I don't have any interest in defending Pelosi's stock trades, and I agree that sitting members of Congress should not be trading stocks.

That said, this report seems inaccurate to me. Pelosi put between 1 and 5 million dollars of Forge Investments, which is a method for investing in per-IPO companies, as I understand it. Databricks is one of those, but so is OpenAI, Hugging Face, Anthropic, and Humane. If I wanted to invest in pre-IPO AI companies it seems like a very natural choice and I don't think we need insider trading to explain it.

It's also the case that the report she filed calls out Databricks stock, which is perhaps an indication that she was particularly interested in that. Stronger reporting would tell us how often she's invested in Forge, if this is the first time, and so on. One other possible explanation is that she was investing ahead of the Humane Pin shipping and wanted to pull attention away from it, for example.

You know she has advisors, right?

If someone "advises" you that a company is about to do something major, and this isn't public information, and you take action on the stock market accordingly, that's insider trading.

US Congress members are generally immune from insider trading laws

By law they’re not protected at all since 2012. But SEC curiously seems to ignore them, and congresspeople are experts in exercising loopholes in SEC regulations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act

For instance, Pelosi in the Databricks case gets to purchase significant shares at pre-IPO prices, which is a thing that shouldn't even exist.

Ignoring the snark: Obviously.

SEC put Martha Stewart in jail for following her advisor, and that was for about $45,000.

I think the insinuation is insider trading due to the timing, advised or not.