Speaker 1: It's seven oh six here at fifty five panacy E
Speaker 1: talk station. By the time, I was wishing everyone a
Speaker 1: happy Tuesday the extent you can make it happy. In studio,
Speaker 1: mister numbers man himself, Todd's endser. He's all over multiple
Speaker 1: topics here in the Tri State, and most ugly, it
Speaker 1: looks like a Shenanigan's declaration. That's my phrasing. That was
Speaker 1: gonna be talking about and breaking down the allegations against
Speaker 1: Greg Landsman about his stock purchases which he did not disclose,
Speaker 1: apparently pursuing to the Stocked Act. The Stock Acts stopped
Speaker 1: trading on Congressional Knowledge Act. Todd's good to have you
Speaker 1: in studio, man, it's good to see you again. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Brian, It's good to be back.
Speaker 1: And I will call this a Shenanigan's declaration. You're a
Speaker 1: little perturbed that Greg Landsman apparently trading uh in stocks
Speaker 1: notwithstanding what he's campaigning on. I know you're going to
Speaker 1: get to get to that, but I know it was
Speaker 1: reported in I guess the Washington Free Beacon or elsewhere
Speaker 1: that he's invested in some of the most profitable companies
Speaker 1: of all time while he campaigns against the very corporations
Speaker 1: that he has invested in, again without disclosing these transactions
Speaker 1: under the Stock Act. Let's talk about this first off,
Speaker 1: the Stock Act. What are the obligations under the Stock
Speaker 1: Act to disclose these financial transactions?
Speaker 2: Well, Brian, I was actually when I was working in DC,
Speaker 2: I had to follow the Stock Act because the Stock
Speaker 2: Act applies not only to Congress but members of the
Speaker 2: certain members of the executive Branch.
Speaker 1: A topic about which you have familiarity, of course.
Speaker 2: In fact, for the executive Branch, you had to report
Speaker 2: anytime somebody talked to you about a job like in
Speaker 2: the private sector. Oh really, yeah, you had to disclose
Speaker 2: that also, and you have to do it timely. The
Speaker 2: idea is to get this information to the public in
Speaker 2: a timely way. So for members of Congress, when they
Speaker 2: buy or sell shares of stock, they have thirty days.
Speaker 2: If they do it personally, they have thirty days to
Speaker 2: report it publicly on a form prescribed by the Ethics Committee.
Speaker 1: And you say, if they do that personally, meaning they
Speaker 1: personally ordered the trade, as opposed to having an independent investor.
Speaker 2: Right they called Charles Schwab, And they do with themselves.
Speaker 2: If somebody else does it. They have forty five days
Speaker 2: to report it, and no matter what, it should be
Speaker 2: reported in forty five days. Now, mister Landsman had transactions
Speaker 2: and he didn't disclose them for twenty months, not forty.
Speaker 1: Five days, and in much much of that period of
Speaker 1: time included the campaign time.
Speaker 2: Absolutely he disclosed finally disclosed in August, this past August,
Speaker 2: transactions that he had made dating back to his first
Speaker 2: couple of weeks in Congress, oh in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 2: And what happens is his violations are reviewed by the
Speaker 2: Ethics Committee for those specific infractions. And the Ethics Committee
Speaker 2: is an interesting body in and of itself. And there's
Speaker 2: a two hundred dollars penalty for failing to disclose timely.
Speaker 2: And if you take the transactions that mister Landsman failed
Speaker 2: to report timely, which were at least eighty seven, you
Speaker 2: multiply that by two hundred and you get almost eighteen
Speaker 2: thousand dollars. Now, the Ethics Committee has a habit or
Speaker 2: a practice of kind of forgiving a lot of this stuff.
Speaker 2: But the issue with mister Landsman is that there are
Speaker 2: circumstances that make it look like he willfully failed to
Speaker 2: comply with the app.
Speaker 1: Yeah, this is the more intriguing element of it, and
Speaker 1: it's because of his campaign platform, his promises, and his
Speaker 1: his positions seemed to fly in the face of the
Speaker 1: very stock transactions that he's engaged in.
Speaker 2: Right, he invested in companies like Apple, Google, Adobe, Navidia,
Speaker 2: you know, some big, big time corporation. And the other
Speaker 2: thing he campaigns against is billionaires, and he claims that
Speaker 2: he's with us, not billionaires. Meanwhile, these companies he's investing
Speaker 2: in were founded by some of the wealthiest billionaires in
Speaker 2: the nation. So I just I just don't think that
Speaker 2: the voters should go to the polls without understanding what
Speaker 2: mister Landsman has done here. And I think that if
Speaker 2: the only opportunity you have to hold members of Congress
Speaker 2: accountable for their actions is during an election.
