TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Before entering politics, my net worth was $316,000. Just four years later, it jumped to $46 million. How did this happen? I bought an island vacation home on a whim and now commute via private jet from my island to Washington D.C. It appears some politicians are using insider information for stock trading, and because I'm in politics, I might have access to similar information.

Members of Congress should not trade stock due to the unfair advantage they have with information. Some lawmakers oppose a stock trade ban, but the issue is clear. Congress is seen as a rich man's club, with some members making significant profits from trading. While it's not technically illegal, it's a problem that needs to be addressed. There is a proposed bill to prevent this, but some disagree with the divestiture provision. If amended to allow holding private assets, it may gain more support. Without the amendment, many Republicans may vote against it.

Senator Hawley introduced legislation to ban members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President from owning or trading individual stocks. When asked if he was in favor of the legislation, the speaker responded that he likes it conceptually. He stated that Nancy Pelosi became rich by having inside information and made a fortune with her husband, which he finds disgraceful. He would need to study the legislation carefully, but conceptually, he likes it.

Voting for a ban on Congress members trading stocks? It's low on my priority list. I've faced accusations of insider trading despite having only about $20,000 in the market. I even had to threaten Fox News with defamation over false claims. While some support a ban, it doesn't affect me much since I have little invested. Sure, there are questionable trades by some, like Nancy Pelosi, but those examples are rare. If we ban stock trading, it might make Congress a place only for the wealthy, as we haven't had a pay raise since 2008. People think banning stock trading or imposing term limits will solve their problems, but those ideas need more thought. Would I vote for a ban? Sure, it doesn’t matter to me since I have no significant investments.

There needs to be Democrats who walk the walk and talk the talk because hypocrisy gets exploited to fuel cynicism. Insider trading in Congress is a prime example. Members of Congress sit on a committee, get information about a drug or a contract, and immediately make a call to their stockbroker, changing things so their portfolio swells. This is done on public trust, taxpayer finance, and public facilities while regulating the market they're trading on. The speaker questions why people act like money only corrupts Republicans.

Having a spouse that's good at insider trading, like Paul Pelosi, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to how some people acquire wealth. Talking about the other methods is risky, and frankly, it's not lengthening my life expectancy to discuss this. I was supposed to go back to DC, but how am I going to survive? These people are going to kill me for sure. I actually have to be careful that I don't push too hard on the corruption stuff because it's going to get me killed.

Senator Biden acknowledges that corruption exists in the system, as running for office requires significant funding from wealthy donors who may expect favors in return. Despite facing pressure to compromise his principles for money, he was fortunate to have few large contributors. He admits that the system can lead politicians to question their integrity in pursuit of financial support.

