Nancy Pelosi's husband sold more than $500K in Visa stock ahead of DOJ action

[RicoSuave102954]

Looks like Funny Boy Paul was tipped off.


Former Speaker of the House and current Rep. Nancy Pelosi is receiving attention once again due to her husband's stock trading, this time over her spouse unloading Visa shares a few months before the federal government sued the company.

Financial disclosures show the California Democrat's spouse, Paul Pelosi, sold 2,000 shares of Visa on July 1, for at least $500,000. It is unknown how much, if any, profit the Pelosi's made in the transaction.

The X account "Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker" flagged the trade on Tuesday, the same day the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Visa, alleging that the company maintained an illegal monopoly over the U.S. debit card market.

Rep. Pelosi's congressional office did not immediately respond Wednesday to FOX Business' request for comment on the trade.

In response to previous inquiries regarding Mr. Pelosi's trades, a spokesperson for the former speaker issued a statement saying, "Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks, and she has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions."

The sale of Visa shares by Mr. Pelosi, who owns San Francisco-based investment and consulting firm Financial Leasing Services, Inc., is the latest in a series of trades by the lawmaker's husband that have drawn scrutiny for their timing.

Earlier this year, the Pelosis made headlines over analyst reports that the couple made nearly $4 million over a six-month period with a bet Mr. Pelosi made on Nvidia.

In 2022, Paul Pelosi grabbed more than $1 million in Nvidia call options just weeks before a congressional vote on providing massive subsidies to the chip manufacturing industry. He sold them after she received criticism over their timing.

Lawmakers' spouses can trade in companies or industries their partner may help regulate, but it's illegal for family members and members of Congress to profit from inside information.

Members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle have proposed legislation in recent years that would ban lawmakers and their family members from owning stock, over concerns of insider trading.

MSN

 

[dgordo]

Looks like the stock is $10 higher now than when he sold.

 

[RicoSuave102954]

Looks like the stock is $10 higher now than when he sold.

So? What's your point?

 

[RicoSuave102954]

Looks like Funny Boy Paul was tipped off. Probably made enough to have another underwear party.

Former Speaker of the House and current Rep. Nancy Pelosi is receiving attention once again due to her husband's stock trading, this time over her spouse unloading Visa shares a few months before the federal government sued the company.

 

[dgordo]

So? What's your point?

He probably shouldn't have sold.

 

[BDE420]

 

[Joes Place]

Looks like Funny Boy Paul was tipped off.


Former Speaker of the House and current Rep. Nancy Pelosi is receiving attention once again due to her husband's stock trading, this time over her spouse unloading Visa shares a few months before the federal government sued the company.

Financial disclosures show the California Democrat's spouse, Paul Pelosi, sold 2,000 shares of Visa on July 1, for at least $500,000. It is unknown how much, if any, profit the Pelosi's made in the transaction.

The X account "Nancy Pelosi Stock Tracker" flagged the trade on Tuesday, the same day the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Visa, alleging that the company maintained an illegal monopoly over the U.S. debit card market.

Rep. Pelosi's congressional office did not immediately respond Wednesday to FOX Business' request for comment on the trade.

In response to previous inquiries regarding Mr. Pelosi's trades, a spokesperson for the former speaker issued a statement saying, "Speaker Pelosi does not own any stocks, and she has no prior knowledge or subsequent involvement in any transactions."

The sale of Visa shares by Mr. Pelosi, who owns San Francisco-based investment and consulting firm Financial Leasing Services, Inc., is the latest in a series of trades by the lawmaker's husband that have drawn scrutiny for their timing.

Earlier this year, the Pelosis made headlines over analyst reports that the couple made nearly $4 million over a six-month period with a bet Mr. Pelosi made on Nvidia.

In 2022, Paul Pelosi grabbed more than $1 million in Nvidia call options just weeks before a congressional vote on providing massive subsidies to the chip manufacturing industry. He sold them after she received criticism over their timing.

