signalling she is now more open to the idea of banning members of Congress from making individual stock trades while they serve in office. The easiest way to do this, of course, would be to require all members to turn over all their holdings to a blind trust before they are sworn in. That would solve the problem entirely, but there are currently multiple proposals floating around Capitol Hill with various ideas as to how best achieve a trading ban. Pelosi's previous position had been to reject the idea entirely, saying back in December (when asked about banning members from individual trades): "We're a free-market economy. They should be able to participate in that." She got a lot of blowback for this, while the idea has continued to gain steam among not only Democrats but also some Republicans as well. Today on the Senate floor, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer got behind the idea wholeheartedly, addressing the Senate: "I believe this is an important issue that Congress should address, and it is something that has clearly raised interest on both sides of the aisle over the last few weeks." He urged senators to act sooner rather than later, as well. Pelosi, when asked about Schumer's comments, had a more-nuanced response: "I do believe in the integrity of people in public service. I want the public to have that understanding. We have to do this to deter something that we see as a problem.... And if that's what the members want to do, then that's what we will do."

Pelosi seems at first glance to have taken to heart here the advice of the Kenny Rogers gambler: "Know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em." But Pelosi is not very enthusiastically jumping on this bandwagon, which is a shame. She offered a rather strange caveat that would immensely complicate the legislation, both constitutionally and politically (note: quote reconstructed from two separate sources):

It has to be governmentwide. The third branch of government, the judiciary, has no reporting. The Supreme Court has no disclosure. It has no reporting of stock transactions. And it makes important decisions every day. Our members have been saying this for years: Why does the Supreme Court of the United States have no disclosure, financial disclosure?... In the executive branch, when they divest of their stock, they don't pay capital gains. So that's an interesting feature. But it's complicated, and members will figure it out, and then we'll go forward with what the consensus is.

As I said, this complicates things. Congress trying to legislate ethics rules for the Supreme Court might not be constitutionally allowable, for starters. Hinging passage of congressional rules on also passing rules for the other two branches of government could also be a rather subtle way of torpedoing the legislation, something that Pelosi is very capable of doing (if that is her true intention). As some Democrats didn't hesitate to point out:

"That is literally a different conversation, and one that is so hard to wrap your arms around that you've tanked the movement," said Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia and a co-author of bipartisan stock-ban legislation that has been gaining momentum.

She added, "I haven't heard from a single constituent, 'I'm really worried about the Supreme Court ruling in such a way for their personal gain.' That's not a thing."

It would certainly complicate things politically, especially if the Senate passed a clean version of a bill requiring blind trusts for those serving in Congress. It seems no more than an effort to muddy the waters by Pelosi. But that final sentence is telling, too -- Pelosi does indeed know when to fold 'em, and if the Democratic caucus in the House coalesced around a proposal that could actually get (or had already gotten) 10 Republican votes in the Senate, then Pelosi knows full well it would be politically foolish for her to stand in the way of it passing. So she may be bending to political reality here, and just still in the process of "evolving" on the issue.

The idea is a simple one, at heart. Those who listen to insider information in non-public hearings should not be able to cash in on the knowledge. Their personal portfolios should be beyond their control while the are in office. Such a ban would probably include at least their spouses too, and possibly their children as well (at least those that are still dependents).

Some are even pushing to address other investments, such as owning a business or even property. But these are side issues that could be dealt with later. Democrats shouldn't get bogged down in trying to create a perfect bill here -- just one that bans the most glaringly obvious opportunity for corruption. The public already has the view that Congress is corrupt, which is a big reason why even some Republicans think they need to act:

"The idea that we're coming in and buying, selling, buying, calling in puts, it's a bipartisan problem," said Representative Chip Roy, Republican of Texas, who co-wrote the stock-ban legislation with Ms. Spanberger in 2020.

This wouldn't be the first time Congress changed its own ethics rules on the subject, but the previous effort doesn't seem to be being enforced all that well, as Business Insider recently pointed out:

Congress has a spotty and inconsistent method for collecting fines from members and top staffers who break a federal law designed to stop insider trading and conflicts of interest, an Insider investigation found.

Insider's investigation of financial disclosures found that 55 members of Congress and at least 182 of the highest-paid Capitol Hill staffers were late in filing their stock trades during 2020 and 2021.

Lawmakers and senior congressional staffers who blow past the deadlines established by the 2012 Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act are supposed to pay a late fee of $200 the first time. Increasingly higher fines follow if they continue to be late -- potentially costing tens of thousands of dollars in extreme cases.

But accountability and transparency are decidedly lacking.

