Paul Pelosi sold Google shares prior to DOJ antitrust suit

[Eric]

Guilty until proven innocent. Are we in Russia?

We? Judging by your defense of their attack on Ukraine and Putin on here I wouldn't doubt that you are, but that's a different topic.

 

[ronntaylor]

This is getting closer and closer to Arn/MacRumors & Musty/Twitter territory AKA buckets of Essentially telling Paul and Nancy Pelosi to prove they didn't engage in inside trading is equal to asking those making the accusations "When did you last hit your wife?"

Paul Pelosi's stock transactions for 2022 (below) has followed a pattern. He's essentially made the same type of transactions in December on almost the same dates for the past 3+ years. Transactions that are on record. I was off as the boogeyman... er, Google selloffs were mostly made on the same exact day as other highly volatile stocks were sold. Every single day he sold off Google stock he sold off at least two other stocks. Did the DOJ also bring forth suits against Tesla, Disney, PayPal, Netflix, etc?

Nearly forty years ago ABC7/Eyewitness News reporter Roger Grimsley visited the Journalism Institute at John Dewey and left a very nice quote for us journalism students:

"You can show just as much bias by what you don't report as what you do!"​

Faux Noise highlights the 2022 Google trades even though other stocks were sold in nearly the same quantities, and all of these transactions are identical to Paul Pelosi's transactions for at least the previous three or four years.

December 20, 2022 – Google stock $500K - $1M, Others $1M - $2M with $1M+ loss

Alphabet Inc. - Class A (GOOGL)
Sold 10,000 shares worth between $500,000 and $1 million

Roblox Corporation Class A (RBLX)
Sold 5,000 shares together valued between $500,000 and $1 million for a loss of $511,197

Tesla, Inc. (TSLA)
Sold 5,000 shares together valued between $500,000 and $1 million for a loss of $511,197

December 21, 2022 – Google stock $500K - $1M, others $750K - $1.5M

Alphabet Inc. - Class A (GOOGL)
Sold 10,000 shares worth between $500,000 and $1 million

Paypal Holdings, Inc. (PYPL)
Sold 5,000 shares valued between $250,000 and $500,000

Walt Disney Company (DIS)
Sold 10,000 shares valued between $500,000 and $1 million

December 28, 2022 – Google stock $500K - $1M, others $850K - $1.75M

AllianceBernstein Holding L.P. (AB)
Sold 20,000 shares worth between $500,000 and $1 million

Alphabet Inc. - Class A (GOOGL)
Sold 10,000 shares worth between $500,000 and $1 million

Paypal Holdings, Inc. (PYPL)
Sold 5,000 shares valued between $250,000 and $500,000

Roblox Corporation Class A (RBLX)
Sold 5,000 shares together valued between $100,000 and $250,000

December 29, 2022
December 30, 2022

Netflix (NFLX)
Sold 1,000 shares valued between $250,000 and $500,000

Netflix (NFLX)
Sold 1,000 shares valued between $250,000 and $500,000

 

[Citysnaps]

Selling stocks at the end of the year is often done to manage when one wants capital gains recognized for tax purposes (in this case 2022 vs 2023) taking into account other income in 2022 vs projected 2023, with the goal of optimizing tax exposure.

Also...if those stocks were held for a long period, and thus have a relatively low basis, it's quite possible that if such a stock has sustained a dip, it would make sense to sell in December (taking some gain and paying tax) and then repurchasing shares in January starting with a fresh higher basis going forward (and sold in the future).

I have no idea if that applies to the Pelosi's, but I suspect there is a strategy in mind in order to minimize capital gains tax.

 

[Eric]

This is getting closer and closer to Arn/MacRumors & Musty/Twitter territory AKA buckets of

Yet you guys still keep coming around here, even after starting another offshoot site where you bitch about me and this site. Wondering why that place isn't good enough for you, it's the perfect echo chamber for those who cannot handle anything less than one-sided circle jerks. Seriously, if you hate it this site so much nobody is forcing you to stay.

 

[ronntaylor]

Selling stocks at the end of the year is often done to manage when one wants capital gains recognized for tax purposes (in this case 2022 vs 2023) taking into account other income in 2022 vs projected 2023, with the goal of optimizing tax exposure.

Also...if those stocks were held for a long period, and thus have a relatively low basis, it's quite possible that if such a stock has sustained a dip, it would make senses to sell in December (taking some gain and paying tax) and then repurchasing shares in January starting with a fresh higher basis going forward (and sold in the future).

I have no idea if that applies to the Pelosi's, but I suspect there is a strategy in mind in order to minimize capital gains tax.

