Paul Pelosi sold Google shares prior to DOJ antitrust suit

[Herdfan]

I can't see that happening in Garland's DOJ. He's about as straight-arrow playing by the rules as they come.

Though maybe not quite as confident, I can't see Pelosi being engaged in that either.

Do I think someone at the DOJ called her up and said "Hey, we're going after Google"? No.

But in her position you might hear things. Somebody mentions something in passing or she overhears something.

You all can think she and everyone else in Congress doesn't do things, but I am not one of them.

Hey Herd! Busy schedule still or no?

It's slowing down and I know what you are referring to, but not touching that thread with a 10' pole.

 

[Eric]

Which is my point. This allegation makes zero sense. It’s just another nonsense article by Fox News. Here are some other top stories they have on their site today.

Take your personal partisans politics out of it and try to look at it objectively, Pelosi sold $3 mil worth of Google stock weeks before the DOJ sues them for antitrust. Are we only refusing to call it investigation-worthy because Pelosi is a Democrat? Had this been a Republican you would be eviscerating them in no uncertain terms.

This happens on both sides and the partisanship over these issues is laughable. Give my side a free pass because they're my party bullshit. Nobody seems to want to look at an issue for what it is, it's what breaks out political system.

 

[ronntaylor]

Take your personal partisans politics out of it and try to look at it objectively, Pelosi sold $3 mil worth of Google stock weeks before the DOJ sues them for antitrust. Are we only refusing to call it investigation-worthy because Pelosi is a Democrat? Had this been a Republican you would be eviscerating them in no uncertain terms.

This happens on both sides and the partisanship over these issues is laughable. Give my side a free pass because they're my party bullshit. Nobody seems to want to look at an issue for what it is, it's what breaks out political system.

Paul Pelosi has made similar buys/sells in Dec in 2020 and 2021. You think he and his advisers aren't going to listen to forecasts of an upcoming recession? That they'll ignore predictions of a massive slowdown in advertising, especially online advertising spend due to the aftermath of the COVID pandemic? And his selloff has hurt as the stock was sold far below the price he bought in 2020 and 2021, and Google stock has risen 10%+ since the selloff.

 

[Citysnaps]

Paul Pelosi has made similar buys/sells in Dec in 2020 and 2021. You think he and his advisers aren't going to listen to forecasts of an upcoming recession? That they'll ignore predictions of a massive slowdown in advertising, especially online advertising spend due to the aftermath of the COVID pandemic? And his selloff has hurt as the stock was sold far below the price he bought in 2020 and 2021, and Google stock has risen 10%+ since the selloff.

What I don't care for are the unsubstantiated allegations; overt or thinly veiled.

If there's evidence/proof, simply prosecute them. No doubt in my mind Garland would be all over that if true; democrat or republican.

I suspect there could even be a low-observable initial investigation going on right now, to put the rumors to rest, or to move forward.

 

[Eric]

What I don't care for are the unsubstantiated allegations; overt or thinly veiled.

If there's evidence/proof, simply prosecute them. No doubt in my mind Garland would be all over that if true; democrat or republican.

I suspect there could even be a low-observable initial investigation going on right now, to put the rumors to rest, or to move forward.

If anyone else gets investigated for it, then so should they. Having access to inside information makes it suspicious, they could've very well had access to information the DOJ used as well. Jon Stewart used to rail against this all the time and for good reason, it should not be allowed by those who pull the strings, period.

Here's what we know:

Paul Pelosi, the husband of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, sold off 30,000 shares of Google stock last month, just weeks before the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the company over alleged antitrust violations.

Pelosi sold the shares in three different transactions between December 20 and December 28, according to congressional disclosure files viewed by Fox News Business. Each transaction involved an amount between $500,001 and $1,000,000, according to the report. The trades involved between $1.5 million and $3 million of assets. The total amount of capital gains yielded was unclear.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department and eight states announced a lawsuit against the tech giant, accusing Google of monopolizing the digital advertising market.

“We allege that Google has used anti-competitive, exclusionary and unlawful conduct to eliminate or severely diminish any threat to its dominance over digital advertising technologies,” Attorney General Merrick Garland said at a news conference.

“Google’s anticompetitive behavior has raised barriers to entry to artificially high levels, forced key competitors to abandon the market for ad tech tools, dissuaded potential competitors from joining the market, and left Google’s few remaining competitors marginalized and unfairly disadvantaged,” the lawsuit alleges.

