Finally got around to watching that 60 Minutes piece on insider trading in Washington, and while the majority of the people profiled were Republicans, the one who just looked terrible was Pelosi. She looked evasive, defensive, and just didn’t look trustworthy.
Brian Baird came off really well.
Hunter Gathers
I must be the only person on earth that considers this old news. Congress has been getting higher returns than everybody else for a very, very long time. One of the easiest ways for the rich to get richer is to ‘serve’ in Congress. You can get your staffers to write subsidies and tax breaks written into bills that benefit you personally, and are able to completely game the stock market by just showing up to the latest Finance Committee meeting. It’s all a bunch of horseshit, but it will never, ever change.
kerFuFFler
This has been known for about a decade and I always wondered why so little fuss was made over it despite it being reported repeatedly.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109874916042455390.html
Calming Influence
It looked to me like her right eye was about to go into furious twitch mode. Honestly, she thought “what’s your point?” was a good response to that type of question?
Villago Delenda Est
The history of Congress exempting itself from laws everyone else is supposed to follow is long and disgusting. Why insider trading should not be in that history eludes me.
This is one of those distortions of markets that “free market” advocates always seem to not be aware of. Again, the idea that everyone has the same information as they approach the market, and therefore an equitable result is inevitable, is defeated by human nature. “Perfect liberty”, in Adam Smith’s turn of phrase, is an ideal that has a hard time not getting badly soiled by contact with reality.
Cris (without an H)
I’m not being defensive! You’re the one who’s being defensive! Why is always the other person who’s being defensive? Have you ever asked yourself that? Why don’t you ask yourself that?
Gex
This is exactly why the aristocrats want us to put in to our 401ks and to move Social Security money over there. So they can pilfer it. It’s a pyramid scheme. Those who know there’s a game get in early and get out before it explodes. They just leave the working retirees with gutted 401ks holding the bag.
@Cris (without an H): That’s a very nice Nathan Therm you’re channeling there. (Did I get that right?)
JPL
OT…sorry if this has been mentioned but the AJC has a few quotes from Cain today.
Ayn Rand would be so proud.
shep
She did the same thing on Stewart. Digby titled her post on it “Painful.” The only thing I can imagine – since she’s normally a good liberal and a good pol – is that she doesn’t want to trash the institution she’s spend her life working in by saying what it is. Also too, she represents the Progressive Caucus which is not the usual whorehouse that is the rest of the Congress. By calling the whole enterprise corrupt, she tars a number of good people and good public servants who aren’t taking gobs of corporate money to screw the general public.
ruemara
@JPL:
He’s taking us 15 steps back from there.
greennotGreen
I didn’t see it, but there should always be a caveat next to a 60 Minutes interview because editing can make a big difference. A coworker of my father’s was interviewed decades ago about the nuclear power industry, the piece was deceptively edited, and the man was fired. (of course, the company should take the blame for that.) The trick is to answer in ways that can’t be misconstrued when isolated from other sentences. I think that would be pretty hard to pull off.
Jay in Oregon
@JPL:
What the… I don’t even… Did Cain’s brain get switched with the Old Spice Guy’s?
“Look at your candidate. Now look at me. Now look back at him. Now look at me…”
cleek
@JPL:
sounds like something a buffoonish side character on a Simpsons episode would say: Rainier Wolfcastle, or Troy McClure.
Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
This gives me a great idea for a moneymaking scheme…
Can we pass a law that says that congressmen must make their stock purchases immediately available to the public?
Zifnab
Pelosi has been great on social issues. On any other day, I’d be happy to vote for her. But she’s been in the game a long time and it seems like she can’t even comprehend why Congressmen engaging in insider trading would be a bad thing. That’s very sad.
I can’t say I’d regret seeing her back with the Speaker’s gavel in ’12, but I think we’d benefit from consigning her to the old guard and looking towards future representatives that aren’t so jaded and cynical.
Hill Dweller
Pelosi has always been awful on TV, but she was a good Speaker, and ultimately the least of the Dems problems right now.
Also, too, David Gregory and Candy Crowley are worthless ‘journalists’.
Gromitt Gunn
@10: this was a press conference, not an interview.
She came off looking really bad.
David in NY
Dreamer.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@Hill Dweller:
Fixed to correct redundancy.
