Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sat down with CNN's Kasie Hunt on Tuesday and tried to wave away one of the most memorable moments from President Trump's State of the Union address: the moment he called her out by name over congressional stock trading.

It did not go well.

During his address, Trump urged Congress to act on the issue that has dogged Pelosi for years, calling on lawmakers to "pass the Stop Insider Trading Act without delay." Then he turned the knife.

They stood up for that. I can't believe it. I can't believe it. Did Nancy Pelosi stand up — if she's here? Doubt it.

She was there. And according to a source familiar who spoke to Fox News Digital, Pelosi was applauding right up until Trump called her out.

The CNN interview

Hunt asked Pelosi directly what she would say back to the president. Pelosi's answer wandered.

I say back to him, as that's what members said, look at your own self.

According to Fox News, she then pivoted to insisting that any inference Trump wanted to draw about wrongdoing "was something wrong with that, which there wasn't, and if there was, people get prosecuted for it." She added that Congress has been trying to pass a stock trading ban for a long time and that it now has more support than before, at which point Hunt interrupted her.

Hunt pointed out that even Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, stood and applauded when the president raised the issue. Pelosi's response was to dilute the moment entirely.

Well, we all did. I did too. He said, 'Did Nancy stand up?' Yeah, I did too. A lot of people stood up, a lot of Democrats stood up.

That's the defense: everyone clapped, so it doesn't mean anything that I clapped too.

The problem she can't clap away

Pelosi and her venture capitalist husband Paul have long drawn scrutiny for his lucrative trading during her career in Congress. The New York Times reported in December on the "widespread perception" that she was on the wrong side of the debate, noting it had placed an "asterisk" on her legacy.

Fox News Digital previously reached out to Pelosi's office for comment on the matter but did not receive a response.

The Stop Insider Trading Act, introduced by Rep. Bryan Steil of Wisconsin, would go well beyond the 2012 STOCK Act's reporting requirements. Under the proposed legislation, members of Congress, their spouses, and their dependent children would be banned from purchasing publicly traded stocks and required to give advance public notice before any sale.

Trump framed the issue in terms that left no room for equivocation:

Let's also ensure that members of Congress cannot corruptly profit from using insider information.

Why she can't make this go away

Notice the structure of Pelosi's defense. First, deflect: "look at your own self." Second, deny: there was nothing wrong. Third, retreat to process: we've been trying to pass a law for a long time. It's the rhetorical equivalent of throwing everything at the wall.

If there was nothing wrong with the trading, why support a ban? If the ban is good policy, why did it take this long? And if Congress has been trying to pass it, who exactly was standing in the way?

Pelosi famously resisted stock trading restrictions for members of Congress before eventually shifting her public posture as the issue gained traction. The fact that the bill now "has more support than it had before," in her own words, is not the exoneration she seems to think it is. It's an admission that the political ground has moved under her feet.

The moment at the State of the Union crystallized something that years of reporting and online mockery could not. Trump put a name and a face on the issue. He made it personal. And Pelosi, sitting in that chamber, had to choose between applauding a proposal that indicts her own conduct or sitting on her hands while the cameras rolled.

She chose to clap. Then she chose to pretend it didn't matter.

The bigger picture

Trump also used the address to announce a new retirement savings proposal for workers without access to employer matching, promising the federal government would match contributions up to $1,000 a year. The juxtaposition was sharp: ordinary Americans need help building modest nest eggs while members of Congress have been building fortunes with information unavailable to the public.

That contrast is the reason this issue has legs. It isn't partisan. It isn't complicated. Americans of every political stripe understand that the people writing the rules shouldn't be trading on them. When even Elizabeth Warren is standing and applauding a Republican president on the topic, the political consensus is obvious.

The only people who struggle to see it clearly are the ones with the most to lose.