If something actionable is there I suspect they'll be looking into it, such as does he typically make these sorts of transactions, etc. and it would be fair to do so. On its surface this is questionable no matter how you look at it.

The partisan politics around this is embarrassing. Nobody should be overlooked or given a free pass.

 

[SuperMatt]

If Pelosi is trying to use inside information to profit, she’s literally the worst at it among all members of Congress.

 

[Citysnaps]

If anyone else gets investigated for it, then so should they.

Yes, and that is what I said. But without public innuendo and allegations. Let the DOJ work in the background, like Garland no doubt intends to do.

 

[ronntaylor]

Sucker are gulping up this BS with abandon. Paul Pelosi is a creature of habit. He's made similar trades the last few years. The same week (if not the same damn day) that he sold the Google stock, he also sold Tesla, Netfilx and Disney stock. Faux Noise and the gullible brigade aren't talking about those sell-offs though. I wonder why?

 

[Eric]

Yes, and that is what I said. But without public innuendo and allegations. Let the DOJ work in the background, like Garland no doubt intends to do.

Unless it were a Republican, then the gloves come off.

 

[Citysnaps]

Unless it were a Republican, then the gloves come off.

I might be wrong, but has Garland ever pre-announced any internal insider trading investigations involving republicans, prior to deciding to file or not file indictments?

 

[Eric]

I might be wrong, but has Garland pre-announced any internal insider trading investigations involving republicans, prior to deciding to file or not file indictments?

Nancy Pelosi could have access to any of the same information that led Garland to make that announcement long before it happened. The point is they're all on the inside here and it makes it questionable, even if that's not the case it's suspect. This is not just about Pelosi, it's a corrupt system full of loopholes and no oversight.

 

[Roller]

Do I think someone at the DOJ called her up and said "Hey, we're going after Google"? No.

But in her position you might hear things. Somebody mentions something in passing or she overhears something.

You all can think she and everyone else in Congress doesn't do things, but I am not one of them.

It's slowing down and I know what you are referring to, but not touching that thread with a 10' pole.

I doubt if anyone here doesn't think shady things happen in Congress.

 

[SuperMatt]

Nancy Pelosi could have access to any of the same information that led Garland to make that announcement long before it happened

How?

 

[Citysnaps]

Nancy Pelosi could have access to any of the same information that led Garland to make that announcement long before it happened. The point is they're all on the inside here and it makes it questionable, even if that's not the case it's suspect. This is not just about Pelosi, it's a corrupt system full of loopholes and no oversight.

Let Garland investigate. If there's evidence that she did, prosecute her. I have no problem with that.

 

[Eric]

How?

Prove she didn't/doesn't. Show us where a sitting Speaker of the House (at the time) does not have access to this type of information. You can try to troll in the weeds here all you want but the point is they have access to information that regular citizens and traders do not.

 

[Eric]

Furthermore, from September of 2022. How is this even allowed? They write the laws and have no oversight. This should outrage us all, no matter what side we're on.

These 97 Members of Congress Reported Trades in Companies Influenced by Their Committees (Published 2022)

See the stocks the lawmakers reported buying and selling and how their trades potentially conflicted with the committees they sat on.

www.nytimes.com

These 97 Members of Congress Reported Trades in Companies Influenced by Their Committees​

At least 97 current members of Congress bought or sold stock, bonds or other financial assets that intersected with their congressional work or reported similar transactions by their spouse or a dependent child, an analysis by The New York Times has found.

U.S. lawmakers are not banned from investing in any company, including those that could be affected by their decisions. But the trading patterns uncovered by the Times analysis underscore longstanding concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest or use of inside information by members of Congress, government ethics experts say.

Times reporters analyzed transactions between 2019 and 2021 using a database of members’ financial filings called Capitol Trades created by 2iQ Research. They matched the trades against relevant committee assignments and the dates of hearings and congressional investigations.

When contacted, many of the lawmakers said the trades they reported had been carried out independently by a spouse or a broker with no input from them. Some have since sold all their stocks or moved them into blind trusts. Two said the trades were accidental.

 

[SuperMatt]

Prove she didn't/doesn't. Show us where a sitting Speaker of the House (at the time) does not have access to this type of information. You can try to troll in the weeds here all you want but the point is they have access to information that regular citizens and traders do not.

So you can make any allegation you want and it’s up to others to disprove it? Can you disprove my allegation that Julia Roberts is actually from another planet, disguised as a human to fool us all?

