Thread: Pelosi fires back at '60 Minutes' report on 'soft corruption'

Originally Posted by Karl

That I oppose as well. Vehemently.


If you want to condemn congress in general, I'm there. If you want to condemn a specific congressperson, well, I'll need something that separates them from the pack.

If we were allowed a full investigation I'm willing to bet that Pelosi is neck deep in insider trading. Being that I can not prove that you can certainly believe otherwise. My arguement certainly does not apply only to Pelosi though but the thread is about her. From what I've read her replacement is every bit as guilty.

Originally Posted by 1Perry

If we were allowed a full investigation I'm willing to bet that Pelosi is neck deep in insider trading. Being that I can not prove that you can certainly believe otherwise. [...]

My usual practice in these types of situations is that, absent any evidence, to believe nothing at all

Especially if the person in question has no 'history' (which, despite concerted attempts by right wing media to manufacture, does not exist AFAIK).

Blind trust, divestiture, or a global market fund that they cannot do anything with while in office. Any of the three solves most problems with them being able to dabble into the market and cherry pick stocks based upon their legislation.

Originally Posted by EarlzP

We don't have to wonder what happens when the markets go unregulated do we? Maybe some of those who are rich might actually have to work for a living

yes, we do have to wonder what happens when a market goes unregulated.... as it's never happened.

Originally Posted by Karl

My usual practice in these types of situations is that, absent any evidence, to believe nothing at all

Especially if the person in question has no 'history' (which, despite concerted attempts by right wing media to manufacture, does not exist AFAIK).

If you have no knowledge of Pelosi's corruption.. it is not because it doesn't exist.. it's because you have chosen not to inform yourself.
it's not uncommon for a hyperpartisan not to inform themselves of what going on with their party's leaders....willful ignorance runs rampant.

Originally Posted by Karl

My usual practice in these types of situations is that, absent any evidence, to believe nothing at all

Especially if the person in question has no 'history' (which, despite concerted attempts by right wing media to manufacture, does not exist AFAIK).

California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the former house speaker, and her husband invested in eight initial public stock offerings in 2008. The Pelosi’s, for example, bought 5,000 shares in VISA at $44 a share, while a bill that could have hurt the company was under review in the House. The stock jumped to $64 a share–an increase in value for Pelosi of $100,000.

Would most people have jumped on the initial offering before anyone else could get it for something like Visa? I'm sure they would. If they had while having inside information about how a bill in Congress would be voted on, would they have been charged with insider trading if they didn't have a (R) or (D) after their name? I bet they would.

Pelosi, Boehner, Bachus, Hastert, Other Congressional Reps Traded Stock On Inside Tips, But It’s All Legal (!?!) | David Webb

Do you think she would have bought in if she knew the bill would go against Visa? Do you think the offer to jump in before anyone not influential was able to had anything to do with her standing in Congress?

Originally Posted by Thrilla

If you have no knowledge of Pelosi's corruption.. it is not because it doesn't exist.. it's because you have chosen not to inform yourself.
it's not uncommon for a hyperpartisan not to inform themselves of what going on with their party's leaders....willful ignorance runs rampant.

Speaking of hyperpartisan, did we all forget that the same article made exactly the same kinds of accusations against the current House speaker, John Boehner, and Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama?

Would you agree that Boehner should be drummed out of the House?

Everytime I see this thread title on "soft corruption", it makes me laugh...

Makes me wonder, can a person claim that it was "soft" theft? a "soft" speeding ticket?? a "soft" rape? And have it not be a big deal...

No judge, it was a "SOFT" murder.

Originally Posted by AdamT

Speaking of hyperpartisan, did we all forget that the same article made exactly the same kinds of accusations against the current House speaker, John Boehner, and Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama?

Would you agree that Boehner should be drummed out of the House?

.. yes, absolutely.

I prefer to see all D's and R's, who are corrupt, drummed out of office.... and more importantly, i want all corrupt L's out of office even more, as those are my peeps and i don't want my peeps being corrupt and holding office.

Originally Posted by Thrilla

.. yes, absolutely.

I prefer to see all D's and R's, who are corrupt, drummed out of office.... and more importantly, i want all corrupt L's out of office even more, as those are my peeps and i don't want my peeps being corrupt and holding office.

I'm with you on that. I think that legislators should have to put their investments in a blind trust as long as they are in office.