Speaker 1: Well, yes, and this is I think the way you
Speaker 1: would characterize it when we were off. He's not walking
Speaker 1: the walk. He's talking to talk being anti pharmaceutical and
Speaker 1: anti oil. But then again, those are some of the
Speaker 1: investments that you specifically point out on the complaint that
Speaker 1: he has investments in. That's correct and did not disclose.
Speaker 2: That's correct. And then you also have to add the
Speaker 2: element of the purpose of the Stock Act. The purpose
Speaker 2: of the Stock Act was a response to allegations of
Speaker 2: insider trading by various members of Congress, and the Stock
Speaker 2: Act was enacted in twenty twelve and it's been amended
Speaker 2: a couple of times since then. But the whole idea
Speaker 2: was to put in place a safeguard to discourage or
Speaker 2: to protect against members of Congress using confidential information that
Speaker 2: they pick up during their Congressional hearings or whatever the
Speaker 2: case may be, or briefings, to guard against them using
Speaker 2: that information to profit.
Speaker 1: Which is how many of them go to Washington poor
Speaker 1: or at least not multimillionaires, but then leave DC after
Speaker 1: any number of terms coming back multimillionaires. It happens all
Speaker 1: the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's an unbelievable phenomen it is.
Speaker 1: It's just frightening. The corruption is just on full display
Speaker 1: right then and there. I mean, it's Republicans as Democrats,
Speaker 1: it's anybody in Congress has access to all this information.
Speaker 2: So you can't accuse mister Lambsman of insider trading, but
Speaker 2: he definitely defeated the safeguard that Congress has put in
Speaker 2: place to guard against insider trading and what.
Speaker 1: We call in the law the appearance of impropriety. They're
Speaker 1: supposed to hold themselves up to high standards, so it
Speaker 1: does not besmirch the name of Congress in the eyes
Speaker 1: of the people. And this is a factor that one
Speaker 1: would consider and whether he's doing that or not.
Speaker 2: That's correct. Now, if it had been one or two
Speaker 2: or three reports that he didn't file timely, that'd be
Speaker 2: a different story.
Speaker 1: But just sheer number.
Speaker 2: He's got eleven or twelve pages of transactions that he
Speaker 2: failed to disclose for practically his whole term.
Speaker 1: What's his explanation for this?
Speaker 2: The only well, he had two explanations. One came from
Speaker 2: a spokesperson. It wasn't really an explanation. It said, as
Speaker 2: soon as he learned of these transactions, he filed. Well,
Speaker 2: I'm not so sure about that.
Speaker 1: Now. Is it your assertion that he personally directed these
Speaker 1: trades or is this something that was done on his
Speaker 1: behalf by an investment company or a financial plan or advisor.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't believe he personally made them. It's possible
Speaker 2: that his wife made them or his investment advisor. But
Speaker 2: the way the law is written, it doesn't really matter
Speaker 2: who made them see when he became a member of Congress,
Speaker 2: within sixty days, he was required to undergo or go
Speaker 2: through an ethics briefing. Right, the ethics briefing is going
Speaker 2: to cover all these topics, including the Stock Act. Well,
Speaker 2: during that sixty days, he's trading stocks left and right.
Speaker 2: He's got twenty five transactions during his first two during
Speaker 2: his first two months, and so we're supposed to believe
Speaker 2: that he sits through training. Here's about the Stock Act
Speaker 2: and his obligations, and it never occurs to him that, hey,
Speaker 2: maybe I should look into this and set up a
Speaker 2: protocol for my investors to tell me what's going on
Speaker 2: so I can comply with the Act. Mmm.
Speaker 1: Shenanigans will pause, We'll bring Todds and the back talking
Speaker 1: about some more of the details on these ops well
Speaker 1: questionable trades. After I mentioned Prestesi Interiors, Presties Interior has
Speaker 1: been improving the way families come together in the kitchen
Speaker 1: for more than thirty years. Kitchen that's where you come
Speaker 1: together for all of life's events big and small, like
Speaker 1: canning over the weekend. Again, another weekend of canning in
Speaker 1: the Thomas Kitchen, which was remodeled by pressed egon tiers.
