Massie has a great idea for getting the names of miscreants out there from the Epstein files

[OldFlame]

According to the women, yes.

Speaking of which, where are they, why haven't they named names? Too many NDA disclosures?

 

[pknopp]

Speaking of which, where are they, why haven't they named names? Too many NDA disclosures?

Maybe they don't want to end up like Epstein and Virginia?

 

[OldFlame]

Maybe they don't want to end up like Epstein and Virginia?

Most likely it's more about the money they received for their silence.

 

[Mac-7]

I have read that Rep. Thomas Massie says he has a major move in mind regarding the Epstein files.

He stated that if the Department of Justice, under Pam Bondi, does not release unredacted names linked to Epstein, he could take the issue to the House floor and read the names publicly under congressional immunity.

Under that protection, such statements would be part of the official Congressional Record.

Rep. Thomas Massie says he has a major move in mind regarding the Epstein files.
He stated that if the Department of Justice, under Pam Bondi, does not release unredacted names linked to Epstein, he could take the issue to the House floor and read the names publicly under congressional immunity.
Under that protection, such statements would be part of the official Congressional Record.

This is genius.

In the Yahoo News report, Massie states that he is willing to use the constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress to “publicly read a list of Epstein’s clients” that is being compiled by victims. This is a direct acknowledgment that he may release names on the House floor, where he cannot be prosecuted or sued for doing so.

Members of Congress are protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution.This means:

• They cannot be prosecuted for statements made during official legislative activity.
• They cannot be sued for defamation for what they say on the floor.
• They can introduce documents into the Congressional Record with legal immunity.

So if Massie chose to read names aloud, he would be shielded from legal consequences.

There was a bill in tje House (hr 1100) to make members of congress to pay for their own sex abuse settlements and make their names public

Massie was one of only 65 representatives to support the measure

So I give him credit for that

But the Epstein files are different and should be tteated differently

 

[LordBrownTrout]

So, the consensus from the release the files enthusiasts is that saying the names out loud will lead to indictments?

You all believe that there is actionable information in the files that will prove to be of an evidenciary nature?

I dont believe there is. Nothing in there would ever hold in court. Its all a bunch of gray, pieced together pictures, discombobulated with pdfs, and just text all over the place. The people that did commit crimes against these kids should be brought to justice though. I don't know how thats ever going to happen though, at least not down here on this little blue spinning ball in space. I find it odd that libs are pushing this yet they couldn't be found when the fbi was descending on bidens daughters diary like locusts coming down on pharoah in ancient egypt.

 

[pknopp]

Most likely it's more about the money they received for their silence.

See my links.

 

[jacksonlamb]

So basically he's to much of a coward to name them without hiding behind a protection clause?

You would do the same, I think. Why should he open himself to lawsuits if he can avoid it.

 

[Dante]

That's something that he, Nancy Mace, and APL threatened to do a few months ago...So far, NADA.

You're overlooking that is conditional on things.

Why do you always have to be His Royal Contrarian?

 

[Dante]

So basically he's to much of a coward to name them without hiding behind a protection clause?

The biggest Coward is Donald J. Trump who keeps fighting all info on him coming out

 

[jacksonlamb]

I dont believe there is. Nothing in there would ever hold in court. Its all a bunch of gray, pieced together pictures, discombobulated with pdfs, and just text all over the place. The people that did commit crimes against these kids should be brought to justice though. I don't know how thats ever going to happen though, at least not down here on this little blue spinning ball in space. I find it odd that libs are pushing this yet they couldn't be found when the fbi was descending on bidens daughters diary like locusts coming down on pharoah in ancient egypt.

You have no credentials to make your statement anything more than an unsupported opinion, a hope.

 

[OldFlame]

You would do the same, I think. Why should he open himself to lawsuits if he can avoid it.

He either believes in his 'cause' or he doesn't.

 

[Billiejeens]

OH!

 

[Billiejeens]

I've been saying that all along, but they don't want to listen to reason.

They just want to smear President Trump

Not even as if they are trying to hide it.

 

[Invisibleflash]

I have read that Rep. Thomas Massie says he has a major move in mind regarding the Epstein files.

He stated that if the Department of Justice, under Pam Bondi, does not release unredacted names linked to Epstein, he could take the issue to the House floor and read the names publicly under congressional immunity.

Under that protection, such statements would be part of the official Congressional Record.

Rep. Thomas Massie says he has a major move in mind regarding the Epstein files.
He stated that if the Department of Justice, under Pam Bondi, does not release unredacted names linked to Epstein, he could take the issue to the House floor and read the names publicly under congressional immunity.
Under that protection, such statements would be part of the official Congressional Record.

This is genius.

In the Yahoo News report, Massie states that he is willing to use the constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress to “publicly read a list of Epstein’s clients” that is being compiled by victims. This is a direct acknowledgment that he may release names on the House floor, where he cannot be prosecuted or sued for doing so.

Members of Congress are protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution.This means:

• They cannot be prosecuted for statements made during official legislative activity.
• They cannot be sued for defamation for what they say on the floor.
• They can introduce documents into the Congressional Record with legal immunity.

So if Massie chose to read names aloud, he would be shielded from legal consequences.

We will see. Epstein's ghost may be visiting Massie pretty soon.

 

[jacksonlamb]

He either believes in his 'cause' or he doesn't.

Goofy argument. He believes in his cause: you know it, I know it. And immunity has nothing to do with it.

 

[Independent thinker]

I have read that Rep. Thomas Massie says he has a major move in mind regarding the Epstein files.

He stated that if the Department of Justice, under Pam Bondi, does not release unredacted names linked to Epstein, he could take the issue to the House floor and read the names publicly under congressional immunity.

Under that protection, such statements would be part of the official Congressional Record.

Rep. Thomas Massie says he has a major move in mind regarding the Epstein files.
He stated that if the Department of Justice, under Pam Bondi, does not release unredacted names linked to Epstein, he could take the issue to the House floor and read the names publicly under congressional immunity.
Under that protection, such statements would be part of the official Congressional Record.

This is genius.

In the Yahoo News report, Massie states that he is willing to use the constitutional protections afforded to members of Congress to “publicly read a list of Epstein’s clients” that is being compiled by victims. This is a direct acknowledgment that he may release names on the House floor, where he cannot be prosecuted or sued for doing so.

Members of Congress are protected by the Speech and Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution.This means:

• They cannot be prosecuted for statements made during official legislative activity.
• They cannot be sued for defamation for what they say on the floor.
• They can introduce documents into the Congressional Record with legal immunity.

So if Massie chose to read names aloud, he would be shielded from legal consequences.

There isn't anything in the Epstein files which proves any crimes were committed. It's all a bunch of who knew Epstein, who had their picture taken with him, who sent him birthday cards, who flew on his plane, who visited his island, ranch, or apartments, and who walked Epstein's dogs or fed his fish.