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…