Speaker 1: Of course, John Ryan helped us out many years ago.
Speaker 1: Just love what he did with our kitchen. It's the
Speaker 1: heart of the home and you want it done right.
Speaker 1: So that's what you get with John at Prestigianteririors. He
Speaker 1: works with you from the beginning to the end. He
Speaker 1: is a perfectionist to what he does, and of course
Speaker 1: the amazing job he's done in my kitchen, I can
Speaker 1: confidently recommend working with John. He's a real easy guy
Speaker 1: to work with. He's got wonderful ideas with his more
Speaker 1: than thirty years experience in kitchens. So big projects or
Speaker 1: small projects, you're in the best possible hand, So visit
Speaker 1: them online. That's Prestige one two three dot com. Prestige
Speaker 1: one two three dot com. Tellm Brian Saidhi, when you
Speaker 1: give him a call five one three two four seven
Speaker 1: zero two two nine five one three two four seven
Speaker 1: zero two two nine. This is fifty five krc an
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio station. Wonderful forecast we have here from Channel nine
Speaker 1: saying it's going to be a sunny day to day
Speaker 1: going up to seventy degrees overnight. He's forty seven with
Speaker 1: clear Sky's seventy two under sunny skys tomorrow clear again
Speaker 1: overnight down to forty nine and sunny on Thursday as well,
Speaker 1: with high of seventy two. It's like about forty eight
Speaker 1: nine degrees right now. If you about PARCD talk station,
Speaker 1: what's going on with traffic from the UCUT Trampi Center.
Speaker 3: Mamma Graham saved vibes called five one three five eight
Speaker 3: four pink dischedule ur annual mammogram. If you see Health
Speaker 3: Expert team, that's five one three five eight four pink
Speaker 3: Report of an accident sapbound seventy one near Dina with
Speaker 3: involving a box truck northbound fourth seventy one to over
Speaker 3: a five minute delay. Now from Grand into downtown sathbound
Speaker 3: seventy five break lights through Bachlan in bound seventy four.
Speaker 3: Slow's a bit approaching seventy five. Chuck Ingram up fifty
Speaker 3: five KRC the talk station.
Speaker 1: To Shire seven nineteen to fifty five kr CD talk station.
Speaker 1: Brian Thomas with Todd's intern Studio talking about Craig Landsman
Speaker 1: and the Stock Act, which obligates members of Congress to
Speaker 1: if they trade themselves, to notify well the general public
Speaker 1: by filing a former than thirty days, or if they
Speaker 1: don't trade themselves, they got to let us know within
Speaker 1: forty five days. Well, how come it took Greg Landsman,
Speaker 1: what was it twenty months to unt twenty months to
Speaker 1: file these And it's significant number you said, eighty seven transactions.
Speaker 1: It's not just the number, it's that who he has
Speaker 1: invested in or with flies in the face of his
Speaker 1: campaign language about openness and being anti oil and greening
Speaker 1: new deal and all that crap, but also his ongoing
Speaker 1: class warfare attacks against those evil billionaires. Well, he's obviously
Speaker 1: has confidence in those evil billionaires as a mechanism to
Speaker 1: make money since he's invested in the evil billionaires companies. Yes,
Speaker 1: not a dumb thing. You want to make some money,
Speaker 1: that's where the money's to be made. So I'm happy
Speaker 1: that there are billionaires, that billionaires out there providing jobs
Speaker 1: as well as all I don't know, opportunities for us
Speaker 1: to expand our portfolio and make money ourselves off of
Speaker 1: their labor. Yeah.
Speaker 2: I don't think he's treating and voting public very very
Speaker 2: well with that type of a campaign, given his experience
Speaker 2: with the Stock Act.
Speaker 1: Well, yeah, and do you know you'd mentioned that the
Speaker 1: Stock Act, of course, has been around for quite some time,
Speaker 1: but that has been amended several times, presumably through congress action. Yes,
Speaker 1: was he ever a vote, a vote in favor of
Speaker 1: or against any modification to the Stock Act while he
Speaker 1: was an elected capacity.
Speaker 2: No, But the way it works is at the beginning
Speaker 2: of every term, the House votes, all members of the
Speaker 2: House votes on the rules that the Congress is going
Speaker 2: to that the House is going to follow for that term,
Speaker 2: and that includes authorization or approval of the Office of
Speaker 2: Congressional Ethics, which is charged with receiving complaints about all
Speaker 2: of this material. So he has voted in favor of
Speaker 2: putting in place the Office of Congressional Ethics, but he
Speaker 2: hasn't had to vote on any provisions of the Ethics
Speaker 2: and Government Act or the Stock Act.
