January 14, 2026 • 18 mins
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The talk station eight o five here a fifty five
KRCD talk station. I'm very happy one. See if you
always made an extra special when we get what might
call my favorite hour of radio with Congressman Thomas Massey,
followed by Judge edit of Poulitano. Say what you want
about the judge. He's got his own opinions. He's entitled
to them. Welcome back, Congressman Thomas Massy. Say what you
(00:22):
want about Congressman Massy. I know Donald Trump says what
he wants about you, sir. It's great to have you
back on the program. Always a pleasure, my friend, great.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
To be on. You know. Occasionally I get a mean
tweet from the President, but then I get about eighty
thousand dollars a donation sent to my website every time.
That happens, mostly by people who like the President and
like me as well.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Right that, See, that's me. Although I don't I haven't,
you know, submitted to fealty to Donald Trump. I do
have my occasional criticisms of him, and I'm entitled to them.
I do share your profound appreciation and respect for the
ultimate law of the way, which is the Constitution. I've
got a lot of questions legal and otherwise about some
of the things Donald Trump has done. And you know,
(01:06):
we're entitled to have these discussions because it does exist
within a discussion of the Constitution and what the Constitution
allows and does not allow. But you know, I can
really appreciate you, but also appreciate the work that Donald
Trump has done, because he's got a lot accomplished for
the good of all the humanity in the United States
since he took office. So you just can't step out
(01:27):
of line with him. When you're a politician, you're not
allowed to suggest something independent of his idea.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
I vote with the party ninety one percent of the time.
I'm almost embarrassed to tell you I do it that
many times. Yeah, it's the nine percent where they're bankrupting
the company or starting another war or trying to cover
up for pedophiles where I disagree with the party, and
then I get in trouble for taking the other path,
(01:57):
which is the constitutional path or the path of transfer.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Well, it's never the path of the Democrats necessarily, Although
going over to the Epstein files, this has been a
real puzzler fort literally everyone. We can go through the
brief history of it. Donald Trump even campaigned on getting
the Epstein files out there. The Democrats were in power
under Joe Biden. They could have released them during that
entire period of time, because they were sitting in a
back room somewhere. They didn't lift a finger to release them.
(02:23):
Donald Trump gets selected, he then sort of does a
one to eighty and says no, no, there's nothing to
see there. And then the Democrats immediately say, well, Donald
Trump doesn't want to release them, so we all want
to release them, resulting in your discharge petition because you
know that we are entitled to see the Epstein files.
And then everyone, with a notable few exceptions, House and
Senate votes to release the Epstein files. Congressman Thomas Messey,
(02:46):
he did sign that piece of legislation. It was the law,
or it is the law of the land that those
documents were supposed to have been produced already. Am I wrong?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
You're correct. The President signed my bill which said that
the Steam files were due by December nineteenth. We're almost
we're a month past that date, and they've released like
maybe one percent of the files and things, and the
files that they're releasing are not the files that we need.
(03:17):
We've told them specifically, we want the draft indictments. We
want the three h two forms that FBI fills out
after they interview the victims. We want the stuff that
has the names in them. And we've told them you
can't redact them because you're trying to protect internal deliberations.
We want the internal deliberations. The law says, give us
the internal deliberations. So, because they've missed the deadline, but
(03:42):
more importantly, because they are over redacting these files, we
have asked the judge, Judge Ingelemeyer in the Southern District
of New York to appoint a special master to oversee
the redactions and the release of these files. And the
judge responded to us this week and told us and
(04:03):
the doj okay, give me your arguments within a week,
and then he may make some kind of decision here.
So that's our next step. There are other avenues available
to us legislatively and legally, legislatively, we can find Pambondi
in contempt. She is in contempt of Congress now, especially
(04:24):
because our law that the presidents signed also said fifteen
days after the original thirty day deadline, they've got to
give a report to Congress listing all the political folks
that they found in their files, and they have to
justify all the reactions. So they've missed both deadlines now
and one was specifically for a deliverable to Congress. So
(04:46):
they're in contempt of Congress. We can find them in contempt.