Paul Pelosi does this on a regular basis. He has made charitable stock donations in December in the past.

 

[ronntaylor]

Yet you guys still keep coming around here, even after starting another offshoot site where you bitch about me and this site. Wondering why that place isn't good enough for you, it's the perfect echo chamber for those who cannot handle anything less than one-sided circle jerks. Seriously, if you hate it this site so much nobody is forcing you to stay.

I didn't start another "offshoot." And didn't join the other site for several months after the exodus you caused; partially because you obscured links to it (preceding Musk's similar actions at Twitter by several months) despite the fact you flooded MR with links in posts and DMs to get others to come here. You must be a frequent lurker there to make such an accusation ("where you bitch about me and this site").

Echo chamber? Har!! Get thee to a mirror. Continuing with the personal attacks and insults instead of addressing what's in the post(s). Typical.

How long before you close yet another thread since your hypocrisy and faulty logic is on full display... once again?

 

[Eric]

I didn't start another "offshoot." And didn't join the other site for several months after the exodus you caused; partially because you obscured links to it (preceding Musk's similar actions at Twitter by several months) despite the fact you flooded MR with links in posts and DMs to get others to come here. You must be a frequent lurker there to make such an accusation ("where you bitch about me and this site").

Echo chamber? Har!! Get thee to a mirror. Continuing with the personal attacks and insults instead of addressing what's in the post(s). Typical.

How long before you close yet another thread since your hypocrisy and faulty logic is on full display... once again?

Yes, echo chamber. You guys simply cannot handle anyone who doesn't see your Liberal myopic POV lock stock and barrel, you can't handle it at MR and can't handle it here. You guys seem miserable but it drags this place down and it's the main reason I want to get rid of this section entirely.

The other option is to show you guys the door permanently, something that's been under consideration for a while. I'm not keen on shelling out the costs of this site for you guys to whine all the time. At some point it feels like it will come to that so I would ask yourself if it's worth it.

 

[bwinter88]

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, my man...you can't prove a negative...if people said "prove Trump doesn't have a pee tape" well, I'd probably jump on the bandwagon of ragging him for it, but I'd also quietly have to admit that that's not how it works. In either case, it highlights an important point, which is that we as the public have zero confidence that there are any firewalls between congresspeople and insider information that prevent this kind of stuff, and in the absence of wildly radical transparency laws, we should just ban it altogether.

I think what some people are trying to say is, you have to acknowledge that the wider context of Paul Pelosi's identical trades in previous years changes everything about this. If it can be shown that his trading behaviors haven't been changed by anything—and it does sorta look that way—well, then, there's literally nothing here.

And I think what people are getting upset about, is that one side is trying to say "Look at this! We need to have a conversation about congressional insider trading!" when there have been proven incidents before of insider trading by Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle and nothing's been done—but something that actually might be nothing at all involving the spouse of a Democrat who has been constantly villified by the other side, is somehow a five-alarm fire. And maybe that frustration is justified, no?

Anyway I'm grateful for any forum where we can hash this stuff out so FWIW thank you for being a good host. I use a coaster for all surfaces.

 

[Eric]

Eric, my man...you can't prove a negative...if people said "prove Trump doesn't have a pee tape" well, I'd probably jump on the bandwagon of ragging him for it, but I'd also quietly have to admit that that's not how it works. In either case, it highlights an important point, which is that we as the public have zero confidence that there are any firewalls between congresspeople and insider information that prevent this kind of stuff.

I think what some people are trying to say is, you have to acknowledge that the wider context of Paul Pelosi's identical trades in previous years changes everything about this. If it can be shown that his trading behaviors haven't been changed by anything—and it does sorta look that way—well, then, there's literally nothing here.

And I think what people are getting upset about, is that people are trying to say "Look at this! We need to have a conversation about congressional insider trading!" when there have been proven incidents of insider trading by Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle before and nothing's been done—but something that actually could be nothing involving the spouse of a Democrat who has been constantly villified by the other side, is somehow a five-alarm fire. And maybe that frustration is justified, no?

Anyway I'm grateful for any forum where we can hash this stuff out so FWIW thank you for being a good host. I use a coaster for all surfaces.

As long as someone has access to inside information, even the perception of it (especially those who write the laws and sit on committees), they should be questioned on it when something looks this suspicious, I agree with @Citysnaps that if something is there let them find it but the point still remains.

The entirety of this thread is people arguing because it's a "Pelosi", honestly tell me how this same crowd would've reacted had that been McConnell or McCarthy?