Lawmakers' spouses can trade in companies or industries their partner may help regulate, but it's illegal for family members and members of Congress to profit from inside information.

Members of Congress on both sides of the political aisle have proposed legislation in recent years that would ban lawmakers and their family members from owning stock, over concerns of insider trading.

MSN

Too bad that this is 100% legal, and GOP Congressional representatives REFUSE to close the loopholes that allow it...

 

[BDE420]

Too bad that this is 100% legal, and GOP Congressional representatives REFUSE to close the loopholes that allow it...

They all do it arrest them all I say

 

[sober_teacher]

OP, if you’re arguing congressmen and their spouses shouldn’t be able to buy/sell stocks then we agree for once.

Unfortunately, what he did is entirely legal.

 

[Joes Place]

They all do it arrest them all I say

For what?

It's 100% legal for them.
You keep electing the folks who maintain that standard.

Democrats have propose laws that WOULD make it illegal.
You cannot arrest people for doing something that is 100% legal.

If it pisses you off, stop electing the folks who allow it to continue.

 

[Phenomenally Frantastic]

They are both criminals and other criminal Democrats ensure they are shielded from prosecution.

Pelosi got $1B in federal spending directed to her husband’s company.

Democrats didn’t care. They support their criminals through and through.

 

[RicoSuave102954]

For what?

It's 100% legal for them.
You keep electing the folks who maintain that standard.

Democrats have propose laws that WOULD make it illegal.
You cannot arrest people for doing something that is 100% legal.

If it pisses you off, stop electing the folks who allow it to continue.

Link please

 

[BDE420]

For what?

It's 100% legal for them.
You keep electing the folks who maintain that standard.

Democrats have propose laws that WOULD make it illegal.
You cannot arrest people for doing something that is 100% legal.

If it pisses you off, stop electing the folks who allow it to continue.

Derp

 

[RicoSuave102954]

For what?

It's 100% legal for them.
You keep electing the folks who maintain that standard.

Democrats have propose laws that WOULD make it illegal.
You cannot arrest people for doing something that is 100% legal.

If it pisses you off, stop electing the folks who allow it to continue.

Martha Stewart disagrees

 

[sober_teacher]

Martha Stewart disagrees

Stewart went to prison for insider trading. While the basic principle is similar, this isn’t the same thing. Politicians and their families have been always been able to trade stocks, despite the obvious similarities here.

Don’t be a simpleton and try to imply this is the first time it’s happened.

 

[WolfeHawk]

LMAO at those that are trying their damndest to go on a desperate “Holier Than Thou” campaign while supporting a guy that is very far from “Holy”.

 

[BDE420]

LMAO at those that are trying their damndest to go on a desperate “Holier Than Thou” campaign while supporting a guy that is very far from “Holy”.

^^^^^Feeling based NuGenix Hotel Room Chair Sitter

 

[abby97]

He probably shouldn't have sold.

He sold when he did because he doesn't have a crystal ball. What he does have however, is a wife who provides him with insider stock tips based on what the Federal Government is doing. This then informs them as to when it will best behoove them to buy or sell their personal stocks to maximize their own wealth. Odd how this is very illegal for private citizens but okey dokey for politicians. I know, weird huh?

 

[theiacowtipper]

He sold when he did because he doesn't have a crystal ball. What he does have however, is a wife who provides him with insider stock tips based on what the Federal Government is doing. This then informs them as to when it will best behoove them to buy or sell their personal stocks to maximize their own wealth. Odd how this is very illegal for private citizens but okey dokey for politicians. I know, weird huh?

There’s a bill on Congress sponsored by Osoff to ban this. Press your congress person to support this ban.

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

He probably shouldn't have sold.

 

[markfromj]

“…her spouse unloading Visa shares a few months before the federal government sued the company”.

So Trump is lying (or at least misinformed) when he says the trade was one day before the suit was filed, right?

