Trump isn't perfect, no one is. But to complain about Trump not being transparent about his finances while not applying the same standards to the Clintons, Obamas (who parlayed their presidencies into hundreds of millions of dollars), and Bidens (who seems to have been selling access to both Biden, as well as pardons), seems a bot hypocritical. Let alone the legions of those in congress who are making huge money insider trading. Pelosi is kind of the poster child for this, but there are so many across both parties that naming all of them would be futile.
“Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.”
Harry Truman
I think that the problem lies in the fact that Trump was a successful businessman long before he ran for president and that his businesses continue to operate and make money while he's in office. While it's easier to connect the riches of the Clintons, Obamas, and Bidens to their time in the White House, it's not quite so obvious for Trump. It seems unreasonable to expect the Trump organization to provide confidential financial information that would potentially help his competitors just because he's president. Are there instances where the Trump organization has benefited from Trumps presidency, probably. Is their even a hint of a quid pro quo in terms of paying Trump for particular official action? Is the Trump organization getting a "better" deal to build a multi million dollar hotel in another country really significantly worse than using insider knowledge gained as a congressperson to buy and sell stocks for massive profit?
38 comments:
Good points. Of course to the haters, we're not supposed to look at their actions, but only Trump's and then try to create a connection between them and some fictional corruption. Hypocrisy among the progressives is a requirement for inclusion in that club.
Look, I am all for as much transparency as possible. I am also all for going after the GOP congress critters who make millions insider trading just as zealously as after the DFL ones.
However, that doesn't mean that the Trump organization ( a business that Trump is not currently actively running) is somehow required to open every book, and divulge every bit of confidential information just because Dan whines about it.
The reason why this scrutiny doesn't apply to DFL elected or appointed officials is because so few of them have actually had any private sector employment or run successful companies.
D
onald Trump just had the most lucrative year of his life. The president is now worth a record $7.3 billion, up from $4.3 billion in 2024, when he was still running for office. The $3 billion gain vaulted him 118 spots on The Forbes 400, where he lands at No. 201 this year.
No president in U.S. history has used his position of power to profit as immensely as Trump. His primary vehicle for enrichment: cryptocurrency, an asset class full of hype and vulnerable to regulators. Teaming up with his three sons, Trump announced a crypto venture in September 2024 named World Liberty Financial, which initially struggled to gain traction. Then he won the White House. ...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2025/09/09/presidency-boosts-trumps-net-worth-by-3-billion-in-a-year/
But yeah, sure. Complain that Obama made, whatever, $10 million from selling books that he wrote on his own that may have been, in part, from his presidency. IF you want to say that people who write books shouldn't profit off them. Because $10 million is much worse than the billions that this pervert felon is making.
NOT to mention how he's abused his power and wealth to stay out of jail while he molests women and children, refuses to pay his bills, cheats at charities, cheats at a scam school, etc, etc.
If you want to take the Bible seriously, then take it seriously:
Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?
Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?...
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded.
Their corrosion will testify against you and
eat your flesh like fire.
You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers
who mowed your fields are crying out against you.
The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
You have condemned and murdered the innocent one,
who was not opposing you.
Obama has made his wealth primarily through book sales and public speaking. Are you suggesting that it is morally wrong for ex-presidents to receive money when books that they wrote sell in huge numbers??
Now, if you want to make the case that ex-presidents - regardless of party - should have some limit on how much income they can make from speeches and book sales, let's talk. I could probably get behind that kind of thing. BUT ONLY if you also say there should be some limit on how much billionaire businessmen can profiteer off their presidency by their selling high-cost rental units at their hotels and properties and luxury estates and off of get-rich scams like bitcoin and other shady and un-transparent business dealings.
Be rational.
Here are some key takeaways from what has built Obama’s wealth:
As of 2025, former President Barack Obama has an estimated net worth of $70 million.
He released the first volume of his memoir, “A Promised Land,” in November 2020; by December 2020, it had sold 7.6 million copies worldwide to date, becoming one of the top-selling political memoirs in history, reportedly worth at least $60 million. Former First Lady Michelle Obama’s memoir, “Becoming,” along with his memoir, were both major bestsellers
Barack and Michelle Obama have also signed several book and podcast deals, as well as a lucrative deal with Netflix, which is estimated to be worth about $50 million.
As a former president and a Nobel Peace Prize winner, Obama can earn as much as $400,000 for a single public speaking event.
The Obamas currently own a $1.6 million house in Chicago, worth upwards of $3 million on the current housing market, as well as an $11.7 million estate in Martha’s Vineyard.
https://www.aol.com/barack-obama-net-worth-2023-190152420.html
Craig defended the rich oppressors, perverts, rapists, conmen and abusers of the gullible, useful idiots, saying:
that doesn't mean that the Trump organization ( a business that Trump is not currently actively running) is somehow required to open every book, and divulge every bit of confidential information just because Dan whines about it.
I repeat:
you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you?
Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court?
Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?...
Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail
because of the misery that is coming on you.
Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes.
Your gold and silver are corroded.
Their corrosion will testify against you and
eat your flesh like fire.
You have hoarded wealth in the last days.
Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields
are crying out against you.
The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty.
You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence.
You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter.
