Rep. Massie wants list of lawmakers who benefited from taxpayer-funded hush money payments exposed, using Bragg's novel legal theory

WASHINGTON, DC - Everyone is well aware of the so-called “hush money” case involving former President Donald Trump. For most people, these are called non-disclosure agreements which are typically signed for many businesses and yes, even in politics.

But since this case involved Trump, rotund Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, at the behest of the BIden administration, resuscitated a little used New York law and through a pretzel-like twist had it applied to a federal election statute, which it should be noted the Federal Election Commission found Trump had not violated. 

Now, thanks to Bragg’s overzealous prosecution of Trump, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) wants to dig into a $17 million sexual misconduct slush fund paid for by the American taxpayers that serves as “hush money” payments for their sexual misconduct. 

From Revolver News:

Thanks to the relentless political targeting of President Trump, there’s been a spotlight on the use of “hush money” and secret funds to sweep indiscretions under the rug in politics. This shouldn’t come as a shock to many, given the nature of fame and power, but where do we draw the line? When is it acceptable for politicians to dip into taxpayer-funded slush funds to settle their sexual indiscretions privately and without fanfare, and when is it deemed unacceptable for a private political candidate to do the same with personal funds?

Here’s the thing that’s got everyone scratching their heads: Trump’s stuck in this political circus over “hush money” where they’re all too eager to drag him through the mud over what amounts to a flimsy misdemeanor at best. 

[...]

Meanwhile our elected officials are dipping into our tax dollars to clean up all their messes. Don’t forget revelations from a few years ago that Congress has its own secret slush fund of hush money–all courtesy of you, the hapless taxpayer. Funny how that works; it’s like one rule for them and another for everyone else. 

Indeed, the Office of Congressional Compliance (OOC), which was set up to ensure compliance with the ludicrously named 1995 Congressional Accountability Act, controls a whole treasure chest of disputes involving congressional officials–not just congressional officials, in fact.

You’ll be pleased to know that the Capitol Police, the Congressional Budget Office, and many other legislative groups get to wet their beaks in this slush fund as well. Recent reports have indicated that over $17 million has been used from this fund to take care of various “hust” projects on behalf of members of Congress and other agencies.

[...]

The most infamous sexual abuse case we know involves a now-deceased former high-falutin Democrat from Michigan named John Conyers. This article is from 2017 and basically blew the lid off the secret “sexy slush fund.” 

Mr. Conyers wasn’t paraded into court for using our tax dollars to quiet down a victim, was he? We’d love to do a little digging and see if any other lawmakers or federal employees got the same treatment as President Trump, but guess what? We don’t know the names of the federally employed folks who dipped into this congressional “hush money” honey pot. 

What we’re witnessing in the United States is a prime example of peak corruption in action. Federal employees can get away with sexual assault left and right, and when they’re caught, the slush fund jumps into action to hush it up, no questions asked. And instead of these scumbags facing the music, it’s President Trump who’s under the microscope and being dragged through a sham political trial. 

The Revolver piece caught the attention of at least one politician, Thomas Massie, who opines that what’s good for the goose (Bragg) is good for the gander (the politicians and government officials who profited from the slush fund). 

“Congress has paid over $17 million in hush money for sexual misconduct inside of the offices of these buildings. And what’s more, is that it was taxpayer money. The allegation is that President Trump paid $130,000 of his own money,” Massie said. 

“But here in Congress, there might be some here on this dais who had the taxpayer pay for their sexual misconduct charges. And I do know that not a single penny of it has been turned in as a campaign finance expense.” 

According to former FEC Commissioner Trey Trainor, Bragg’s bizarre interpretation of the law doesn’t comport with “normal campaign finance law.” Unfortunately, an expert in campaign finance laws was not permitted to testify freely on behalf of Trump in the Manhattan case, Brad Smith. There is some disagreement on why Smith didn’t testify, but partisan Judge Juan Merchan so tied the Trump team’s hands that it was pointless to have Smith testify. 

It is believed that the guilty verdict in Trump’s conviction will be overturned “after the 2024 election,” which is the opinion of Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey. That is unless the Supreme Court somehow intervenes prior to that, since the verdict will have an effect on that election. Massie agrees, noting, “The irony here is that this trial was all about trying to influence the [2024] election.” 

The name of every member of Congress who benefited from this taxpayer-funded slush fund, especially in light of the legal gymnastics a partisan Manhattan DA, judge, and jury played with President Trump’s non-disclosure case, should be released. As Revolver notes, “if politicians are using our tax dollars to pay off affairs with mistresses, we deserve to know about it.” 

The purpose of a non-disclosure agreement is to do exactly that–keep your mouth shut. The fact that “a washed up D-list porn actress” violated that non-disclosure while shaking down Trump for $130,000 is the real crime. Hopefully Rep. Massie is successful in shedding light on who benefited from this taxpayer-funded sham.