There's another level called inherent contempt, where you could find
her from the House of Representatives or send the Sergeant
at Arms to arrest her. We could do that. It
doesn't have to go to the Senate. We could impeach her.
That's a steep hill to climb in the Senate, but
(05:08):
the threat of that might compel her to start following
the law. Or we could bring a lawsuit. The victims
could bring a lawsuit, or myself and the co author
of my build, Rocanna, could bring a lawsuit if we
can establish standing in a court and then compel the
release of them. There's so many avenues. We're trying the
(05:28):
most polite avenue right now, which is to say, judge,
can you point a special master just to see what
they're doing over there?
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Well, the law is on the books. I'm going back
to this whole idea that they swore to uphold. The
Constitution and faithfully execute the laws. That would include a
swear by Donald Trump as well as Pam BONDI right,
she took the oath as well, didn't she?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Yes. Here's another thing about the Well, go ahead, Brian.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
I guess absence some argument that the law in and
of itself is unconstitutional, which I don't think anybody has
made that argument, although you can correct me if I'm wrong.
The law says what the law says. There's really nothing
to review here other than try to figure out a
remedy based upon the various people involved making the decisions
(06:17):
refusal to follow what the law specifically says.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
They are making a legal argument that a first year
law student when no, doesn't hold any water. The legal
argument and they're trying to make is that the Privacy
Act protects these people, the perpetrators who've not been indicted.
Here's the problem. Our bill, which is a newer law,
overrides the old law. They're saying because you didn't repeal
(06:44):
the Privacy Act, that the Privacy Act overrules your new bill.
But our new bill is the law of the land
supersedes you don't have to yeah, supersedes it. And the
judges every judge in the country knows this. We just
need one judge to tell them. What's what. The other
thing they're doing is they're saying that our Foyer Standards
(07:06):
Freedom of Information Act allow us to redact things because
of internal deliberations. Well, here's the problem with this that
this is not a foy it this is not law.
This freaking law the President's signed. And second of all,
it says internal communications, including decisions about whether to indict,
(07:31):
decisions about this, and decisions about that. It's all we
need is like some judge somewhere to say, you, Pambinde,
you're full of it. And so that's hopefully we get
to that point soon. But here's what I was going
to say when I interrupted you, I'm sorry. I was
(07:51):
going to say, this is a law. And here's the
other feature of a law. Until it's repealed, it goes
on forever. So Pam Bondy, even though we could refer
contempt charges on her to the DOJ, she's not going
to find herself in contempt right, But the next Attorney
General could prosecute a prior attorney general for not following
(08:16):
this law because unlike a congressional subpoena, from the Oversight
Committee or the Judiciary Committee. This thing doesn't expire at
the end of our CONGRESSCT. It goes on forever. Well,
so they're putting themselves in legal jeopardy, and you can
be darn sure there are going to be future attorney
generals who will prosecute this thing when they get in
(08:36):
that seat. Now, Pambonni hasn't arrested or indicted anybody, not Fauci,
nobody for any of the things that you know, we
claim that's been going on, and we know that have
been going on. But I can guarantee you there will
be ags who will be aggressive.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Well, I guess to suppose the elephant in the room
is this amid all of this overwhelming legal support for
producing the damn docis given what we just you know,
what you and I just just talked about here, the
big looming question is why would you even go down
this impeachment or contempt or whatever legal action road is
going to be in front of us inevitably, What is
(09:14):
the reason they aren't being produced? The real reason? Who
are they trying to cover or hide? These are the
questions that always pop up when you try to hide
the ball from the American people.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
That's the thing. Pam Bondi's not in these files. Todd Blanche,
her deputy, is not in these files. Why are they
putting their heads their necks in a news literally yes,
but by violating this law they could be charged criminally.
Why are they doing that? Who are they covering up for?
(09:46):
Why is this so important to them? Why don't they
just comply with the law because they will get in
trouble in the cover up, not not for releasing the things.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
And going back to whether or not you like Donald
try over or not, isn't a little bit revealing perhaps,
or one can might reach the conclusion that it's revealing
that Donald Trump hasn't come out and say, what's the
damn problem here? Get the documents out? Like the law
that I signed says to.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Do well, that's the thing that paym Bondi worked for him.