You have condemned and murdered the innocent one,
who was not opposing you.
Can you not see that this is a perfect description of your deviant, hedonistic, fat-cat conman felon president you keep voting for?
Speaking of... IF your Lord Felon tells you to vote for him for a third term, will you do so?
How far up the bottomside of the rich oppressors ARE you?
Indeed. It doesn't matter who is doing wrong, but that all who do wrong are held accountable.
But what's different with Trump is that those who accuse him aren't concerned with what he's done or what the impact of what he's done might be or has been. The point is always to paint him as having nothing but self-serving, nefarious intent, because at this point, they've spent ten years demonizing him as evil incarnate and from the beginning they've been unwilling to admit they were wrong about that. So, with every move he makes, they need for everyone else to believe he's acting badly in order for their own sorry selves to be validated in their irrational hatred. Dan's latest blog post is yet another example of this psychosis.
P-BO is worth 70 million virtually every cent of which is directly related to his being president.
What specifically did Trump's net worth increase come from? Was it his personally, or was it the Trump organization?
I'm not wasting time with your unproven claims and proof texts.
It's strange, that you go into full vitriol and self righteous mode when I essentially agreed with you, and (so far) have nothing negative to say about the Pelosis and their ilk.
No, I'm not suggesting that anything could possibly be wrong with P-BO amassing a $70,000,000 fortune on 7.6 million sales of his book.
If you can provide proof that Trump is "profiteering" off of the presidency, bring it. If your "proof" is that the Trump organization has continued to do business and make money while Trump is president, that's not "proof".
The fact that none of your liberal icons have actually run/built a business and have traded on their office/celebrity to cash is, isn't the own you think it is.
Are you suggesting that Trump should have liquidated his multi billion dollar business when he became president?
My pointing out the reality that some level of "transparency" on the part of Trump's business might have limits is hardly "defending" anything. But the hand wringing and panty wadding are not a surprise at all.
No.
As I've never voted because someone "told me to", I'm unlikely to start now. I've been clear for several years that I believe that the presidency and congress should have an upper age/cognitive function limit. I'd oppose a third term for no other reason but that.
I bet you'd support expanding/packing SCOTUS, eliminating the filibuster, and the electoral college though.
It's strange that Dan chooses to ignore the fact that, in the last election, more "rich oppressors" were supporting and donating to Biden/Harris than to Trump. George Soros is buying DA's left and right, but Dan won't criticize him either.
This one sided, partisan, ad hom attacking is hypocritical, yet amusing.
That is exactly the point I am making, which Dan doesn't seem willing to agree with. Prosecute those who appear to commit crimes, regardless of their party. It's not that hard, which is why the notion eludes Dan.
If there was evidence of Trump actually committing these heinous crimes Dan whines about, we would have known about it years ago. Dan can make shit up and flail about hysterically, but without proof, it's nothing. That he's so blatantly one sided and partisan about it is even worse.
Dan continues to slander and libel his president, because Dan has to do all he can to persuade others to hate him as much as he does without legitimate basis. Dan's a liar, far worse a liar than Trump can ever be accused of being. Lies are essential to the progressive way of life.
Everything Obama has now is the result of his being president...and not at all a good one. It's unlikely he actually "wrote" any of the books with his name as author, and he'd never command big bucks for speeches if he wasn't president. To say he hasn't profited off of his presidency is an incredible absurdity. He has no real skills by which he can generate wealth without having been president first.
Dan's double standard about slander/libel/defamation is one of his strange character quirks that simply make no sense. Along with his demonization of the "conservative" rich and his silence on the liberal rich.
For example. There is no possible explanation for Nancy Pelosi's 600% growth of her stock portfolio or her husbands acquisitions other than insider trading. Yet Dan can't bring himself to mention her, yet he assumes that Trump is automatically engaged in nefarious behavior.
Clinton, Biden, P-BO, and Harris have amassed their fortunes almost entirely as a result of their political careers and positions. None of them have has significant financial success in the private sector, or produced anything of value to society. As you note P-BO likely had a ghost writer, and it's also likely that a significant chuck of his book sales were from people or groups sympathetic to him buying the books to warehouse or give away.
Maybe that lack of real world experience explains how poorly they did in elective office.
Of course, I am always against any wrong-doing and any profiteering, as almost all progressives are. We have, for years, tried to get big money out of elections and out of politics. I would fully support rules (if not laws) that...
1. Outright forbade politicians from making money in investments while in office AND for, let's say, ten years post-office.
2. I don't think we can decree that politicians can't write and sell books, but if we could create laws/rules that said that while you're in office and, say, for ten years after leaving office, any sales from books would go to charities or some such arrangement.
3. To the degree that it's legally possible, I'd love to see rules in place that prevented family members from enriching themselves off of their politician's name and/or policies.
4. Stopped ALL large donations from single sources (humans or businesses, etc) and ended PACs or reformed them, at least.
5. Required public funding for elections vs anonymous sources.
6. Required complete transparency regarding tax records and business dealings for politicians.
7. Really required business owners to actually divest from their businesses AND in a way where their family just gets rich off of their name.
8. Eliminated any large gifts from foreign businesses and states that go to an individual politician.
etc.
