reSee.it - Related Video Feed

- The video argues that the ceasefire in the Iran conflict is collapsing and predicts a renewed crisis in three days, citing Professor Robert Pape who predicted “three days left” for a developing disaster. The Strait of Hormuz is described as never having truly opened, with ongoing restrictions and navigation dangers. - The presenters criticize mainstream reports that markets were surging and that the Strait was open, asserting these were lies. They claim Iran is signaling through radio to ships and that ships, including those linked to the United States and Israel, remain barred or require special coordination with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. They note continued mine risks flagged by the U.S. Navy and that several vessels attempted to pass on Friday but turned back. - They quote a statement that a deal would be announced and a supposed opening would be conditional and unstable, and they reference Trump aboard Air Force One admitting that bombs would likely start falling again if no deal is reached by Wednesday when the ceasefire ends. - A discussion of purported market manipulation follows: Reuters reportedly stated that about twenty minutes before an announcement that Hormuz was open, traders dumped nearly 8,000 Brent crude futures, a $760 million bet that oil would fall. After the president’s announcement, crude prices dropped sharply. The presenters claim someone in the Trump administration likely knew the announcement in advance, suggesting insider trading and a broader pattern of insiders making large bets just before news hits. - On Saturday, the narrative of “open passage” collapsed publicly: Britain’s foreign secretary said there was still no normal passage; Iran’s Revolutionary Guard officials said only a limited number of tankers would pass and that Hormuz would remain under strict Iranian control, allowing certain nations but not the U.S. They note the U.S. did not ensure full freedom of navigation for Iranian-linked shipping, and that at least two merchant ships, including two Indian-flagged vessels, were hit while attempting to cross. - Iran’s side is cited: a professor on the show claimed Trump lied and fabricated the whole situation, suggesting that Iran did not agree to the commitments Trump claimed. The blockade by the U.S. is described as ongoing, with over 10,000 U.S. personnel and multiple ships involved, and U.S. officials reportedly planning to board and seize Iranian-linked tankers in international waters with gunships. - An Iranian general is quoted as warning that if the war restarts, it could become a wider world war. Professor Pape’s warning is emphasized: within ten days, shortages could occur, moving from price shocks to physical constraints to economic disaster, with today’s date cited as April 19 and the three-day forecast implying disaster around April 22. The Financial Times is cited for a story about a coming global food crisis due to the war. The Strait’s lack of genuine normalization is claimed to threaten fuel, plastics, fertilizer, supply chains, food prices, and manufacturing, potentially impacting every family. - The video ends with a warning to prepare with food stores and family protection, reiterating that the Strait was never truly opened and that a market fairy tale was fed to investors. It suggests a new escalation could occur in the coming week, with those who lied on Friday potentially denying responsibility. - Sponsorship segment: The video promotes US Gold Mining Incorporated (ticker USGO) and the Whistler project in Alaska, detailing a positive preliminary economic assessment (PEA) projecting 2.7 million ounces of gold, nearly 600 million pounds of copper, and nearly 6.6 million ounces of silver over about a 15-year mine life. It notes a potential life-of-m mine of about 3.6 million gold-equivalent ounces, with payback estimates varying based on gold pricing. The sponsor highlights favorable tailwinds from Washington, Alaska’s mining-supportive policies, and a tight ownership structure (roughly 74% held by the parent company and 4.5% by insiders). The presenter urges viewers to conduct their own research using links in the description and highlights exploration targets and political support for domestic mineral production.

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 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.

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 states: "The Dow the Dow right now is over the Dow is over 50,000 doll." He says, "I don't know why you're laughing." He adds, "The S and P at almost 7,000, and the Nasdaq smashing records." He asserts, "Americans four zero one k's and retirement savings are booming." He follows with a normative claim: "That's what we should be talking about. We should be talking about making Americans safe." He questions, "what does a Dow have to do with anything?" and asks, "Are you kidding?" He then addresses, "Mister Jordan, am I mister Jordan? Committee."

Speaker 0 suggests Trump's history of targeting businesses and leaders who he perceives as political enemies should make him "radioactive" to the business world. Speaker 1 notes that, with the exception of Elon Musk, few CEOs of large companies publicly support Trump, fearing retribution. Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 to elaborate on a statement that some business leaders support Trump because they believe they can manipulate him. Speaker 1 explains that these leaders see the relationship as transactional, believing they can influence policy with the right amount of money, citing crypto as an example.