Ben Cisco
Why is why they ran with this just now. Standard Ferengi procedure – if criticism of your master becomes too hard to ignore, go ahead and tar EVERYBODY.
Villago Delenda Est
I’ll agree that it doesn’t look good, but I think this is based on Pelosi’s frustration with this sort of “journalism” that doesn’t look at the detail, in that Pelosi seems to have actually shepherded legislation that would go against the very personal financial interest she’s supposed to have been protecting.
Still, optics are optics, and, unfortunately, these impressions are what most people tend to go on because it’s very easy to draw a conclusion based on that. Visual media in particular have this drawback, which is why there’s an entire structure of due process to filter this sort of thing out. The court of public opinion is cruel, and inexact.
Tony J
@Jay in Oregon:
I laughed.
Come to think of it, isn’t that what every election campaign boils down to?
“Look back at me. Now I’m riding a pony.”
lacp
@JPL: Maybe he was referencing that old saw, “There may be toppings on the pizza, but there’s a fire in furnace.” Or something. Jesus, who knows?
Irony Abounds
The fact is almost everyone in Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, is just a paid employee of corporate America. Democrats, as a whole, are ever so slightly less guilty on that front, somewhat better on economic policy as a whole and much better on social issues. But if you tossed everyone of the current members of Congress out on their collective asses the world would be a better place. Obama looks positively Lincolnesque in comparison to the dirtbags in Congress.
Zifnab
@Ben Cisco:
Eye-roll. You can’t blame CBS for making Pelosi look bad. Pelosi made Pelosi look bad. Go down this road, and you’ll be pulling a Bachmann in no time.
giltay
@cleek: In my head, it sounds like Zap Brannigan saying it. While eating a pizza with 26 toppings.
cathyx
I hate to sound pessimistic and generally I’m not, but this hill is too steep to climb.
The Moar You Know
They must not have interviewed Feinstein, then. Our Republican-in-all-but-name Senator from California is dirtier than the floor of a biker bar with a malfunctioning toilet.
EDIT: Not to imply that Pelosi is some kind of paragon of virtue. I lived in the Bay Area too long to entertain any such illusions.
Lawdawg
@Cris (without an H): Awesome; I can picture Marty Short now smoking and shaking nervously on SNL. Thanks for reminding me of that classic bit. Perfect example.
Social Outcast
I don’t mind a democratic politician taking heat for benefiting from insider trading deals, if that’s what happened. Right now people are pissed at Wall Street, and the democrats can’t make much out of it because in the end top democratic politicians are part of the club.
cleek
@giltay:
yeah! that’s who i was thinking of.
Reality Check
Breaking: Romney TOPS Obama in poll, 51 to 47%! look. The poll was done by none other than CNN.
cathyx
@Reality Check: And CNN is a liberal news channel too.
jafg
Of course what seem completely lost on Clueless Cole is that the only reason she looked that way is because the producers/editors wanted her to look that way. Given enough video you can make someone look anyway you want.
Of course that seems completely lost on Wrong Again Cole. He is James O’Keefe wet dream viewer. Someone who will believe however the video was edited to make you believe.
Villago Delenda Est
@Reality Check:
I’d trust a poll done by Nickelodeon before a poll conducted by the idiots at CNN.
cleek
@giltay:
of course Brannigan is Billy West trying to sound like Phil Hartmann, so my confusion has a cause…
b-psycho
@cleek: Herman Cain talking about “manly men” and “abundance”…
Yup, the next harassment claim is gonna come from a really fat chick.
Joseph Nobles
You know what was good optics? Hotlanta living up to its name on “The Walking Dead” last night. Wow, oh, wowee.
Martin
Well, regardless of optics, the insider trading problem in DC is just horrifyingly bad and needs to be fixed.
If we want a legislature that sees their taxpayer salary as more valuable than their current or future Wall Street salary, then it’s worth fixing, even if it takes some Dems down as well.
Geoduck
Re: Baird. It’s a lot easier to look good when you’re retired and no longer directly benefiting. He was my Rep, and since we’re a wildly diverse district, he tended to flop around a lot on issues. Still better than his replacement, a rank-and-file GOPer who is busy hiding from her constituents.
Commenting at Ballon Juice since 1937
The segment about Pelosi looked heavily edited – like they got Jimmy O’Keefe to do that part.
