reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker asserts the American people deserve the whole truth regarding Jeffrey Epstein. They claim Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, and MAGA extremists have been fueling a conspiracy around the matter for years. The speaker questions what the Trump administration and the Department of Justice are hiding and suggests Congress should uncover the truth. They propose two possibilities: either Trump, Bondi, and MAGA extremists intentionally lied about the Epstein situation for years, or there is concealed information damaging to the Trump administration, their associates, and billionaire supporters, leading to a cover-up. The speaker concludes it is Congress's bipartisan responsibility to seek answers.

Speaker 1 respects the right of people to vote for the president. However, it is questioned why, for the first time in American history, a president won every swing state while also being best friends with and having their largest donation from a man who owns and runs the Internet. It is hoped that this will be investigated to determine if it was an anomaly. It is curious, especially since Kamala Harris was filling up stadiums with supporters, while Donald Trump was not. As an American and believer in democracy, Speaker 1 hopes to look at all the reasons why this happened in the country.

Speaker 0 suggests Speaker 1 is aligned with President Trump and has identified over $100 billion in government waste, fraud, and abuse. Speaker 1 responds that people whose fraudulent money is taken away get upset and want to harm him and Tesla because he is stopping government corruption. He attributes this to "bad people" doing "bad things." Speaker 0 expresses concern that those hurt by these actions will be dealership employees and Tesla factory workers, which he finds despicable due to perceived political differences.

Trump removed many tariffs, causing market disruption and raising concerns about potential insider trading within the administration. Following Trump's tweet suggesting it was a good time to buy, questions arise about who knew in advance about the tariff reductions and whether they profited by trading stocks. The speaker notes Trump's involvement with meme coins, his children's cryptocurrency activities, and Elon Musk's alleged self-dealing, suggesting a pattern of corruption. The speaker is writing to the White House to demand answers, but acknowledges the need for congressional oversight due to the White House's unlikelihood of being forthcoming. Despite Republican unwillingness, the speaker highlights the importance of whistleblowers and invites them to come forward with information. The goal is to determine if individuals profited from insider information while the public suffered financial losses.

The discussion centers on accusations about government actions and the handling of whistleblowers. Speaker 0 argues that the FBI is examining the situation “to chill speech” and to silence Democratic members of Congress and other elected leaders who speak out against Trump. According to Speaker 0, the motive is to stop them from speaking out. Speaker 1 pushes back by asking for clarification, wondering what exactly should be stopped. The question arises: “Stop what?” and “you’re saying that you believe that inherent in the video is that Donald Trump has given illegal orders.” Speaker 0 responds that he will speak about Congress’s role in whistleblower protections, noting that there have been whistleblowers in the Biden administration as well as in past administrations. He emphasizes that Congress has a responsibility to ensure that whistleblowers inside the federal government and the military have protections, wherever they are located in government. Speaker 1 suggests that the message might be read as Democrats encouraging the military to defy the commander in chief over current orders that cannot be named, but Speaker 0 contests this reading, implying a misinterpretation of the message. In trying to clarify, Speaker 0 states: “Here's what I believe. I believe that regardless of the president, no one in our military should actually follow through with unconstitutional orders.” He asserts this as his belief, though he concedes uncertainty about other specifics: “I’m saying regardless. I don’t know. Regardless of justice. I’m not. I’m not understanding.” Throughout, the exchange centers on the tension between protecting whistleblowers and the implications of political messaging about the president and military obedience. Speaker 0 maintains that Congress must safeguard whistleblower protections across federal government and military contexts, citing the Biden administration as an example and noting similar protections have occurred in other administrations. Speaker 1 probes the interpretation of the video and the intent behind messages that might appear to call for disobeying orders or challenging the president, while Speaker 0 reiterates a belief in the obligation to refuse unconstitutional orders, independent of which president is in office.

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.

The speaker discusses evidence of corruption within the Biden family, including extortion, bribery, influence peddling, and tax fraud. They claim that executive branch agencies are involved in covering up these crimes. The speaker emphasizes the seriousness of the situation and states that it is not a conspiracy theory, but evidence-based. The purpose of the hearing is to expose government corruption and cover-ups.

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.

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.

I want to talk about waste, fraud, and abuse. People like President Musk and Trump are using their public offices to enrich themselves by billions of dollars. Why is there silence about looking into the actions of the president and the richest man on Earth? I will say President Musk and Trump often use their public offices to enrich themselves. I will withdraw calling Trump "grifter-in-chief." It's despicable that this committee is silencing me for bringing up that Trump is making millions of dollars.

