BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

there shady specifics on Dan's trades like Tommy and Pelosi?

---

odd how no one ever explains what was shady about Crenshaw's stock purchases. but someone tweeted something, so its a big deal

---

There was a tweet (not sure how accurate) that showed that the only person who got a better ROI than Pelosi in Congress was Crenshaw.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

there shady specifics on Dan's trades like Tommy and Pelosi?

---

odd how no one ever explains what was shady about Crenshaw's stock purchases. but someone tweeted something, so its a big deal

---

There was a tweet (not sure how accurate) that showed that the only person who got a better ROI than Pelosi in Congress was Crenshaw.

---

a tweet? well that settles it! who needs specifics, there was a tweet.


again, why does no one every explain how there was something illegal or shady about the Crenshaw stocks?

Legality is the wrong emphasis. Congress exempts itself from practically everything, including written laws.

Isn't this discussion more about what SHOULD NOT be allowed or should be done away with that happens now?

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It would take a constitutional amendment most likely to get the House to stop granting themselves de-facto exemption from insider trading rules. They are only somewhat able to be held accountable by the same laws the rest of us must comply with.

---

Yes, and I thought it took a Constitutional Amendment to forgive student loans, what was I thinking?

One one level, far more serious is this apparent close bond between things like Congress and Big Pharma. Whatever that is about, needs to be stopped in a new system.

They should have no stake in whether Pfizer or anyone else sells more of a given thing. National policy should not be crafted around items like pushing a particular brand of vaccine for some kind of kickback (as they apparently are getting)??

atmtws said:

---

BQAg09 said:

---

Let's hold out hope for that convention of states.

---

Yes. Let the states have the ability to investigate the federal government....Let state legislatures dig in. In fact, lets do away with a federal level congress and just toss everything to the state legislatures....

---

Then that kinda precludes getting rid of the 17th amendment, which is fine by me.

It really doesn't preclude your decision, but getting rid of the 17th amendment would be a wonderful side effect.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

there shady specifics on Dan's trades like Tommy and Pelosi?

---

odd how no one ever explains what was shady about Crenshaw's stock purchases. but someone tweeted something, so its a big deal

---

There was a tweet (not sure how accurate) that showed that the only person who got a better ROI than Pelosi in Congress was Crenshaw.

---

a tweet? well that settles it! who needs specifics, there was a tweet.


again, why does no one every explain how there was something illegal or shady about the Crenshaw stocks?

---

I'm not saying there is, just where I think the belief is coming from.

Although it would be interesting to compare a freshman congressman like Crenshaw's ROI both before and after he was elected. And then average congressman returns vs the general public in the same tax brackets.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

there shady specifics on Dan's trades like Tommy and Pelosi?

---

odd how no one ever explains what was shady about Crenshaw's stock purchases. but someone tweeted something, so its a big deal

---

There was a tweet (not sure how accurate) that showed that the only person who got a better ROI than Pelosi in Congress was Crenshaw.

---

a tweet? well that settles it! who needs specifics, there was a tweet.


again, why does no one every explain how there was something illegal or shady about the Crenshaw stocks?

---

I'm not saying there is, just where I think the belief is coming from.

Although it would be interesting to compare a freshman congressman like Crenshaw's ROI both before and after he was elected. And then average congressman returns vs the general public in the same tax brackets.

---

The tweet referenced is from a site called "Unusual Whales" which reports large options purchases. They also do an annual report of Congress and their returns.



https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate/full

When it first came out, I actually walked through and the thing to remember is that chart shows % return vs market, not total amount made. So if he had one good stock and that was his only trade, he "out performed" the market by a long shot. And if you look through all his trades in 2021 (which is the year for that report), he actually didn't buy much. His performance came from purchases of targeted index funds (that tried to 3X market returns) he bought in early 2020 when the market tanked. Now...did he know the gov't was going to be propping up the market in the coming months? Probably...but so did just about everyone else given the amount of coverage.

Not saying Crenshaw is free and clear of any insider trading, but I think there are a lot better examples to pick at than him.

Here's all his trades going back to 2020: https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate_member/Daniel%20Crenshaw

mandatory double blind investment trusts for all politicians and bureaucrats above a certain threshold.


That threshold being "Government employee".

Fah getta bout it! God will handle it.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

It would take a constitutional amendment most likely to get the House to stop granting themselves de-facto exemption from insider trading rules. They are only somewhat able to be held accountable by the same laws the rest of us must comply with.

---

My first introduction into this sordid bs was my freshman or sophomore year at Texas A&M. Since I was an out of state student I was required to take Texas Government. The professor had been in the Texas State Legislature, I believe from Brazos county.

In a speech to the Legislature he pointed out that members on committees were exchanging information with different committee members regarding pending contracts. That way they could obscure the fact that there was insider trading occurring.

He was promptly remove from all committees and censured, so no more speeches allowed. He was effectively neutered and didn't run again.

This was 1970 or 1971. This crap has gone on a long time.

titan said:

---

Legality is the wrong emphasis. Congress exempts itself from practically everything, including written laws.

Isn't this discussion more about what SHOULD NOT be allowed or should be done away with that happens now?

---

They didn't start paying into Social Security until 1983. I started on my first paycheck in 1969.

The military joined the largest Ponzi scheme in 1957, difference being a private at that time was making peanuts(~$83 - ~$106/month)in order to risk their life in combat.
1955-1957 U.S. Military Basic Pay Charts

It upset my father no end that these swamp rats exempted themselves.