I hate drama. I hate influencer drama. I hate Internet drama. I hate the theatrics of it. And so I want to tell you something. The only reason that I'm going up against Crenshaw is I am sick and tired of watching government officials and people in high places try to silence and bully regular American citizens. I'm sick of saying it. Somebody's gotta stand up to this shit. It might as well be me. It might as well be me. On 12/09/2025, I received a legal demand letter from lawyers representing congressman Dan Crenshaw. They are threatening to sue me for defamation because of comments I made on my podcast about a message that he sent me. So this all transpired from a conversation that I had with Tulsi Gabbard. And I was concerned... Although I didn't mention his name in the interview... I wanted to know how a newer congressman can afford to hire a mainstream DJ, Steve Aoki, to spin at his fortieth birthday party. I didn't just make this up. Somebody sent me the invitation that he had sent out to everybody for his fortieth birthday. And so that's where I got this from. Anyways, here's the clip with Tulsi. Is there any direct money? I mean, know, you see all these people you see all these people show up in Congress, the Senate, the cabinet, whatever, and, you know, not wealthy. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't have firsthand experience in this. I have often questioned the same thing. I know a big factor is the insider trading that goes on in Congress. And again, some people will say, well, like, hey, I didn't know anything about this. I'm just making investments for my family or my wife or my husband is making investments. I don't know anything about what's going on. Maybe they're being honest, maybe they're not. But the reality is you're in a position where you're making decisions, either in committee or on the House floor, that influence our markets, that influence the outcomes of certain industries, either causing some to tank or others to skyrocket. And the mere perception of insider trading shouldn't exist. This is legislation, again, I introduced in Congress years ago. No member of Congress should be allowed to do any trading of any stocks, neither should their spouse, neither should their senior staff. Period. These are the people who have access to proprietary private information that's not open to everybody in the public, or certainly before it becomes public. And the possibility of the abuse of power in trading on that information should not exist. It's interesting because as we're seeing there are some members of Congress who say that share my view on that, but who are continuing to trade stocks themselves. The Senate just passed, I think out of committee, first step legislation that would reflect similar to banning members and their spouses. We'll see where it goes. In the Senate we've heard a lot of talk coming from leaders from both parties, but no action has been taken. That to me is the most obvious way that people are going from being elected and having no money and you make, what, dollars $160 a year or whatever the salary is now to literally becoming multimillionaires. That is the most obvious way. There are kind of stringent requirements of financial reporting that every member has to do certainly at least once a year, more often if you are actively trading in stocks. But it I think it would be a little hard, not impossible, but a little hard if somebody's just coming and bringing you a sack of cash. Speaker 0: So after the conversation with Tulsi, that's when I got the text or the message on Instagram from congressman Crenshaw that I find threatening, telling me he spoke with his boys at six. Here's a screenshot. Hey, Sean. You have the ability to contact your fellow team guy if you've got a problem with me or have questions about how I'm getting rich. Some of my boys at six told me about your indirect swipe at me. Some of my beliefs are based on trendy narratives instead of facts. And just so you know, I mean, Dan does have a history of threatening people. Once again, here is Dan threatening to kill Tucker Carlson. And then, again, he reaffirms that he's not joking. Speaker 2: Have you ever met Tucker? Speaker 0: We've talked a lot. He's the worst person. Okay. So I get the message. I take it is extremely threatening. It is a tier one unit, the best, most effective tier one unit in the world, deadliest unit. But I don't do anything. I move on. And then a little over a year later, I'm interviewing, oh, a member from SEAL Team six. Maybe he's one of Dan's boys at six. So he brought up the fact that he had asked a congressman with an eye patch, didn't wanna mention his name, to help him with his book debacle. He received no aid. I filled in the blank. I said, oh, you must be talking about congressman Crenshaw. Let me share my experience with you, my interactions with congressman Crenshaw. So I shared him. I told him about the Instagram message, and I told him that I found that threatening. And then I asked Matt if he was one of Dan's boys at six, Maybe he was here to come beat me up. Matt assured me he wasn't. Here's the clip. Speaker 2: I'll give you another example. In the height of my my issues, I contacted a former SEAL. I won't name names, but he has an eye patch, And he's a congressman out of a state You Speaker 0: mean Dan Crenshaw? Speaker 2: I'm not naming names. Speaker 0: Another one of my Speaker 2: favorite Sir, here's my situation. You know, Dan? Speaker 0: Dan actually sent me a message. I should fucking read this to you. But, basically, he tells me I brought something up about him, and I never even met I gave him the courtesy of not even mentioning his fucking name. It was about his birthday party where he hired Steve Aoki to to DJ his birthday. I mean, that can't be fucking cheap. Right? Especially on a congressman's salary. And I brought that up. And Dan sends me a message that says his boys over at six are really upset with me that I brought that up, and they're gonna they might come beat me up. Speaker 2: Boys at six. Speaker 0: His boys over at six. Speaker 2: Well, to infer he's got I don't know why congressman would be Speaker 0: threatening me with seal team six, but I'm still fucking waiting. This is actually a couple years This Speaker 2: is threatened quite a Speaker 0: have not had my ass kicked by a couple of guys over at six. But Dan Crunchy he fits with all these fucking people you're talking about. Speaker 2: So I called him. Right? He's a sitting congressman. He's a former officer. And drum roll, please, he was getting ready to release his book. So I call him up. I get a conversation with him. I said, sir, here's my situation. I hired an attorney. The attorney gave me bad advice. Book was published. I've given up attorney client privilege, cooperated everything I can to to fix this. They've still come after me. We can get into all the the other stuff that I'm dealing with. I said, sir, can you help me out with this? He's like, well, you know, I'm I'm about ready to publish my book, and I'm I'm not getting it reviewed. I'm like, well, sir, same same letter of the law that they came after me for failure to seek prepublication review. I didn't get prepublication review because my lawyer told me I didn't have to, and he could do it. Like, in your case, you know you have to get reviewed. I'm here telling you, confirming you have to get reviewed or the government's gonna come after you. He's like, yeah. No. But I'm not gonna write anything classified in my book. I'm like, there's nothing classified in my book. They they said there was. They went through it. They said, nope. There's nothing classified in it. You just failed to seek review. I'm like, so if I only thing I failed to do was seek review, you're willingly going around that obligation, and you don't give a shit. He's like, yeah. But I'm not gonna write about anything classified in my book. That was his answer. Never talked to him again. So he published his book. No review. Nothing's happened. He's kept his money. He's a sitting congressman. I got a payment plan. So so to say I've been alone So Speaker 0: I guess I guess you're not one of Dan's boys over at six. Speaker 2: That's kinda Definitely not Dave Boys at six. That's a pretty ridiculous statement if I've ever heard one.

