Congressman Massie joined Brian Thomas this morning

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Talk President put fans for everyday good.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
All the day's happening, growing economy.

Speaker 3 (00:05):
Right here, good things are happening. It's fifty five KRC
the talk station almost ato six here at fifty five
krs the talk station. Very happy Wednesday to you listener,
Lon Jantererson pub and Grow extra special Wednesday. My favorite
hour of radio involves Congressman Thomas Massey, followed by Judge Annapolitano.

(00:26):
Welcome to that day, big smile, my face, Welcome back,
Congressman Massey.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
It's great having you on the show. Brian, great to
be on the show with you.

Speaker 4 (00:34):
Well, we appreciate your championing the effort to get these
Epstein documents released. I do not understand the current administration's
take on it. After years of talking about releasing them, You, however,
see in a different way, and you've pushed to have
the documents released. I know we got some documents released recently.
I think the Epstein family had control of that birthday
card ensemble or whatever. But there's still more to be

(00:56):
found out there. And I know there was a press
conference the Epstein victims. Wy don't you give us a
runnown of where we are on this Congressman Thomas Massey.

Speaker 1 (01:05):
Sure. Right before the August recess, I introduced a bipartisan
effort to force a vote on releasing the Epstein files.
There's a procedural maneuver in the House called a discharge petition,
whereby if you can get two hundred and eighteen signatures,
you can bypass the speaker and vote on any legislation.
So that's the maneuver that I'm using. I've got four

(01:29):
Republicans right now who've signed it. That's myself, Marjorie Taylor Green,
Lauren Bobert, and Nancy Mace. Every Democrat has signed it,
So we're up to two hundred and sixteen signatures as
of this morning, but within two weeks we're going to
be at two hundred and eighteen signatures because there are
two vacancies filling seats that will.

Speaker 2 (01:51):
Be filled, and both of those.

Speaker 1 (01:54):
Members of Congress who are incoming have indicated they will
sign the discharge petition, at which point we're going to
have a vote on legally binding legislation to release the
Epstein files. Now, simultaneously, the Oversight Committee, led by James Comer,
is doing their own investigation and they're getting some interesting material.

(02:15):
But the problem is everything they get from the DOJ,
they're allowing the DOJ to curate, to redact, to decide
what to give them and what not to give them.
And so some people have claimed that my effort is
redundant with the Oversight Committee's investigation, but the reality is
that is not true because mine would require full release

(02:36):
of the files. And the best evidence that my legislative
effort is not redundant is the intensity with which the
swamp is resisting my effort to have a vote on this,
including the Speaker of the House, and in fact, the
White House is now against releasing all of the Epstein files,

(03:00):
which is unfortunate because that was one of the things
that was promised during the campaign, right the Vice President
supported it, the Attorney General supported it, and the FBI
director supported it. So now they've all backtracked. But I'm
still where I was three years ago. You know, people say,

(03:20):
Congress Smancy, why weren't you doing this a few years ago? Well,
the reality is you can go back and find my
social media posts where I said to release the Epstein
files while Joe Biden was president. It just wasn't possible.
Then there wasn't this parliamentary maneuver wouldn't have been successful
to get to two hundred and eighteen. But we're going
to get to two hundred and eighteen and we're going

(03:41):
to have this vote.

Speaker 2 (03:43):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (03:44):
The big question I've got burning in my head, Congress
Samanscy is why?

Speaker 2 (03:48):
Why?

Speaker 4 (03:49):
What is the resistance? Why is the resistance from the
Republicans this time around? When seeing me, everyone was advocating
for the release of these documents, Donald Trump included, what's
there's a problem with this? And the Democrats are all
in favor of releasing This is a strange turn of events,
Congress from Massy, Can you answer the why question?

Speaker 1 (04:08):
Well, I think the Democrats are in favor of it
now because they see that the White House is committing
ballistic pedietary, which is to say, they are shooting themselves
in the foot.

Speaker 2 (04:21):
I knew that, I'd love MIT.

Speaker 1 (04:24):
Yeah, that's an MIT term. One of my professors coined
ballistic pedietary. But they're they're practitioners of it right now.
And the Democrats realize that this is an eighty twenty
issue across all political persuasions, and that eighty percent supported
release of the files and the other twenty percent, frankly,
are just sick of hearing about it and don't have

(04:46):
much of an opinion. What's so The real why here,
I think is twofold number one. It's going to embarrass civilionaires,
some very rich and powerful folks. Yeah, will be embarrassed.
I but I have said avoiding embarrassment. Avoiding embarrassment is
not a good enough reason to avoid justice. So there

(05:09):
will be things that come out in these files that
are embarrassing but not indictable. For instance, I'll say the
birthday card is one of those. Is an example of
something like that. There's nothing criminal in the birthday card
that's being floated. Some people think it's real, some people don't.
I think it's probably real, but it doesn't matter. It's

(05:30):
just embarrassing. There's no evidence of a crime in there.
So I think they're trying to avoid embarrassment for some
very rich and powerful people, but in the process they're
avoiding justice for the victims who spoke at our press conference.
We had that press conference that you mentioned. It's the
biggest press conference on Capitol Hill that anybody can remember.