Part of the problem is that freedom (and that's a good problem, to be sure) would make it difficult to legislate things like an end to profiteering or the appearance of profiteering by a person's family (Billy Beer, Trump family, etc), making it a criminal action. I just don't think we can legally say, "Mr President's Son (uncle, aunt, grandmother...), you can't accept a job with Business X if it makes more than $50,000/year..." BUT to the degree that we can make it extremely transparent and where we, for instance, have it as a Congressional, Presidential, Court, etc Best Practice that is enforced somehow, I'm certain the majority of US citizens would support that.
This is obvious and you can tell by the way Democrats largely are the ones who have tried to push an end to such things. Ending Citizens United is a Democrat thing, by and large. Ending big money PACs and giving has generally been supported by Democrats, at least as long as it's true for all (that is, some Democrats are willing to end/limit those big donations, but they aren't willing to unilaterally do it while the GOP takes advantage of it.) Progressives/Democrats support ending so-called Dark Money. Both parties have large support (in office and in the public at large) for ending profiting from investments. Etc.
At any rate, it is a given that I am opposed to public profiteering off an office and fully support rules to make it more difficult and more transparent.
I invite you to join us on all these points to create policies that limit it.
You say this, yet only bitch about Trump. Never about any of those on the left. So while your words say one thing, your actions say another. You'll note that the default position Art and I take is that anyone of either party should be punished if they engage in wrongdoing. Your default position is "But Trump bad..." (paraphrased) and silence on anyone else. Perhaps less of you assuming that we will assume things about your silence would be helpful.
I'll say this. Your rules/laws are incredibly draconian.
1. All investments owned prior to election must be placed in a blind trust and managed independently of the elected/appointed official. It seems extreme to punish people who run for office. Forbidden from acquiring any single stock in any company which came before the official while in office.
2. Why? As long as the books don't violate any laws and aren't entirely ghostwritten, who cares. I would (in so far as possible) track/prevent the bulk purchase of books by anyone affiliated with the person. We've seen this with Hillary (and Mark Driscoll, although not a politician) as a way to backdoor money and artificially push the book up sales lists. Maybe limit advances, and focus more an royalties from sales. These people get huge advances, then the book doesn't sell enough to cover the advance.
3. I'd agree. Hunter Biden was an excellent example of this. For someone with no discernible skill or value beyond his relationship with Joe, he managed to make bank. We saw this in the People's Republic where an official's spouse concocted an ONG and the official directed big money to the ONG. I've seen this done quite often.
4. Unfortunately this is probably not going to happen, SCOTUS seems to have put the matter to bed for the short term. Strangely enough, the DFL was really good at dark money and PAC money last election.
5. Again, per SCOTUS, this seems problematic. In theory, I have little problem with this as long as it is part of a comprehensive elections reform and security initiative.
6. As noted, I have a problem with "complete transparency" for anyone who runs a business. For people like Walz or BIden, who cares. They've only every worked in government and there's no risk. For anyone who owns or operates a business, this is tantamount to making confidential, information that could damage the business available to the competition. But, I do agree that more transparency is needed in this area, but with safeguards. I see this as a potential problem with attorneys as their tax records could contain confidential client information as well.
7. Absurd. Why should someone who spent their life building a successful business be required to sell it for a bargain price if they win an election. But if disincentivizing those who've been successful in business from running is your goal, I see your point. Trump owns hotels, why should the business be prohibited from continuing to rent rooms/apartments to those who want to rent there? As long as market rates are being charged and there are no sweet deals being made, who cares. Just give up direct involvement while in office.
8. Sure, why not.
Well, if you're certain that you can speak for a majority of US citizens then I guess we'll just have to believe that. If you can't see a qualitative and quantitative difference between Carter's redneck brother selling beer for a few years, and Hunter Biden getting millions for board seats and selling daddy's influence, I can't help you. The problem is that you call for transparency, yet defended Hunter BIden for doing what you want to ban or restrict. But, yes, egregious selling of one's connections to elected officials should be controlled.
https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/top-pacs/2024
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dark-money-hit-record-high-19-billion-2024-federal-races
"Both Democrats and Republicans benefited from hundreds of millions of dollars in dark money in 2024. More spending backed Democrats, as has been the case since the 2018 midterm elections (before which more dark money typically favored Republicans). The presidential race was the source of much of this disparity in last year’s cycle.
Overall, dark money groups boosting Democrats put up about $1.2 billion to influence 2024 elections, while groups boosting Republicans accounted for about $664 million."
This doesn't count the "free" boost that Meta and (pre Musk) Twitter provided to stories favorable to DFL candidates and policies and the slanted MSM coverage (that the BIden laptop was dismissed and not covered despite being proven to have been True).
More billionaires supported Biden/Harris than Trump in the 2024 cycle, and as noted the DFL has it's hand out for PAC money to a much larger extent than the GOP since 2018. So you go ahead and live in your fantasy world if you like. Actions speak louder than words.
It's interesting that your default position is to demand that I "join" you and agree with your list as opposed to the notion of compromise or negotiation. Not surprising.
Once again you demonstrate your covetous envy of those who do well financially.
There is a Republican authored bill presented by a Congressman from Tennessee which seeks to end or punish insider trading by members of Congress. I haven't seen it, but it sounds like no stock trading of any kind while in office. I have a huge problem with this and without details I withhold my support for most any proposal and this one demands the details.