On February 13th, Senator Richard Burr sold off $1,650,000 in stocks and then called his brother-in-law, who, after a brief conversation, sold $265,000 of his own portfolio. This timing raised suspicions, but I know the brother-in-law and find it hard to believe he would do that, but I also understand how everyone in Washington knows everyone. Around that time, headlines might have prompted anyone to sell. The real issue is the initial call from Burr. Afterward, Burr allegedly had private conversations with donors who then also sold off their assets before the market crashed in early March, saving themselves millions. Unusual Whales exposed this, leading to SEC and DOJ investigations, but despite finding information, no charges were filed. Burr retired, fitting the familiar pattern of politicians benefiting from their positions without facing consequences.

I think the market sell off this week is driven by globalists. They see how rich our country is going to be, and they don't like it. The market is big, and they've been ripping off this country for years, but everyone's going to do great. We can't let this continue to happen to America, or we're not going to have a country any longer. Thank you.

Speaker 0 argues that Trump "picked out individual businesses or sometimes individual business leaders who he wanted to use the government to punish" and "went after Amazon and Jeff Bezos" and "went after saying he wanted to go after Mark Zuckerberg," engaging in actions "targeting businesses because of what were perceived to be his political interests." He warns this would make him "radioactive in the business world" because "business people are too smart to think that they can always be on the right side of those calculations." Speaker 1 notes that "you don't hear a whole lot of CEOs ... coming out in support of him" and that "nobody that I know other than Leon Elon" has supported him. He adds that some business leaders support Trump "with the caveat" for a "very transactional" reason: "For the right amount, you can guide policy. I think you saw that with crypto."

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.

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.

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.

The speaker asserts that financial systems face unprecedented risks due to economic chaos from President Trump and Elon Musk. Another speaker states that Trump ran on curbing wasteful spending, citing the $36 trillion national debt as fiscally and morally irresponsible. They claim Trump is the final decision-maker, contrasting this with the previous administration where key decisions were allegedly made by others, possibly during the president's "afternoon nap time." The speaker suggests labeling figures like Jake Sullivan, Ron Klain, and Jill Biden as "co-presidents" during that time and calls for honesty regarding past and present events.

The speaker argues that Trump is orchestrating a strategic sequence to influence markets and signal a warning. The analyst suggests Trump is pushing an upbeat narrative in order to manipulate the stock market, specifically pointing to a post-4 PM Friday timing when the stock market closes. After that moment, the speaker claims Trump will announce that negotiations are over because “the Iranians have rejected it” and that they are “in transit,” implying a shift to a tougher posture or escalation. The speaker notes that Trump was scheduled to attend a charity fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago on Friday night as the special guest, but has canceled that appearance. In addition, Trump was expected to speak at CPAC on Sunday, but that event has also been canceled. The speaker interprets these cancellations as “warning indicators,” arguing that Trump is clearing his schedule and will not be available if the United States proceeds with whatever plan is in motion. From an analytical perspective, the speaker contends that such high-profile appearances are not typically dropped unless a significant decision is imminent or a major change in plans is anticipated. The claim is made that a deployment is underway, with a broad range of the special operations community involved. The speaker emphasizes that when “you put your most, you know, your most skilled assets at this kind of risk,” there must be a solid plan. However, the speaker also relays a counterpoint or concern circulating among operators: “nobody's done any damn planning on this.” Across the remarks, the emphasis is on a coordinated, high-stakes move that blends public messaging with potential military or tactical actions, while noting skepticism about the quality of planning behind such a deployment. The narrative threads together the posturing (an announcement after market hours and a rejected negotiation with Iran), the scheduling disruptions (cancellations of Trump’s planned appearances), and the operational implications (involvement of the entire special operations community and the assertion that skilled assets are at risk). The speaker frames these elements as connected indicators rather than isolated events, underscoring a belief that a significant, perhaps risky, course of action is being prepared, even as another contingent voice among operators questions the presence and adequacy of planning for such an initiative.

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.