(05:51):
I mean, we were able to control access within a
perimeter of those bicycle racks that are probably to people
who watched January sixth, but beyond that, there were hundreds
of people who showed up for this for the press conference.
So the other reason that they're trying to avoid this

(06:12):
now that the administration, now that President Trump is running
the administration and Pambondi at the age is it implicates
our own intelligence agency, the CIA, has files. And that's
not a conspiracy theory, but that's something that the victims
lawyers insinuated at our press conference that we need to

(06:38):
ask the CIA for their files. So Jeffrey Epstein was
an intelligence asset.

Speaker 2 (06:44):
May be more than that.

Speaker 1 (06:45):
He was probably getting paid by them, and that was
also indicated in his first plea deal when Acosta, who
was the prosecuting attorney who had to who resigned during
the first Trump administration over this, gave a sweetheart deal
to Epstein and mentioned in the court documents that he
was an intelligence government intelligence and that was above his

(07:08):
pay grade. So that's the other reason I think the
American people would be very upset to know that intelligence agencies,
hours and foreign intelligence agencies were working with a pedophile.
And by the way, before my press conference with the
survivors of his sex trafficking ring. I wondered if it
was too strong of a word to call Jeffrey Epstein

(07:31):
a pedophile, But the reality is he is a pedophile.
These women who testified, many of them were fourteen years
old at the time, and coerced into bringing other fourteen
year olds to him, And when they got to the
age of consent or near the age of consent, he

(07:51):
was done with them. He set them back out on
the street or farmed him out to associates of his
which is another thing we learned at the press conference.
Now some people are saying, why didn't the survivors, and
they were asked this at the press conference, why don't
the survivors provide names? Name the names right there? Yeah, Well,

(08:11):
the reality is if they named the names and the
government doesn't do any kind of criminal investigation, then they've
just made a claim that hearsay, and what will happen
is there will be defamation cases from rich and powerful
men who will bankrupt these women into homelessness. But if

(08:31):
the government doesn't pursue this, So their point, the victim's
point is, look, the government has the names, don't force
us to basically risk defamation lawsuits that would bankrupt It's
not because they would lose them, but just the litigation
of them would.

Speaker 2 (08:48):
Be so expensive.

Speaker 1 (08:50):
It's the government's responsibility to do this and to bring
these charges. And then the victim said they're at the
press conference that they would compile their own list.

Speaker 2 (09:00):
Of names even if they didn't release them.

Speaker 1 (09:03):
At which point Marjorie Taylor Green stepped up and said
she's a colleague of mine from Georgia. She said, I'll
go to the floor of the House and read the
names right, and then you won't be subject to defamation.
And neither would Marjorie Taylor Green, because in the Constitutional
we have something called the speech or debate which allows

(09:25):
which is basically an exemption from defamation cases or prosecution
for members of the legislative branch, you know, in their
official duties. It was put into the Constitution by the
founding fathers the speech or debate immunity because the King
would prosecute members of Parliament civilly and criminally for things

(09:48):
they said on the floor of the Parliament. So the
founders knew it was important. Even if it is somewhat
it's not a populous notion to say that members of
Congress have even more free speech than the general public.
But the founding fathers thought that was important ultimately to
take that risk and give members of Congress that extra

(10:09):
protection so that you know, they wouldn't be intimidated during
their speech or debate or pursuit oversight of the executive branch.

Speaker 4 (10:18):
Well, and you know the idea that the Republicans, generally speaking,
since most of the Democrats are in favor of releasing
these documents, would be taking efforts to protect and not
embarrass multi billionaires. I say, screw them. I mean, I'm
sorry you're the one that associated with a guy. If
you're a multi billionaire, you certainly can issue statements that
the press will report on that you had nothing to

(10:40):
do with it, You did not have sex with a
fourteen year old. I mean, I have no concern over
their reputations, but if they were involved in molesting fourteen
year olds, I'd like to see them held accountable for it.

Speaker 1 (10:52):
Absolutely. And the thing is, some of Jeffreys Epstein, Jeffrey
Epstein's associates were in fact pilanthropists who donated to scholarship
funds for instance. Right, But the American people can sort
that out. You know, there's either evidence or there's not evidence.

