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.

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.

The conversation centers on allegations surrounding Nancy Pelosi and potential insider trading. Speaker 1 states that Nancy Pelosi should be investigated because “what she has the highest return of anybody practically in the history of Wall Street,” claiming she knows exactly what will be announced, buys stock, and then the stock goes up after the announcements. Speaker 0 notes Pelosi heard the news and ran to CNN with a busted hip, while Tapper treated her like Biden on debate night. Speaker 2 asserts that Pelosi “became rich,” and Speaker 3 is interrupted about the sixtieth anniversary of Medicaid, but wants to respond to the insider trading allegation. Speaker 2 asks Pelosi for a response to the accusation, and Speaker 3 responds that the allegation is ridiculous. Pelosi states she “very much support the stop the trading of members of congress,” clarifying that she does not think anybody is doing anything wrong, but if they are, they are prosecuted and go to jail, because “confidence instills in the American people.” Pelosi adds that she has no concern about the obvious investments that had been made over time, and that “I’m not into it. My husband is.” This points to her assertion that her husband handles the investments, not herself. The discussion continues with a provocative line about Polly P in Napa, described as a Wall Street whiz kid, and reiterates that Pelosi’s wife knows nothing about it. The segment then shifts to the broader political action in the Senate, noting that the Senate is “suiting up,” having “advanced an anti stock trading bill for congress,” while Trump is not pleased. Throughout, the dialogue juxtaposes accusations of insider trading with Pelosi’s claimed support for prohibiting trading by members of Congress, her denial of personal involvement in the investments, and the implication that her husband handles the investments. There is a consistent focus on the tension between allegations of insider trading and calls for restrictions on congressional stock activities, framed against a broader political backdrop involving Medicaid’s sixtieth anniversary and reactions from political figures such as Trump.

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

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.

The speaker stated that they think it's ridiculous to suggest President Trump is acting for his own benefit. They claim he left a life of luxury and a successful real estate empire for public service, not just once, but twice, and the American public reelected him because they trust he acts in the country's best interest. The speaker asserted that Trump has lost money being president. They don't recall similar questions being asked of the previous president, a career politician who was allegedly profiting off the office. The speaker maintains that President Trump does not do this, and the White House holds itself to the highest ethical standards.

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.

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.

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 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.

Speaker 1 is concerned about potential insider trading within the White House related to the President's tariff decisions. They are writing to the White House to demand transparency about who had advance knowledge of the President's policy changes and whether anyone profited from it. While acknowledging the likelihood of stonewalling, Speaker 1 believes that evidence of insider trading will eventually surface through scrutiny of financial transactions. They highlight a broader context of alleged corruption within the administration, including involvement with meme coins and perceived leniency towards Elon Musk's businesses. Given this environment, Speaker 1 believes it is necessary to assume the worst and investigate potential wrongdoing. They suggest Congress should also investigate.

Congress is seen as a rich person's club, with members making profitable stock trades. This issue needs fixing as it's a current problem, not just a future concern. Members have access to valuable information before the public, leading to unfair advantages in trading.

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.

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.'

If the House is taken, investigations into Trump's family and crypto acquisitions are guaranteed. As a member of the oversight committee, there will be investigations into whether the president violated the emoluments clause, such as getting a $400,000,000 plane. There will also be investigations into all of their business deals. They went after Hunter for sitting on a board, but the amount of money the Trumps are raking in is much greater, whether it's the next golf resort in Qatar, leveling Gaza for beachfront property, or the crypto scam. There is no shortage of things to dig into and determine whether there have been violations of the law.