By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Days before U.S. forces entered Venezuela to capture Nicolás Maduro, then-U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin purchased shares in Chevron, ConocoPhillips, RTX, and Caterpillar, companies that stood to benefit from the regime change. These transactions, totaling between $15,000 and $50,000 per stock, were declared 18 days after the trades were made on December 29, 2025. The U.S. operation in Venezuela commenced on January 3, 2026, after which stocks for Chevron, ConocoPhillips, RTX, and Caterpillar all saw a notable increase on January 5, 2026.
Read the original article here
It’s quite striking when you see reports about a Senator, Markwayne Mullin, making significant stock purchases in companies like Chevron and Raytheon just days before a major event like the capture of Nicolás Maduro. This timing naturally raises questions, and for many, it feels like a pattern that’s all too familiar. When an ordinary citizen engages in such precise timing with their investments, it’s often scrutinized as insider trading. Yet, it seems that within the halls of Congress, this sort of activity is, as some might put it, just another day at the office.
The implication here is a perceived double standard, where rules that apply to everyone else seem to be sidestepped by those in positions of power. There’s a strong sentiment that if these “people” in Congress are going to benefit from what appears to be privileged information, perhaps there should be stricter regulations in place. Some have even suggested a ban on individual stock trading for lawmakers or a hefty capital gains tax on their profits, essentially to level the playing field. The irony, of course, is that the very individuals who would enact such measures are the ones who stand to benefit from the current system.
This situation leads to broader reflections on the nature of the U.S. government, with some expressing a belief that it ranks among the most corrupt systems globally. The idea that public office can be leveraged for personal financial gain, regardless of the cost to others or to ethical standards, is a deeply concerning one. When the system seems to enable such behavior, calls for accountability, like impeachment and removal from office, become louder. It suggests a frustration with a system where perceived self-enrichment appears to be a primary driver.
The sheer improbability of predicting market movements with such accuracy without some form of advanced knowledge is what fuels the suspicion. The notion that a senator could possess such foresight, especially concerning events with global implications, is met with skepticism, often laced with sarcasm. This “predictive ability” is seen not as genius, but as a symptom of a system where access to information is a distinct advantage, a way to “rob” the general public.
The call to amend foundational aspects of the political landscape, like overturning Citizens United and eradicating avenues for corruption, stems from this feeling of being exploited. It’s a sentiment that the current structures have been built by those in power for their own benefit, creating a system where “fucking vultures” can thrive. The example of Chevron stock, and hypothetical investment scenarios, are used to illustrate how even seemingly modest gains, when timed perfectly, can be indicative of something more than just good fortune.
Furthermore, the specific mention of Chevron, an oil company already involved in Venezuela, makes the timing of Mullin’s stock purchase particularly noteworthy. It paints a picture of a calculated move, rather than a random investment. The idea that a senator might be privy to advance knowledge of a military operation, something highly classified, and then capitalize on it financially, is seen as a severe breach of trust and an abuse of power.
This scenario leads to a desire for more drastic measures, with some even invoking the idea of Nuremberg-style trials. This extreme reaction highlights the depth of the perceived injustice and the belief that such actions go beyond mere ethical lapses, bordering on criminality. The insinuation is that this isn’t an isolated incident, but rather a reflection of a broader pattern of corruption within the legislative body, affecting individuals from both parties.
The observation that “the laws are working exactly as the lawmakers intended” is a cynical but pointed critique. It suggests that the absence of consequences for such actions isn’t an oversight, but a deliberate outcome of the legislative framework itself. The ease with which some lawmakers seem to profit from their positions fosters a sense of futility for the average citizen who adheres to stricter ethical and legal boundaries.
The suggestion of creating a trading app to track Republican investments, with the assertion of higher returns, points to a belief that there’s a discernable pattern of financial advantage linked to political affiliation. This isn’t just about one senator; it’s about a perceived systemic issue where political power is directly correlated with financial enrichment. The phrase “just another Tuesday” encapsulates the disheartening normalization of these kinds of financial maneuvers within government.
The notion that America is becoming a “hellhole” and that the administration is “robbing us blind” reflects a profound disillusionment. The accumulation of national debt, coupled with the perceived self-serving actions of politicians, creates a narrative of a country being systematically exploited by its own leaders. This leads to a feeling of anger and a call for more active forms of protest and civic engagement, beyond mere expressions of frustration.
The commentary about Hillary Clinton’s platform and the outcome of elections, particularly in relation to overturning Citizens United, adds another layer to the discussion. It suggests a belief that voters have, perhaps inadvertently, rewarded policies that enable corruption and punished those who sought to combat it. This raises questions about public awareness and the choices made at the ballot box.
The comparison of the U.S. to other countries, even amidst its flaws, is a nuanced point. While acknowledging that corruption exists elsewhere, the scale and apparent pervasiveness within the U.S. are what draw concern. The idea that senators are making millions through what are perceived as dishonest means, even if the overall economy is larger than some other nations, is still seen as a significant problem.
The idea that what was once abnormal is now the “new normal” for Congress is a somber assessment. It suggests a gradual erosion of ethical standards and a widespread acceptance of behavior that would have once been considered unacceptable. Reversing this trend, according to this perspective, will require significant and concerted effort.
The speculation about the source of leaked military secrets, and the mention of Mar-a-Lago’s “fabric banquet room dividers,” adds a layer of conspiratorial thinking. The idea that a president might have colluded with oil companies about Venezuela, and bragged about it, further fuels the belief that official actions are intertwined with private financial interests. This suggests a deep mistrust in the motivations of those in power.
The comparison to Democrats and their perceived inaction on issues like abortion rights, contrasted with Republicans’ alleged success in creating wealth, highlights a political divide and a focus on tangible outcomes, even if the means are questionable. The assertion that the U.S. is no longer considered a liberal democracy, and has been reclassified as a “flawed democracy,” is a significant indictment of the current state of affairs, with implications for national credit and economic stability.
Finally, the stark contrast drawn between corruption under Trump’s “cronies” and the prosecution of insider trading under Democrats, while sarcastic, points to a desire for clear ethical lines and accountability. The concluding thought, that under Trump, enrichment was the primary objective before being discarded, reinforces the idea that personal gain is a driving force within certain political circles.