Speaker 1: Well, can he claim ignorance to the Stock Act? I
Speaker 1: know ignorance of the law has no excuse by going,
Speaker 1: you know, stab somebody, and I claim not to know
Speaker 1: that it's illegal to stab someone. That's not going to
Speaker 1: get me out of being charged with crime. And now
Speaker 1: it's not a criminal violation to violate the Stock Act.
Speaker 1: It's a civil penalty of two hundred dollars. Yes, it is.
Speaker 2: But Brian, the Ethics and Government Act, which sets up
Speaker 2: all the financial disclosure the Stock Act, is part of
Speaker 2: the Ethics and Government Act, and that does have some
Speaker 2: pretty serious penalties if you fail to file a wilfully.
Speaker 2: So I think that that is kind of the issue
Speaker 2: here is whether or not mister Landsman wilfully failed to
Speaker 2: file these reports in a timely way.
Speaker 1: Well, again, going with his campaign strategy and his attacks,
Speaker 1: it would behoove him to keep these types of trades
Speaker 1: on the down low, in other words, not report them,
Speaker 1: because it would obviously provide fodder for Orlando Sanza and
Speaker 1: for the voters to hold them accountable.
Speaker 2: And here we are, the first day of early voting
Speaker 2: and we're just starting to talk about this.
Speaker 1: Well, if he'd filed earlier than late August, I suppose
Speaker 1: we might have been talking about it at the time, huh,
Speaker 1: and more information would have gotten out. So todd, where
Speaker 1: are we in terms of I guess the idea of
Speaker 1: intentionally withholding the pivotal Men's ray a component is intent
Speaker 1: knowingly not providing this information pursued to the Stock Act.
Speaker 1: That's going to require some form of evidentiary hearing or
Speaker 1: due process on it. For Greg Landsman, he's going to
Speaker 1: have an opportunity to defend himself, I trust.
Speaker 2: Well, because of the circumstances, I thought it was serious
Speaker 2: enough to file a complaint with the Office of Congressional
Speaker 2: Ethics and that that's an interesting organization by itself, But
Speaker 2: their process is very complicated. They have Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 2: represented on the In the Office of Congressional Ethics, it's
Speaker 2: kind of an intake for complaints against members and somebody
Speaker 2: from each party has to approve or agree to look
Speaker 2: into a complaint. So right now they should be reviewing
Speaker 2: the complaint to see whether or not they want to
Speaker 2: take it further. And you know, politics gets involved in
Speaker 2: things like that.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Now, is there precedent for members of Congress
Speaker 1: that have delayed in along these lines twenty months or
Speaker 1: so in not providing the Stock Act require not meeting
Speaker 1: the Stock Act requirements and what the Ethics Committee has
Speaker 1: done in the past.
Speaker 2: Well, there are there are a lot of members over
Speaker 2: the years that have failed to file timely. This past
Speaker 2: year or this filing season, there were only eight, so
Speaker 2: mister Lansman was one of eight. But I haven't really
Speaker 2: going back through and looking at some of the members
Speaker 2: who have been penalized for this, I haven't found anyone
Speaker 2: that had filed or failed to file eighty seven reports.
Speaker 1: Oh so it's the number. It's significant in number.
Speaker 2: It is significant. Well, let me give you an example
Speaker 2: when we Landsman, and this is another area where his
Speaker 2: excuse or his explanation doesn't hold water. In his campaign
Speaker 2: against Steve Shabbit, they criticized Steve Shabbit for failing to
Speaker 2: file one disclosure report. And in that case, it was
Speaker 2: a matter where a company that Shabbit invested in was
Speaker 2: acquired by another company, and so that required a transaction
Speaker 2: of mister Shabbit's shares from one corporation to another, and
Speaker 2: he didn't know about it, but they made a lot
Speaker 2: of hay about that during his campaign against Steve Shabbitt.
Speaker 2: So that was just one and there was a lot
Speaker 2: of even national media about that matter. Back in the
Speaker 2: case with Steve Shabbitt, there were only three that failed
Speaker 2: to disclose.
