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

[jacksonlamb]

There isn't anything in the Epstein files which proves any crimes were committed. It's all a bunch of who knew Epstein, who was accused of things without any proof, who had dinner with him, 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.

Up to this point, and we still have 3mm files to go through.

 

[jacksonlamb]

He knows he is going to ****-up the lives of many innocent people, and he doesn't want to held accountable for it.

How? Innocent lives? How?

 

[jacksonlamb]

This is an opinion board, einstein. You have no evidence to prove any of your assertions other than the media feeding you regurgitated worms.

thank you for agreeing with me

I am all me, LBT.

 

[Independent thinker]

Up to this point, and we still have 3mm files to go through.

The rest won't be any different. They are all the same. Huge waste of time.

 

[jc456]

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.

wait, he needs bondi to do what from what he has? Why does he need congress exactly? me thinks you got hooked on a lure and you don't know it. A reasonable person would just list the names for us to see. Right? I mean, the fk with any of the laws is what you all have said.

In summary, if Massie has names, he should out them NOW!!!! Right?

Let's go, hither to!!!

 

[jc456]

Up to this point, and we still have 3mm files to go through.

yep, and? Again, why didn't any other president and AG bring all this out? amazing how stupid you think we all are, and it's really you that is.

 

[jacksonlamb]

The rest won't be any different. They are all the same. Huge waste of time.

Your opinion is worthless, and you know it.

 

[jacksonlamb]

Nope, not again, jc. What is is, and you will accept it liking it or not.

Massie can do this and no one can stop him.

 

[jc456]

Your opinion is worthless, and you know it.

but it is his, and you think you can what?

 

[jc456]

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

Why isn't Massie reading them NOW?

 

[jacksonlamb]

but it is his, and you think you can what?

Point out that it means nothing as does yours, whereas Massie has all the cards.

 

[PeanutGallery]

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

He would only be opening himself up to lawsuits if it turns out that there's no proof that the names he would mention had anything to do with being part of Epstein's ring. That's why he would need that protection. If he has the receipts, there shouldn't be any fear in naming names. I don't think that he wants his mouth to write a check that his butt can't cash.

 

[jc456]

Point out that it means nothing as does yours, whereas Massie has all the cards.

nor does yours right? So you're redundantly saying that everyone's opinions are theirs right?

 

[jacksonlamb]

He would only be opening himself up to lawsuits if it turns out that there's no proof that the names he would mention had anything to do with being part of Epstein's ring. That's why he would need that protection. If he has the receipts, there shouldn't be any fear in naming names. I don't think that he wants his mouth to write a check that his butt can't cash.

So he won't read names that are not in the files. That has nothing to do with liability or criminality.

 

[jc456]

Point out that it means nothing as does yours, whereas Massie has all the cards.

so why isn't Massie just naming those he already has in his hands? Explain it for us, give us your opinion.

 

[jc456]

So he won't read names that are not in the files. That has nothing to do with liability or criminality.

that's not what you said, your OP says he has names from the redacted files he has. No?

here to help you

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.

 

[jacksonlamb]

so why isn't Massie just naming those he already has in his hands? Explain it for us, give us your opinion.

That is what he is threatening. It is explained. This is on you to understand. I do think he will read those names.

Your words would make Massie suggest you go back to school.

 

[jc456]

That is what he is threatening. It is explained. This is on you to understand. I do think he will read those names.

no, that doesn't explain if he has the names why he just can't tell us. not at all. Again, your own OP says he has them. Read them or he is no different than anyone else he's been harassing.

 

[PeanutGallery]

So he won't read names that are not in the files. That has nothing to do with liability or criminality.

What are you talking about? If he mentions redacted names, that in itself isn't proof of guilt. Names without actual evidence will lead to liability. Which is why he's proposing saying it in Congress to protect himself. That being said, this isn't an airport. You don't have to announce your arrival. Either go on the floor and speak or shut up and stop trying to get your name out there to the media. This is all political theatre anyway.

 

[jacksonlamb]

no, that doesn't explain if he has the names why he just can't tell us. not at all. Again, your own OP says he has them. Read them or he is no different than anyone else he's been harassing.

That you don't understand a clear, concise message is your issue, jc.