Even in the private sector, insider trading is an ambiguous thing and difficult to determine with specificity. What it requires first and foremost is that the trader acted on knowledge not available to the public, on the premise that such trading corrupts the market.
But much of it is simply a matter of someone getting knowledge first due to personal involvement or proximity, but the knowledge is not outside the ability of the average person to find...just not the result of some widely broadcast announcement. Part of being successful in stock trading is getting in first, and the line which makes it lega/ethical or not is not always easily determined.
Thus, laws restricting members of Congress demands specificity as to what they can or can't do. The current trend is to deny them the market altogether, as well as to deny any close family and friends.
There's a site which tracks the stock picks of celebrities. One of the most popular tracks Pelosi's. While she might profit by insider knowledge, others can certainly ride her coattails. But wait? What of those who don't know about this service? Should those who do be punished, too?
You want to pretend Dems are the drivers of such attempts to reign in money in politics, but an argument can be made they're the most guilty of abuses. We know they're guilty of a higher tolerance for their own abusers.
As always, the real issue is not corrupt politicians, but the fools who elect them. Your party is rife with them, though the GOP is not totally devoid of them. A more mature electorate will prevent the scum from being in office in the first place. Too many immature voters are supporting the worst of the worst...known as the Democrat Party.
So...if a legislator is working on a bill affecting a certain portion of the private sector, it is legit to expect he will not trade stocks in those companies until the bill is passed or defeated. But if he's buying stocks in companies no legislative proposal is affecting, there's no reason to deny him the ability to add to his personal portfolio of income generating vehicles.
There is nothing of which you are a part that I would join. You're a stupid person.
There is literally an investment tracker that mimics Pelosi's trading and does quite well.
I'd suspect that the common denominator for a lot of this is that it's people who've never made money in the private sector and are looking for the easy score.
I agree that preventing trading entirely is draconian and extreme, although the kind of big government, freedom infringing kind of thing you'd expect from Dan.
So, a few points:
1. When it comes down to it, we see that I am MORE harsh/advocating STRONGER limitations on profiteering from office than you are. In spite of the reality that I have rarely if ever posted on it. But then, as noted, I don't post ON EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE AT ALL TIMES. Nor do you. Nor does anyone. Not posting on a topic doesn't mean there's not a concern and, once again, I'm clearly in favor of stronger regulations than you, if I'm not mistaken. Quite contrary to your ridiculously false/mistaken guesses about my position (which should be obvious if you read for understanding or if you were familiar with the general zeitgeist in progressive - and even moderate - circles).
2. I noted all along that Laws OR RULES, noting that we can't criminalize writing your own book (or paying someone to write a book for you, if you're a deeply stupid, non-literary type of billionaire who routinely pays people to do stuff for you). Which is why I noted the option of having rules/guidelines that don't rise to the level of laws, but are an attempt to deal with the problem.
3. Where you write:
If you can't see a qualitative and quantitative difference between Carter's redneck brother selling beer for a few years, and Hunter Biden getting millions for board seats
I do see and note the difference. As well as the difference between B Carter's nonsense and the abusive profiteering done by the whole Trump family. The thing is, as I've clearly, repeatedly noted, that we don't have RULES against a family member being hired by some entity. Which is why I am for having rules and am inviting you to join with me in this common sense approach to a serious problem.
That you focus on only a Democrat family member while ignoring the huge amount of overt profiteering done by the Trump's suggests it's not really about you wanting to limit profiteering and more about you grasping at straws to find something to try to blame Democrats on that you're not willing to take a stand on with GOP profiteering.
The difference is, I'm consistent.
1. That you've conjured up some random, draconian. hunches which are practically as well as legally problematic isn't quite the flex you seem to think it is. Yes, I understand your claims that your silence about certain topics really. secretly, means that you are actually concerned by those things. I also understand that your double standard only pointing out or acknowledging "conservative" misbehavior is just a coincidence. I do appreciate, as always, your proud bragging about how much better you are than everyone else. Which is why I take solace in your silence on the massive fraud we've seen in MN recently, your support of Walz (who ignored it), and your silent outrage over the judge who just unilaterally overturned the conviction of one of the perpetrators of part of this massive fraud.
2. So?
3. That you don't see (or mention) the shenanigans of the Clinton and Biden families (while making unproven allegations about the Trump family), is an excellent example of why I can't take you seriously on these types of things.
You ignoring the fact that I have repeatedly NOT focused on "a democrat family", while you exclusively focus on Trump would be hilarious if it wasn't your default position. That I "focus" on Hunter Biden and the Pelosis is not partisanship, it's that folx like you spent years ignoring/justifying/defending their actions and that the MSM actively lied about the seriousness of Hunter's actions to help BIden win. The difference between the Pelosi/Biden examples and Trump is that the entire MSM is looking for (and not finding) evidence of misbehavior with the Trumps and covering for the Biden/Pelosi/mortgage fraud/etc on the left. If the Trumps were doing something, the MSM would have found it.
The difference, apparently, is how you define consistent.