Speaker 1: Well, Todden, I note in your filing and you're notice
Speaker 1: to the Ethics Committee also brought up his history of
Speaker 1: circumventing public discs closure laws, going back to his time
Speaker 1: with the Gang of Five where he obviously violated the
Speaker 1: open meetings requirements.
Speaker 2: That's right, and in the business, prior occasions or prior
Speaker 2: circumstances like that definitely need to be taken into consideration
Speaker 2: when you're evaluating the current complaint. It's like having a
Speaker 2: record exactly.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: So I thought it was important to point that out
Speaker 2: because you had a judge tell the Gang of Five
Speaker 2: that they should resign, and he.
Speaker 1: Ever whole public office again. Yeah, and so look what
Speaker 1: it got, Craig Landsman, I thought it was important to
Speaker 1: let the committee know about that well. And I appreciate
Speaker 1: your willingness to come into the morning show and let
Speaker 1: my listeners know all about this. I didn't. I wasn't
Speaker 1: aware of the details myself until you brought it to
Speaker 1: my attention. So you're doing the public of service. We
Speaker 1: need to evaluate our candidates, and you know, I can't
Speaker 1: let this go without putting in a word for Orlando Sonza.
Speaker 1: What I mean, a man of character and integrity, a
Speaker 1: man who should be just I mean, he wiped the
Speaker 1: I mean he'd kicked Greg Lansman's butt in that debate.
Speaker 1: He came across so much more clear on the issues
Speaker 1: and I think he even brought this particular matter up
Speaker 1: when he was debating on Channel five. Yes, he did well,
Speaker 1: taking to consideration Folk Orlandosanza dot com is the place
Speaker 1: to be and I know Orlando could really use some
Speaker 1: financial help as well. The Democrats are backing Landsman big.
Speaker 1: He has got a lot of campaign dollars, doesn't he not?
Speaker 2: Yes, he does.
Speaker 1: So you're going to see a lot of Greg Landsman
Speaker 1: because of he's got a lot of funding. But will
Speaker 1: he be talking about the Stock Act? Will he be
Speaker 1: talking about his failure to file and let you know
Speaker 1: about all of the evil companies that he's invested in,
Speaker 1: including those evil pharmaceutical and oil companies that he has
Speaker 1: a piece of that he's out criticizing. Uh huh. Luctions
Speaker 1: have consequences, folks, And there are people of character and
Speaker 1: then there are well Greg Lansman. Todd Zenzer, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for helping us out this morning and bringing
Speaker 1: this to everybody's attention by filing the ethics complaint. I'm
Speaker 1: glad you are on the job. Thank you, Brian my
Speaker 1: pleasure man. You're always welcome here in the Morning Show
Speaker 1: seven twenty seven fifty five kc DE Talk station and
Speaker 1: a phone call well worth making. Can you imagine a
Speaker 1: phone call, a no obligation phone call that could save
Speaker 1: you thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars annually and
Speaker 1: put you in a better place in terms of medical insurance.
Speaker 1: It's Cover, since he called the team at Cover. Since
Speaker 1: he again, it doesn't obligate you to do anything but
Speaker 1: kick back and let them analyze your medical insurance, what
Speaker 1: you've got, where you are in your life, your specific circumstances,
Speaker 1: and come up with the package of medical insurance. It's
Speaker 1: better than what you got for less money and dollar
Speaker 1: one coverage in many, many, many cases. Yes, you do
Speaker 1: not have to go out of pocket necessarily with Cover Sinsey.
Speaker 1: They're doing this every single day. Their team at Covers
Speaker 1: Sinsey will just take a very deep dive look in
Speaker 1: your insurance needs and come up with a better plan
Speaker 1: and it doesn't cost you anything. They work with hundreds
Speaker 1: of insurance companies and they have thousands of medical plans.
Speaker 1: You'd be amazed how much out there, which is you know,
Speaker 1: your average you know work for the company. Insurance guy
Speaker 1: doesn't know any think about the stuff that they do.
Speaker 1: They work for you, and they'll never sell your information
Speaker 1: or anything, so call them with confidence and again that
Speaker 1: phone call could be just a life changing reality for you.
Speaker 1: It's five one three eight hundred call five one three
Speaker 1: eight hundred two two five five to learn more. You
Speaker 1: can fill a form out online to get this process
Speaker 1: started and COVERSENCI dot com fifty five KRC. A Minute
Speaker 1: of Hope is brought to you by the Lender Center
Speaker 1: of Hope.