No public records exist indicating whether these officials ever paid the fines. Congressional ethics staff wouldn't confirm the existence of nonpublic ledgers tracking how many officials paid fines for violating the STOCK Act. And 19 lawmakers wouldn't answer questions from Insider about whether they'd paid a penalty. Ten other lawmakers said they'd paid their fines, but they declined to provide proof, such as a receipt or canceled check.

The STOCK Act doesn't seem to have any teeth, in other words. Banning trading and mandating blind trusts would solve the problem in a way the previous law can't. It's a simple and elegant solution -- just ban the practice entirely.

Hopefully, Nancy Pelosi will continue to evolve on this issue and begin to see it a very smart political move. Because if a bill ever did make it out of the Senate (where it would have to garner at least 10 GOP votes) and could thus become law if the House passed it, it would almost be political suicide to vote against it. My humble guess is that it could easily turn into one of those bills that passes with near-unanimous support, because even Republicans would have to think twice about voting to continue what (to much of the public) seems like legalized corruption.

Pelosi should think about the political attack ads Democrats could run against any Republican who votes against such a measure. They would really write themselves, because the case would be so easy to make. In fact, the issue has already proven to be a potent one for Democrats:

Lawmakers saw the power of the issue in the 2020 elections, when it propelled the Senate victories of two Georgia Democrats, Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, who castigated their incumbent Republican rivals for their stock trades.

So let's hope today's announcement by Pelosi is just the start of her getting behind the concept in a big way. Pelosi and her husband do have rather large portfolios, which is perhaps why she reacted so strongly against the idea earlier; but even if she wins another term in November, she will still be awfully close to having to retire herself -- which would mean she would only have to personally put up with the inconvenience for a relatively short period of time.

This is a strong political issue for Democrats. It's easy for the public to understand. And it's easy to see it is the right thing to do (and should have been done long ago). It's so potent a political issue even some Republicans are already getting on board with it. Nancy Pelosi should just admit this political reality and urge her caucus to pass such a bill as soon as possible -- which is precisely what Chuck Schumer did today on the Senate floor.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

58 Comments on “Pelosi Should Fully Embrace Congressional Stock Trading Ban”

  1. [1] 
    Michale wrote:

    Except she hasn't fully embraced it..

    She carved out a loop hole for herself...

    Typically Democrat....

  2. [2] 
    Michale wrote:

    Awww right.. REACHER's on!! :D

    Catch up with ya'all in the AM... 0400hrs.. Be there.. :D

  3. [3] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    'The idea is a simple one, at heart. Those who listen to insider information in non-public hearings should not be able to cash in on the knowledge. Their personal portfolios should be beyond their control while the are in office. Such a ban would probably include at least their spouses too, and possibly their children as well (at least those that are still dependents).'

    What a mess, CW...

    Point taken though. Sounds very much like Don will have to drag his dead horse out and giver...

    You'd all be better served to observe Canadian practices, which by multiple factors, is far superior.

    All political adventures are publicly financed... It's a matter of record that spending cash wins sweet fuck-nothing in the US political zeitgeist.

    Politicians need universal oversight by others other than themselves or their appointed-for-life hookers.

    Simply put, for Mr. Hunt and his species, your gang of grifting misanthropes may be better at the con job, but they are by no means exclusively corrupt.

    Nancy said, subtextually.

    LL&P

  4. [4] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    'Catch up with ya'all in the AM... 0400hrs.. Be there.. :D'...

    By that, he does of course mean 'continue to blanket-dross this entire space with specious spatterings of special stupid.'

    Again, seen subtextually.

    LL&P

  5. [5] 
    James T Canuck wrote:

    I'm genuinely curious how we all think this Ukraine chance to pulverize Putin now while his balls are shrinking ploy might develop?

    It's a thinking exercise, therefore Mr. Hunt will have to sit this one out.

    Thoughts?

    LL&Pulverize.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    And NOW... With a noted selection from Weigantia's™ ONLY OFFICIAL POLLS SOURCE...

    For the first time since taking office, Biden's approval rating — based on an accumulation of polling data — fell below 40%. A Real Clear Politics average of all the most recent national surveys measuring Biden’s standing put the president’s approval at 39% and his disapproval at 54%.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html

    Remember about a month or so ago, I said that Biden's approval numbers would continue to plummet??

    Guess who called it dead on ballz accurate AGAIN!!! :D

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, there has been a couple Weigantians™ who have made claims of military service. Of course, the claims are utter bupkis, but hay... Let's give them a chance to PROVE their bona fides, as I have..

