US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[bostjan]

They should at least be subject to the same insider trading laws as everyone else.

But since when are politicians held accountable in the US?

Depends which position they held. At the highest level, ...since Nixon, but only because he ultimately held himself accountable in order to avoid the wrath of others. Trump took that same gambit the other direction, though, and proved that he was invincible.

If Pelosi wants to do some insider trading and get away with it, she could. Nothing will happen to her. And I realize that the source might not be very reliable, but it doesn't matter in terms of accountability. Everybody knows that any high profile congressperson could get away with virtually any financial crime.

 

[Drew]

Our system of government in the USA was set up to be governed by "regular people." That's why you had Ben Franklin, printer; Thomas Jefferson, hemp farmer; John Hancock, tea smuggler lol, etc.

Though, consider this in its historical context. These were all professions of the economically elite, and often of the landed aristcracy. Jefferson's "hemp farm" was 5,000 acres and while I don't know exactly how many he had at any one time, he was believed to have owned over 600 slaves in his lifetime. Meanwhile estimations of Franklin's net worth that I'm seeing online range from $10.7mm to $85mm. Our founding fathers were "regular people" in the way that, oh, Jamie Dimon and Satya Nadella are.

You probably know this and were joking a bit, but just in case anyone else reads this and thinks "regular people" should be taken at face value - it shouldn't.

If Pelosi wants to do some insider trading and get away with it, she could. Nothing will happen to her. And I realize that the source might not be very reliable, but it doesn't matter in terms of accountability. Everybody knows that any high profile congressperson could get away with virtually any financial crime.

Thing is, she didn't commit a crime.

Representatives and Senators are allowed to trade on any information they aquire, even if it would otherwise be considered "material nonpublic information" if acquired in another way.

I'm not saying that's right, and I think this law should be changed, and similar laws as would normally apply to the Presidency should be applied to all federal officials. But, at present, there's actually no law that prohibits Pelosi from selling Google, or even shorting Google, in advance of a DoJ antitrust lawsuit being announced. It's not that there's no accountability and elected officials can break the law without repercussions - it's that we never actually bothered to make what she did illegal in the first place.

And yeah, I think that's just as fucked up as you do.

 

[bostjan]

@Drew: I 100% agree and approve of that message.

 

[nightflameauto]

Though, consider this in its historical context. These were all professions of the economically elite, and often of the landed aristcracy. Jefferson's "hemp farm" was 5,000 acres and while I don't know exactly how many he had at any one time, he was believed to have owned over 600 slaves in his lifetime. Meanwhile estimations of Franklin's net worth that I'm seeing online range from $10.7mm to $85mm. Our founding fathers were "regular people" in the way that, oh, Jamie Dimon and Satya Nadella are.

You probably know this and were joking a bit, but just in case anyone else reads this and thinks "regular people" should be taken at face value - it shouldn't.


Thing is, she didn't commit a crime.

Representatives and Senators are allowed to trade on any information they aquire, even if it would otherwise be considered "material nonpublic information" if acquired in another way.

I'm not saying that's right, and I think this law should be changed, and similar laws as would normally apply to the Presidency should be applied to all federal officials. But, at present, there's actually no law that prohibits Pelosi from selling Google, or even shorting Google, in advance of a DoJ antitrust lawsuit being announced. It's not that there's no accountability and elected officials can break the law without repercussions - it's that we never actually bothered to make what she did illegal in the first place.

And yeah, I think that's just as fucked up as you do.

Saying "we" in that last bit is a bit disingenuous. We'd be asking the lawmakers to create a law to stifle their profitability. You don't ask the Fox to build a fence around the hen-house and expect positive results unless you're an absolute, baseline, drooling moron.

Cue the American Electorate.

 

[Drew]

@Drew: I 100% agree and approve of that message.

Highfve!

Federal Reserve needs to have their own come to jesus moment about trading authorization and blind trusts, too. IIRC they merely have to disclose trades, and are not prohibited either... which didn't stop the former head of the Boston Fed, Eric Rosengren, and Dallas Fed, Robert Kaplan, from making a series of large trades timed to profit handsomely from the announcement of Fed's covid-era market support measures. The Fed's tightened up rules since, but it's not a good look and more needs to be done, IMO.

 

[Drew]

Saying "we" in that last bit is a bit disingenuous. We'd be asking the lawmakers to create a law to stifle their profitability. You don't ask the Fox to build a fence around the hen-house and expect positive results unless you're an absolute, baseline, drooling moron.

Cue the American Electorate.

I don't disagree.

 

[Drew]

So, this is hilarious.

Remember the Durham investigation into the origins of the Trump campaign Russia investigation? And remember how, at one point, it leaked that Durham had opened a criminal investigation related to that investigation? And how the right wing media started salivating about who Durham was going to bring down, only for the whole thing to end with a wimper with two weak cases that were dismissed?