Should Congress members and their spouses be prohibited from trading individual stocks while in office? I'm not sure about that. We have a duty to report stock trades, but I'm not familiar with the five-month review process. If individuals aren't reporting, they should be held accountable. However, we live in a free market economy, and people should have the right to participate in it.

I believe members of Congress should be investigated for potential ill-gotten gains. There seems to be no other explanation for their consistent support of poor legislation. It's possible their spouses or significant others are employed by the very departments or quasi-governmental agencies that benefit from these votes. Until we investigate these potential conflicts of interest, the American people will continue to distrust Congress, and rightfully so.

I work at the Treasury, reviewing investments into the US for national security risks. Recently, Doge gained access to the Treasury to cut waste, but I think we're an easy target. People I know have worked for the government for years and don't do much. Doge shouldn't have access to the Treasury due to national security risks. It's weird because no one knows what they want to do with the system or why they need access to random people's tax information. Giving people this kind of access creates vulnerabilities. They could misuse the information or give it to another country. Elon's actions feel like government-sanctioned harassment. Everyone in my office is worried about getting fired. Some people care more about money than the country.

Should members of Congress and their spouses be prohibited from trading individual stocks while in office? I’m not sure about that. We have a responsibility to report stock trades, but I'm not familiar with the five-month review process. If individuals aren't reporting, they should be. The key difference here is that we operate in a free market economy, and people should be allowed to participate in that.

We have a prominent political family that runs 64 NGOs, and it looks like a lot of people are working for free as trustees while others are getting paid huge salaries. For example, we see a Senior VP for policy research making $400,000 a year and someone in strategy affairs making $330,000 a year. Remember, this is all from your tax dollars. These families in government are like thieves who found an open bank vault. Each NGO is a bag for cash. They stuff as much money as possible into each one, then they start a new LLC with a new purpose. Do they achieve anything? Not really. Do they build anything or make anything better for anyone? Not tangibly, but the people working for them are doing quite well.

Congress is seen as a rich person's club, with members making profitable stock trades. This issue needs fixing as it's a current problem, not just a future concern. Members have access to valuable information before the public, leading to unfair advantages in trading.

I started tracking politicians' stock trades after seeing unusual activity, especially during COVID. The Richard Burr case, where he sold off stocks based on private COVID briefings, was a key example. I built a Pelosi stock tracker, highlighting her significant trading volume and gains, like her profitable Tesla and NVIDIA trades. Politicians shouldn't be allowed to trade stocks due to conflicts of interest and access to insider information. Despite scrutiny, Pelosi's office hasn't reached out. Our app allows people to invest alongside politicians, exposing the hypocrisy. We need transparency and regulations to restore trust in our institutions.

I work for the Treasury, reviewing investments into the US for national security risks. Recently, Doge gained access to the Treasury to cut waste, but people are resisting. They're an easy target because there are people who don't do much, and we should be getting rid of them. What Elon is doing feels like government-sanctioned harassment, and everyone in my office is worried about being fired. No one knows what Doge wants to do with the system or why they need access to certain information. When you give people access, it creates vulnerabilities. They could take that information and give it to someone they shouldn't. There's a class of people in this country who care more about money, and Elon is showing that what he cares about is money.

The reason that this idea to put a ban on stock trading for members of congress is even a thing is because of Nancy Pelosi. She is is is rightfully criticized because she makes, think, a $174,000 a year, yet she has a net worth of approximately 413,000,000. In 2024, Nancy Pelosi's stock portfolio, this was a fascinating statistic to me, grew 70% in one year in 2024. And her portfolio outperformed every single large hedge fund in that same year and even more than doubled the returns of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway. As for the mechanics of the legislation and how it will move forward, the White House continues to be in discussions with our friends on Capitol Hill.

There are members of Congress who have become strangely wealthy, accumulating, for example, $20 million while earning $200,000 a year. It is unclear how this is possible. The goal is to figure out how this happens and stop it.