    "NEWS: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Are Necessities in U.S. Military," the Department of Defense posted Wednesday along with an article outlining the many ways the military is pushing for diversity in its ranks and says that the "need for diversity, equity and inclusion to be a consideration or a part of all decisions in the military."

    There is only ONE consideration that the US Military should make..

    Defeating the enemy.. Decimating the enemy.. DESTROYING the enemy..

    THAT is the ONLY thing that should guide decisions in the US Military..

    Would those who claimed to have worn the uniform agree or disagree with that statement???

    {{ccchhhhiiirrrrrpppp}}{{cccchhhhiiiirrrrpppp}}

    Yea.. That's what I figger...

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting to note..

    And NOW... With a noted selection from Weigantia's™ ONLY OFFICIAL POLLS SOURCE...

    For the first time since taking office, Biden's approval rating — based on an accumulation of polling data — fell below 40%. A Real Clear Politics average of all the most recent national surveys measuring Biden’s standing put the president’s approval at 39% and his disapproval at 54%.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president-biden-job-approval-7320.html

    President Trump's job approval was TWO POINTS hire than Biden's at the same point in President Trump's administration.

    :D

    Get that, people?? President Trump's APPROVAL NUMBERS were **HIGHER** than Biden's!!!!!!

    Who could have *POSSIBLY* predicted this!!

    Oh... Wait.... :D

    The ONLY question that remains today is... How low will Biden go?? :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Since we're taking a tour of how I have been factually accurate these last few months.. :D

    Abrupt end to mask mandates reflects a shifting political landscape

    State officials say the decisions are driven by data showing that the worst of the omicron surge has passed, but acknowledge they must also weigh a weary public’s tolerance for pandemic life. Even as the Biden administration continues to recommend mask requirements, many of the biggest states led by Democrats are abruptly taking a different tack.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/abrupt-end-to-mask-mandates-reflects-a-shifting-political-landscape/ar-AATFDMr?ocid=uxbndlbing

    Of course, that's what State officials SAY..

    But the fact is, Democrats are desperate.. They KNOW they are going to get creamed in the coming mid-terms...

    So, they are pulling out all the stops to get on the good side of the voters..

    This means eliminating COVID restrictions..

    Which proves factual what I have always maintained..

    COVID is a *POLITICAL* pandemic that has very little to do with real science...

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like the US is going to get their own Freedom Convoy!! :D

    DHS tracking reports of potential truck convoy in America amid Canada trucker protests

    DHS is working to 'assess the threat environment' of a convoy

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is aiming to get ahead of a planned demonstration in America, "tracking reports of a potential convoy" amid several Canadian truck protests against COVID mandates.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dis-tracking-reports-of-potential-convoy-in-america

    Again, all these positive (for country) and negative (for Democrat Party) are coming at the BEST possible time (for country) and WORST possible time for the Democrat Party..

    It's a drip-drip-drip as Democrats' chances in the mid-terms drop lower (drip) and lower (drip) and lower (drip).. :D

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    The protesting truckers in Canada and their supporters say they are fighting for our freedom.

    Well, number one, they don't know the first thing about how to protest successfully and legally. And, number two, they are only proving how selfish they are as they are depriving many Canadians of their freedom to live in peace, of their freedom to go to work and earn a living.

    The protesting truckers who are blocking the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor and Detroit are showing how much they DON'T care about freedom and just how stupid people can be.

    The protesting truckers don't care about people. They care only about themselves and they aren't even doing a good job of that!

    The protesting truckers don't care about front line workers, healthcare workers and first responders who put their lives on the line everyday for us, especially during a pandemic where unvaccinated people are filling ICUs and dying.

    These protesting truckers don't speak for 90 percent of Canadians who are at least partially vaccinated and 80 percent of Canadians who are fully vaccinated and over 50 oercent of Canadians who have had a third shot during the Omicron wave.

    What the protesting truckers are doing in Canada is nothing short of disgusting and criminal and their asinine behavior should not be tolerated.

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    I would ask you to compare and contrast the legitimate protests of the Canadian Truckers to the utter violence and complete disregard for human life of twenty two years (collectively) of Democrat BLM and AntiFa "mostly peaceful" protests...

    At least EIGHT COPS were killed by Democrat BLM protesters..

    To date, NO ONE has been killed in the Canadian Trucker protests..

    That alone right there should tell you the legitimacy of the Canadian Trucker protests vs Democrat BLM violent protests..

    Glad to see you.. I was getting worried..

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, two or more things can be wrong at the same time, ya know.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Before I head off to work, let me reiterate ... the protesting truckers in Canada have no legitimate reason for their protest and the way they are protesting is a sad reflection on themselves and is NOT legal.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    Before I head off to work, let me reiterate ... the protesting truckers in Canada have no legitimate reason for their protest and the way they are protesting is a sad reflection on themselves and is NOT legal.