(11:12):
Merely association with Jeffrey Epstein does not imply guilt. It
probably does imply embarrassment. There may be extramarital affairs that
are being hidden up, you know, hidden just just for
the sake of avoiding embarrassment. And by the way, I
have three billionaires running ads against me right now in
Kentucky two and a half million dollars. Now here's the kicker.

(11:37):
One of them, Paul Singer, is in Epstein's Black Book.
So that's kind of interesting. You've got one of these
billionaires who's trying to take me out in this election
cycle shows up in Epstein's Black Book. Now this is
not the list of perpetrators. This is merely a publicly
available book of phone numbers that Jeffrey Epstein kept. He

(11:59):
had personal cell phone numbers of these people. Doesn't implicate them,
but it does make you wonder why a billionaire from
West Palm Beach is interested in taking out a congressman
in Kentucky and he ends up in the Epstein Black Book.

Speaker 2 (12:16):
All right, let's pause.

Speaker 4 (12:17):
Bring that congressman Congressman massy Back to answer the question,
was Trump an FBI informant Johnson suggested that the other day,
one more with Congressman Thomas Massey before we get to
the politano at the bottom of the hour. QC kinetics
for your pain, the joint pain, nagging, Yes it is
if you have it. You know what nagging is old injury,
maybe never healed right, Maybe it's our threat is pain.
You don't know why the pain is there, but guess

(12:38):
what it's there. You're working your life around it. It sucks.
You've been to the doctor, gotten steroid injections which only
cover up pain, They do not remove it, and then
they wear off. Surgery is an option, but it doesn't
have to be. QC kinetics natural biologic therapies from your
own body to use regenitive medicine, which is cellular treatments
which help your body heal and restore that damaged joint,

(12:59):
which eliminates the paint. Thousands of folks have experienced pain
elimination from QC kinetics, so take them up on the
free offer. It's a free consultation. I don't know if
it'll work for you. Let the medical professionals there let
you know. Five one, three, eight, four seven zero zero
nineteen five one three eight four seven zero zero nineteen.
That's five one three eight four seven zero zero nineteen.

Speaker 1 (13:18):
This is fifty five KRC and iHeartRadio Station OUR twenty.

Speaker 4 (13:23):
Twenty Joannline Weather fourcas sunny in eighty one today, overnight
low of fifty six, clear sky, sunny in eighty four tomorrow,
clear over night fifty seven and eighty six with sunny
skies on Friday fifty now.

Speaker 2 (13:34):
Traffic times from the uc of Traffic Center.

Speaker 5 (13:37):
Addiction is the treatable medical disorder that affects both brain
and behavior. You see health addiction services can help call
five one three five eighty five nine seven two two.
Heavy traffic on the highways this morning on eastbound two
seventy five are broken down not helping near five mile.
That's backing traffic to the New Richmond Ramp inbound seventy

(13:57):
four slows from North Bend. He's bound two seventy five.
Break lights Cole Rain to Hamilton Avenue. Chuck Ingram on
fifty five krs The talk station.

Speaker 4 (14:08):
A twenty eight twenty one to fifty five KRSD Talks
Station Brian Thomas with Congressman Thomas Massey. Thank you to
my friends and the Commonwealth Kentucky for bringing Congress from
Massy back in for bringing it back again next year
in spite of the ad campaign launched by billionaires who
apparently don't want their documents out Congress from Massy. Trump
An FBI agent, Speaker Johnson suggested that the other day.
So it seemed to me and I just read the

(14:30):
quote as opposed to hear him say it. But in
reading the quote, it almost seemed like it was a
passing comment. But what's your take on this.

Speaker 1 (14:39):
I watched the video and I listened to the audio.
He said he was an FBI informant. Now the interesting
thing here is Speaker Johnson is a lawyer. He understands
that's the term of art. An informant implies some kind
of ongoing investigation or coordination with the FBI, maybe a
deal for since with the FBI. He later walked that back.

(15:05):
I think maybe he was just flustered. And Speaker Johnson's
getting flustered a lot recently because he is leading the
effort to stop my discharge petition from succeeding. He does
not want to have a vote on this, and so
he spread a lot of other misinformation. For instance, Speaker
Johnson said that my legislation would endanger the privacy of

(15:29):
the victims. But the problem with that is the victims
of Epstein support my legislation.

Speaker 2 (15:35):
Right, and there they were at the press conference.

Speaker 1 (15:39):
Yes, the other thing the Speaker has misspoke on, it's
the FBI informat thing and saying that my legislation might
endanger the victims. He said that my legislation was poorly drafted. Well,
what's interesting about that is I ran it by many lawyers,
the Legislative Council, here in the House, the parliamentarian, and ultimately,

(16:02):
when the Speaker put a fake version of my bill
on the floor so that Republicans can go back home
and say they voted for something to release the files,
which is totally fake and toothless, Speaker Johnson lifted three
pages of my legislation and put it in his legislation
and just took the teeth out of it. So he's

(16:22):
been doing a lot of let's call it misspeaking, which
is interesting for a speaker.

