THE GREAT RED HERRING! DEMS SEARCH FOR TRUMP TARIFF PROFITEERS!?
- lhpgop
- 1 day ago
- 6 min read
"On March 21, 2025, President Trump stated that he would unveil large-scale tariffs on April 2, referring to that date as "Liberation Day." This advance notice, while lacking specific details, signaled to markets and observers that substantial trade policy changes were forthcoming" WIKIPEDIA
..And so begins the newest snipe hunt manufactured by the Democrat party.
Donald Trump mentions that he will be unveiling tariffs on April 2 and that it will even have it's own name "Liberation Day" as he radically resets the US and foreign trade system.
The Dems are on about that fact that they believe person or persons unknown in the Republican administration made money on the dive in the market and want to get out the pitchforks and torches to go find these "stock manipulators" and "bring them to justice"
The funny thing is that there is no crime for them to discover and no thieves for them to pillory basically because there is NO insider trading on this issue.
"President Donald Trump publicly announced his sweeping tariff policy on April 2, 2025, during a White House Rose Garden event he dubbed “Liberation Day.” In this address, he introduced a baseline 10% tariff on all imports (excluding Canada and Mexico), set to take effect at 12:01 a.m. EDT on April 5, 2025. Additionally, he announced higher "reciprocal" tariffs for specific countries, scheduled to begin on April 9, 2025, though these were later paused for 90 days for all nations except China." ibid
We have done some research and although there may be some concerns as to optics, there are not "unethical" or "illegal" goings on in either party regarding people "buying the dip"
IF.
As we laid out in an earllier article, https://www.southfloridaconservative.com/post/crocodile-tears-the-tariff-tremor-how-trump-s-trade-policy-shocked-the-market-and-enriched-wall-st
Given the amount of time between the announcement May 21 and the execution April 2 there were any number of things that the average person could have done, with or without an investment company, to make money when the market dipped (it did not crash) with the announcement of the tariffs.
If it was done before that, then we would be talking about "insider trading" which is something the Dems (and it seems some Republicans as well) know a lot about.
Here is a list of recent congressional trades with party affiliations
"Insider trading is the act of buying or selling a company's securities (like stocks or bonds) based on material, non-public information about the company. This information is confidential and not yet available to the general public, giving those with access an unfair advantage." AI
⚖️ Congressional Stock Trading: Legal vs Ethical vs Perceived
Scenario / Action | Legal? | Ethical? | Public Perception Risk? | Why It Matters |
Buying stock after a tariff announcement that is publicly known | ✅ Yes | ⚠️ Depends on context | ⚠️ Medium–High | Legal, but seen as profiting off a crisis you help shape |
Buying stock before a public tariff announcement, based on non-public info | ❌ No(Insider trading) | ❌ No | 🔥 Very High | Illegal under the STOCK Act; abuse of office |
Selling stock in an industry about to be negatively impacted by a policy you helped write | ⚠️ Depends | ❌ No | 🔥 High | May be legal, but clearly unethical and self-serving |
Investing based on classified briefings (e.g., national security, pandemic, war) | ❌ No | ❌ No | 🔥 Very High | Seen as profiting from privileged, sensitive info |
Investing in companies that you also oversee or regulate via your committee | ✅ Often legal | ❌ No | 🔥 High | Massive conflict of interest |
Buying broad ETFs/index funds (e.g., S&P 500) instead of individual stocks | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | 🟢 Low | Viewed as diversified and non-targeted — no conflict |
Placing stocks in a blind trust to avoid managing them directly | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes | 🟢 Low | Best practice — shows commitment to public duty |
Not reporting trades within the 45-day STOCK Act window | ❌ No | ❌ No | ⚠️ Medium | Violates federal law; punishable, but rarely enforced seriously |
Regular stock trades by spouse or family members | ✅ Yes | ⚠️ Gray area | ⚠️ High | Legal loophole often used to skirt direct responsibility |
🎙️ Two Sides of the Same Coin: How Congress Profits While America Pays
🔍 The Core Issue
Whether it’s Republican lawmakers investing during tariff-induced market dips, or Democratic lawmakers executing timely trades amid legislative shifts, the public keeps asking the same question:
Are elected officials using their inside access to enrich themselves while the rest of the country deals with the fallout?