    Actually, all of that is factually not accurate..

    There is NO VIOLENCE in these Trucker protests except the violence of government officials..

    As such it is a perfectly legal and ethically justified protest..

    As to not having a reason??

    Shirley, you jest.. :D

    These pandemic mandates are totally against the REAL science...

    End the mandates... End the protests.. Easy peezy lemon squeezy :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any minute now, we'll see cad come out and announce to all of Weigantia™ how much he is ignoring me.. :D

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You don't need violence for a protest to be illegal. Can you understand that?

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, I can understand that..

    But, by definition, most protests ARE illegal..

    Legality has never been a proper litmus test for legitimate protests..

    At least, not with Democrat/Left Wing protests...

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    Canada’s capital is jammed, its border crossings are blockaded, and there’s no end in sight

    Canada’s usually sleepy capital is under a state of emergency. It’s been nearly two weeks since the self-styled “Freedom Convoy” reduced its key arteries to a parking lot. Two crossings on the U.S.-Canada border, including the busiest, have been partially blockaded, and demonstrators were attempting to block a highway to a third.

    “They’re essentially putting their foot on the throat of all Canadians,” Bill Blair, Canada’s minister of emergency preparedness, said Wednesday. “It can’t be allowed to persist.”

    Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is warning that U.S. truckers are potentially planning to block roads in major metropolitan areas in protest of vaccine mandates, and that the protest activity could impact the Super Bowl in Los Angeles this Sunday as well as President Biden’s State of the Union address March 1, according to a copy of the bulletin obtained by The Washington Post.

    The DHS has distributed a bulletin to law enforcement agencies warning that a convoy of protesting truckers will potentially begin in California as early as mid-February and arrive in D.C. as late as mid-March. Truckers from Canada may potentially join the convoy as it travels eastward, the DHS warned.
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-s-capital-is-jammed-its-border-crossings-are-blockaded-and-there-s-no-end-in-sight/ar-AATE53L?ocid=uxbndlbing

    Yunno... If you stop and think about it, the Freedom Convoys are simply giving the people a taste of what it's like to live under a system where personal freedoms are not available..

    End the mandates... End the protests...

    How simple can it be???

    It's already been PROVEN by REAL science that mandates not only don't help a pandemic, they actively hurt the people and economies that mandates are imposed on...

    End the mandates... End the protests.. EVERYONE wins...

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is warning that U.S. truckers are potentially planning to block roads in major metropolitan areas in protest of vaccine mandates, and that the protest activity could impact the Super Bowl in Los Angeles this Sunday as well as President Biden’s State of the Union address March 1, according to a copy of the bulletin obtained by The Washington Post.

    Oooooo SNAP!!!!

    I mean, LA is ALREADY a traffic nightmare!! Imagine the chaos if truckers start blockading major through-fares of LA on Super Bowl Sunday... :D

    Won't THAT be a hoot!!! :D

  21. [21] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    On topic, you simpletons think people enter politics out of the desire to render "public service"!!

    Get real, libs, people enter politics because it's the easiest way for the unslilled to get rich at public expense. Of COURSE they ain't gonna happily quit trading on inside info!!

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Get real, libs, people enter politics because it's the easiest way for the unslilled to get rich at public expense. Of COURSE they ain't gonna happily quit trading on inside info!!

    Word...

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    NPR mocked for article on 'white privilege' emojis

    NPR was previously criticized for hemorrhaging diverse hosts

    NPR was ridiculed on Wednesday for its take on emojis and how some can supposedly denote white privilege.

    The article, headlined "Which skin color emoji should you use? The answer can be more complex than you think," claimed that white people using the common yellow-handed, thumbs-up emoji can actually suggest ignorance of white privilege. Its authors were Alejandra Marquez Jans, Asma Khalid and Patrick Jarenwattananon.

    Twitter users criticized the article for exploring what they said was a ridiculous topic.

    Manhattan Institute senior fellow Chris Rufo tweeted, "Incredible that it took *three* NPR employees to write something this stupid."

    Author and professor Dr. Gad Saad wrote, "Thank you for tackling the horrifying racism implicit in emojis."

    Senior judicial fellow Casey Mattox tweeted, "Or, you know, maybe people use the option sitting right in front of them. Right click on a windows laptop. Click ‘emoji.’ Type ‘Thumbs up.’ The option is the yellow thumb. Not a mystery. And this is otherwise, dumb. But others will make that point."
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/npr-roasted-white-privilege-emojis

    What IS it about Democrats that they latch onto the STOOPIDEST most MORONIC things!???

