re: Massie is Consistent: He called for Release of Names in Congressional Hush Fund

quote:

---

FWIW, ChatGPT thinks he cannot release the names even if he knows them:

---

He can say any damn thing he wants from the house chamber floor. Period.

quote:

---

So like the names promised in the JE files Massie is all bark no bite

---

Name a Congressman who has done more re the JE files and/or the hush fund.

Stupid to respond to you with facts, but, as Massie pointed out, after he got his law passed (how's that for bite?), there was no benefit to releasing the names. His comment that he would read the names if the alleged victims wanted him to was made in September...I think...but at any rate before Trump signed Massie's bill into law in December.

As for the hush fund, I'm not going to waste much time in discussing facts with you, but the law shields the details, Massie can't get access to the names:

"But the House harassment payments described by Speier don't appear in that database. Nor do they appear in the disbursement disclosures the House is regularly required to file.

Because of the provisions of the ironically named Congressional Accountability Act, settlement payment come from a special Treasury fund that the Office of Compliance draws from as necessary. The offices responsible for the payouts, and the reasons for the settlements, are kept strictly confidential."

Reason: How Congress Keeps Its Secrets

quote:

---

Lmao this is the internet and you’ve done the exact same to me.

---

Here's exactly what I said about that yesterday:

quote:

---

The only time I got really personal with someone was with Moment of Truth after he said I should die in a fire. I immediately apologized, but we were both put on timeout. That's why I thought you were MoT. You attack like him and you appeared after he left. I apologize if you're not he, and I won't bring it up again.

As for the attacks that you say that my "boy" (I guess that's RoadGator) engaged in, I didn't see them, and agree that's over the top...unless you really do frick dogs...just kidding.

Peace

---

As for your second complaint:

quote:

---

And you said you wouldn’t engage with me further. Instead you decide to make a thread off of my thread with a two year old tweet to draw attention. I even thanked you for it. Don’t start being righteous when you’re truly a pos

---

I didn't do anything to draw attention away from your thread. I was honoring the fact that you don't like people who disagree with you in your threads. Also, I made it clear that I wouldn't bother trying to reason with you. I never said I wouldn't respond to you.

Again, I explained this yesterday:

quote:

---

Jugbow, thanks for posting this. I think I understand our differences. You usually post to feel better about yourself: "These people are awful! Everyone who thinks what I think is great! Join me in this thread so we can bask in how great we are because of our opinions! Stay out of the thread if you disagree or have evidence that I might be wrong."

I mostly post to get a better understanding of something. "I thought this was interesting or alarming or worth celebrating. What do y'all know that I don't?"

That's why you are so hostile to anyone who disagrees with you. You genuinely aren't interested in knowing whether or not you're correct.

I won't try to reason with you anymore. It doesn’t interest you

---

.

quote:

---

Mostly true, less and except divulging legally and legitimately classified information. I would think that’s the case anyway.

---

I think the way the slush fund was set up, it required all settlements be covered by NDAs that bound any congressman/staffer who becomes privy to information related to a settlement.

Massie is hard to read....

I don’t understand the hate for him and Paul on this board. As far as I can tell they are the most honest and principled politicians of late. I don’t always agree with them, but I respect them.

And there you go again

Posting a 2 YEAR OLD link to defend Massies current actions?

bullshite

quote:

---

You really don't think they'd set up a slush fund to cover up their shenanigans and not make sure none of it would see the light of day, do you?

---

Well certainly I don’t think there’s a running list of specific instances and the details of each, including exact payment terms, the payee, etc. Of course any such thing would be held in the highest of secrecy, certainly “amongst men,” if you will.

Now, while we wouldn’t know the specifics or details or parameters of any such “agreement,” we can raise some points that may shed some light on the concept of there being an “enforceable” prohibition against disclosure of such information. For instance, does each Congressman sign his or her name to the hypothetical legally binding and ultimately enforceable document upon his or her successful election? What if he or she declines to sign it? Is the duly concluded election overturned and the duly elected Congressman denied the office for which his constituents elected him? Is there an immediate impeachment proceeding initiated against any uncooperative individual?

And what if, let’s say, the Congressman does/did sign the document, yet later elects to go public and divulge some of the information he has been privy to - what would be the possible ramification(s)? Does someone file a lawsuit against said Congressman, in his personal capacity? What would be the relief sought? Removal from office? A monetary judgment?

And where would the Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution come into play? That section and its clauses prescribe protections and immunities “enjoyed” by members of Congress, which has been interpreted rather advantageously by the USSC in favor of Congress over the years.

For me, just my opinion here, but I see and perceive way, way too many obvious obstacles, most prominently Constitutional ones, that would seem to render a truly enforceable non-disclosure “agreement” void, if not entirely impossible.