TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Why did you and your husband participate in a large Visa IPO in March 2008, especially with legislation affecting credit card companies at that time? Did you consider it a conflict of interest? I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with your question. Are you suggesting it's acceptable for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? You participated in the IPO while being Speaker of the House. Do you believe that wasn’t a conflict of interest or at least appeared to be one? It only appears that way if you base it on a false premise, which isn’t true. I’m unclear on which part you find untrue. Can you clarify? Yes, I can act upon an investment.

The speaker asks about President Biden's conflicts of interest regarding sanctions on individuals who have done business with his family. They mention a report alleging that the First Son's company received $3,500,000 from a Russian woman. The speaker questions how Biden is navigating these conflicts and asks for an explanation of the $3,500,000. The other speaker responds by saying they have no confirmation of the report's accuracy and no further details. When asked about conflicts of interest, the speaker questions what those conflicts would be and points out that Biden has sanctioned more oligarchs than before, suggesting it is not a conflict of interest.

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.

The conversation centers on allegations surrounding Nancy Pelosi and potential insider trading. Speaker 1 states that Nancy Pelosi should be investigated because “what she has the highest return of anybody practically in the history of Wall Street,” claiming she knows exactly what will be announced, buys stock, and then the stock goes up after the announcements. Speaker 0 notes Pelosi heard the news and ran to CNN with a busted hip, while Tapper treated her like Biden on debate night. Speaker 2 asserts that Pelosi “became rich,” and Speaker 3 is interrupted about the sixtieth anniversary of Medicaid, but wants to respond to the insider trading allegation. Speaker 2 asks Pelosi for a response to the accusation, and Speaker 3 responds that the allegation is ridiculous. Pelosi states she “very much support the stop the trading of members of congress,” clarifying that she does not think anybody is doing anything wrong, but if they are, they are prosecuted and go to jail, because “confidence instills in the American people.” Pelosi adds that she has no concern about the obvious investments that had been made over time, and that “I’m not into it. My husband is.” This points to her assertion that her husband handles the investments, not herself. The discussion continues with a provocative line about Polly P in Napa, described as a Wall Street whiz kid, and reiterates that Pelosi’s wife knows nothing about it. The segment then shifts to the broader political action in the Senate, noting that the Senate is “suiting up,” having “advanced an anti stock trading bill for congress,” while Trump is not pleased. Throughout, the dialogue juxtaposes accusations of insider trading with Pelosi’s claimed support for prohibiting trading by members of Congress, her denial of personal involvement in the investments, and the implication that her husband handles the investments. There is a consistent focus on the tension between allegations of insider trading and calls for restrictions on congressional stock activities, framed against a broader political backdrop involving Medicaid’s sixtieth anniversary and reactions from political figures such as Trump.

I was asked about my husband and I's participation in a large Visa IPO deal back in February, especially considering major legislation affecting credit card companies was being considered in the House at the time. The question was whether I considered it a conflict of interest, being Speaker of the House. My response is: What is the point of this line of questioning? It was asked if I thought it was alright for a speaker to accept such a favorable stock deal. Well, we did. And at the time you were Speaker of the House, you don't think it was a conflict of interest or have the appearance of a conflict of interest? It only has the appearance of a conflict if you are operating on a false premise. It's not true, and that's that. I would not act upon an investment.

A member of the Ways and Means Committee is allegedly insider trading based on her disclosures. It is claimed that proving this is easy by examining her trading activity and communications following classified briefings. The speaker questions how she became a member of the committee and then executed trades on NYCB just before Signature Bank collapsed, resulting in an 80% stock increase. The speaker dismisses the idea that this was a lucky trade, asserting it was a well-informed trade.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa in 2008 while legislation affecting credit card companies was being discussed. Speaker 1 questions the point of the question and denies any conflict of interest. Speaker 0 insists on whether it was appropriate for a speaker to accept such a deal, but Speaker 1 dismisses it as a false premise. Speaker 0 asks for clarification, and Speaker 1 confirms that they would act upon an investment.