Speaker 2 (16:27):
To do that.

Speaker 4 (16:29):
Well, honestly, I'm still left being puzzled by all this.
I mean, really, does this really just come down to
billionaires not wanting to be embarrassed because, like you said,
the victims were there, they've come out. They want someone
else to id these wealthy folks so they don't get
caught up in unbelievably and horrifically expensive litigation. Who among

(16:49):
us can afford one thousand dollars an hour for a
lawyer and they'd be subject to that kind of attack.
So I get their position along those lines, And I
guess I'm also kind of wondering behind the scenes, did
the these billionaires enter into settlement agreements with maybe some
of the victims that they molested in order to avoid
civil or criminal liability. They wrote a big fat check
and promise a confidentiality agreement or got a confidentiality agreement

(17:11):
in return. Has that gone on behind the scenes, because
I wonder about the absence of criminal prosecutions, prosecutions going
after these folks from molesting young people. I mean, the
absence of those just seems to be crazy, given the
number of victims that we believe there are.

Speaker 1 (17:28):
Yeah, there are possibly at least a thousand victims, oh my,
and certainly hundreds. And there have been payoffs, you know,
in civil cases, but also I think privately they've been
payoffs that's why we need to follow the money. We
need to have all the bank records and see where

(17:49):
that money went. By the way, while we were talking
about the Speaker, I want to tell you about an
interesting vote that's going to happen today.

Speaker 2 (17:56):
I believe.

Speaker 1 (17:58):
Because of a small rebell in the Rules Committee against
the Speaker, I co sponsored an amendment to the National
Defense Authorization Act that would repeal the AUMF for the
war in Iraq. Actually for both aumfs, there's still authorization
that used military force. Those are still out there the

(18:21):
executive branch where whether it's was Obama or Biden or
Trump one or Trump two or the next president could
use those aumfs to conduct war that really was never
envisioned when those aumfs were passed. So there's a bipartisan effort.
There's about a dozen of us who've co sponsored this,
and in the Rules Committee three Republicans broke from Speaker

(18:45):
Johnson's edicts and voted with Democrats to allow my bipartisan
resolution or amendment. I'm sorry to get a vote.

Speaker 2 (18:54):
So we're going to have a.

Speaker 1 (18:55):
Vote on appealing the rack AUMF today. I thought the
judge might be interested in that.

Speaker 4 (19:00):
Yeah, definitely, And maybe I'm gonna say this joking, because
the topic of our conversation this morning is the unlawful
blowing up of a boat in international waters under the
claim that there were Narco terrorists and had drugs in there.
Senator Paul is in agreement with judgment of Paula Tana,
who's in agreement with me. No, you can't do that.

(19:20):
But maybe they blew the boat up based upon the
Iraq Authorization to Use of military force. Congressman Messi, they've
been playing fast and loose with that one for a
number of years.

Speaker 1 (19:30):
Yeah. There, In fact, there are two aumfs that are outstanding.
The one that we're trying to repeal should be the
least controversial because there's another AUMs out there that authorized
the war on terrorism, and that one needs to be now.
Ostensibly it was it was to go after the terrorists
in Afghanistan, right, and possibly ones who fled to Pakistan.

(19:55):
But that's still in place and they use it for
everything in the world, including people who you know, maybe
they're bad guys, but they had nothing to do with
nine eleven. And so honestly that one needs to be
repealed as well. The AUMs should be limited in time,

(20:15):
and limited in geography, and limited in the enemies that
you're going to attack. Otherwise they get twisted where you know,
we're literally using them as blanket waivers to do anything
the executive branch wants. By the way, I'm glad I
asked the other day, if we're going to call it
the Department of War instead of the Department of Defense,

(20:37):
can we now admit that what they do are acts
of war or at least acts of the Department of War,
and as such need to be voted on and authorized
by Congress.

Speaker 2 (20:47):
Amen.

Speaker 4 (20:48):
I was just going to make that point, Congress of Massy,
because I don't believe the authorization for you some military
force is even constitutional. There has to be a congressional
action when you're engaging in warfare. Corso messy. Great segue
to the judge this morning. Love having you on the
program sir. Keep up the great work and keep fighting
that good constitutional fight, my friend.

Speaker 1 (21:07):
Amen, Thank you. Hi to the judge too, all.

Speaker 4 (21:10):
Right, and he's back at you on that, I guarantee you.
Thanks Congress, Massy, Judge and Politano.

Speaker 2 (21:15):
Next fifty five KRC