> California can't be bothered not to elect this evil person

Except in the tiniest (by population) states, states at large do not elect members to the House, despite the fact that they are frequently identified by party and state.

California is the maximum example of the error of this kind of description.

OK. San Francisco, the fourth largest city in California, can't be bothered not to elect this evil person. Happy?

The rich city that can't even be bothered to deal with the shitty conditions that drove most of them to Uber everywhere?

A significant fraction of HN's readership resides in that district as well.

Is there evidence of this? Anytime I have seen the details, in context, of Pelosi trades, they seem very unconvincing.

When someone does a lot of trading, it is easy to cherry pick the successful trades or apparently conflicted trades while ignoring the whole picture, and scope of the portfolio.

>Is there evidence of this?

Is this the right question? Insider trading is incredibly hard to prove as it is. But we know that Pelosi is privy to insider information. She's an 82 year old centimillionaire, does she really need to be day-trading options?

Not to mention it's commonsensical at this point -- we can let the courts decide, but there is enough reason to suspect something dubious is afoot, given her lack of integrity as a person from moral and ethical standpoints.

I think her husband has beaten Warren Buffet by nearly double. No one is consistently that good.

I don't think that would be possible to deduce from public filings. I would imagine that someone has estimated it based on net worth growth, but of course, that would assume that all of their investments are in stock only. They own an investment company as well as lots of real estate. More than likely, their growth in net worth has primarily been through appreciation and income from the business.

Yes. It's well known she's corrupt to the bone.

https://unusualwhales.com/i_am_the_senate/congress

> As of December 22nd stimulus was just approved on that day. On December 22'nd, Pelosi’s Husband purchased deep ITM TSLA and AAPL calls. After Market close on December 22'nd, she voiced support for $2000 of stimulus after Donald Trump tweets the need for additional stimulus. Those same companies rally 5%, giving an instant +30 return, on Dec 23rd.

As much as I despise Trump I think see very well why he became president back when he did and also why Joe Biden barely won despite the massive support he got from almost every tech and media company.

I think her husband has beat the s%P the last year, I"m not sure long term.

From what I've seen in headlines he buys a lot of big tech call options dated a year out or more. Since big tech has done well over the past decade, he probably has beat S&P by buying calls. As long as big tech stocks go up 10% a yr, he'll do well with that strategy.

According to this they invest heavy in mostly big tech, probably similar to a lot of people here https://housestockwatcher.com/summary_by_rep/Hon.%20Nancy%20...

I think the public should be given notice immediately when Congress members purchase or sell shares/options. I think they should also have to hold on to shares/options for a certain length of time. I think this could solve most problems.

There was a twitter account that was called "Nancy Pelosi's Stock Tracker" but since Jack left, the new CEO seems to have shut the account down. I have no idea why it was shutdown though.

Ah yes, CEOs are in charge of banning individual accounts

I'm not sure if you're joking but Jack Dorsey was absolutely the final decision maker in many high profile account bans

Irrelevant. Why did Twitter ban an account reporting objective details on a public figure's actions and/or corruption?

(The 3rd most powerful person in our elite ruling class, mind you)

They did ban Trump's account...

So have plenty of people?

Oh come on. Have you seen the people who have primaried her? While their politics may or may not be better, they have been problematic personal and professional lives.

> Have you seen the people who have primaried her?

“Primaried” usually refers to opposing in a partisan primary (as a way of distinguishing those people from other electors opponents.)

California has for some time not used partisan primaries except as part of the Presidential nominating process.

Non-partisan primaries in the inner Bay Area are usually Dem vs. Dem. For all intents and purposes they are effectively partisan (ignoring the bad blood between “moderate” Dems and self-styled “progressives”), with Republicans relegated as essentially a distant third party.

> Non-partisan primaries in the inner Bay Area are usually Dem vs. Dem.

No, they aren't, they universally include numerous parties and independents, including Republicans, as well as Democrats.

They general election after the top-two nonpartisan primary is sometimes Dem v. Dem, though that’s only happened in exactly one (2020) of Pelosi’s five elections since the top-two nonpartisan primary was adopted, so even if you meant the general rather than the primary, “usually” is far misplaced.

The last primary we had for an empty seat was something like 4 Dems, 1 Republican and some other third party. The Republican didn’t really even show up to various debates and round tables.

> The last primary we had for an empty seat was something like 4 Dems, 1 Republican and some other third party

I’m not sure which seat and which election you are talking about, but that would be consistent with the Republican strategy of trying to discourage more candidates from running, because that way vote splitting worms in their favor, maximizing their chance of making it into the top 2 and maximizing their perceived strength going into the general. Party leaders have been fairly open about their strategy of dealing with the top-two primary system.

> The Republican didn’t really even show up to various debates and round tables.

That's also a pretty common Republican strategy where there would be more than two candidates on the stage in California, on the theory (which has some support) that the hits coming out of such a forum will be on the candidates involved.

> Mark Meadows texts recently, which single-handedly disprove the Left's January 6 claims of Trump's involvement

Uh, Meadows’ texts do no such thing.

Then why else did the committee drop that evidence like a hot potato once they found out it complicated their case?

We're not seeing their corporate media buddies belabor trivial information or twisting it to manipulate people into thinking it serves as evidence against Trump.

In fact, in the video I linked, it shows a clip from CNN of all places supporting my point because they can't even twist it.

Willful ignorance is a choice, it's just nice when folks are more honest about it.

> Then why else did the committee drop that evidence

On what basis do you claim they did?

I mean, sure, it might look like they had if they didn't question Meadows about it when he showed up to testify after they got it...but he didn't, which is why he’s facing a contempt referral. Short of that, other than it's absence from any final report, I’m not sure what concrete sign would exist that they had “dropped” it at all.

> We're not seeing their corporate media buddies belabor trivial information or twisting it to manipulate people into thinking it serves as evidence against Trump.

While I agree with the exact wording here, as what is being belabored is not trivial and the analysis of how it is evidence against Trump and his inner circle is not twisted, the media that's not full-time right-wing propaganda is indeed pointing to them as a “smoking gun”, so, if “major media pundits aren't claiming that they are evidence against Trump” is the basis of your claim that the committee is dropping the texts, the premise is as faulty as the logic (a few examples of thousands):

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics/mark-meadows-text-me...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/14/politics/january-6-committee-...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/13/mark-mead...

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a38514277/mar...

About the best you can say for the texts is that they are sometimes being treated as less of a smoking gun than the PowerPoint presentation on the strategy for the coup turned over by Meadows.