 

[markfromj]

Too bad that this is 100% legal, and GOP Congressional representatives REFUSE to close the loopholes that allow it...

Now wait. It is legal for Congress people to trade stocks, but not using insider info, is it?

 

[binsfeldcyhawk2]

BAU

Unfortunately "team politics" ensure this will continue.

Trading spikes as government girds for crisis​

In that crucial month of pandemic preparations, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services made far more stock sales than they had in previous months, the Journal reported. Their trading activity was 60% higher in January 2020 compared to the monthly average in 2019.

Federal officials are barred from working on matters in which they have a personal financial stake, and they’re not allowed to trade on nonpublic information acquired at work. They must disclose their financial assets and transactions every year.

The Journal said most agencies’ ethics rules focus on the kinds of stocks officials can trade, rather than when they can trade.

In one instance highlighted by the Journal, a high-ranking official at the National Institutes of Health reported selling $15,001 to $50,000 of a stock mutual fund on January 24 — the same day he sent an email describing the state of his department as “new coronavirus all the time.”

That official, Hugh Auchincloss, the principal deputy director at the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and one of Anthony Fauci’s top deputies, didn’t stop there. A few days later, as alarm about the virus appeared to be growing within the federal government, Auchincloss made six sales of mutual funds totaling between $111,006 and $315,000 in value.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/21/business/stock-trades-officials-wsj/index.html

 

[WolfeHawk]

^^^^^Feeling based NuGenix Hotel Room Chair Sitter

^^^^^^ Took my post personally obviously

 

[Joes Place]

Link please

Link for what?

There is no law on the books that requires members of Congress to put their assets into a blind trust.

You voted for Trump, who blatantly disregarded the actual laws on the books that require a sitting President to separate his personal assets from his government responsibilities.

If you want to prevent members of Congress from profiting from "insider information", then inform the folks who want your vote they'll ONLY get it if they promise to pass that legislation. IIRC, AOC was one of the people who pushed for that.

 

[Joes Place]

There’s a bill on Congress sponsored by Osoff to ban this. Press your congress person to support this ban.

As I'd already noted, ONLY Democrats have proposed this type of legislation.

And it needs to be bipartisan and apply to ALL members of Congress, SC Justices (who, if they lie are immediately removed from their seats) and Exec Branch members, including the President.

If this is a problem for our Resident MAGAs, they probably should NOT re-elect any MAGAs, because those are the folks grifting the most who will refuse to support this type of legislation.

It is a YES/NO question to ask your representative - WILL YOU SUPPORT A BAN ON INSIDER TRADING AND REQUIRE ALL MEMBERS TO PUT THEIR ASSETS INTO BLIND TRUSTS? If the answer is not "Yes", then find another person to vote for.

 

[Joes Place]

Now wait. It is legal for Congress people to trade stocks, but not using insider info, is it?

There is no formal restriction on them; because they are NOT required to move their assets into a trust managed by someone who is isolated from that information.

This is not a difficult proposition; GOP will not support it. Several Democrats have run on it.
If that is a problem for you, then reconsider who you support for office.

 

[Dr. Phil Seuss]

For what?

It's 100% legal for them.
You keep electing the folks who maintain that standard.

Democrats have propose laws that WOULD make it illegal.
You cannot arrest people for doing something that is 100% legal.

If it pisses you off, stop electing the folks who allow it to continue.

They all want it to continue. Without it, there is no reason for any of these people to toil in politics. Maybe a few of them have proposed this and would support it, but it isn’t a statistically significant portion of legislators.

 

[Joes Place]

They all want it to continue.

No. "They" do not.

Quite a few are calling for restrictions. If you require the people asking for your vote to commit to restrictions, or you won't vote for them, they might join that group.

 

[hexumhawk]

He sold when he did because he doesn't have a crystal ball. What he does have however, is a wife who provides him with insider stock tips based on what the Federal Government is doing. This then informs them as to when it will best behoove them to buy or sell their personal stocks to maximize their own wealth. Odd how this is very illegal for private citizens but okey dokey for politicians. I know, weird huh?