    "If you use the default YELLOW THUMBS UP yer a racist"
    -Democrats

    :epic eyeroll:

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    ^^^^^

    There has to be something fundamentally wrong with you as a human being to even spend enough time thinking about this subject to write an article on it.

    Word....

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    there are many problems with investing. the main problem of course is lack of pie. if only we could get politicians to focus on pie, there wouldn't be so much insider trading.

  26. [26] 
    nypoet22 wrote:
  27. [27] 
    SF Bear wrote:

    Section 2071 of the US Code provides for a three year jail term for destroying public records. Why is Biden's Justice department not charging Trump with this crime and throwing his ass in jail? What does Trump have over Biden that is protecting him? Biden has refused over and over again to go after Trump, why is this? Someday some reporter will uncover the truth about the Biden administration mollycoddling the prior administration. How can it be that no one from that criminal conspiracy otherwise known as the Trump administration is in jail??

  28. [28] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    also, why haven't they been protesting on behalf of all those other viruses and bacteria that have been denied their civil rights? What about Diphtheria? what about Tetanus? where's the love for Hepatitis, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, polio and chickenpox? they've been discriminated against for much longer!

  29. [29] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @sfbear,

    political crimes are different, and must be approached more cautiously, lest all politicians endeavor to throw their opponents in jail. we don't prevent autocracy with more autocracy.

    JL

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    SF Bear,

    What about Pelosi destroying records when she tore up President Trump's SOTU speech??

    "Oh.. Well, that's different..."

    :eyeroll:

  31. [31] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m,

    what pelosi tore was a copy, not an original. and yes, that's VERY different.

    JL

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    we don't prevent autocracy with more autocracy.

    Just like we can't prevent racism with more racism..

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    How can it be that no one from that criminal conspiracy otherwise known as the Trump administration is in jail??

    Because the criminal conspiracy that is the Trump Administration only exists in your head..

    And in the heads of other Trump/America haters...

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    what pelosi tore was a copy, not an original. and yes, that's VERY different.

    The records that SF Bear is pointing at were ALSO copies..

    The reality is that SF Bear doesn't really care about destroying records.. He's just casting about for another club with which to beat President Trump over the head with..

    PTDS President Trump Derangement Syndrome...

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    The way to prevent autocracy is to use the basic principles of democracy to elect small donor politicians that will have no problem throwing their predecessors in jail because they are not likely to emulate the behavior of their big money predecessors.

    It's the voters who decide if they want to vote for big money donors or small money donors..

    The voters have spoken...

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pie jokes just ain't gonna cut it.

    Maybe... Maybe not..

    But they are entertaining... :D

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    It's like demanding proof that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west..

    It's such common knowledge that no proof is required..

    :D

  38. [38] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Maybe Pelosi can send in the Secret Gazpacho Police...

    Stuffs gettin' wild in the congressional cafeteria.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    And the voters get to speak again in 2022.

    Yes they do... Now yer getting it..

    If they tell the politicians that they want autocracy by voting for big money candidates because they have been duped into believing they have no other choice they will get autocracy in perpetuity.

    OR...

    Or they are voting for big money candidates because that's what they WANT to do.. And it is their RIGHT to want that..

    "We can't simply discard a possibility because we don't happen to like it."
    -Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

    Unless you have a better idea than using the basic principles of democracy to fight autocracy.

    The VERY basic principle of Democracy is to allow the people to vote and don't give them shit about it.. :D

    Yet you demand proof of common knowledge when you don't like or agree with it.

    For example.....?????

  40. [40] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    The Gazpacho came for the old people and I said nothing because I was not old. The Gazpacho came for the ladies and I said nothing because I was not a lady. Then the Gazpacho came for me and I was like, "Hey, I didn't order the soup I ordered the salad"

  41. [41] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    DonQ [33]

    I suppose I am pretty cynical about the motovations of the majority who choose politics as a career, but I'm backed up by the fact that there are damn few examples to the contrary.

    But it constitutes a major problem for your advocacy program to ever become real. I'd be all in favor of implementing your idea, if it had the slightest chance of ever happening, but it doesn't.

    Perhaps what you need is dash MORE cynicism/realism!

  42. [42] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    SFBear

    Someday some reporter will uncover the truth about the Biden administration mollycoddling the prior administration. How can it be that no one from that criminal conspiracy otherwise known as the Trump administration is in jail??

    It’s most likely because the DOJ is treating the Trumpster like they would a terrorist organization or an organized crime boss — they will have everything prepared in order to take all involved down at once.