The answer isn’t always black and white — but it often smells the same: like power being used for profit.
🟦 Trump-Era “Tariff Dip” Trades: Legal, But Ethically Questionable?
In late March 2025, President Trump declared his intention to impose sweeping tariffs. On March 27, during remarks foreshadowing “Liberation Day,” he publicly previewed the policy. The official announcement came on April 2, with the tariffs taking effect at 12:01 a.m. EDT on April 5.
The market reacted quickly — particularly in trade-exposed sectors like manufacturing, logistics, and consumer retail. Some Republican lawmakers were reported to have made well-timed stock purchases during this market volatility, sparking accusations of impropriety.
However, here’s the crucial distinction:
Unless those trades occurred before March 27 using non-public information, they are not insider tradingby legal standards.
That’s because:
The intent to impose tariffs was publicly announced on March 27, giving investors ample time to react.
Financial institutions, hedge funds, and private citizens had equal access to the information and could — and did — act on it.
Market dips and rebounds were predictable responses to the news, not evidence of secret briefings.
🧭 So while the optics are messy, the trades themselves — if made after March 27 — do not violate insider trading laws.
Still, ethical concerns remain:
If lawmakers helped design the policy behind the scenes,
Or positioned their portfolios before the announcement,
Or failed to disclose trades on time under the STOCK Act,Then yes — the behavior is ethically suspect, even if not criminal.
🟥 Year-Round Insider Trades: The Pelosi Pattern
Contrast that with a separate — and arguably more serious — concern: year-round trading activity linked to legislation or federal contracts.
The Pelosi household, most notably, has faced scrutiny for well-timed trades in tech, semiconductors, and defense companies that coincided with major votes or committee briefings.
In these cases:
Lawmakers may have access to non-public committee data or regulatory drafts.
Spouses or relatives may trade just before or after sensitive events.
The pattern suggests not just coincidence — but an advantage built on privileged knowledge.
This behavior much more clearly flirts with, or crosses into, material non-public information (MNPI) territory, especially when combined with high-dollar trades and limited disclosure.
🤔 Which Is Worse?
Factor | Trump Tariff Trades | Pelosi-Style Insider Trades |
Non-Public Info Used? | ❌ Not if after March 27 | ⚠️ Likely, via briefings |
Policy Shaped by Trader? | ✅ Possibly | ✅ Possibly |
Legal Insider Trading? | ❌ No | ⚠️ In some cases, yes |
Ethical Red Flag? | ⚠️ Moderate | ✅ Strong |
Public Reaction Risk | Lower (under-reported) | High (media magnet) |
Trust Erosion Impact | Subtle | Blatant |
⚖️ Bottom Line: Two Paths to the Same Corruption
While the Trump-era tariff trades do not meet the legal threshold of insider trading, they still raise ethical concerns about lawmakers exploiting policy volatility for personal gain. (Ed. Note: There have been no names mentioned as to inside purchases although Marjorie Taylor Greene's name has come up as to after announcement purchases. yet to be verified)
The Pelosi-style, legislative-front-running trades, however, appear to involve actual exploitation of non-public information — and are viewed by watchdogs as a more serious abuse of power.
But make no mistake: both practices erode public trust, and both feed the perception that Congress is a place where legislation is for sale and policy is a profit engine.
🛠️ What Reform Looks Like
Americans — left, right, and center — are fed up. Real reform should include:
A ban on individual stock ownership for all members of Congress.
Mandatory blind trusts during time in office.
Immediate public disclosure of all trades — no more 45-day grace period.
Criminal penalties for STOCK Act violations.
If Congress can act faster on market dips than it can on budget bills, then it’s clear who they’re really serving — and it isn’t the American people.
However, as mentioned above, it may not look good, but it is NOT a reason to waste MILLIONS of DOLLARS on a Democrat fishing trip into the Republican Party.
Now a bi Partisan investigation into the whole of the matter.........
Comentarios