The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.
The move would extend her 36-year House career and continue to freeze her would-be California successors in a long-standing holding pattern.
She did not oppose her ability to trade in the stock market despite enacting laws that helped enrich her estate.
I am a very liberal person. She did a lot of good, but I absolutely would not want to see her keep her position.
That and I’d rather see someone ~36 years old fill the seat than someone whose had it for 36 years.
There are zero politicians who don’t own stock. I really don’t understand why she’s held to some special standard on this specific issue
Holding stock: not a problem
Having your husband trade stock specifically to exploit ethics rules grey-areas: Problem.
Hopefully now you understand why it’s a problem, and should note that she’s not alone on this, just a poster-senior for it.
Oh, they don’t.
Example??
She sold nvidia at a loss. And that the only example I’ve hear of.