    And I have to think that the destruction of archival records might be for Trump what tax evasion was to Al Capone. Trump’s staff’s attempts to tape presidential documents back together provide all of the hard evidence needed to show his criminal intent. Trump was told multiple times that he could not destroy records; but he chose to ignore the law. The National Archives documented it all for the DOJ! Just the thought that it may be Trump’s little habit of throwing tantrums and ripping up documents that he feels are “mean and nasty” to him puts a smile on my face.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    DH,

    Whether citizen choose to vote for big money candidates because they have been duped or because they want to they are still voting for autocracy.

    In YOUR opinion.. THEY may feel differently..

    And they have the right to feel, AND VOTE, any way they wish..

    Certainly those that want autocracy have the right to vote for it, but that does not mean that those that citizens that do not want autocracy have not been duped when they vote for autocracy.

    Do you have any facts that support your claim that these people have been duped??

    Maybe they are as smart as you and know all the facts and WANT to vote for big money..

    As 80% of citizens want the big money out of politics it stands to reason that they are more likely to be in the duped category if they vote for big money candidates and by doing so vote for autocracy.

    You know how polls are.. You can find a poll to support any claim you like.. It simply depends on how they questions are asked..

    Let me give you an example..

    Big Money is responsible for all the pain and misery in this country.. Do you support big money in politics???

    OF COURSE you are going to get poll numbers in favor of your agenda..

    Pointing out to people they have been duped is not giving them shit about it. It is pointing out their mistake and suggesting that they choose to vote for small donor candidates is offering them a better alternative to fighting autocracy than voting to keep autocracy in perpetuity.

    Suggest away...

    But you MUST recognize A> the possibility that voters are as smart as you and B> have the RIGHT to vote for autocracy in perpetuity if they so choose..

    In other words, voters have the RIGHT to tell you what you can do with your suggestion..

    An example of you demanding proof of common knowledge is in the comment thread from a day to two ago when you demanded proof that both Deathocrats and Republikillers took big money and that taking big money meant they work for the big money interests.

    Not factually accurate... Taking big money DOESN'T always mean working for big money interests..

    You have to provide FACTS that prove causation..

    Correlation alone does not prove causation...

    So your better idea to fight autocracy is to let those duping people to continue to do it while people like me remain silent about the deception because pointing out they have been deceived is giving them shit?

    No.. My better idea is to acknowledge the FACT that people have a right to vote in a manner that YOU believe is detrimental to their interests..

    Leading a horse to water.. CAN'T make 'im drink..

    Ringing any bells???

    Isn't one of the basic principles of democracy that we all have the right to offer citizens a choice, information and opinions on the choices so voters can decide how they want to vote?

    Abso-fraking-loutly..

    And, when they choose to vote in a manner you think is stoopid or moronic, you have every right to point it out to them..

    But what is simply undeniable is you must acknowledge THEIR right to vote as they choose..

    Your answer to the question asking for a better idea seems to be more of a dodge than an idea.

    I have so many ideas.. Can you be more specific...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    I suppose I am pretty cynical about the motovations of the majority who choose politics as a career, but I'm backed up by the fact that there are damn few examples to the contrary.

    With great age comes great wisdom.. :D

    But it constitutes a major problem for your advocacy program to ever become real. I'd be all in favor of implementing your idea, if it had the slightest chance of ever happening, but it doesn't.

    Perhaps what you need is dash MORE cynicism/realism!

    Personally, I am of the opinion that, when dealing in politics, one can NEVER have too much cynicism/realism.. :D

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    It’s most likely because the DOJ is treating the Trumpster like they would a terrorist organization or an organized crime boss — they will have everything prepared in order to take all involved down at once.

    Yea... Like ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion?? :D

    Remind me again... How did that werk out for ya'all again?? :D

    I'll forgo the mocking laugh.. I am in a giving mood right now.. :D

    And I have to think that the destruction of archival records might be for Trump what tax evasion was to Al Capone.

    Of course you HAVE to think that.. Because the alternative.... The REALITY is the idea that ya'all Trump/America haters are simply throwing whatever shit you can on the wall and hope something sticks..

    "I am terribly sorry about all this. This was supposed to be very simple, but you know if you give food to monkeys, they just throw their shit at each other."
    -Pagan Min, FAR CRY 4

    :D

    Just the thought that it may be Trump’s little habit of throwing tantrums and ripping up documents that he feels are “mean and nasty” to him puts a smile on my face.