The speaker pledges to push for a single stock trading ban, arguing "it is the credibility of the House and the Senate" that is at stake from "eye popping returns," observed in figures like "Representative Pelosi, Senator Wyden," suggesting "every hedge fund would be jealous of them." They assert "the American people deserve better than this" and that "People don't shouldn't come to Washington to get rich." Instead, they should "come to serve the American people," as such trading undermines trust in the system, because "if any private citizen traded this way, the SEC would be knocking on their door."

Senator Biden acknowledges that the system can produce corruption, even though he personally may not be corrupt. He explains that running for public office requires a significant amount of money, and candidates often have to seek funding from wealthy individuals who expect something in return. This puts politicians in a position where they may compromise their ideals to secure the necessary funds. Senator Biden admits that he didn't have many large contributors and was willing to compromise himself, but the big donors told him to come back when he was older.

I run a Pelosi stock tracker, which started unexpectedly after leaving finance and living in Bali. Seeing politicians, like Richard Burr, trade based on insider information during COVID was outrageous. I'm not particularly political but I saw the opportunity to expose corruption and highlight the hypocrisy of politicians trading stocks by building an app that allows people to invest alongside them. Pelosi's trades, particularly in Tesla and NVIDIA, raised eyebrows, especially with her family's net worth skyrocketing. Dan Crenshaw's also suspect as he voted against banning TikTok while owning stock in Meta. Despite the scrutiny, Pelosi's office hasn't reached out, and people have invested millions alongside her, profiting significantly.

This isn't about Donald Trump. It's about people who are actually richer than Donald Trump and have a lot of influence because they give money. Do people go up to you privately and like I said, you say like, I agree with you, like in this building, I keep doing what you're doing, but I can't talk about it. Does that ever happen to you? it happens every week. You have to protect their confidence. You have to protect their anonymity because they're confiding in you that they secretly support you, but they don't want to say so publicly, for example, right? Yeah, mean, if I were to say that, then they would never confide in me again. And those are my closest friends. Your enemies up here don't come and say, I think what you're doing is right, but I just can't be with you. I can't die on this hill. But your friends do. For some of them, the political reality is they would probably lose their reelection if Donald Trump came against them. Some of them are here because they were in a seven way primary and they got Donald Trump's endorsement and that was their major redeeming factor in an election where there was no incumbent. And now they're incumbents, but they haven't been here very long and so they haven't built trust with their constituents yet. And by the way, I might be losing my next election over this. You have to get in a headspace where you're okay with that. Price is My Life. Look, it's not even our life, right? The price is my reelection, I would say. And at the press conference yesterday with the survivors, the price is their life. And here we've got members of Congress who won't even take a risk in their next election to do the right thing.

Speaker 0: 'So what do we get for a trillion dollars a year to the US military? Do we get anything in return?' Speaker 1: 'We get some enhanced stock portfolios.' 'I haven't voted for a penny for Ukraine, I'm proud of that. It's not my dadgum war.' 'Some of those contractors we described get a multi multi billion with a B dollar, no bid contract.' 'And who do you think has bought stock in that, in that company? Members of Congress, two weeks prior to the president making that official notice.' 'Return on their, 506100% return on their investment.' 'But why is impossible as to ban stock trading for members of Congress? That's a great idea.' 'I have the bill to do it, and that's why we have a bipartisan group, we've got a bill, but it's not going anywhere.' 'Why? Because too many members of Congress, I mean, we were told by leadership that, you know, these guys can't afford to be here.'

I'm going to be the bad guy and I want to get away with as much as possible to enrich myself. You're all my co-conspirators helping me legally. My campaign is entirely funded by corporate PACs, like those from the fossil fuel, healthcare, and big pharma industries. I can even use dark money to pay off people to cover up skeletons. Once elected, I have the power to shape laws without limits. Being funded by oil and gas or big pharma means I can write laws benefiting them without restrictions. I want to get rich, so I can hold stocks in an oil company and then write laws to deregulate the industry, causing the stock value to soar. Does this sound familiar? Our system is broken, with these influences shaping the questions being asked right now.

It seems odd that many people in the bureaucracy with salaries of a few hundred thousand dollars somehow accrue tens of millions of dollars in net worth while in their positions. We're curious where this wealth comes from. Maybe they're good at investing, and we should seek their advice. But mysteriously, they get wealthy, and we don't know why. The reality is that they're likely getting wealthy at the taxpayer's expense, and that's the honest truth.