Started By
Message

Politico: Insider trading is Mike Johnson’s next Epstein

Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:38 am
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
27168 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:38 am
quote:

Speaker Mike Johnson’s September to-do list is getting tougher by the day.

As POLITICO scooped Tuesday, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) is planning to file a discharge petition to force a floor vote on banning stock trading by members of Congress. Like the parallel push for a vote on releasing the Epstein files, it’s poised to pit Johnson against rank-and-file Republicans who are thirsty to challenge elite corruption — whether their leadership likes it or not.

Luna’s move puts Johnson in a bind.

Johnson has signaled that he’s personally supportive of restricting stock trading by lawmakers. But allowing a vote to happen would trigger backlash from many fellow Republicans — and for what? The bill probably wouldn’t go anywhere in the Senate.

Yet if Johnson stands in the way, he risks fueling a narrative triggered by the Epstein fight that he’s protecting the rich and powerful and against transparency.

Luna has a way to go before she gets the 218 signatures needed to force a vote. But she has some political momentum on her side. The House Ethics Committee said Friday that Rep. Mike Kelly’s (R-Pa.) wife bought shares in steelmaker Cleveland-Cliffs after Kelly’s office learned that a Commerce Department action could benefit the company. Kelly has said he and his family “look forward to putting this distraction behind us.”


quote:

Rep. Seth Magaziner, the Rhode Island Democrat co-leading legislation with Roy, said he believes they are “quite close” on a consensus bill coming together — possibly in August. But it would be for “Congress only,” and not extend any stock trading ban to the president and vice president, as some Democrats are pushing for.

Lawmakers involved in the talks are also aiming for legislative branch enforcement, which is missing from the Burchett bill that relies on Justice Department enforcement. Burchett’s legislation also doesn’t address when lawmakers who currently own stocks would have to pay taxes after divesting.

“Where you’ll start losing Democrats is if the bill doesn’t have teeth,” said Magaziner, who argues that the Burchett bill alone will have problems drawing enough support from both sides of the aisle.


LINK
Posted by SDVTiger
Cabo San Lucas
Member since Nov 2011
92677 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:40 am to
Cant wait for Dan Crenshaw to cry
Posted by Mandtgr47
Member since Aug 2024
7918 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:41 am to
They 100 should not be allowed to trade stocks. They should be limited to mutual funds or similar. I dont feel sorry for them, they getting g paid so much u der the table already.
Posted by JackieTreehorn
Member since Sep 2013
34594 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:41 am to
Hit the lights and watch the roaches scatter
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
27168 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:45 am to
Honestly would like to see this apply not only to elected members of Congress, but also elected members of the Executive Branch as well.
Posted by BigJim
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2010
14953 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:47 am to
quote:

They 100 should not be allowed to trade stocks. They should be limited to mutual funds or similar. I dont feel sorry for them, they getting g paid so much u der the table already.



This is such a common sense solution which is why they don’t want it.
Posted by blueboy
Member since Apr 2006
62611 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:49 am to
So, a big deal which becomes nothing and is eventually called a democrat hoax?

Way to go, Mike.
Posted by GumboPot
Member since Mar 2009
138911 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:50 am to
quote:

They 100 should not be allowed to trade stocks. They should be limited to mutual funds or similar. I dont feel sorry for them, they getting g paid so much u der the table already.


All of a sudden you would have funds that diversify 99% into one stock.
Posted by BigPerm30
Member since Aug 2011
30724 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 9:58 am to
If you really want to curb all this shite, congress needs to live in their districts full time and move the legislature function to Nebraska. Too much money and corruption in DC.
Posted by LSU Patrick
Member since Jan 2009
76698 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 10:05 am to
How about we get back some of the billions that those pieces of shite stole from us over the past 40 years?

Pelosi has to be one of the worst offenders but Turtle, Biden, John Kerry, the Clintons, etc can't be far behind if not worse. Career politicians are really something we have to get rid of somehow.
Posted by Mandtgr47
Member since Aug 2024
7918 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 10:14 am to
Lol

Those funds have rules...haha...but i hear ya
Posted by MMauler
Primary This RINO Traitor
Member since Jun 2013
23855 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 10:17 am to
This is one issue that I think Republicans can get support from their own constituents as well as 90% of democrat constituents. Overall, it’s probably a 98-2 issue. But somehow, you know the f*cked up RINOs and Establishment FILTH Republicans will f*ck this up.
Posted by idlewatcher
Planet Arium
Member since Jan 2012
91896 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 11:15 am to
quote:

If you really want to curb all this shite, congress needs to live in their districts full time and move the legislature function to Nebraska. Too much money and corruption in DC.



I like how you think
Posted by BugAC
St. George
Member since Oct 2007
56710 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 11:26 am to
quote:

This is one issue that I think Republicans can get support from their own constituents as well as 90% of democrat constituents.


You really have no idea how slavish Democrat voters are to their party.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
57686 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 11:56 am to
There's too much M.A.D. (mutually-assured destruction) for this to pass. There are enough Pelosis and Crenshaws who have so much vested in not pursuing this that many are likely willing to go on the record with their vote to block this and then try to figure out some way to play it off later.
Posted by Samso
nyc
Member since Jun 2013
5026 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 11:58 am to
It should be the same rules that financial professionals like Ibankers have with FINRA. No trading but you can put your money in mutual funds or index funds etc
Posted by Lsu101205
Atlanta, GA
Member since Jan 2014
3145 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 12:13 pm to
It's absolutely common sense that they should not be allowed to actively trade while in office.

And because of that I'm sure it will go no where. Why take their hands out of the cookie jar when they can just keep doing it whether we like it or not.
Posted by KiwiHead
Auckland, NZ
Member since Jul 2014
35460 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 12:38 pm to
Just means it moves to Omaha.
Posted by Prettyboy Floyd
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Dec 2013
16515 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 1:44 pm to
Heres the rub


Some congress members get their family members involved.


Nancy Pelosi being a gross example of this.
Posted by 4cubbies
Member since Sep 2008
58510 posts
Posted on 7/30/25 at 1:52 pm to
Even if the vote happened, everyone would just vote against it and they would all get reelected.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram