TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Last weekend, I was at a very expensive ski resort in the Alps, filled with wealthy Ukrainians spending lavishly. This is happening all over Europe. This money, I believe, should be ours—American taxpayer money. Furthermore, I know that a significant portion, up to half, of the arms we send to the Ukrainian military is being sold off, a lot of it ending up in the hands of drug cartels at our border. This is criminal. Our intelligence agencies are aware of this, and I believe they are profiting from it. Billions of dollars in aid are being stolen and sold to our enemies. This is unacceptable, and no one in America seems to know about it.

Members of Congress should not trade stock due to the unfair advantage they have with information. Some lawmakers oppose a stock trade ban, but the issue is clear. Congress is seen as a rich man's club, with some members making significant profits from trading. While it's not technically illegal, it's a problem that needs to be addressed. There is a proposed bill to prevent this, but some disagree with the divestiture provision. If amended to allow holding private assets, it may gain more support. Without the amendment, many Republicans may vote against it.

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.

Our government funnels tax dollars overseas to countries and weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin, who then lobby back with gifts for elected officials. Last year, the US spent $47.7 billion on Lockheed, 93% of their revenue. Nearly 80% of this money was borrowed. In total, $861 billion was spent on defense, with 80% going to other countries, surpassing spending on all other US programs combined. This is all publicly disclosed, showing where our money goes.

There needs to be Democrats who walk the walk and talk the talk because hypocrisy gets exploited to fuel cynicism. Insider trading in Congress is a prime example. Members of Congress sit on a committee, get information about a drug or a contract, and immediately make a call to their stockbroker, changing things so their portfolio swells. This is done on public trust, taxpayer finance, and public facilities while regulating the market they're trading on. The speaker questions why people act like money only corrupts Republicans.

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

War is coming to the Arctic Circle, with Greenland seen as part of a broader clash for the world’s most important trade route. Russia and China have already laid claim to large portions; the United States now seeks in. The discussion notes the growing competition over the Arctic, Iran, and Europe as flashpoints. Trump is calling for a Pentagon budget increase from 1.0 trillion to 1.5 trillion for 2027. He tweeted that after negotiations, the military budget should be 1.5 trillion “in the very troubled and dangerous times,” and suggested capping CEO compensation in defense contracts at 5 million per year. Following the tweet, Lockheed Martin stock jumped, as did other defense contractors. Glenn Greenwald is cited, saying the Pentagon fails its audit for the seventh consecutive year and questions how hundreds of billions of dollars move around, then notes a preference to increase budgets from 850 billion to 1.0 trillion to 1.5 trillion. Tucker Carlson is quoted suggesting war is coming and that Trump may know something others do not. Speaker 1 frames the budget increase as the kind of funding a country anticipates a global or regional war would have, calling it a “war budget,” not a peacekeeping one, and suggests we’re moving toward a big war. Speaker 0 adds that a large-scale attack against Iran is likely before the end of the year, and questions what will happen in the Arctic Circle. The panel introduces Ben Freeman, author of The Trillion Dollar War Machine, who joins to discuss. Freeman’s point is that the president justifies a larger foreign war budget by pointing to money generated abroad, including oil resources in places like Venezuela. The panel agrees the implication is that the military is “paying for itself” through conquest, and a speaker notes this echoes imperial patterns. Another participant emphasizes that China’s military budget is about a third to a quarter of the U.S. budget, but China has triple the personnel, arguing that quantity does not necessarily equal capability and that the U.S. remains the strongest military force. There is a claim that the current budget primarily funds contractors, not service members, veterans, or families; defense contractors’ revenues largely come from U.S. government contracts, and this is reflected in stock surges when large budgets are announced. The discussion cites a statistic that about 54% of the defense budget goes to Pentagon contractors, and notes a contrast: one in four military families faces food insecurity despite the existing trillion-dollar budget. The panel argues that perpetual war is used to justify the size of the budget, not merely to address threats, but to keep the defense industry tidal-wanked into profits. They discuss whether diplomacy with Russia could be a more effective path, and acknowledge a shift in U.S. policy rhetoric compared to earlier promises to avoid endless wars. There is mention that the Senate voted to limit presidential actions in Venezuela; the president defends war powers as constitutional, while critics point to campaigns that promised restraint on war. Ben Freeman promotes his book, The Trillion Dollar War Machine, noting its availability in hardback, Kindle, and audiobooks, and the discussion ends with praise for the book and thanks to Freeman.

The speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning significantly less annually, which is unexplainable. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

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.

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.

We're not, spending any money on the war. The war is, being funded by NATO. NATO is buying our equipment. In fact, we're I don't wanna make money on that war. I don't wanna but we are actually making money on that war because they're buying our equipment, as you know. But we

This war never should have happened. Russia tried to settle with terms beneficial to Ukraine and us, mainly keeping NATO out. Military contractors want new NATO countries because it forces them to buy weapons from specific companies like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed, creating a trapped market. We've committed billions to Ukraine, money that could have housed every homeless person in the US. Mitch McConnell admitted this money largely goes to American defense manufacturers, essentially a money laundering scheme. BlackRock owns these companies. The "loan" to Ukraine will never be repaid. The conditions include extreme austerity and the sale of government-owned assets, including its valuable agricultural land, to multinational corporations like DuPont, Cargill, and Monsanto, which are also owned by BlackRock. BlackRock even got the contract to rebuild Ukraine. They're doing this openly because they keep us divided and fighting each other.

The speaker points out that the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the US is $12 billion, while Ukraine receives 12 times that amount in one year. The speaker mentions that even after the war in Ukraine ends, the US will spend half a trillion dollars on rebuilding the country, with contracts for rebuilding being even larger than war contracts. The speaker highlights a statement made by Mitch McConnell, who suggests that the money sent to Ukraine actually goes to US military contractors, benefiting the country. The speaker implies that this reveals a money laundering scheme involving companies like Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Lockheed.

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 speaker was asked if there is evidence that Maxine Waters, Adam Schiff, and Chuck Schumer have received money directly from USAID. The speaker responded that taxpayer money is sent to government organizations, then to NGOs, which are government-funded but not governed by U.S. laws. Money is sent overseas to NGOs and the speaker is confident that some of it returns to the U.S. and ends up with the aforementioned politicians. The speaker states that it's not a direct route, but that some members of Congress are strangely wealthy, accumulating millions while earning salaries of only around $200,000 per year. The speaker says they are going to try to figure it out and stop it from happening.

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 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.

Putin was dealing with Biden, and he knew Ukraine was stealing money we sent. Under Trump, that stops, ending the fighting and our wasted money in a war we shouldn't be in. Ukraine's president admitted not knowing where half the money went, which has been widely reported. The money sent to Ukraine is paying off "war pimps" at the Pentagon, prolonging the war for profit while young men die. We were on both sides at the start of the war with gas contracts with Russia and giving money to Ukraine. Missile defense systems went to Ukraine and members of Congress had stock in the missile defense company. Putin is responsible, but why isn't there outrage about China? Because everything is made there and it's all about the dollars.

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.

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.