Zifnab
@Martin: But that’s what’s just so agonizing. You’d think if you took down some Democrats, they’d be replaced with Wall Street unfriendly Republicans. Not so. The Tea Baggers that replaced the dirty Blue Dogs in ’10 are tens times as nutty and violent and corrupt and their predecessors. It’s what is at the heart of the problem with the two-party system. You can’t replace the corrupt left wing incumbent with anyone except the RSCC-approved successor.
khead
I went to grad school at UMBC, so I enjoyed that segment as well.
Also re: The Walking Dead…
I thought the last two episodes have been pretty predictable for the most part, but I also thought the final two minutes last night were as good as Otis getting shot. (If I spoiled the Otis getting shot part for you, then you need to catch up. Sorry.)
Uncle Clarence Thomas
.
.
@JPL:
Preach on, Brother Cain. And the more womanly woman is not afraid of the topping by his abundance… You can quote me on that.
.
.
gbear
@JPL: You know you’re a real manly man when you have so much stuff that you can’t even remember how much stuff you have.
Hill Dweller
There is plenty of awful acting on The Walking Dead. On paper, the series had the potential to be amazing, but it is mediocre, IMO.
I suspect the production costs are such that they couldn’t pay a lot of top notch talent. It’s surprising coming from AMC, a network with a real knack for finding really good talent.
Kane
The 60 Minutes piece was poorly produced. They initially focus on the serious problem of Washington politicians having the ability to use non-public information to profit from what is essentially leagalized insider trading. But then they veer from that focus and get lost in attempting to link Boehner and Pelosi without any concrete evidence, which only undermined their initial focus.
The Populist
@Reality Check: Whatever. As you people are apt to remind us, polls are meaningless, right?
The Populist
@jafg: Where is John wrong? I’d say he’s right more times than you.
khead
See here.
Feel free to search “Darabont fired” too.
Martin
@Zifnab:
True, no question.
Unfortunately, once a topic gets labeled ‘partisan’, it’s pretty much impossible to actually fix.
Martin
@The Populist: You don’t understand. Wrong Again Cole is always wrong. He was born wrong. When he tells you how he feels, he’s wrong. Ask him what he had for breakfast, and be assured the answer will be wrong. Ask him who’s blog this is, and he’ll tell you it’s his, and he’ll be wrong.
Wrong Again Cole is always wrong.
Black, Gold, and Wet
Was thinking about this, and asked a more tactical question:
If Congress were not immune from insider trading, could any of them actually trade?
Presumably even the 435th least senior pol would be on some committee somewhere where they can connect the dots and see how a market would move, thus effectively they’d always have some inside information. So to a degree, yeah.
Now, of course, I’d say that an easy fix for the above is that Congress can’t trade stocks while in office, just like for certain other offices we have in gov’t. But I digress.
Nemesis
Herman is talking about his dick again.
Next he shares the pet name he uses for his throbbing unit.
Hint: Its a Greek Gawd.
Gus
@shep: Or maybe she’s complicit. You generally don’t become as rich as she is by not cutting a few ethical corners.
Ripley
Shorter Reality Check:
“I can’t, um… I can’t… I’m sorry. Oops. VICTORY!“
libarbarian
Pelosi is scum. She is a career politicians and corrupt as hell. Only a PSU-style partisan, who defends the home team no matter what they did, would deny that she is a piece of crap.
libarbarian
@shep
No shep. She doesn’t want to trash her cash cow or harm her chances at further enriching herself. Stop desperately trying to find decent motives for a corrupt politician.
bob h
Pelosi looked dumb, too.
The Moar You Know
@jafg: Where’s my three thousand dollars, bitch?
Face
I think having Democrats in Congress is bad optics, considering how unpopular Congress is right now with the public.
Redshift
And predictably, the blog is now overrun with Democrat-trashing commenters whose handles have never been seen here before. So, boys, which wingnut blog posted a link to this post?
libarbarian
@jafg
Blaming the media?
If it walks like a Tea Partier and whines like a Tea Partier…….
JD Rhoades
Despite this, I’ve already gotten three smug e-mails from readers of my column asking if I’d seen “that 60 Minutes story on Pelosi.”
Martin
@Black, Gold, and Wet: Well, the standard ought to be that they turn their investments over to a trust who invests on their behalf, or to put them in broad index funds like the S&P 500 or the Russell 2000.
