Yes, and everybody who enriches themselves using their political positions. These jobs are as public servants. They're supposed to be working for the people. That's why the emoluments clause is there.
Interestingly I have never seen someone with a Pelosi hat, shirt, or mural painted on the side of their RV.
I don't think there would be much outcry from either side if Pelosi, along with others who did the same things, were to be blocked by new legislation or prosecuted for breaking existing law.
Although the Domestic Emoluments Clause currently applies specifically to the President, so we would likely need new legislation to generally prevent things like congressional insider trading.
It really does seem like folks on the right assume that people who vote Democrat have a lot more love for Democrats than we actually do. The whole Bill Clinton in the Epstein files thing is another example—like yeah man let him hang.
There's very little loyalty, there's some truth to the party being a bunch of minorities nervously huddled around the DNC for warmth.
It's also a rhetorical trick. The moment you admit "Yes, Bill Clinton should go to jail if he's on the list," they will start to pester you, "You admitted Clinton should also go to jail, so why are you only protesting Trump? You hypocrite!"
I think it's best not to engage. These people aren't here for logical arguments, and they won't be persuaded by logic.
Every time someone digs into this, it turns out Pelosi’s large wealth is much more tied to buying SF real estate long before the tech boom sent the real estate prices soaring. It doesn’t take insider trading for someone to have gotten rich in the SF real estate market. Plenty of people became millionaires just by owning a condo they bought in the 1970’s. It is no surprise that someone whose career has been real estate investing in SF since the 1960’s made some money…
Why not start with the obvious example and collect the whatsbouts during the trial.
Yes, and everybody who enriches themselves using their political positions. These jobs are as public servants. They're supposed to be working for the people. That's why the emoluments clause is there.
Interestingly I have never seen someone with a Pelosi hat, shirt, or mural painted on the side of their RV.
I don't think there would be much outcry from either side if Pelosi, along with others who did the same things, were to be blocked by new legislation or prosecuted for breaking existing law.
Although the Domestic Emoluments Clause currently applies specifically to the President, so we would likely need new legislation to generally prevent things like congressional insider trading.
This not the "gotcha" you think it is; yes, we should get anyone that is committing a crime. Nobody is deifying Pelosi as some god above the law.
> Why would we want to?
Because crimes should be prosecuted.
> Should we do the same to her?
Obviously yes. Why would we give a damn? See also: Epstein files & Clinton. Release them, round him & the rest of them up.
Yes.
(And I say that as a Democrat in California)
It really does seem like folks on the right assume that people who vote Democrat have a lot more love for Democrats than we actually do. The whole Bill Clinton in the Epstein files thing is another example—like yeah man let him hang.
There's very little loyalty, there's some truth to the party being a bunch of minorities nervously huddled around the DNC for warmth.
Some people treat politics like a tribal sport where "morally OK" is determined solely by which team did it.
Their mental model of the "other side" is someone who is similarly team-driven.
These folks get really confused when "whatabout your team?" falls flat on people who want to live by principles or morality, rather than hat color.
It's also a rhetorical trick. The moment you admit "Yes, Bill Clinton should go to jail if he's on the list," they will start to pester you, "You admitted Clinton should also go to jail, so why are you only protesting Trump? You hypocrite!"
I think it's best not to engage. These people aren't here for logical arguments, and they won't be persuaded by logic.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Yeah I agree, we should be holding the ruling class accountable for building generational wealth while average Americans can barely afford basics.
Every time someone digs into this, it turns out Pelosi’s large wealth is much more tied to buying SF real estate long before the tech boom sent the real estate prices soaring. It doesn’t take insider trading for someone to have gotten rich in the SF real estate market. Plenty of people became millionaires just by owning a condo they bought in the 1970’s. It is no surprise that someone whose career has been real estate investing in SF since the 1960’s made some money…
i beg you to reject the team-sports political mentality.
yes, we should absolutely do the same to her. why would you bring up nancy pelosi when no one else has?
Not just yes, but fuck yes we should.