When I refer to Hunter Biden, Pelosi, Abrahams, MN Somalis, Walz, The various mortgage fraud folx, BLM, and the like it's specific people/organizations engaged in specific criminal/fraudulent actions. Not some vague, unspecific, whining about "profiteering". I've been clear that those are examples and that any similar behavior from anyone should be treated the same way.
I do understand why my balancing out of your monomaniacal focus only on Trump might seem a certain way, but it's really just balance.
Really, there's no need to demand non-partisan coverage of criminal/unethical behavior. There only needs to be a focus on that for which there is actual evidence (by which I mean evidence not fabricated to indict Trump or his people, as has been so routine over the last ten years).
For any major politician, it would be difficult NOT to profit to some extent by one's time of service, even in cases where a given politician has not been good in the job, like Obama or Harris. One can't prohibit some group or organization offering big bucks to crooks to speak at their events, and when it comes to Democrats, they're more than willing to pony up to take a big heaping helping of the slop the Dem crooks will serve.
The problem comes when it can be determined there was something truly unethical (I don't believe acting on info qualifies until I can read something about just how such insider trading harms the market) or truly criminal.
I know I've mentioned it before in some past discussion, but in Peter Schweizer's book "Throw Them All Out: How Politicians And Their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send The Rest Of Us To Prison", he mentions a case wherein a politician pushed a bill in support of a cause in which he believed strongly. It involved some industry or some such, but the political winds weren't blowing in his direction. The success OR failure of this bill would result in profits depending on how one invests (Call or Put). Knowing how unlikely it was for his bill to pass, he invested in the industry/company accordingly.
Think of it as one who is a huge New York Jets fan (yes...there are such people) who desperately wants the Jets to win their upcoming game, but they're playing the New England Patriots who are pretty much a lock to beat the Jets like a rug. So, the Jets fan bets on the Pats and makes big money when his team gets their ass kicked. Some would view this guy as a traitor to Jets Nation. Others would view him as a wise investor, who doesn't let his love of his team (or his cause in the case of the politician), from taking advantage of what seems most likely.
How is this a problem? Many, if not most, politicians alert their constituents via news letters or their email counterparts about what they hope to accomplish. Anyone who cares could get this info and decide if there's investment opportunities available.
I'm sure I must be missing something, but I personally don't as yet see a problem here. I await any info which might make it more plain.
As I see it, those who are in government should be held to the highest possible standards of conduct, and should have accusations of improper conduct investigated promptly and rigorously. What we've seen since the Clinton administration is a pattern of ignoring or covering up things that should have been vigorously investigated, as well as a cottage industry of fabricating "evidence" against Trump.
As far as insider trading goes, it is already illegal. As such, it should be prosecuted where and whenever it is discovered.
I'm not suggesting that politicians should be prevented from profiting from their time in office, in ethical and legal ways. Where I have concerns is when a publisher gives an ex president a huge advance for a book which doesn't get written or doesn't sell at a level that justifies the huge advance. Further, when books are purchased by parties or other entities for the purpose of falsely inflating sales numbers, that seems unethical at best.
I'll repeat, using non public or insider information to profit from buying or selling stocks is illegal. It's that simple, it is and has been illegal for quite some time. The problem with your Jets analogy is that the better is using publicly available information, and is not in a position to influence the outcome.
Once again, insider trading is illegal. It is against federal law, house and senate rules, as well as congressional ethics rules. Likewise, as we've just seen, using inside information or taking actions to affect the outcome of a game to help people win bets is also illegal.
Here's a more apropos example. Let's say that congressman X was personally opposed to abortion but voted for full legalization of abortion because he had invested in a stock that would grow in value if unlimited abortion was legalized. Hell, let's say that congressman X voted for a bill that would allow him/her to make large amounts of money personally, but would cause thousands of their constituents to lose their jobs.
FYI, this post is about transparency. It's like the joke where it is proposed that congress wear sponsor logos like NASCAR so that everyone knows who's bought them. If you want to legalize insider trading, then full and complete transparency should be mandatory so that people have access to the information to make an informed decision.
Craig, in what I assume is either an attempt at low brow comedy or a pique of spectacular ignorance, said:
As I see it, those who are in government should be held to the highest possible standards of conduct, and should have accusations of improper conduct investigated promptly and rigorously.
Um... that's what happened with your felon pervert conman. We held him accountable for his words and actions and crimes. He was arrested and charged with crimes, had his day in court and was found guilty by a jury of his peers of 34 felonies. That IS holding him accountable. YOU all are the ones that gave a convicted felon a pass. Additionally, we tried holding him accountable for boasting about sexual assaults and abusing his power and privilege to sexually prey upon teen-aged girls. He boasted and laughed about getting away with such deviant behavior on the AIR WAVES... there was no secret. And rational and moral Republicans and Democrats held him accountable and YOU ALL gave him a pass.
Oh, wee little man, we TRIED holding him accountable only to have large numbers of "christian conservatives" get away with his public misdeeds.
We're trying to hold him and his accountable NOW, for his extrajudicial murders of Venezuelans convicted of no crimes AND his going back and executing wounded survivors holding on to the remains of a burning boat and deliberately killing these people. But you Maga types keep defending him. He literally could kill a person in cold blood in the middle of the street and you all would give him a pass. His one genius is knowing how to get useful idiots to bow down to his every deviancy. Come on. You have no credibility on this front.
