reSee.it - 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 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.

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.

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 is asked about accepting and participating in a large Visa IPO deal in February while serving as Speaker of the House, given pending legislation affecting credit card companies. The questioner asks if the speaker believes it was appropriate to accept a favorable stock deal and whether it constituted a conflict of interest or the appearance thereof. The speaker denies any conflict of interest, stating it only appears so if based on a false premise. They deny acting upon an investment.

NVIDIA's a semiconductor company, and in 2022, when the Chips Act was passed, Nancy Pelosi bought NVIDIA stock. People noticed, especially on social media, and questioned the timing. She sold it for a $300,000 loss, unusual because she only discloses profit/loss when it's a loss. Her filings often drop before holidays, potentially to bury the news. In late 2023, she re-bought $5 million in NVIDIA leaps. This turned out to be an incredibly well-timed trade. NVIDIA surged, and she's now up around 40% on that trade, potentially millions of dollars. These filings give ranges, so exact amounts are unknown, but it's her best recent trade that people have followed.

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.

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.

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.

Fox News reports allege wealth increases among prominent progressive lawmakers. The segment claims Ilhan Omar is worth up to $30,000,000, noting she rose from negative net worth when first elected to Congress to substantial wealth, with a husband who is a consultant. The piece centers on Ayanna Pressley, stating that when she was elected in 2018 she had a negative net worth, but today she is worth $1,300,000 with assets up to $8,000,000. It highlights property holdings in 2024: a Martha’s Vineyard rental worth up to $5,000,000 and multiple Boston rentals worth up to $1,000,000 each, contrasting with 2019 when she reportedly owned only one property in Boston. The report also notes that days before Pressley was sworn in, her husband left a $92,000-a-year Boston City Hall job to launch Conan Harris and Associates, a consulting firm. It states his income reportedly jumped while in Washington, with a client list including government organizations and one with deep ties to the Obama Foundation. The segment describes ethics concerns about using his city-issued email to pitch Walsh’s Chief of Staff on staying on as a consultant, while city officials say they did not solicit nor accept the offer and that ethics laws bar municipal employees from using official resources for personal gain. Pressed for comment, Pressley did not respond to Fox Business requests. Fox Business anchor David Asman appears to align with the report’s framing, acknowledging that wealth accumulation through government contacts is common but asserting questions arise about those who position themselves as anti-capitalist. David Asman contrasts the situation with what he describes as anti-capitalist squad members who denounce capitalism yet accumulate wealth, asserting that Pressley and her fellow squad members “condemn capitalism” while “she’s the one who’s been pillaging the government,” and noting her husband’s consulting income. The discussion broadens to Ilhan Omar, claimed to be worth up to $30,000,000, with a husband who is also a consultant and previously connected to progressive circles with alleged anti-capitalist leanings. The segment references Nancy Pelosi as part of a broader pattern, describing her as “the grand dam of all this,” and asserts she is worth about $275,000,000, with husband Paul Pelosi, suggesting insider information influenced certain trades tied to credit card companies. The speakers argue that such patterns illustrate long-standing issues, vowing continued investigation and pressure to stop perceived abuses. Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 close with remarks that this situation requires ongoing scrutiny, and they thank David Asman for the discussion.

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.

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.

Congressman Gates took us on a tour of the Appropriations Committee, which oversees government funding. We discussed Mr. Rutherford, a member of both the Ethics and Appropriations Committees, who made significant stock trades, including buying Raytheon stock on the day Russia invaded Ukraine. This raises ethical concerns about profiting from war. We noted that energy sector trading is prevalent among congressional members, particularly those on the Energy Subcommittee, like Michael Guest, who has traded extensively in energy and online gaming stocks. Despite being on the Ethics Committee, these members are among the most active traders, showing no signs of slowing down or addressing potential ethical issues.

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.

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.

We've been tracking Pelosi's stock trades since May 2021, and she's up 87%, outperforming the S&P 500 by 50%. Our users have invested $300 million following her, collectively profiting $30 million. Pelosi has been questioned about congressional stock trading, defending it as part of a free market. However, her success demonstrates the market isn't free. She benefits from insider information due to her position, which is illegal. In 2024, Pelosi's portfolio grew by 54%, surpassing the market's 27% gain. She outperformed the S&P 500 by 25% and even beat 95% of professional hedge fund managers, according to a Bloomberg report.

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."

TikTokers on the popular social media platform are copying the stock trades of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. They closely watch her financial disclosures for stock tips and use them to inform their own investments. One user even referred to Pelosi as the "queen of investing." Critics argue that Pelosi's annual returns, which have consistently been successful, suggest that she has prior knowledge or involvement in the trades. This raises questions about the Democrats' claims of being for the working class, as data shows that Democrats represent a higher percentage of wealthy taxpayers compared to Republicans. Additionally, the video suggests that the government's money printing and debt ceiling concerns primarily benefit the billionaire class and further inflate the stock market.

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.

Congressman Gates offered a tour, highlighting the Appropriations Committee's access to government funding information. He pointed out Mr. Rutherford's involvement in both the ethics and appropriations committees, noting his stock trades, including purchasing Raytheon stock on the day Russia invaded Ukraine. This raises ethical concerns about profiting from war. The discussion continued about other members, like Michael Guest, who trades heavily in energy stocks while serving on the Energy Sub Committee of Appropriations. Despite being on the ethics committee, he is a prolific trader, capitalizing on insider information. There seems to be no intention from these members to slow down their trading activities, and instead, their trading pace appears to be increasing.