In those senses, they can still participate in the market, but neither influence it nor be influenced by it to any great degree.
But I don’t see why they should have any right to any more than that.
Geoduck
@khead:
Wasn’t a surprise if you have read the original comic book; I kept wondering if they were going to have The Barn make an appearance.
Rafer Janders
@Black, Gold, and Wet:
They shouldn’t trade, period. They simply have access to too much market-moving information (and more than that, ability to actually move the market themselves through legislation).
They should only be allowed to put their money into (a) blind trusts or (b) broad-based stock and bond index funds. Other than that, there’s simply the possibility for too much mischief.
Suffern ACE
@Rafer Janders: The problem I think is that the business of the congress would have to stop often and maybe constantly for investigations of its own members. There are 100s of them.
geg6
@JD Rhoades:
Tell them they should look more closely at the part about Baucus. He comes off looking like the most scummiest of all the scum.
Comrade Mary
Meanwhile: what rough beast …?
Bill E Pilgrim
Pretty convincing debunking of the 60 Minutes piece especially in terms of the accusations against Pelosi which sound pretty much like BS.
But hey, “optics”, I know, AKA “Listen to the music Marge!” He’s evil!”. If they pulled off a successful ambush and got her to look shifty, that’s what matters.
RossinDetroit
IIRC, at one time (1st C AD) Roman Senators were prohibited from having any business or making an income while serving. Sounds like this problem goes waaaayyy back.
khead
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Uh, no.
It’s not about legislation. See El Cid here.
JD Rhoades
@geg6:
I don’t think any of them actually saw the piece, just the promos.
Watch that ‘liberal’ show?! Perish the thought!
r€nato
@JD Rhoades: there goes that damned biased liberal media again.
Bill E Pilgrim
@khead: And yet they failed to make any credible case that that occurred either. It was the largest IPO in history, as that article I linked to points out. Quite a few people got in on it.
Interestingly though, the link you gave me led me, in a couple of steps, to this:
Hey I’m sold.
FlipYrWhig
@Rafer Janders: I knew someone who worked for the Fed who was specifically forbidden from owning stocks. I would have assumed Congress and staff would be governed by a similar policy.
Bill E Pilgrim
D’oh!
sukabi
@JPL: think he applies that same ‘theory of abundance’ to
womensexual harassment as well… wonder if his wife knows he likes more toppings…Bill E Pilgrim
@khead: And by the way:
This is from the 60 Minutes piece:
Their accusations are very much about legislation, among other things, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea.
Villago Delenda Est
@FlipYrWhig:
Supposedly, there is a concept that is called the “blind trust” which allows you to own stocks and securities, but have no say in how they’re managed, lest the inside information you accumulate through your government service be used to manipulate the market.
I’m not sure that’s much help in an era where guys like Darth Cheney steer no-bid contracts to the companies they were heading prior to assuming office, and still have stock options for after they take office. Furthermore, Cheney appears to have deliberately intervened in actions that if they had been taken would have been adverse to the bottom line of Halliburton and KBR.
There’s so much crony capitalism going on now, based on subtle policy changes over the last 30 years that were absolutely unthinkable to guys like FDR and Eisenhower.
khead
@Bill E Pilgrim:
I’m getting the idea that it’s not about legislation from the fact that – as a GS-13 civil servant – I have to fill out a form every year that discloses all of my personal financial holdings.
You see, I am not allowed to have any stocks that are even remotely related to my line of work. And I have plenty of inside information that I could use to my advantage.
Yet, a member of Congress can go out tomorrow and trade on the very information that I would get fucking fired for using in my role as an employee of the Dept of Commerce.
The accusations are about insider trading. People in Congress can use insider info to make money – regardless of the legislation involved. Information that I can’t use and you couldn’t use in my position.
This shit ain’t that hard folks.
Citizen_X
@Zifnab:
Or, as they’re commonly referred to after the first week of November, “the losers.”
cleek
@Villago Delenda Est:
Bill Frist get into trouble with his blind trust, when it turned out it wasn’t so blind after all.
the NPR story i linked there sounds exactly like what everybody is talking about today – except it was written in 2005.
Bill E Pilgrim
@khead: Did you read that paragraph??
So the text of the CBS report and “what the CBS report is about” are not the same things, is that it?