What we've seen since the Clinton administration is a pattern of ignoring or covering up things that should have been vigorously investigated, as well as a cottage industry of fabricating "evidence" against Trump.
?? Do you have no sense of shame? That is what YOU ALL are doing and have been doing since Trump bullied his way into your hearts and minds. He's raping y'all's minds and you just keep saying Thank you, sir!
As the evidence showed, I never voted for B Clinton because I was concerned about the very appearance of impropriety on his part. Y'all can start doing the same and save your souls.
Please, PLEASE join us in holding elected officials accountable. But do so with your actions, not your empty words.
I think you misunderstand my meaning. I think we're closer than your response suggests (unless I'm misunderstanding you.
"As I see it, those who are in government should be held to the highest possible standards of conduct."
I agree.
"As far as insider trading goes, it is already illegal. As such, it should be prosecuted where and whenever it is discovered."
Not necessarily as easy as it sounds. It depends upon what "publicly unavailable information" means and actually looks like. As I said above, many, if not most, office holders send out info regarding bills they're seeking to advance or prevent...at least to those who sign up for their regular newsletters. If I don't sign up, the info is still publicly available. Thus, it would be my fault that I was unaware and thus unable to make a more informed investment decision regarding any company or industry affected either way by the passing or blocking of a bill in question. Harder still would for even an informed voter to determine the likelihood of a bill's passage or defeat, as trying to gather the individual opinions on a given bill by every member of Congress is especially labor intensive. Yet, the info is still available publicly.
It would be interesting to discover which investment profits by someone like, say, Nancy Pelosi, were the result of that which no one outside of Congress would possibly know. I wonder if there are really that many of such.
"Where I have concerns is when a publisher gives an ex president a huge advance for a book which doesn't get written or doesn't sell at a level that justifies the huge advance."
That's really stupid, but I don't know if it is actually illegal, as it's just one party giving money to another. Providing advances in order to get a book written by which the published can earn a profit is a common practice. First time authors without any degree of celebrity aren't likely to be so lucky. But most any celeb will be.
"Further, when books are purchased by parties or other entities for the purpose of falsely inflating sales numbers, that seems unethical at best."
Certainly unethical, but to be considered fraudulent requires a victim. The victim might be the publisher, who hoped for high sales, now thinks everyone's interested in the author, so another, possibly bigger advance is offered to that author. There are tons of "best sellers" out there and I don't think I ever purchased a book because 100 million others bought it first. Again, I don't know what good this does for either the author, publisher or the party who bought all the books for the purpose. Many times it's done to give them away as part of another promotion of some kind, and that's not unethical at all.
"I'll repeat, using non public or insider information to profit from buying or selling stocks is illegal. It's that simple, it is and has been illegal for quite some time."
I'm aware of that. My two questions remain:
1. Where's the harm and are you aware of any cases where that harm actually manifested? I would suppose something happened in the past which resulted in this law, but I don't know what it was.
2. Which politicians are actually guilty of this given my comments above regarding "non public" info? I'll have to re-read my Peter Schweizer book.
" The problem with your Jets analogy is that the better is using publicly available information, and is not in a position to influence the outcome."
My analogy didn't address influencing anything, simply suggesting the politician in the example I paraphrased from the Schweizer book, wasn't guilty of wrongdoing in how he chose to invest. He simply saw which way the wind was blowing and bet against his Jets (his bill). There's nothing which suggested he wanted the bill to fail, as I presented the case that he absolutely wanted the bill to pass, but could see it hadn't enough support, so he invested accordingly.
This suggests another thing about the law itself. This book isn't one of Schweizer's most recent. It was published in 2011. Clearly, due to the internet, info is more easily had and the law was likely enacted prior to the internet being so ubiquitous if existing at all. Most contact by one's representatives would be through regular mail, which is slower. By the time one gets news of the rep's actions (that not made known in the press), the prime window for investing might be closed. Anyway...
From this point, your concerns focus more on actual manipulations intended to produce a profit without any regard to the consequences for others. I don't think that constitutes insider trading by definition, but I certainly oppose such underhanded behaviors. It's not about point shaving or throwing a fight. It's simply related to the availability of information.
Trump benefiting from his office:
Trump just had the most lucrative year of his life.
The president is now worth a record $7.3 billion, up from $4.3 billion in 2024
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2025/09/09/presidency-boosts-trumps-net-worth-by-3-billion-in-a-year/
Donald Trump isn’t the first U.S. president to come from the business world, but there’s no precedent for one whose fortune has grown so much during his presidency, largely thanks to — as his critics rightly argue — the power and visibility of the presidential brand itself.
https://english.elpais.com/usa/2025-10-19/all-the-presidents-businesses-how-trump-has-grown-richer-from-the-white-house.html
https://democrats-judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2025-11-24.hjc-dem-staff-report-trump-crypto-corruption-small_0.pdf
https://parade.com/celebrities/donald-trump-net-worth
Your concerns would be more believable if you insisted upon scrutiny by the guy who's profiteered the most (FAAAAAR and away, the most) from his actions in office. Sure, complain about the thousands and millions maybe that some Congresspeople have accumulated... but ignore the billions by the Felon.
