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

He called for the release of names 7 years after it was first known and scrutinized by the public?

He took office in 2012. Surely he made sure statements closer to 2017

quote:

---

He called for the release of names 7 years after it was first known and scrutinized by the public?
He took office in 2012. Surely he made sure statements closer to 2017

---

I have no idea. Maybe he did. As shown by the title, I was just pointing out that (unlike the Congresscritters Jugbow was carping about), Massie is consistent in being on the record for transparency regarding both Epstein AND for Congress's own sexual harassment claims.

Who else besides Massie has brought it up beside MTG?, NOBODY, is it that hard to understand, none of these fricks what there dirty laundry aired out, and that goes for both sides, there are nothing but a bunch of deviant drunk motherfrickers deciding what's best for THE US

from 2 years ago ….

quote:

---

Cute…. 7 years after it was exposed to the public. BTW, Massie was in office in 2017. Let’s see his tweets when it was exposed in 2017-2018

---

Knock yourself out in looking them up. Some of y'all are so irrational when it comes to your hate of Massie, it's not worth trying to respond to your bizarre, irrelevant attacks.

The article you linked points out one of the reasons Massie cannot name the names of the Congressmen who use the hush fund: he wouldn't know them. From your article:

"It’s not clear how many other lawmakers – if any – in addition to the House administration committee’s top two members are privy to details about the settlements and payments.

A source in House Speaker Paul Ryan’s office told CNN that Ryan is not made aware of the details of harassment settlements. That source also said that the top Democrat and Republican on the House administration committee review proposed settlements and both must approve the payments.

Similarly, a source in Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s office told CNN that Pelosi also is not made aware of those details, and that they are confined to the parties of the settlement and the leaders of the administration committee."

My problem isn’t with Massie, my problem is with sycophants like you posting false information that Massie exposed this congressional slush fund in 2024 when it was exposed in 2017. I’m glad he brought it back up 7 years after it was exposed but don’t act like he’s some champion on this issue when you provide a 2024 tweet for something that happened in 2017. If he was so consistent, surely you could provide statements and tweets between the years 2017-2024 on the subject.

I find it highly amusing that you claim that Massie is consistent in calling for transparency yet you find it hard to do yourself. I could have sworn I’ve seen you claim you was all about the “truth” and doing your research yet you failed to do any research on who actually exposed the fund and is unwilling to accept that truth that it was a democrat in 2017 who brought it to the public’s attention.

And yes, you are a Massie sycophant. I wasn’t even replying to you and was only trying to set the record straight after your initial OP disinformation. Maybe some posters don’t know it was exposed in 2017 and assumed wrongly that Massie exposed it in 2024 based on your misinformation in the OP so I was trying to set the record straight for them so the have the facts.

But here you are like a little bitch, coming to play Capt Save-a-Ho when the facts on who exposed the fund are on my side

He is consistent. He has been totally ineffective actually getting any of that done either.

quote:

---

you're right, i remember hearing about it too, long before Massie

---

No problem!!! I was just trying to correct the record so we are working with facts and not misinformation. They should expose both the slush fund and the people involved with illegal activities with Epstein

IvoryBill should take note on how to respond when presented with facts that go against his narrative and misinformation

quote:

---

Alright, so considering all of that you just posted, and any and all possible consequences for failing to adhere to the given rule or whatever the case may be…….Section 6 of Article I of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t “trump” any and all of what you’ve offered there? Of course it does. There are similar “rules” and technicalities that anyone so inclined can raise in response to any effort to do anything. Nothing but excuses for inaction. Same routine can be put forth in the Epstein file situation - yet that’s brushed aside by those who are on a certain “side” of the dispute. Bottom line, as long as Massie didn’t violate an actual criminal statute/code on the books under federal law, he’s protected under Constitutional Congressional privilege and immunity.

---

I'm not following why you find it so hard to believe that congress may deal with itself in ways incongruent with normal/reasonable practice, when it's all about protecting the institution and the members.

Tell me - this slush fund was set up nearly 30 years ago, right? We know that a few years ago, payouts were approaching $20 million. If it was a matter of a congressperson/staffer simply naming names, why hasn't it happened yet? A president can't even get a blowjob in the oval office without it becoming front page news, but you seem to believe that a few dozen congressmen can sexually harass staff, get caught, tap the slush fund and not a peep is ever heard about the incident - even though there are a few hundred congressmen and women, some who absolutely hate you, that could disclose the incident with no risk to themselves (assuming they have awareness of the incident)?

Question for my favorite PT attorney - Section 6 of Article 1 of the US Constitution does not make an NDA meaningless, does it?