Speaker 1: So I have for you today basically the perfect example of when Democrats just
hurt themselves and make themselves seem like Republicans and make it harder for voters to want
to come out and vote for them in key elections like the midterms or 2024 or whatever. So this is
what happened, and I'm not going to be unrealistic in my analysis of this, and you'll see what I mean
in a second up, Nancy Pelosi was asked during a press conference yesterday. Hey, what about
a stock trading ban for members of Congress? We have all these issues with members of Congress,
meaning the House and Senate accused circumstantially in these conditions,
where they seem to be making stock moves based on things that they know and everybody else does. And
it's not technically insider trading because of the committee memberships, et cetera, that these
members have. And there's actually an an exception where it's not considered insider trading in some
of these situations, although in some you could argue that it is. And it just looks terrible.
Speaker 2: It makes it Speaker 1: seem as though members of Congress are
using information that they learned through their roles as elected officials,
supposedly serving the public to enrich themselves. What about a stock trading ban?
And Nancy Pelosi just goes, Nah, I mean, you know, we're a capitalist country. You know, it's just
Speaker 2: and it's it's such Speaker 1: a it.
Even if you're not going to do it, it's the worst possible response. So let's take a look
at the clip and then we'll talk about it more. Speaker 5: You should members of Congress and
their spouses be banned from trading individual stocks while serving in Congress? No, I don't know
to this second one. Any we have a responsibility to report in the stock on a stock, but I don't.
I'm not familiar with that five month review, but if people aren't reporting, they should be. Yeah.
Because this is a free market and people and we have a free market economy that
should be able to participate in that. Speaker 2: Yeah. So I mean, listen,
Speaker 1: like I know Nancy Pelosi doesn't support that. Nancy
Pelosi is one of the people along Speaker 2: with her husband, who
Speaker 1: regularly make individual stock trades, options, etc. And I'm sure it makes them
a whole bunch of money. So like, I don't think for a second. Nancy Pelosi at this point in her
career, can be convinced Speaker 2: to ban
Speaker 1: members of the House and Senate from trading in individual stocks. So
I'm not naive in that sense, Speaker 2: but this is sort
Speaker 1: of like the worst way that you could possibly answer it. And I know that.
Why would I encourage politicians to be dishonest? But when I think about winning?
When I see this, Speaker 2: I think, well,
so are are they different Speaker 1: than Republicans or not
the most sort of insidious part of the House and Senate being allowed to trade individual stocks?
It's not just that Speaker 2: they can have access to
Speaker 1: information that lets them make money. It's they could actually
Speaker 2: make legislative decisions to help Speaker 1: companies in which they own stocks or
would own stock stocks. So this is really a very serious issue.
Speaker 2: So if Nancy Speaker 1: Pelosi just threw a bone and said,
Hey, you know what? I'm just as concerned as you are. We are here to serve the public.
We are not here to enrich Speaker 2: ourselves, and I am willing
Speaker 1: to hear any good idea as to how to prevent members of the House
Speaker 2: and Senate from acting Speaker 1: inappropriately based on our
privileged positions or whatever, and then say, bring me a proposal and then never do it. Like
in other words, I I know it's not going to happen. And so this is an answer where it's not only that
she's not going to do it. She doesn't even seem to care enough to appear as though it matters
to her that members of the House and Senate not enrich themselves. Would stock trades based on
information. And then there's a sort of like a subsequent layer as well, which is what about
the transparency? Because there's as was being mentioned there, there's this delay for the
Speaker 2: reporting of Speaker 1: transactions for members
of the House and Senate. You could Speaker 2: have a much faster
Speaker 1: turnaround on that. Everything is executed electronically at this point in time.
There is no reason for any delay in the reporting. Make a public record immediately of the trades of
the members of the House and Senate. And so at the end of the day, I don't have a problem
with people making money. We're talking about five hundred and thirty five Americans here,
Speaker 2: 435 in the House, 100 in the Speaker 1: Senate who are choosing presumably
to go into public service. They're not being forced to do it. We're not even saying they
can't make money. We're not even saying they should have to sell all the stocks that they have
Speaker 2: just to turn over Speaker 1: control
Speaker 2: of them. I think it's too much to say. Speaker 1: You can't buy or sell anything. Nothing
can be bought or sold in your name while you're in the House or Senate.
Speaker 2: Appoint someone you're not involved Speaker 1: in the day to day. Some call
it a blind trust. They can make the decisions for you so that when you were
Speaker 2: deciding, OK, who do we give a Speaker 1: contract to? What kind of regulatory
infrastructure do I push for in this industry or that? But in the back of your mind, you know,
Speaker 2: you own stocks in certain ones Speaker 1: of those industries.
At least the stock trading decisions could be made by somebody else. And this is the type of thing
that makes people say both sides are terrible. Neither side cares about us. They just care about
themselves. And this is the stuff that makes me say Democrats are just another party concerned,
primarily with self-preservation. In that sense, Republican Party, Democratic Party. It's basically
the same thing. The Democratic Party has more policy I agree with, certainly, and it's such a
small thing. Five hundred and thirty five people in Congress, you can't trade individual stocks
while you're in the House or Senate. You could trade mutual funds, even though those. People
don't typically trade them in the same way. You can keep the stocks you had beforehand, just turn
over control of them. That's it. And you know, Speaker 2: I am not optimistic.
I know that this this is a Speaker 1: relatively small thing
triggering this reaction. Speaker 2: But overall,
Speaker 1: I am not super optimistic about
twenty twenty two and I know we have to Speaker 2: still fight for it. But I mean,
you know Speaker 1: what exactly has been
done about white supremacy and extremism? What has been done on voting rights? I guess now they want
to take it up. Student loans there was never going to be anything done on student loans other than
make people start repaying them for something federal on cannabis, etc.. This is a layup,
at least. Just give an answer that looks good. I am committed to making sure the there and then do
nothing she can't eat. She doesn't even care enough to do that. It's absolutely bonkers.
And if Democrats lose Speaker 2: it,
Speaker 1: it won't be a shock. It won't be a shock. And we will have
many explanations as to why her answer is not the reason why. But it certainly doesn't help