    Yea, I feel the same way about Pelosi's tantrum of ripping up President Trump's SOTU address.. :D

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay Liz,

    You want to know the FACTS of the Canadian Freedom Convoy??

    Why not check with an INDEPENDENT Journalist..

    Independent journalist writes 'what the truckers want' following 100 Freedom Convoy interviews
    Many of the truckers are vaccinated, Rupa Subramanya wrote: 'It's about something else'

    Several political commentators praised freelance journalist Rupa Subramanya, who talked to over 100 Canadian truckers protesting COVID-19 vaccine mandates in Ottawa, Canada, to determine "what the truckers want," and contrasted her coverage with some of the liberal media's villainization of the group.

    B.J. Dichter, a spokesman for the Freedom Convoy, told Subramanya that he was vaccinated, and he believes that most of the truckers were as well.

    "I’m Jewish," he said. "I have family in mass graves in Europe. And apparently I’m a white supremacist."

    Dichter alluded to some more negative media coverage of the protests that called the Freedom Convoy a "cult" and a "threat to democracy." The Ottawa Police Chief used the words "nationwide insurrection" to describe the protests, which was echoed by many in the media. Many headlines have also focused on "swastikas and public urination" and protesters carrying swastika and Confederate flags and defacing statues, while the truckers have told a different story, arguing their demonstration was "peaceful."

    The protests have snarled traffic in Ottawa and shut down the busiest border crossing in North America this week, causing traffic on the highway to Detroit.
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/independent-journalists-talks-to-over-100-canadian-truckers

    Your Left Wing media is LYING to you, Liz about the Canadian Freedom Convoy...

    Apparently, ONLY Fox News will carry an INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT of the REALITY and the FACTS of the Canadian Freedom Convoy...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Justin Trudeau still hasn't met with #FreedomConvoyCanada2022. But @rupasubramanya has. She spoke to more than 100 truckers and protestors ??over the past 10 days. This is what they seek:

    What the Truckers Want
    I’ve spoken to 100 of the protestors gathered in the Canadian capital. What's happening is far bigger than the vaccine mandates.

    https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/what-the-truckers-want

    Like I said.. Get the FACTS.. THEN decide if you hate the Truckers or not...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is EXACTLY why I laugh when ya'all bring up yer "fact check" websites.. They are all nothing but Left Wing propaganda mills..

    Snopes, a liberal fact-checking site, was mocked by critics this week for rating reporting on the Biden administration's alleged funding of crack pipe distribution to drug users as "mostly false," while also admitting that "safer smoking kits" were required to be distributed as part of a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) grant.

    In a Tuesday piece claiming news reports "grossly misrepresented" details about the substance abuse harm reduction program, Snopes stuck with its "mostly false" rating by arguing it was inaccurate to say that the distribution of the "smoking kits" was intended to "advance racial equity," but admitted that the pipes would be distributed with race as "a secondary consideration."
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-mock-fact-checking-site-rating-reporting-biden-crack-pipe-funding-mostly-false

    "CLAIMING THAT BIDEN IS GIVING CRACK PIPES OUT IS TOTALLY FALSE!!!"
    -SNOOPES

    "WELL BIDEN ADMIN IS GIVING OUT 'SMOKING KITS' FOR CRACK COCAINE..."
    -ALSO SNOOPES

    :eyeroll:

    Left Wing "fact check" sites are a joke...

    Hell even FaceBook admits that their "fact checks" are not really even facts.. They are opinions..

    FaceBook admitted that in court under oath..

    To paraphrase the indomitable Captain James Tiberius Kirk...

    "Kahn... I am LAUGHING at the Fact Checks..."

    :D

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    TEXAS FOR THE WIN!!!!

    Abortions in Texas fell 60% in 1st month under new limits

    AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Abortions in Texas fell by 60% in the first month under the most restrictive abortion law in the U.S. in decades, according to new figures that for the first time reveal a full accounting of the immediate impact.

    The nearly 2,200 abortions reported by Texas providers in September came after a new law took effect that bans the procedure once cardiac activity is detected, usually around six weeks of pregnancy and without exceptions in cases of rape or incest. The figures were released this month by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission.
    https://apnews.com/article/abortion-health-texas-b92eadbe4afd4d29cb6cbf00526c11b0

    :D

    Lovin' it...

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Democrats are SOOOO desperate, they are dusting off the ole Hill.. :D

    Hillary Clinton expected to speak at New York Democratic convention

    KEY POINTS

    Former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton is expected to speak at next week’s New York State Democratic Party Convention, according to people familiar with the matter.

    The development comes as Clinton works to maintain relevance in a party that could be headed for defeat in this year’s midterm elections.

