“Pelosi’s brother-in-law was actually not involved in the loan at all. He was an independent director on a board of directors of one of the companies involved and had no active management...”
You do know why certain people are named to Boards. Access and visibility are as important as scrutiny of balance sheets.
I can safely say Eric from Suburbia or Joe from Queens would not be asked, nor would Tryvon from wherever.
Access, access, access.
I am no Pelosi supporter in any way.
But in this case there is no “smoking gun”, any more than the innuendos in the “Russian Collusion” hoax. The only reason this old claim continues to bed brought back out is the “anti-Pelosi” theme it employs that resonates with we Conservatives.
But it is that ploy the web site is using to bring hits to itself. The story is not new and has no more legs now than it first did. Conservative researchers have had years to find Pelosi’s brother-in-laws fingerprints on the deal, and have found none.
Just because it has the anti-Pelosi theme does not improve the repeating of a story that has no legs, other than the repeating of “guilty by association”. If that is all it takes and if that is a standard Conservatives want to apply, then everyone has to watch out ‘cause hardly anyone in politics or government would be innocent.