It was making accusations of both kinds. The charge above makes a case about conflict of interest. And no, it’s really not that hard to read, I would think.
Give me a break.
khead
@Bill E Pilgrim:
I think the better question is….. did you read my post, Cole’s post, and the link I added?
But, but, but…. Andrew Breibart is picking on Nancy!!
Bill E Pilgrim
@khead: Yes I read your post. You claim that the CBS report is not about legislation. I showed you a section from the report that is very much making a charge about legislation.
I also read Cole’s post and found it annoying from the start before I had even read the material debunking the CBS charges because it sounded just like what he called it, “optics”. Rather than you know, substance.
Then in looking into this I find that the charges were likely pushed to CBS by someone who works with Andrew Brietbart. Your link actually led me to that information, as I already told you, so yes, I followed your link.
I found El Cid’s “it’s not entirely about legislation” fairly reasonable, and your “it’s not about it at all” utter nonsense, since as you can see the charges clearly were about legislation also.
Any more questions?
khead
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Again,
But, but, but….. Andrew Breibart!
I watched the actual segment. It was perfectly fair about the fact that Congress gets to profit from insider trading while the rest of us don’t.
Yet, all I’ve seen all day is how 60 Minutes did some kind of hit job on poor Nancy. Fucking pitiful. The piece was about insider trading by Congress. Even if there was no conflict of interest with legislation it is still fucked up that Congress can trade on info that the rest of us can’t.
Like I said before, this shit ain’t that hard. Quit crying for poor Nancy. She did pretty well with the Visa IPO.
Bill E Pilgrim
@khead: So, the charges they made about conflict of interest, you’re just going to ignore. Because they didn’t actually make them. Got it.
I read the charges and I’m not persuaded. The fact that I then learned (from a link from you, after I’d read the rest) that Andrew Brietbart and company were probably the source just made more sense of why they had already seemed bogus. Only Nancy Pelosi and her husband knew about getting into this IPO because it was only the largest one in history, so, clearly no one else bought any, only insiders. Right.
It’s clear you’re just not going to read anything that doesn’t fit your fantasies though, so there we are. Bye now.
khead
@Bill E Pilgrim:
No, dumbass.
The insider trading is the MUCH, MUCH bigger issue than some jackass reporter(s) trying to play gotcha.
Bill E Pilgrim
@khead: Ah so now, you admit there were charges about conflict of interest, after claiming that they didn’t exist.
Got it.
Read carefully: You claimed that the Huff piece didn’t debunk anything because “it wasn’t about legislation”. This isn’t true. The piece debunks BOTH the part about legislation and the part about insider trading. Got it now?
El Cid’s stuff about how both were involved sounded perfectly reasonable, it was your idiocy I was refuting, but you’ve now refuted it yourself anyway. Ay.
khead
@Bill E Pilgrim:
LOL. This next part may sound familiar then.
Also, I thought you left?
seabe
People are surprised by this? I would say the only person in perhaps the nation’s history to not do this was Alexander Hamilton. His peers mocked him because he refused to make himself richer based on the new information made aware to him. He viewed it as corrupt. When people in private found out he was blackmailing someone so he wouldn’t be founded out of his affair, they accused him of using treasury funds to do it with. He viewed this to be the worst insult, and presented evidence that proved his innocence, but also incriminated him of adultery.
Shit, he destroyed the Federalist Party with his damned honesty and integrity. He died a poor man, left his family with a lot of debt, while others around him were making millions speculating in the stocks and bonds that he made possible.
I wouldn’t even call this insider trading, it’s just unethical.
Chuck Butcher
The very fact that a Congressperson’s financial interests are allowed to be affected by their inside knowledge should tell you a lot about … Congress – oh, and the rest of us.
I had reason to at least look at the realities of a US House salary; if you propose to keep two homes and travel between it sure isn’t a route to gain, even if you were me (not much).
I’m not suggesting that Congress (or public service) ought to be a route to gain, but there are bars that go beyond the money required simply to campaign for those of modest income.
Bill E Pilgrim
@khead: Wow. You really are slow. Sorry but it’s just sort of amazing.
I’m not trying to tell you which is a bigger story, or was more the focus of the CBS piece. Understood? I don’t think so, but there’s nothing more I can do about it I think.