 

[Citysnaps]

The entirety of this thread is people arguing because it's a "Pelosi", honestly tell me how this same crowd would've reacted had that been McConnell or McCarthy?

I can't speak for others, but I'd say the same thing. Quietly investigate and indict if the evidence is there.

 

[Eric]

I can't speak for others, but I'd say the same thing. Quietly investigate and indict if the evidence is there.

Seems like it would be a job for the SEC more so than the DOJ but who knows when it comes to congress, there is little to no oversight there and neither side wants to legislate it, you have some holdouts like Warren but by and large they would be hard pressed to get anything passed. It's essentially legalized insider trading.

 

[dada_dave]

The entirety of this thread is people arguing because it's a "Pelosi", honestly tell me how this same crowd would've reacted had that been McConnell or McCarthy?

Reading most the posts that’s an unfair characterization of the arguments. The worst case you can make is that people wouldn’t have dug deeper than the story at face value if it were McConnell or McCarthy, but plenty of the posts have laid out fairly convincing arguments with a plethora of evidence to suggest there simply isn’t anything there there. If you want to go see me go after Democrats for corruption there are plenty to choose from over the years - hell the “freezer full of cash” guy was a democrat, I mean that’s old school corruption/bribery right there. And the lists of legislators who routinely and by a fair margin beat the stock market have more than a few democrats. But this? Unless something actually concrete comes to light, this seems like a nothing burger just to gin up controversy. It just doesn’t fit. Saying that isn’t partisan when someone has done the leg work and presented legitimate arguments backed by evidence, and attacking it isn’t open minded.

Nobody here disagrees with the notion that more controls/transparency should be put on legislators making trades. Or that the problem is bipartisan.

 

[dada_dave]

We? Judging by your defense of their attack on Ukraine and Putin on here I wouldn't doubt that you are, but that's a different topic.

I think you have the wrong user. There was a poster defending Russia’s war in Ukraine but it wasn’t @SuperMatt

 

[Citysnaps]

Have to say I'm pretty disappointed with how this thread has evolved. I'm speaking as someone who isn't a member of any political party; and desires that all people are treated the same, without innuendo, and charged when evidence from a quiet yet rigorous investigation supports the elements of crimes being comitted. If that puts me in the ambiguous you guys category, I'm OK with that.

 

[bwinter88]

As long as someone has access to inside information, even the perception of it (especially those who write the laws and sit on committees), they should be questioned on it when something looks this suspicious, I agree with @Citysnaps that if something is there let them find it but the point still remains.

The entirety of this thread is people arguing because it's a "Pelosi", honestly tell me how this same crowd would've reacted had that been McConnell or McCarthy?

It would have gone "oh of course they did" followed by "Well it looks like they traded the same stocks every year" and then "let's see what the investigation says." How else could it go? Anyone with a civilized brain has to fall back on the facts. But I can guarantee you House Dems would not have introduced a MCCARTHY Act. I think that's the kind of partisan quackery that this thread is responding to.

 

[Eric]

Have to say I'm pretty disappointed with how this thread has evolved. I'm speaking as someone who isn't a member of any political party; and desires that all people are treated the same, without innuendo, and charged when evidence from a quiet yet rigorous investigation supports the elements of crimes being comitted. If that puts me in the ambiguous you guys category, I'm OK with that.

Fair enough, and I would say you are the exception to the norm on this site. The reality is that when it comes to Trump or Republicans, some members of this site have eviscerated them for far less, yet when a Democrat is mentioned they vehemently defend them with their last breath.

Regardless of the issue that sort of partisanship gets really old and at times makes me ashamed to be associated with the Democratic party in any way. Same can be said for the radical wing of the Republican party, there can be no middle ground and if you don't follow their hardline views you are an outcast.

I'm sick of it and no longer want that element here, it's also why I've attempted to close this area down but am always met with resistance. However, I'm fully prepared for the loss in traffic and would far rather have less posts and higher quality content than this regular spew of political hatred.

 

[Citysnaps]

The reality is that when it comes to Trump or Republicans, some members of this site have eviscerated them for far less, yet when a Democrat is mentioned they vehemently defend them with their last breath.

I think that's because trump is not ashamed to publicly revealing who he is, via public acts and things he says publicly. Thus, it's easy (for me) to draw concrete conclusions about the man. No investigations are necessary - there's a ton of accumulated video out there. Still, I have confidence in the DOJ and Fulton County conducting rigorous and fair criminal investigations, that will hopefully soon be concluded - one way or another.

That's why I have no problem eviscerating him - he's publicly copped to who he is. Hundreds of times. I believe him.

As opposed to say, McConnell and Pelosi... I may not like one of them. But I would never accuse either of committing crimes.