This kind of behavior makes Maga supporters simply not credible critics.
For my part, YES, do all we can do to limit profiteering. That goes without saying because I'm always against the rich getting richer on the backs of the poor. Not so much, you fellas, who love to defend the rich getting richer.
As to the oft-repeated nonsense about "TDS..." The Bible endlessly warns against unrelenting, ever-grasping-for more greed and hedonism. As you all like to pretend the Bible (and thus, God, you theorize) "condemns homosexuality," and thus, the "loving" thing to do is to try to stop people from being or acting gay, (even with the EXTREMELY scant evidence of any such notion in the Bible), then why is it not loving to condemn the unrelentingly greedy?
From the traditionalists at Bible Hub:
“Woe to you who add house to house and join field to field till no space is left and you alone dwell in the land.” (Isaiah 5:8)
• Isaiah speaks a direct, literal warning: relentless accumulation of property squeezes others out, leaving the greedy “alone” with their wealth but isolated from neighbor and ultimately from God’s blessing.
• The sin is not ownership itself, but the grasping impulse that always wants more and disregards God-given limits.
https://biblehub.com/q/Isaiah_5_8_s_warning_on_greed_today.htm
For just ONE of the hundreds of such passages in the Bible.
The loving thing to do with the hedonistic and ultra-rich greedy ones is to rebuke that damning, dangerous and harmful lifestyle... harmful to the poor who are oppressed by the unrelentingly greedy, but also harmful to the rich.
I was unaware that "easy" was a criteria for punishing those who break the law.
The huge advance scam is probably not illegal, but it is unethical.
Again, the inflating of book sales is unethical as I pointed out. It's not criminal as far as I know, other than the potential of using such tactics to launder money given to someone for illegal purposes. The fact is that sales success does drive additional sales. That you are the exception, doesn't mean that others aren't so motivated.
1. No idea. Beyond the harm to the public trust that results from elected officials profiting from illegal actions.
2. Well, since no one is investigating this, we don't know.
The problem is that when an elected official is voting on a bill that will benefit themselves, the question of motivation must be raised. Are they voting because it's the best for the public, or because it'll line their pockets. The average person has no influence on the outcome, while a player in a football game or elected official does have the ability to affect the outcome.
This is why I object to public sector unions. It is a conflict of interest. If union A donates millions to DFL member B, who supports a massive raise for the union members, who then donate more to B, it is clearly a conflict of interest.
Likewise, if representative A is voting on a multi billion dollar contract with a company they own stock in, you again have a clear conflict of interest.
If the information available is not available to the general public, then it's insider trading and illegal.
If you want to argue that it shouldn't be illegal, go ahead. The reality is that it is currently illegal, and if we should hold elected officials to the highest standards, then excusing illegal behavior fails to do that.
Again, Dan displays his ignorance regarding the "34 felonies". But whatever, it's not lkie he wants to hold anyone but Trump to a high standard of legal or ethical behavior. Dan's screed also ignores the recent revelations regarding the motivations behind the charges.
Again the reality is that the Clinton campaign fabricated "evidence" against Trump and the revered MSM ran with the unverified "evidence". That all of that "evidence" has been proven to have been fake, clearly hasn't penetrated Dan's brain.
Magically turning one misdemeanor into 34 felonies, the illegal GA prosecution, and temporarily changing the law to allow a civil suit against Trump tells most rational people that the ASPL has to resort to rigging things in order to get Trump. Strangely enough, how many of those who prosecuted Trump have engaged in illegal/unethical activities themselves?
What is this "evidence" you claim to have.
As I've said multiple times, if Trump commits a crime, he should be held accountable.
You seem to be confusing the fact that Trump's actions against drug smugglers are things that you don't like, with those actions being illegal. By all means, please provide the specific law that is being broken.
The problem you have is that there is a long history of presidents using presidential findings to engage in actions that might otherwise be illegal due to circumstances. Which means that you'd have to have bitched as much about DFL presidents actions as you are about Trump's.
This is what happens when you don't pay attention to my responses to you. I've addressed this claim elsewhere, and you ignored my response.
This and your straw man arguments aren't the own you think they are.
I'm not wasting time parsing more of Dan's attempts to proof text himself out of his predicament.
The simple reality is that Dan focuses all of his vitriol and anger at Trump/conservatives, while staying silent about the Pelosis and their ilk. He has no proboem with P-BO and the Clintons amassing vast wealth based entirely on their political careers and monetizing their time in office, or at least won't mention them, but obsesses over Trump.
The loving thing to do with ANY person who is engaged in sin is to lovingly/firmly point out their sin and point them to repentance. But when all you have is vitriol and anger directed at one side of the political spectrum, it's impossible to take any of this seriously.
What's strange is that we have an ongoing situation in MN where "the poor" were oppressed to the tune if over a billion dollars by a community intent on defrauding both the taxpayers and those who didn't receive aid they might have actually needed. Talk about greedy and hedonistic people oppressing and defrauding "the poor", and Dan pleads ignorance.
In this current time, it is impossible for those who are elected not to benefit to some degree from their time in office. The problem is that the ASPL focuses on Trump who's business (not him personally) and the thousands his business employs, and an incremental increase, they ignore someone like AOC, Omar, or the Clintons who magically inflated their wealth by orders of magnitude virtually overnight.