Basically out of the 100 pitches he sees at the plate, he only hit 99 home runs.

 

[Dr. Phil Seuss]

No. "They" do not.

Quite a few are calling for restrictions. If you require the people asking for your vote to commit to restrictions, or you won't vote for them, they might join that group.

Let’s get a list of those “quite a few”

I don’t follow politics closely, or even loosely for that matter, but I can recall no instance where this initiative has any real momentum.

 

[dgordo]

Should 100% be illegal but its not.

I will say, when i worked in investment banking i often had access to inside information. Of course I never traded on it because i would have been caught but I always tracked what a stock did after the information became public. Just like here, the stock didnt always move how you would expect.

 

[Joes Place]

Let’s get a list of those “quite a few”

I don’t follow politics closely

You follow politics VERY closely - the problem is you ignore the issues you actually care about, and get all jazzed up about "border walls" and "trans kids". This is exactly how the GOP wants to control you; instead of looking for the politicians who have called for change with respect to investing restrictions, you're following the shiny Christmas Tree lights they throw out for you regularly.

I'd recommend you ignore that noise, and follow the politics for the issues you claim to care about.

 

[RicoSuave102954]

Stewart went to prison for insider trading. While the basic principle is similar, this isn’t the same thing. Politicians and their families have been always been able to trade stocks, despite the obvious similarities here.

Don’t be a simpleton and try to imply this is the first time it’s happened.

You're the simpleton if you don't believe that Pelosi sold due to what his wife let him know what was forthcoming.

 

[Dr. Phil Seuss]

You follow politics VERY closely - the problem is you ignore the issues you actually care about, and get all jazzed up about "border walls" and "trans kids". This is exactly how the GOP wants to control you; instead of looking for the politicians who have called for change with respect to investing restrictions, you're following the shiny Christmas Tree lights they throw out for you regularly.

I'd recommend you ignore that noise, and follow the politics for the issues you claim to care about.

lol. Actually, I don’t care about any of that stuff. I am amused by modern idiocy. I choose to live in a blue major city—not the burbs—near many homosexuals, lesbians, minorities, and immigrants, these people are my neighbors. I could move 15 miles and be in MAGA super land, have public schools that are entrenched in fighting the culture war, religious population, and I would be able to sell my home and buy 2, but I stay in my progressive urban zone because it is where I want to be.

But you didn’t answer my question—who are all these people supporting this movement toward eliminating insider trading.

 

[cohawk]

Let’s get a list of those “quite a few”

I don’t follow politics closely, or even loosely for that matter, but I can recall no instance where this initiative has any real momentum.

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/23/senate-democrats-stock-trading-ban-vote

It's been front and center for quite a while. Essentially, you're saying you don't research anything.

 

[sober_teacher]

You're the simpleton if you don't believe that Pelosi sold due to what his wife let him know what was forthcoming.

Where did I say that?

What I’ve said is that this isn’t currently illegal. It should be, but it isn’t.

 

[sober_teacher]

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/23/senate-democrats-stock-trading-ban-vote

It's been front and center for quite a while. Essentially, you're saying you don't research anything.

You don’t even really need to research anything. It’s a semi-regular story that gains public attention when someone gets more obvious about it.

 

[Dr. Phil Seuss]

https://www.axios.com/2024/07/23/senate-democrats-stock-trading-ban-vote

It's been front and center for quite a while. Essentially, you're saying you don't research anything.

I’ve admitted that in this thread, which is why I asked the question.

So it looks like there are 4 senators: 3 Ds and 1R, who are publicly backing this in committee. Besides them, who are the proponents of this?

 

[Joes Place]

lol. Actually, I don’t care about any of that stuff.

Then why don't you elect folks who will eliminate this trading loophole?

Or, do you "not care about that stuff", either?