 

[bwinter88]

Fair enough, and I would say you are the exception to the norm on this site. The reality is that when it comes to Trump or Republicans, some members of this site have eviscerated them for far less, yet when a Democrat is mentioned they vehemently defend them with their last breath.

Regardless of the issue that sort of partisanship gets really old and at times makes me ashamed to be associated with the Democratic party in any way. Same can be said for the radical wing of the right wing party, there can be no middle ground and if you don't follow their hardline views you are an outcast.

I'm sick of it and no longer want that element here, it's also why I've attempted to close this area down but am always met with resistance. However, I'm fully prepared for the loss in traffic and would far rather have less posts and higher quality content than this regular spew of political hatred.

Let's be honest. It's exceptionally difficult to have dry legal or policy discussions devoid of personal passions when the state of politics today trades almost entirely on the vilification of Democrats by Republicans. And before you commence eyerolls at any perceived partisanship there, that is entirely an observational statement. I point you to the antagonistic language in the Republican Party Platform that calls the Democratic party corrupt and dangerous. I point specifically to language used by the very top leaders of the Republican party, Trump and McCarthy specifically, that Democrats will destroy the nation if given the chance—language that is simply not mirrored by Democrats nor is it a cornerstone of their party's politics.

The reason the defense of Democrats is so tiring is in large part because the other side is equally breathless in their constant evisceration. People are piping up to defend Paul Pelosi because people like Hawley are introducing acts with his name on them. I mean come on. If we're going to have a both sides debate, your exasperation needs to be directed at where this antagonism originates, because I personally am exhausted at this attempt to give the misbehaving toddler in the room a pass just because we want to be perceived as fair and balanced. There is only one political party whose identity revolves around the weaponization of partisanship and demonizing of the other side. Enough of ignoring the elephant in the room. I'm sick of that.

If Paul Pelosi didn't change his trading behavior, there is literally no story here left to talk about except the partisan nonsense attempted by Republicans to tarnish a Democrat's reputation.

 

[Eric]

Let's be honest. It's exceptionally difficult to have dry legal or policy discussions devoid of personal passions when the state of politics today trades almost entirely on the vilification of Democrats by Republicans. And before you commence eyerolls at any perceived partisanship there, that is entirely an observational statement. I point you to the antagonistic language in the Republican Party Platform that calls the Democratic party corrupt and dangerous. I point specifically to language used by the very top leaders of the Republican party, Trump and McCarthy specifically, that Democrats will destroy the nation if given the chance—language that is simply not mirrored by Democrats nor is it a cornerstone of the party's politics.

The reason the defense of Democrats is so tiring is in large part because the other side is equally breathless in their constant evisceration. People are piping up about Paul Pelosi because people like Hawley are introducing acts with his name on them. I mean come on. If we're going to have a both sides debate, your exasperation needs to be directed at where this antagonism originates, because I personally am exhausted at this attempt to give the misbehaving toddler in the room a pass just because we want to be perceived as fair and balanced. There is only one political party whose identity revolves around the weaponization of partisanship, and the demonizing of the other side. Enough of ignoring the elephant in the room. I'm sick of that.

If Paul Pelosi didn't change his trading behavior, there is literally no story here left to talk about except the partisan nonsense attempted by Republicans to tarnish a Democrat's reputation.

Both sides? I would ask where we have that on this site. We have one Republican member who posts in this area and regularly gets beaten down by this group and no others will touch this site with a 10 ft pole. I'll give you the fact that you're relatively new to this site but it's strictly a Liberal love fest, nobody else with differing opinions are welcome here and that's been made clear, literally every single one of them who has attempted to post here has left as a result.

 

[Herdfan]

Let's be honest. It's exceptionally difficult to have dry legal or policy discussions devoid of personal passions when the state of politics today trades almost entirely on the vilification of Democrats by Republicans. And before you commence eyerolls at any perceived partisanship there, that is entirely an observational statement.

And I would say I observe at least the same thing going back toward Republicans from the Dems.

And sometimes they don't even wait for the facts to come out. After the Monteray Park shooting, Schumer and Schiff has this to say (Tweet):

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., tweeted: "We must stand up to bigotry and hate wherever they rear their ugly heads, and we must keep working to stop gun violence."


Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said Saturday’s shooting was "A horrific example of needless gun violence. With bigotry toward AAPI (Asian American Pacific Islander) individuals as a possible motive."

So blame white supremacy and bigotry and then shut up and go silent when it is revealed the shooter was.......... Asian. But to the drive-by Twitter followers, they never get the rest of the story.