Speaker 0 argues that there is insider information at play, noting that people inside the administration are making huge stock bets ahead of President Trump’s announcements on oil, with tens of millions of dollars in Brent crude futures short bets placed twenty minutes before the news breaks, and questions why there is no investigation. They assert that somebody has insider information and imply it should be illegal. Speaker 1 discusses potential legal and regulatory issues surrounding prediction markets, distinguishing them from traditional gambling. They explain that in Texas they cannot gamble on sports via apps, but in Missouri those apps work, and prediction markets are not considered gambling. They reference a Trump administration stance that effectively signaled insiders within the administration should stop gambling in prediction markets, suggesting awareness that people inside the administration were making plays on these markets. Speaker 1 notes uncertainty about whether the big players are inside or outside the administration, but emphasizes that the insider trading angle during the administration hasn’t received much attention. They recount following the topic sinceTrump’s election, noting early claims that Trump would crash the stock market, which Speaker 1 says did not happen and, in fact, the market rose for those who invested then. They describe the market as fluctuating with corrections, and remark that Pam Bondi stated the market was hovering around 49,000–50,000, implying continued manipulation. Speaker 1 asserts that Trump often makes declarations on Fridays right before the stock market closes, attributing this pattern to market manipulation. They claim to have bet against the narrative that the stock market would collapse under Trump, and that those bets performed well. The speaker says they feel a bit guilty about profiting, noting that friends who run stock brokerages look at them as if from the future, and claims that the White House is effectively running an insider trading operation. They state that knowing someone is coming to the White House or that a person from a big tech company is arriving allows one to get ahead of the news and secure about a 5% stock bump, or a 5% gain by investing before the news becomes public. Speaker 0 adds that with a Trump tweet, markets swing drastically—either ending civilization or extending a ceasefire—implying that market movement is driven by Trump’s statements.

The speaker accuses someone of insider trading, suggesting that it is evident from their disclosures. They mention that the person receives classified briefings as a member of a committee, and it would be easy for a competent FBI officer to investigate their trading and communication. The speaker questions how the person became a committee member and made trades just before a stock hike. They emphasize that it was not luck but a well-informed trade.

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.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

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.

House Republicans are prioritizing Elon Musk's interests over those of everyday Americans. Their opposition to transparency is baffling, especially for a party claiming to represent the people. The argument that access is needed to combat misinformation is misleading; the individuals involved are treasury employees, not external actors manipulating the system. The Republicans' actions demonstrate a lack of concern for the American people and their tax dollars. Full transparency on government spending is necessary to prove otherwise.

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.

Speaker 1 is concerned about potential insider trading within the White House related to market fluctuations caused by the president's tariff flip-flops. Speaker 1 is writing to the White House to demand transparency about who knew in advance about the tariff changes and whether anyone profited from this information. While acknowledging the likelihood of the administration stonewalling, Speaker 1 believes that evidence of insider trading will eventually surface through scrutiny of individuals' financial transactions. Speaker 1 cites the administration's involvement with meme coins and alleged self-interested dealings with Elon, as well as dodging oversight agencies, as reasons to suspect the worst and to investigate further. Speaker 1 suggests Congress should investigate, but they will demand answers from the administration.

The speaker discusses a letter written by Senator Chuck Grassley regarding alleged corruption within the Justice Department and FBI related to the Biden family. The letter highlights the FBI's knowledge of the Burisma scandal and Hunter Biden's involvement in a bribery scheme before the election, and their attempts to bury the information. Grassley requests information and records related to the investigation, emphasizing the need for transparency and accountability. The speaker expresses concern about the potential compromise of the President and the urgency to address the corruption.

The speaker questions the Secret Service on transparency and cooperation regarding an attempted assassination of Donald Trump. The Secret Service is criticized for not providing requested information to the committee and being uncooperative. The speaker accuses the Secret Service of dishonesty and evasion. They question the lack of personnel consequences and training improvements after the incident. The Secret Service is pressed for answers on timelines and actions taken during the assassination attempt.

The speaker asks about a House Oversight Committee subpoena regarding an FBI document from 2020. The document allegedly describes a criminal scheme involving then Vice President Biden and a foreign national exchanging money for policy decisions. The speaker asks for the White House's response, but they refer to the Justice Department and have no information. The speaker also asks about the country and policy decision, but the response remains the same.

An individual states that someone is working to help the blind see and asks if the work comes down to aligning with President Donald Trump to identify over $100 billion in government waste, fraud, and abuse. The speaker responds that people get upset when fraudulently obtained money is taken away, and that they want to harm him for stopping their fraud and want to hurt Tesla for stopping government waste and corruption. The speaker concludes that bad people will do bad things. The first individual states that those who will end up hurt are the people who work in dealerships and those who build Teslas, which is despicable on the part of those who may have a political difference.

The speaker discusses Trump's past claim of having "caught them all" and questions the lack of arrests of DC bureaucrats. They suggest Elon Musk and the "Doge team" may have uncovered government fraud. The speaker references Elon Musk's statement about being careful not to push too hard on corruption, fearing for his life. They highlight Trump's statement about discovering "horrible" fraud and abuse, and his press secretary, Caroline Leavitt, confirming a significant discovery that is not yet ready for release. The speaker mentions Tim Birchitt quoting Elon Musk accusing Chuck Schumer of diverting money and Birchitt's claim that Elon has a paper trail going back to Washington DC, suggesting someone should be arrested. Birchitt also inquired about spouses of members of Congress leasing property to the federal government, which can be verified through public records. The speaker concludes by referencing Elon Musk's recent posts about investigating members of Congress who have amassed wealth quickly, suggesting that "the storm has arrived."

The issue at hand is the disparity in asset ownership among members of Congress. Many Americans question how certain politicians achieve impressive investment returns, especially those involved in stock trades during the COVID pandemic. This isn't just a perception; it's a real problem. Congress members are trading based on information not available to the public. While insider trading is prohibited, members often receive information that, while not classified as insider information by securities laws, still provides them with a significant advantage. This situation raises concerns about fairness and transparency in financial dealings among lawmakers.

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.