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 speaker admits to reporting the attorney general to the FBI without evidence of any criminal activity. When questioned about this, the speaker avoids directly answering and instead emphasizes their "good faith belief" that a crime had occurred. They also claim to have not collected any evidence after making the complaint. The questioning becomes tense as the speaker is repeatedly asked if they had any evidence to support their claims, but they continue to evade a direct answer.

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.

Senator asks whether the SEC should investigate President Trump for stock trading behavior similar to what would trigger SEC attention if done by private citizens, referencing a prior statement that the SEC would be knocking on a private citizen’s door for trading like members of Congress. The Secretary responds that if the body wants to ban individual stock trading (advocating for it for the committee), it should start there, and that further legislative action is the body’s prerogative. When pressed, the Secretary says the trade “should be investigated” and that “President Trump should be investigated,” supporting the idea of “getting your house in order.” The Senator then asks about an investigation into White House conduct and the Secretary answers with “Please lead by example,” which the Senator repeats, saying they want the President to lead by example. The Senator asks a separate question: if the stock purchases were made using inside information, would that be illegal. The Secretary declines to answer, saying they are not a lawyer. The Senator then asks whether it would be worth investigating, and the Secretary responds that the Senator is the one who said what should be investigated, suggesting that “we investigate many people in this committee.” Senator asks whether the White House should follow the same set of rules already in law. The Secretary again emphasizes “get your house in order here,” and adds that committee members, “mostly on your side of the aisle,” should do the same. The Senator concludes by arguing for stronger anti-corruption and conflict-of-interest rules in Washington for everyone, including the president and Congress, and states that draining the swamp is not happening because “what Donald Trump is doing is he is enriching himself by taking advantage of his position,” which the Senator calls not public service, reiterating that the president should lead by example.

A member of the Ways and Means Committee is allegedly insider trading based on her disclosures. It is claimed that proving this is easy by examining her trading activity and communications following classified briefings. The speaker questions how she became a member of the committee and then executed trades on NYCB just before Signature Bank collapsed, resulting in an 80% stock increase. The speaker dismisses the idea that this was a lucky trade, asserting it was a well-informed trade.

The speaker claims that there was a scandal where their campaign was spied on, but the other person disagrees and says there is no evidence. The speaker insists that there is evidence everywhere and wants it to be put on the show. The other person explains that they can't put on unverified information. The speaker continues to assert that their campaign was spied on and that it was caught. They accuse the other person of knowing this but not wanting to acknowledge it. The other person denies knowing anything about it.

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.

Speaker 0 questions Speaker 1 about accepting a large IPO deal from Visa while serving as Speaker of the House. Speaker 1 defends the decision, stating there was no conflict of interest. Speaker 0 presses for clarification, but Speaker 1 maintains there was no wrongdoing.

The speaker questions the credibility of the person testifying, mentioning past accusations of lying. The speaker also brings up payments made to the testifier's attorney by a political action committee. The speaker criticizes the testifier for calling various individuals, including the FBI and colleagues, liars. The speaker expresses skepticism towards the testifier's claims of truthfulness.

The speaker questions the FBI's practice of tipping off the subject of a search warrant before it is executed. They inquire about the FBI's contact with the protective detail of individuals and the potential undermining of investigations. The speaker expresses frustration with the lack of answers and accuses the FBI of a cover-up. Director Wray requests a 5-minute recess. The speaker acknowledges the frustration but explains that policies prevent discussing ongoing investigations. They mention that these policies were strengthened under the previous administration. The speaker concludes by stating that there is an obligation to call out corruption.

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.

In Washington, people were discussing pushing toward a war against Iraq, with the attacks on 9-11 becoming a key trigger. Speaker 0 said that, after 9-11, Israel and the United States began preparing for war against Iraq immediately, and argued that 9-11 was used for that purpose. Speaker 0 stated unequivocally that “they used 9-11 for that purpose” and described this as “appalling” and “disgusting,” while also saying they were not claiming they staged 9-11 for that purpose. Speaker 1 said that well before 9-11 there were growing calls within Washington to engage in regime change in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein, describing this as a neocon aspiration in Washington and also in Israel. Speaker 1 said 9-11 was then seized on to pursue those aims. Speaker 0 focused on why 9-11 has been debated for 25 years, describing the debate as revolving around foreknowledge and whether those responsible knew in advance and allowed it or staged it. Speaker 0 said they cannot answer those questions, but claimed the larger question was “conclusively answered”: that there was foreknowledge of 9-11. Speaker 0 asserted that the CIA knew the hijackers were in the United States, knew they were terrorists, and knew they were in place to commit acts of terror against the United States. Speaker 0 added a specific detail: people reportedly bet in public financial markets by shorting the airlines involved in 9-11 and the banks in the buildings taken down, making large profits. Speaker 0 said it has been known that these bets occurred, but that what “blew my mind” was that the U.S. government allegedly found the identities of those people who made the trades and withheld them. Speaker 0 said that to this day the identities have never been revealed, despite the trades being publicly traded, and claimed that whoever made the trades knew 9-11 was coming while the government protected those identities for 24 years.

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.

The speaker claims to have found documents related to Jim Comey that were not where they should have been. The speaker says these documents are unflattering to Comey. The speaker asserts that Comey disgraced the FBI numerous times with his role in crossfire hurricane and other abominations. The speaker finds it stunning that Comey continues to attack their leadership when they are cleaning up the mess Comey created and continue to find things from his era.

The speaker claims that the famous Dow hack was actually an inside job orchestrated by members of the Ethereum Foundation. They suggest that the Bitcoin wallet controlled by the ICO is directly involved, with multiple people implicated. The speaker emphasizes the ability to prove this through on-chain analysis, pointing out instances where wallets connected to certain individuals communicated with the hacker's wallet and set up the hack. They state that there is more evidence supporting their claim.

The speaker claims that the famous Dow hack was actually an inside job orchestrated by members of the Ethereum Foundation. They suggest that the Bitcoin wallet controlled by the ICO is directly involved and that multiple people must have been part of it. The speaker believes that blockchain analysis can prove this, mentioning a wallet connected to an individual that communicated with the hacker's wallet and another individual setting up the hack. They state that there is more evidence to support their claim.

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."

Speaker: Is it a conflict of interest? I don't understand your question. Are you suggesting it's okay for a speaker to accept a favorable stock deal? We did not. Translation: The speaker questions if it is a conflict of interest and denies accepting a preferential stock deal.

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.