The DoJ doesn’t share details of ongoing investigations with Congress. So you are alleging that they secretly break this rule and pass info to SotH or that the SotH has spies gathering the info. All in order to lose 20% of her money. I’m not sure why I need to disprove an idea so farcical.

DOJ tells Jim Jordan that information about ongoing investigations is off limits

Jordan, who now leads the House Judiciary Committee, had asked the Justice Department for information about a number of topics, some of which are active cases.

www.nbcnews.com

It’s as if nobody ever heard of the separation of powers.

 

[Eric]

So you can make any allegation you want and it’s up to others to disprove it? Can you disprove my allegation that Julia Roberts is actually from another planet, disguised as a human to fool us all?

And you can equally claim his innocence based on zero credible information. You're trolling more and more like Musk with every post but keep it up, you're really changing minds as you fight for only one party all the time while never questioning your own (and I mean EVER).

The DoJ doesn’t share details of ongoing investigations with Congress. So you are alleging that they secretly break this rule and pass info to SotH or that the SotH has spies gathering the info. All in order to lose 20% of her money. I’m not sure why I need to disprove an idea so farcical.

DOJ tells Jim Jordan that information about ongoing investigations is off limits

Jordan, who now leads the House Judiciary Committee, had asked the Justice Department for information about a number of topics, some of which are active cases.

www.nbcnews.com

It’s as if nobody ever heard of the separation of powers.

In other words, you don't have a clue. Thank you for making my point.

 

[SuperMatt]

Furthermore, from September of 2022. How is this even allowed? They write the laws and have no oversight. This should outrage us all, no matter what side we're on.

These 97 Members of Congress Reported Trades in Companies Influenced by Their Committees (Published 2022)

See the stocks the lawmakers reported buying and selling and how their trades potentially conflicted with the committees they sat on.

www.nytimes.com

These 97 Members of Congress Reported Trades in Companies Influenced by Their Committees​

View attachment 21545

This is worth discussing. I wish this were the starting point instead of the nonsense allegation Fox is tossing at Pelosi.

This site below has what seemed to be an anti-Pelosi bias as their starting point, but they went all in on data. So in the end they found similar stuff to the above. Those on certain committees seem to do quite well when trading in stocks with a relation to that committee’s business.

The Unusual Whales Congress Trading Report for 2022

Congress has beaten the markets once again in 2022. We've explored numerous ways on how Congress traded, their trends, as well as the most unusual of trades. Read it now to see how Congress beats the market and performs with conflicts, privy information, and power over laws that benefit them.

unusualwhales.com

The layout of their site is terrible, with it just being one extremely long page. So here’s some of their info about committee members:

• Alan Lowenthal - member of the Natural Resources House Committee - has disclosed sixteen different investments, fifteen made by his spouse, and one disclosed jointly, in the company Sunrun. Sunrun is a provider of photovoltaic solar energy generation systems and battery energy storage products. Averaging 261% across the sixteen investments. He is the chair of the Energy and Mineral Resources (EMR) Sub-committee . The jurisdiction of the EMR includes the “planning for and development of energy from solar and wind resources on land belonging to the United States, including the outer Continental Shelf.” (Source)
• Similarly, Debbie Wasserman Schultz - another member of the House Natural Resources Committee as well as the House Oversight Committee - has disclosed investments in Patterson-UTI Energy, which provides land drilling and pressure pumping services, directional drilling, rental equipment and technology to clients in the United States and western Canada. Her investments in Patterson currently yield a 68% return.
• Senator Jerry Moran, disclosed purchasing Halliburton Company, on March 10, 2020, and is as of the time of this report, up over 325%. Moran is a member of the Appropriations Committee, Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
• Senator Bill Casidy - a member of the Energy and Natural Resources, is up 58% since March 9th, 2020 in an investment his spouse made in Phillips 66, an energy manufacturing and logistics company, you may recognize from its many gas stations. .

Follow the money. Look at who is making ridiculous gains from stocks nobody ever heard of, and that relate directly to their committee assignment. Instead of wasting time on somebody losing 20% on trades of commonly traded stocks like Google.

 

[SuperMatt]

And you can equally claim his innocence based on zero credible information. You're trolling more and more like Musk with every post but keep it up, you're really changing minds as you fight for only one party all the time while never questioning your own (and I mean EVER).

Guilty until proven innocent. Are we in Russia?