How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled

The review by John Durham at one point veered into a criminal investigation related to Donald Trump himself, even as it failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.

www.nytimes.com

Yeah, about that... Turns out the criminal investigation was into Trump, after Durham got a tip from the Italians alleging Trump had committed financial crimes, and Barr decided to expand Durham's investigation to also look into this.

Better yet, there's actually nothing known about what Durham found out, how far he pursued it, etc, and given how nakedly partisan the rest of his investigation was, there's a very real chance he just buried it.

 

[nightflameauto]

So, this is hilarious.

Remember the Durham investigation into the origins of the Trump campaign Russia investigation? And remember how, at one point, it leaked that Durham had opened a criminal investigation related to that investigation? And how the right wing media started salivating about who Durham was going to bring down, only for the whole thing to end with a wimper with two weak cases that were dismissed?

How Barr’s Quest to Find Flaws in the Russia Inquiry Unraveled

The review by John Durham at one point veered into a criminal investigation related to Donald Trump himself, even as it failed to find wrongdoing in the origins of the Russia inquiry.

www.nytimes.com

Yeah, about that... Turns out the criminal investigation was into Trump, after Durham got a tip from the Italians alleging Trump had committed financial crimes, and Barr decided to expand Durham's investigation to also look into this.

Better yet, there's actually nothing known about what Durham found out, how far he pursued it, etc, and given how nakedly partisan the rest of his investigation was, there's a very real chance he just buried it.

Hilarious, rage inducing? Ya know, same ol', same ol'.

 

[Drew]

Hilarious, rage inducing? Ya know, same ol', same ol'.

Corrupt as fuck? Funny thing is, Durham had a good reputation prior to this whole fiasco, and absolutely ran it through the mud in a partisan hackjob doing the dirty work even BARR wouldn't do.

 

[Ralyks]

Man, people getting kicked off committees, including Omar today. That Revenge Tour is definitely in full swing.

 

[philkilla]

Man, people getting kicked off committees, including Omar today. That Revenge Tour is definitely in full swing.

Good riddance to Ilhan.

 

[StevenC]

Come on Boris 2024!

 

[narad]

Come on Boris 2024!

You finally started listening to good music?

 

[StevenC]

Good riddance to Ilhan.

Why?

 

[wheresthefbomb]

Man, people getting kicked off committees, including Omar today. That Revenge Tour is definitely in full swing.

It's mirrored on a local level, too. Our borough's Climate Action Coalition was "abruptly dismissed" by the Ayn Rand disciple who is currently chairing the borough assembly, with all members except one being replaced by his pals. The slim chance of them accomplishing anything looks a lot slimmer now.

 

[bostjan]

Man, people getting kicked off committees, including Omar today. That Revenge Tour is definitely in full swing.

Who else?

As much trouble as Omar has caused in the past, I think that >75% of what conservatives have been most upset about has been stuff she said that made perfect sense in context. Meanwhile, MTG - https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-t...ived-5-1-billion-critical-race-theory-1778372

AOC gave a speech about Omar's dismissal, in which she recalled MTG's comments about "Jewish space lasers." MTG, who posted a longwinded and insane social media diatribe about the Rothschilds banking dynasty launching lasers into outer space to start fires, immediately snapped back, gaslighting AOC by saying she never said any such nonsense.

So, the republicans hold the house. We knew that this shit was coming. They are going to run amok and try to impeach as many democrats as possible in whichever ways they can. The insane faction of the GOP is going to drag the less insane ones along for the ride, probably because of McCarthy's feud with Gaetz, who is like the leader of the Silly Party from Monty Python's election night special sketch.

Anyway, strap in, this is just the beginning. And in 2025, when the needle swings the other way, watch as the GOP denies that any of this ever happened.

 

[Ralyks]

Who else?

Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell come to mind.

 

[bostjan]

Adam Schiff and Eric Swalwell come to mind.

Did they get removed or is this based on McCarthy's "campaign" for speaker?

I guess it doesn't matter. The GOP will follow through eventually, if they haven't yet.

 

[Ralyks]

Did they get removed or is this based on McCarthy's "campaign" for speaker?

I guess it doesn't matter. The GOP will follow through eventually, if they haven't yet.

Nah, they were removed. It was basically revenge for making Trumps life hell. Pretty sure it's why Schiff is making a senate run now.

 

[Drew]

Nah, they were removed. It was basically revenge for making Trumps life hell. Pretty sure it's why Schiff is making a senate run now.

I mean, also because Feinstein's seat is very safe, being a Senator outranks being a member of the House, and she can't realistically expect to serve more than another term even if she were to run unopposed. But yeah, being a prominent Democrat in the House is going to be frustrating for the next two years, for sure.