    Her expected appearance may also stoke speculation about a potential new bid for elected office.
    https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/10/hillary-clinton-expected-to-speak-at-new-york-democratic-convention-.html

    "Just roll her ole bones out here.."
    -Principal Rooney, FERRIS BEUHLER'S DAY OFF

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Being more specific would do no good as my question that you continue to dodge was crystal clear

    I get and answer SO many questions..

    Could you be more specific...

  52. [52] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Yea... Like ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion?? :D

    Remind me again... How did that werk out for ya'all again?? :D

    You mean how Mueller’s Investigation found at least 10 times that Trump obstructed Justice but was prevented from actually looking into any of Trump’s dealing with Russia after FBI Acting Director Rosenstein ended the agency’s counterintelligence investigation without explanation?

    It’s a little early to say how that worked out until the counterintelligence investigation is actually completed. Yeah, President Trump was without a doubt the biggest intelligence threat and the most compromised American President to ever hold office… and that’s based solely on all of the things that Trump did in broad daylight! All of the secret talks between Trump and Russia — Trump’s subservience to Putin and general groveling at Putin’s every word — there’s a lot to go after Trump for. But don’t kid yourself into thinking Trump is going to get to keep avoiding being investigated like he did while in office!

    While Trump believed he could commit crimes in front of the camera and he would be untouchable… clearly his desperate desire to remain in office at any cost stems from the growing likelihood of his impending indictment and incarceration.

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean how Mueller’s Investigation found at least 10 times that Trump obstructed Justice but was prevented from actually looking into any of Trump’s dealing with Russia after FBI Acting Director Rosenstein ended the agency’s counterintelligence investigation without explanation?

    Mueller's report..

    NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION

    Spin all you want, Russ... Ya'all's Russia Collusion delusion was a HUGE setback for ya'all's Trump/America hate agenda..

    While Trump believed he could commit crimes in front of the camera and he would be untouchable… clearly his desperate desire to remain in office at any cost stems from the growing likelihood of his impending indictment and incarceration.

    Ya'all have been saying that for over SIX YEARS!!!

    And ya'all have ***ALWAYS*** been wrong..

    WHY do you believe that THIS time will be the charm??

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of the secret talks between Trump and Russia — Trump’s subservience to Putin and general groveling at Putin’s every word — there’s a lot to go after Trump for.

    As opposed to Biden getting down on his knees and giving Putin a Nord Stream 2 blow job???

    Funny how you ignore that Russ..

    Which PROVES you really don't care when a President gives a blow job to an enemy leader..

    You just want a club to beat President Trump and this country over the head with..

    Hypocrisy.. Not A Democrat Programming Bug.. A Feature..

  55. [55] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    “Collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law,” Mueller writes. “For those reasons, the Office’s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law.”

    The report is littered with evidence Trump and his staff were open to Russian interference in the election. Mueller explicitly concludes that “the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian effort.”

    What the report finds is not clear-cut evidence of a quid-pro-quo. Instead, what we see is a series of bungled and abortive attempts to create ties between the two sides, a situation in which the Trump team and Russia worked to reach out to each other (and vice versa) without ever developing a formal arrangement to coordinate.

    Does that rise to the level of “collusion?” It’s a slippery term. But if “collusion” refers to a willingness to cooperate with Russian interference in the 2016 US election and actively taking steps to abet it, it seems to me that the Mueller report does in fact establish that it took place.

    But even if you find that definition too loose, the report’s message is not that there was nothing to worry about on the Trump-Russia front in 2016. Instead, it confirms that there were multiple shady connections between Trump and Russia, and that the president’s “no collusion” line is quite misleading. And at worst, the way it’s been presented suggests that the president and his attorney general are still actively trying to deceive the American people about what happened in 2016.

    https://www.vox.com/2019/4/18/18484965/mueller-report-trump-no-collusion

    Mueller never looked for evidence of Trump’s fictional legal catchphrase… but there is plenty of evidence of Trump’s campaign working with the Russians that Mueller did uncover. Putin got his money’s worth with Trump!

  56. [56] 
    Kick wrote:

    BashiBazouk
    47

    The Gazpacho came for the old people and I said nothing because I was not old. The Gazpacho came for the ladies and I said nothing because I was not a lady. Then the Gazpacho came for me and I was like, "Hey, I didn't order the soup I ordered the salad"

    Heh. There is no bottom to the ignorance of the GOP inveterate morons.

  57. [57] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    the nazis sure loved their cold tomatoes.

  58. [58] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    It certainly brings new meaning to the term "soup nazi"...

Comments for this article are closed.