You’ve gone around in little crazy circles claiming “the Huffpost piece doesn’t debunk the charges because there were no charges about legislation”, which is the first point of yours I responded to. Just to show you that you were wrong, not to say “that’s all the CBS piece was about and it wasn’t about insider trading”. Understood now?
Then you claimed that your point was only which was the real focus, (adding “dumbass”, rather charmingly) not that there were no actual charges about legislation. Which of course makes your first point about the Huffpost piece and why it was false utterly meaningless, because it dealt with both aspects. I mean disagree with it if you want, but you weren’t even acknowledging that, just saying that the things it refuted were beside the point, even though it refuted insider trading in Pelosi’s case also.
Then, you led me to a link showing how someone with Breitbart possibly cooked all this up, and then claimed that I had only objected, long before I read it, because of that link.
Yikes.
Anyway thanks for playing. And now it’s late and I do have to go.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
So, uhm. how to account for the Pelosis’ wealth before Nancy was sworn into the House in 1987?
libarbarian
@khead
If is if you are a partisan.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@libarbarian:
It is, also, too, if there’s the suggestion of insider trading without any proof of the same, or the suggestion of a quid pro quo without proof of that, either.
In fact, Kroft really fucked up by failing to note that the House passed the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights in May of 2009- with Pelosi’s support and guidance– instead referring to the watered-down legislation that passed through both the House and Senate in 2010.
So call me a partisan: I side with the truth.
Sly
@JPL:”All for ourselves and nothing for other people seems in every age of the world to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.”
– Originally published by some completely uninfluential girly man in 1776.
SiubhanDuinne
@FlipYrWhig:
I always (silly, naive me!) assumed this too. At least that assets went into a blind trust for the duration of the Congressional term. But NOOOOOO.
joel hanes
@geg6:
Baucus. He comes off looking like the most scummiest of all the scum.
Only because Phil Gramm has retired.
joel hanes
@seabe:
I would say the only person in perhaps the nation’s history to not do this was Alexander Hamilton.
In more recent history, Jim Leach, (R, IA 2nd district 1977-2007) was never the sharpest knife in the box, but he was always squeaky-clean honest; didn’t accept lobbyist campaign contributions, IIRC.
In addition, Leach often crossed the aisle. Supported abortion rights in the first two trimesters. Warned of the dangers of derivatives and wanted to regulate them more tightly. Voted against Newt as Speaker after ethics probe. In general, as close to an honest Republican as you’re ever going to find.
That’s not to say that Leach wasn’t sometimes deluded and Wrong: he was a co-author of Gramm Leach Blilely.
David Koch
Pelosi is worse than Hitler and Bush, combined!
Cindy Sheehan 2012!
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@David Koch:
You left out Pol Pot, Timur, Stalin, Mao,Bill Clinton, the New York Yankees and that woman at McDonald’s who forgot to up-sell me the soda and fries the last time through.
RickD
Look, when there’s a bipartisan agreement that the House Ethics Committee will never investigate anything short of a felony indictment (and this is the essential status quo of the past dozen years), you’re going to have a lot of bad shit going on. There is literally an agreement that everybody is going to look the other way, regardless of partisan affiliation.
The rationalization at the time was “well, since Gingrich turned the Ethics committee into an instrument for pursuing his partisan agenda, we must make sure that the committee is neutered forever.” That’s like finding corruption in the police force and deciding that the solution is to disband the police.
We are so deeply beyond fucked it’s not funny.
mclaren
Pelosi is worth 154 million. She’s a crook. Sorry to say it, but there it is. The woman should be in prison for corruption.
Maude
@seabe:
I agree with you. Something is wrong. I am glad to see you here. I’m utried at Boo’s. Couldn’t use Maude.
Julia Grey
How much was she worth BEFORE she went to Congress? Quite a lot, as I recall.
I’m just kind of questioning the direct “X dollars = crooked” equation. X is how much, exactly?
Not saying she’s NOT, mind you, just questioning the probative value of the figure.
Pat In Massachusetts
Sexist much Mr. Cole? Or should I ask the main stream media that question? White men have sold this country down the river, but it’s that bitch Pelosi that looks evasive, defensive and untrustworthy.
Go fuck yourself, Cole, and the horse you rode in on.
accidentalfission
@mclaren: Not all lucre is filthy. I think shep’s comment upthread is good: