TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Senator Hawley introduced legislation to ban members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President from owning or trading individual stocks. When asked if he was in favor of the legislation, the speaker responded that he likes it conceptually. He stated that Nancy Pelosi became rich by having inside information and made a fortune with her husband, which he finds disgraceful. He would need to study the legislation carefully, but conceptually, he likes it.

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.

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.

Dan Crenshaw has become a right-wing figure, but his recent actions are questionable. He defended politicians trading stocks, suggesting that restricting it would lead to worse politicians, similar to saying police need to shake down speeders. His portfolio is up nearly 50%, outperforming the market, with Meta being a major win. What's frustrating is that after buying Meta stock, he publicly advocated for banning TikTok, Meta's competitor, which conveniently boosted Meta's stock. Despite pushing for the ban, he then voted against a bill to ban TikTok. This raises concerns about conflicts of interest, as he profits from Meta while influencing policy related to its competitor.

Everyone is discussing a lawmaker's reaction to a question about Congress members trading stocks. The response was dismissive, suggesting that if they can't trade stocks, they might as well cut their pay. This reaction is notable considering Dan Crenshaw was the fifth-best political trader in 2021, even outperforming Nancy Pelosi. His stock portfolio is available for those interested in investing alongside him using an autopilot investment app.

Members of Congress and their spouses trading individual stocks while serving in Congress should not be banned, according to the speaker. However, their stance on the second question is unclear. They believe that there is a responsibility to report, but no further details are provided.

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.

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.

A report reveals that at least 40 members of Congress violated conflict of interest laws in the past year, highlighting a troubling trend where violations outnumber new legislation. Lawmakers prioritize stock trading over legislative duties, with some making significant profits from insider knowledge. For instance, Rick Allen from Georgia reported $8.5 million in stock transactions after 6.5 years, using excuses like clerical errors. Both Democrats and Republicans are implicated, with minimal penalties for violations, often just $200. This systemic issue allows politicians to amass wealth while ordinary citizens would face severe consequences for similar actions. The discussion also touches on campaign contributions from Wall Street, exemplified by Nikki Haley's financial rise linked to corporate relationships. The segment emphasizes the lack of accountability in Congress and the influence of corporate money in politics.

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.

There are members of Congress who have become strangely wealthy, accumulating, for example, $20 million while earning $200,000 a year. It is unclear how this is possible. The goal is to figure out how this happens and stop it.

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.

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."

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.

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

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

Speaker 0: 'So what do we get for a trillion dollars a year to the US military? Do we get anything in return?' Speaker 1: 'We get some enhanced stock portfolios.' 'I haven't voted for a penny for Ukraine, I'm proud of that. It's not my dadgum war.' 'Some of those contractors we described get a multi multi billion with a B dollar, no bid contract.' 'And who do you think has bought stock in that, in that company? Members of Congress, two weeks prior to the president making that official notice.' 'Return on their, 506100% return on their investment.' 'But why is impossible as to ban stock trading for members of Congress? That's a great idea.' 'I have the bill to do it, and that's why we have a bipartisan group, we've got a bill, but it's not going anywhere.' 'Why? Because too many members of Congress, I mean, we were told by leadership that, you know, these guys can't afford to be here.'

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.

It's difficult to prevent corruption, even with higher salaries, because insider trading can be so lucrative. People justify taking questionable actions for their families, especially when it's legal. If you're involved in passing a bill and know how it will affect certain industries, buying stock beforehand seems logical. However, the problem goes beyond just stock portfolios; there are other, less traceable methods of wealth acquisition. Honestly, discussing these topics is dangerous. I have to be careful not to push too hard on the corruption issue because it could put my life at risk.