As usual, it's the hypocrisy and one sidedness of the bitching that is the problem here. I've been quote clear that I support any and all politicians that engage in illegal or unethical means to enrich themselves being punished.
"I was unaware that "easy" was a criteria for punishing those who break the law. "
Clearly I didn't suggest that it was. However, that's not to say that given the ambiguity regarding whether or not there was or wasn't public access to the info upon which the alleged insider profited, there can't be the slightest doubt in order to convict. And if one of these guys reveals "non-publicly released info" to family and friends, isn't that info now public? These and other questions arise in my mind on this issue due to the lack of specificity regarding what definitively counts as an example of insider trading. Said another way, I'm naive on the details of this particular "crime".
"The huge advance scam is probably not illegal, but it is unethical."
It's a matter of the specifics, as advances for writing a book isn't at all uncommon in publishing. The publisher's betting on sales being worth the investment in the book. That's not illegal or unethical. The "author" supposes people are interested in what he has to say. That might be vain, but not unethical. I don't even think the practice of buying the finished product in bulk is unethical regardless of the reason. Who is harmed by it and how?
"It's not criminal as far as I know, other than the potential of using such tactics to launder money given to someone for illegal purposes."
Ah! Now you're speaking of a specific crime of money laundering. Bulk buying is the means of laundering, but bulk buying of books itself is not unethical or illegal.
"The fact is that sales success does drive additional sales. That you are the exception, doesn't mean that others aren't so motivated."
I fully doubt it drives it as hard as you suggest it is. I don't believe I've ever heard of anyone actually buying a book because it was atop the best seller list. It's always about the topic and who the author is. I guess if one can return such a book because it sucked, I might be compelled to take a chance due to Best Seller list rankings...but I doubt it.
"1. No idea. Beyond the harm to the public trust that results from elected officials profiting from illegal actions."
That's certainly the issue here with this thing called "insider trading". It's become somewhat of an umbrella term for anything shady when its exact meaning isn't necessarily so despite it...whatever the hell is truly is...is illegal. Again, it's my understanding it has something to do with perverting the market, but I'm not sure how.
"2. Well, since no one is investigating this, we don't know."
Well, Schweizer is. I can't believe he's the only one, but he's the one with whom I'm most familiar on this subject. Now we just need Congress to clean house. Bills are afoot...I think Josh Hawley has one, and I believed I mentioned a guy from Tennessee, but bills just seek to prevent, not go after any who have already done dirty, so...
continuing
"The problem is that when an elected official is voting on a bill that will benefit themselves, the question of motivation must be raised."
Of course.
"Are they voting because it's the best for the public, or because it'll line their pockets."
It can be both. I can even imagine someone thinking up a way to line their pockets and then realize it'll also greatly benefit the public. If benefit to to the public is just lip service, then we've got a crook.
"This is why I object to public sector unions."
Not a parallel, but I don't like them either. They need to go.
"Likewise, if representative A is voting on a multi billion dollar contract with a company they own stock in, you again have a clear conflict of interest."
This is where it gets really sticky and can drift into Dan Trabue territory. If the rep's ability to profit is collateral, good for him. If the rep is a Republican, the Dan Trabues will cry foul regardless of the benefit of the bill to the nation simply because the rep's stock holdings just got sweeter.
"If the information available is not available to the general public, then it's insider trading and illegal."
Yeah. I got that part of it. I just don't know where the harm comes in.
"If you want to argue that it shouldn't be illegal, go ahead."
And I will if I can find the reason for its illegality which no one seems to mention. At this point, the mention of the term "insider trading" just provokes the vapors in so many without them knowing why it's forbidden!
You're the one who seems to suggest that these crimes not be dealt with because it won't be easy.
Yes the advance is predicated on theoretical future sales. Yet we've seen multiple examples where the advance far outweighs the actual sales. Which raises questions about whether the publishers were stupid, or giving free money.
Some things are measured by sales (books, movies, etc) when the sale numbers are artificially manipulated it harms the system. If the manipulation is done to intentionally buy influence, it seems problematic. This obsession with how is harmed, seems pointless.
"I've never heard..." is hardly conclusive. It seems strange that so many publishers tout the presence of their books on various best seller lists in their advertising or tout sales numbers.
The parallel is that both public sector unions and representatives getting rich from insider trading are a conflict of interest.
Again, there's a potential conflict of interest inherent in a rep voting for something that will enrich themselves.
The simple solution is to prevent those in public service from buying individual stocks when they are serving, and to require that their portfolios be managed in some sort of blind trust. If rep X owned company Y long before he was elected, and his portfolio was blindly managed, and he made some money, I have no problem with it. If they buy up a large amount of a stock solely because they have inside information, that is the problem.
Who cares about arguing about where the harm comes in. If a person is elected to office, it is incumbent on them to follow the law as it exists. I may wonder why the speed limit is 25 on a particular road, or ask who would be harmed if I drive 30, but none of that is an excuse to speed.
Then do so. The fact is that insider trading is currently a violation of federal law, as well as the rules of the house and senate, and an ethics violation as well.
This post is about being transparent.
Post a Comment