Representatives for Black Mountain investments declined on-camera interviews. The Speaker of the House, Ben Toma, initially denied any involvement with the company. However, it was later revealed that he had a stake of over $100,000 in Black Mountain Investment. Toma is now divesting himself of this interest to avoid conflicts of interest. The timing of his divestment is unclear.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

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.

The speaker questions the Energy Department head about who truly runs the department, suggesting it could be mega-corporations or foreign billionaires funding conferences. The speaker brings up a report that over 130 officials in the energy department reported over 2,700 trades of shares, bonds, and options in companies that ethics officers said was directly related to the agency's work. The speaker reminds the Energy Department head that she previously stated she did not own individual stocks, which the speaker claims was false. The Energy Department head admits she was incorrect and believed she had sold all individual stocks. The speaker points out that the Energy Department head testified she didn't own any individual stocks, but didn't sell the stocks for another month, and waited another month before informing the committee. The speaker asks why she misled them and what she was hiding, also asking if Proterra was one of the stocks. The speaker notes the Energy Department head was on the board of directors at Proterra, made millions in stock options, and promoted Proterra.

The speaker was asked about polling data that suggests a majority of Americans, including some Democrats, believe they acted illegally or unethically regarding their family's business interests. The speaker refused to comment and denied any interaction with their son and brother's foreign business associates, calling it a bunch of lies.

Speaker 0 asked Speaker 1 to respond to an accusation that Nancy Pelosi became rich through insider trading. Speaker 1 responded that the accusation is ridiculous. Speaker 1 supports stopping members of Congress from trading stocks, not because anyone is doing anything wrong, but to instill confidence in the American people. Speaker 1 has no concern about investments made over time. Speaker 1's husband is into investments, but it has nothing to do with insider information. Speaker 1 stated that the president is projecting because he has his own exposure.

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 came to Congress to make a difference, not to see members day trading. Public information is key, but the conflict of interest is real. Congress always has excuses, but it's time to push for change. It's time to take action and put an end to stock trading.

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.

First speaker: Calls the indictment unjust and says intimidation tactics have been pervasive, with weeks showing different members seeking sanctuary in hopes of intimidating and distracting from the Epstein files. They look forward to their day in court to prove themselves and state the truth. If Congress becomes about intimidation and scare tactics, especially attacking minorities, they will keep fighting for the district. They have received much support and will continue fighting until the district gets fair prices, housing, and fair representation in Congress. They note that those who hate the fight will come for them. They urge some colleagues to step down or resign, arguing they weren’t elected by those who are in the district. They insist they will keep fighting for the people and work to ensure only those who elected them make decisions. They reiterate that they are here for the people. Second speaker: Questions about the investigation into the congresswoman’s families, stating that this is part of congressional duties. They say the congresswoman is under investigation for congressional ethics regarding violations of campaign finances and assert that she must answer to the people of her district.

Senator Warren was asked if her acceptance of $5.2 million from Big Pharma since 2020 is the reason she doesn't want RFK Junior suing Big Pharma. Warren responded that she does not take contributions from Big Pharma executives or any corporate PAC money, and that the questioner and their allies already know that.

Speaker 1 was questioned about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while legislation affecting credit card companies was pending. When asked if it was a conflict of interest, Speaker 1 denied any wrongdoing, stating that it was not true and that they acted upon an investment opportunity.

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."

Speaker: Is it a conflict of interest? I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting it's okay for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? We did not. Translation: The speaker questions if it is a conflict of interest and denies accepting a preferential stock deal.

The speaker is asked about polling data that suggests a majority of Americans, including Democrats, believe they acted illegally or unethically regarding their family's business interests. The speaker denies these allegations, stating that they did not interact with their son and brother's foreign business associates. They dismiss the claims as lies.

A member of congress was asked if members of congress and their spouses should be banned from trading individual stocks while serving in congress. The representative answered, "No." They stated they did not know about a five-month review, but if people aren't reporting stock trades, they should be. The representative stated that because this is a free market economy, people should be able to participate in it.

Nancy Pelosi should be investigated for allegedly having the highest investment returns in Wall Street history, save a few individuals. This is purportedly due to her access to inside information about upcoming announcements. She allegedly buys stock before these announcements, leading to a subsequent increase in the stock's value.

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.'