Okay, sure, I'm not allowed to use the source you brought because it's not credible enough.

Not what I said. Read my comment again.

It's not even Pelosi's "own personal stock index"

It's named after her for a reason. Don't be fatuous, Jeffrey.

publicly disclosed trades made by members of congress

Which is largely insider trading in the many cases where they pass or even get told in advance of legislation that affects stocks. It's technically legal because Congress is above the law when it comes to insider trading, but it shouldn't be.

done well for one year (yeah, that absolutely could be a coincidence

Pelosi and other congressional insiders have been "doing well" for DECADES before that index existed.

It's not even hard to find evidence to support your position, and I'm not even particularly disagreeing with you!

So you're just wasting both of our time to teach me a lesson about source selection?

I hadn't had my coffee yet, ok? I promise to be more thorough next time, Mr Ombudsman.

your source. It directly refutes all the claims you're making here.

Nope. Just because it makes invalid arguments to try and explain it away doesn't mean that it succeeds.