reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Enhancing the Chinese economy may have long-term consequences for us. It is crucial to minimize our investment and gradually reduce our dependence on Chinese trade. However, finding the right approach to achieve this is challenging.

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.

Retirement savings funneled through Vanguard's index fund are being used to support the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) global aggression. Individual consumers have no control over which companies their investments are tied to, while Wall Street analysts purposefully include CCP military tie companies in the index fund. This allows the CCP to steal American people's money to fund their agenda. Additionally, there are concerns about how these funds may have indirectly supported Iran and Hamas. The CCP provides money, weapons, and economic aid to terrorist organizations like Hamas, with evidence showing that Chinese-produced weapons were used by Hamas. Congress needs to hold Wall Street accountable to ensure American investors' money is not used to fund dangerous threats and enemies.

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

It is legitimate for poorer countries to seek access to wealthier markets. Wealthier markets allowing access to poorer countries is not the biggest economic challenge. It is proper for advanced economies like the U.S. to insist on reciprocity from nations like China, who are no longer solely poor countries. The U.S. should ensure China provides access to its markets and stops taking intellectual property and hacking U.S. servers.

I cannot guarantee that we are not currently funding the Taliban, which is concerning for both this committee and the American taxpayer.

Speaker 0 discusses a Daily Caller report claiming a US nuclear bomber fleet shares a fence with a trailer park linked to Chinese intelligence. A Chinese couple allegedly bought the trailer park and used multiple shell companies to conceal their identities. The park is in Missouri, near Whiteman Air Force Base, where America’s largest B-2 bomber fleet operates and where the B-2s would take off over land now owned by Chinese interests. The shell companies reportedly trace back to a convicted fraudster with alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Speaker 1 confirms Whiteman Air Force Base is in their district and notes it is the home of the B-2 stealth bomber and soon the B-21 Raider, which will increase the base’s size. This, they say, makes the Chinese investment more valuable. They describe the transaction as occurring in 2017. In January 2024, Missouri Governor Mike Parson issued an executive order prohibiting citizens or companies from foreign adversarial nations from owning property within 10 miles of a Department of Defense base, and Speaker 1 says they sought to expand that with the American Land and Property Protection Act. The Act would state that if you are a member of a foreign adversarial nation—China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, or Russia—neither a citizen nor a company of those nations can own property in the United States, including an outhouse. They argue that this should extend beyond specific states and bases. Speaker 0 questions why the law wouldn’t prevent ownership by Chinese individuals who already own property in the US, such as condos, and mentions that there is a Department of Treasury committee known as CFIUS (Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States) that should review such acquisitions. They claim that under the Biden administration, CFIUS was not performing adequately, and that prior administrations also failed to do their job. They reference that CFIUS regulations were being developed but did not include certain bases on prior lists, prompting questions about why US military bases—one part of the nuclear triad—were not on the list for scrutiny. They list bases potentially affected by Chinese land purchases: Fort Bragg, Naval Air Station Norfolk, Wright-Patterson, and Whiteman Air Force Base. Speaker 0 asks how to stop B-2 bombers from flying over Chinese-owned land immediately. Speaker 1 suggests leveraging CFIUS under the Treasury Department and notes their position on the Financial Services General Government Appropriations subcommittee to push action and oversight of CFIUS.

The senator questions the speaker about their firm's client selection policy, specifically regarding their clients who are state-owned Chinese corporations. The speaker defends their rigorous selection process and claims to primarily work with multinational and private sector companies. However, the senator highlights that the firm has advised state-owned enterprises involved in activities contrary to US security interests. The speaker denies advising these specific companies but fails to provide satisfactory answers. The senator criticizes the firm for making substantial profits from both US enemies and the American taxpayer. The senator proposes a law to prohibit such activities and vows to push for a vote on it.

China is buying up various sectors of the US economy, including technology, food supplies, farmland, minerals, natural resources, ports, shipping terminals, and even pillars of the energy industry. The speaker expresses concern about Chinese communist activity in the US and emphasizes that economic security is national security. They propose enacting new restrictions on Chinese ownership of vital infrastructure, stopping future Chinese purchases in essential industries, and forcing the Chinese to sell any current holdings that pose a risk to national security. The speaker vows to ensure that America's future remains in American hands and promises a stronger country under their leadership.

We don't have any extra money to send to Ukraine, considering our massive deficit of over $1.5 trillion. Borrowing money from China to support Ukraine doesn't make sense. We don't have a rainy day fund with trillions of dollars just sitting around. Instead, we would have to borrow the money, which leads to inflation. Since Russia's war in Ukraine began, American taxpayers have already provided $113 billion to Ukraine. We have many issues in our own country that need attention before we borrow more money to fuel a war in another nation.

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.

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

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

I 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.

The globalist elites, including those who met with Xi in San Francisco, have no concern for the Chinese people trying to enter the US. They are happy to see Chinese people forced to become illegal immigrants and take over American jobs. We need to be the voice for these Chinese people and decouple from the CCP instead of supporting engagement policies. Biden wants China's economy to grow, but the best way to help the Chinese people and make them self-sufficient is to disconnect from the CCP.

Wall Street's continued investment in China and American businesses operating there is being questioned. The federal government's pension fund has now been prohibited from investing in mainland China. This move was initiated during the Trump administration, but it took nearly four years to implement. Conservative lawmakers, including Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, and Michael Watts from Florida, have been instrumental in pushing for legislation to divest American investors' retirement funds from CCP-owned companies. The concern is that these investments support the CCP's genocidal regime, human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and military modernization. This issue is particularly troubling as it affects service members, elected officials, and federal government employees whose retirement savings inadvertently fund these activities.

It is legitimate for poorer countries to seek access to wealthier markets. Wealthier markets allowing access to tea and flowers from a small African country is not their biggest economic challenge. It is also proper for advanced economies like the United States to insist on reciprocity from nations like China, which are no longer solely poor countries. The U.S. should ensure China provides access to its markets and stops taking intellectual property and hacking U.S. servers.

Investing $3 billion in Israel is the best decision we make. We shouldn't apologize for supporting Israel in this body. It's a crucial investment for the United States. In fact, if Israel didn't exist, the US would have to create it to safeguard its interests in the Middle East.

Members of Congress have the opportunity to enact a stock trading ban, something the public has wanted for decades. 86% of Americans believe members of Congress should not be able to buy and sell individual stocks while in office. Members are privy to information the average person isn't, leading to ethics referrals and investigations into stock trades. This information isn't covered by insider trading laws, but it is valuable. During COVID, members of both parties engaged in stock trading after receiving exclusive briefings. The access members of Congress have is qualitatively different. The proposed bill would allow members to invest in mutual funds and diversified investments, but not individual stock shares due to their unique access to information.

The president is taking the right approach towards China, which has exploited the U.S. for two decades by stealing intellectual property and jobs. I align more with President Trump on this issue than with previous presidents, as they failed to confront China. If we show strength, China will likely back down, as they have more to lose with a $300 billion trade surplus with us. My priority is American jobs; when companies like General Electric move jobs to China, it harms workers in places like Schenectady, New York. We must prioritize the interests of American workers over international business interests.

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.

Speaker 0: Do we need this connection with Israel? What is it? No one ever explains what it's for. I feel like. Right? That would help everybody have a much better understanding, you know, because it starts to feel like America is just a shell company, an LLC for Israel. That's what it starts to feel like a lot of times, you know? Do you feel like that that's realistic, or do you feel like that that's off base? Speaker 1: I would I wouldn't send them a dime. Like, that's my position. I don't think whatever we're getting isn't worth it.

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.'