re: The plot thickens with John Cornyn ...

quote:

---

I'm not buying it but I won't mind if it works.

---

I truly believe that there are going to be some shockingly eye-opening revelations about payouts exposed ... if the books are ever opened on that Congressional slush fund account.

That's why both sides are fighting tooth and nail to keep it closed long enough to purge the records.

IMHO it will also explain a lot in terms of deep state blackmail accusations that have been alleged in DC for decades.

That slush fund may be the key to the door that opens into a room full of some of the darkest, deepest, perversions by our Congress that We The People could have ever imagined.

Gaining access to those records, imho, are almost as important as was DOGE ... and it could be far more telling, more enlightening, as to just how heinously corrupt and sick our government has become.

Per Grok:

quote:

---

Yes, there is a long-standing system — often criticized and called a "Congressional slush fund" or "hush fund" by critics — that uses taxpayer money to pay settlements for workplace disputes in the legislative branch, including claims of sexual harassment and misconduct.

This isn't a secret discretionary pot of money but stems from the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA) of 1995, which applied federal workplace protections (like those against discrimination and harassment under Title VII) to Capitol Hill employees for the first time. The law created the Office of Compliance (renamed the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights, or OCWR, in 2018 reforms) to handle claims through counseling, mediation, and potential settlements or awards.

Key details:

Settlements are paid from a special Treasury Department account funded by congressional appropriations (i.e., taxpayer dollars), not directly from a member's office budget or personal funds.

The process was designed to provide a confidential, alternative dispute resolution path (similar to many private-sector or federal agency systems) to avoid lengthy public litigation.

Critics call it a "slush fund" because it allows settlements to remain largely confidential, with limited public disclosure of details, payer identities (e.g., which member of Congress), or exact breakdowns by claim type. This has fueled accusations of enabling cover-ups.

Notable figures and context:

From 1997 to around 2017–2021 (based on various reports), the OCWR/Office of Compliance paid out roughly $17–18.2 million across 260–291 settlements and awards for all types of workplace claims in the legislative branch. This includes:

Sexual harassment and sex/gender discrimination.
Other discrimination (race, disability, national origin, etc.).

Exact breakdowns by category are not fully public, and some high-profile cases (e.g., former Rep. John Conyers) were paid from office budgets, not this fund. (Note: This was paid during his time as a Representative in The House and does not include any payouts during his tenure in The Senate.)

Specific sexual harassment/sex discrimination subsets are smaller in reported data — e.g., one 2018 House committee release noted about $8,300,000 for 13 such claims against members/offices from 2003 onward, though totals are higher when including all years and types.

The 2017–2018 #MeToo wave brought intense scrutiny, leading to the Congressional Accountability Act Reform Act of 2018, which:

Streamlined the claims process (e.g., removed mandatory counseling/mediation in some cases).

Expanded protections (including for unpaid interns/fellows).

Required biennial workplace surveys on issues like harassment.

Did not fully eliminate taxpayer-funded settlements but aimed at more transparency and accountability.

Recent developments (as of early 2025–2026):
In March 2025 (based on recent House votes and statements), a privileged resolution to publicly release names of members who used the fund for sexual harassment/misconduct settlements failed overwhelmingly.

Only about 65 members (mostly Republicans, including figures like Reps.Nancy Mace, Lauren Boebert, Anna Paulina Luna and others) voted yes to disclose identities and details.

The majority (around 357) voted to refer it to committee (where such efforts often stall), drawing criticism from transparency advocates who argue taxpayers deserve to know how their money is used to settle claims against elected officials.

Ongoing calls persist for reforms like banning taxpayer funds for such settlements (requiring members to pay personally) or full public disclosure.

The system aims to protect victims (via confidentiality and quicker resolutions) but has been heavily criticized for lacking accountability, potentially shielding perpetrators, and using public money without voter oversight. Some members have introduced bills to "stop settlement slush funds" or require reimbursement, but major changes remain limited.

---

Here we go again, we cant release it because we need to protect the victims. Yeah, okay.....

So much closeted faggotry in DC. Just come out so you can be blackmailed.

Didn't mister peach mints lose his reelection?

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

Aww little Jerry is angry!

You’d think they could.

quote:

---

the deep state has covered up their dirty past . The outsiders on the other hand get pointed out for their faults.

---

Somehow nothing is public about public servants, and those public servants are trying their level best to know everything about iis private citizens.

Im just going off of looks, but Trey Gowdy is one wierdo looking mofo. You do NOT wear your hair like that if trying to run chick's.
I imagine those that play to meat flute live it

quote:

---

t’s the root of a ton of our problems.

---

How else you gonna show mommy that your a man too.