Speaker 0 argues that there is extreme manipulation of oil futures prices in the paper market, diverging from the physical price of oil. He claims the paper market price for oil is around $92–$95, which is heavily manipulated by the U.S. government, while the actual physical price is about $142 a barrel. He asserts the manipulated paper price will eventually collide with the physical price, but the U.S. government and treasury will prevent that from happening soon, noting that markets no longer have true price discovery across gold, silver, stocks, and treasuries due to central bank actions. He contends that from the White House outward, messaging is fake, including a staged DoorDash incident and the claim that there is no inflation, as well as misrepresentations about Iran. He references JD Vance, stating that Vance characterized Iran’s blockage of the Strait of Hormuz as economic terrorism and suggested, “two can play at that game,” while later claiming we will abide by international law. He views Vance as revealing a contradiction in good-faith negotiations, alleging Vance did not have authority to negotiate and had to consult Netanyahu to decide to walk away, portraying Netanyahu as driving the push to keep the war going. Turning back to oil, Speaker 0 discusses global oil supplies and an estimated daily deficit of around 8–10 million barrels per day, projecting that by June the world will run out of above-ground oil. He explains that “above ground oil” is what matters for immediate demand, and that even though oil remains underground, it won’t help fill immediate needs like for tractors. With oil running short, he says desperate buyers could bid prices higher, potentially reaching $200–$250 per barrel if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed. He views this as a scenario in which the United States could face economic pain and allied countries could experience industrial, power grid, and economic collapse, possibly even regime collapse, with prolonged damage taking years to recover. Speaker 0 predicts that the United States could lose Taiwan as an ally, risking loss of Taiwan’s semiconductor supply, which he says would be devastating to the U.S. and Western countries but a victory for China. He argues that the opposite narratives about “winning” are incoherent; he portrays a cycle of changing claims about whether the Strait is open or closed as evidence of a lack of consistent “winning conditions.” Finally, Speaker 0 urges preparedness, promoting his podcast and websites for further information, and endorses satellite communications as part of resilience planning. He does not endorse the promotional content at the end in this summary.

It's not insider trading unless trading on personal information. Market manipulation is the concern, like promoting a stock. The distinction is unclear. Discuss the tweet's impact on markets and investing. Join the program to explain your actions.

Speaker 0 lays out a sequence of observations and interpretations regarding financial markets and political moves. They begin by noting a pattern: gold and silver prices had been moving up by record amounts, the dollar had fallen to a four-year low in the dollar index, and the dollar had even fallen to an all-time record low against the Swiss franc, while the bond market was starting to roll over. From this, the speaker infers that something unusual and potentially destabilizing was occurring in the financial landscape, and they suggest that this situation prompted a response from the administration. The speaker then posits that Scott Bessent, along with other people who are close to the president, communicated a message to the president indicating that there was a problem that needed attention. In the speaker’s view, the Trump administration recognized the need to act in order to stop the perceived slide or derail the momentum of the developing situation and to buy some time. The implication is that the administration deliberately sought to intervene in the markets in a way that would slow or modify the trajectory of events. Following this assessment, the speaker asserts that the administration coordinated with short sellers and with big banks to target silver, suggesting a conspiratorial collaboration aimed at affecting market dynamics. This is presented as part of a broader strategy to exert influence and to create the impression that actions were being taken to counter the market’s movement. A key element of the narrative is the announcement of Kevin Walsh as the new chair of the Federal Reserve. The speaker describes there being a coordinated public relations campaign around Walsh’s appointment, implying that the public portrayal of the move was designed to show that Trump had done something unexpected. The narrative further claims that the campaign depicted Walsh as an inflation hawk and suggested that he might advocate for rate hikes and perhaps even return to quantitative tightening. Crucially, the speaker asserts that Walsh was selected because he has marching orders to do exactly what Donald Trump wants him to do. The claim is that, if this were not the case, Walsh would not have been chosen for the job. The speaker contrasts this with any public portrayal of Walsh as independent or hawkish in a neutral sense, arguing that those portrayals are not genuine according to the speaker’s interpretation. In sum, the transcript presents a view that a set of market signals prompted a deliberate, coordinated intervention by the Trump administration, including collaboration with short sellers, the strategic targeting of silver, and the appointment of Kevin Walsh to the Fed as a means to implement a policy direction aligned with the president’s objectives.

Speaker 1 is concerned about potential insider trading within the White House related to the President's tariff decisions. They are writing to the White House to demand transparency about who had advance knowledge of the President's policy changes and whether anyone profited from it. While acknowledging the likelihood of stonewalling, Speaker 1 believes that evidence of insider trading will eventually surface through scrutiny of financial transactions. They highlight a broader context of alleged corruption within the administration, including involvement with meme coins and perceived leniency towards Elon Musk's businesses. Given this environment, Speaker 1 believes it is necessary to assume the worst and investigate potential wrongdoing. They suggest Congress should also investigate.