We know that he does just need to walk down
the hall and say do it or come out and
say do it right, So in the absence of him
compelling her, he's complicit. Now he and this thing, it's
(10:36):
like everything in the world is happening. I call these
weapons of mass distraction. And now they're trying to just
completely ignore the document production. It's literally ground to a halt.
And they've admitted they've only released about one percent of
the files. They say there are a million files they've found. Oh,
we didn't know we had a million files on st right,
(10:58):
which brings another question. How does how is there an
FBI file? It's a million files big okay, a folder
with a million files in it, which may be five
million pages, and there's only two people guilty. I'm not
buying it. Oh, no, show us the draft indictments where
they had other people to indict that they didn't indict.
(11:21):
What happened with those indictments?
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Well, I think if you're betting and your you're you
wanted to put your money on a safe bet, I
would argue that anybody else who was facing an indictment
probably reached an out of court settlement with the victim
and a h which also included a confidentiality agreement. Just
one thought. You can't get someone to testify you in
a criminal trial. You've already bought them off. There isn't
(11:45):
going to be one. Let's see Congress and Matthews, Well.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Yeah, and so our bill requires disclosure of those agreements
like we are pioneering here. This had this has never
been done, as far as I know, in the history
of your country. Nobody actually got a law passed that said,
for a specific case, you have to give us the
grand jury material, you have to give us everything.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Well, that may answer some of the questions about Donald
Trump's unleashing ire upon you and calling you the worst
Republican congressman. Just a thought. We'll continue with Congressman Massi.
We'll find out what the government shutdown based upon. Defunding ICE.
Really maybe a word or chowing Venezuela and perhaps Ron
Thomas Massey Moore after this quick oh no, after these
brief words station Hey twenty here fifty five krc DE
(12:36):
talk station, Happy Wednesday, Judgenna Paulatano coming up next after well,
maybe finished the conversation we're having right now with Congressman
Thomas Massey. Looks like are we going to face another
government shutdown? I know it was all about the Obamacare
covid Era subsidies before masking the reality of the epic
failure that is Obamacare and doing nothing to lower the
cost of healthcare, just masking it. That was one reason,
(13:00):
and we went through that. Are we going to do
that again, or is it now going to be over
ice funding, which I've heard some elected officials argue it
should be.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
I would argue it should be over something else. By
the way, the deadline is January thirtieth. The House is
proceeding by passing mini buses, okay, but these aren't necessarily
being passed in the Senate. And I think we could
hit an impasse here pretty soon because I don't know
how many of my colleagues are going to agree to
(13:30):
fund the fraudulent daycare centers in Minnesota, and how many
will agree to fund the National Endowment for Democracy. This
is like a three hundred million dollar fund that has
been widely recognized now as a leftist but also a
Neocon source of meddling in the world. But the money
(13:51):
also comes back and influences our own government. I've offered
an amendment and I've co sponsored an amendment to take
out the money for the National Endowment for Democracy. It'll
be interesting to see how that plays out this week
and then in subsequent weeks. Before January thirtieth, I've already
(14:11):
got my amendments written to target basically to reduce and
eliminate this fraud in Minnesota. I don't know if you
saw the president. This administration tried to withhold funding from
five of the states where it's clearly fraudulent, and a
judge ruled that you can't withhold the funding. He's got
(14:34):
to send the funding there. And people are like, how
can a judge have this much power? The reason the
judge has that power to make that ruling is the
President signed to freaking bill that funds all the fraudulent
daycares and Congress passed it. And we've got a chance
January thirtieth to basically stop that. And then the judge
can't make the president spend the money. All we got
(14:56):
to do is change it in law. Spending bills are law.
That is coming up. That deadline is coming up January thirtieth.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
Is it too much of an ask when drafting legislation
in connection with any large government program where a lot
of money is going to be flowing out to the
masses to put in upfront protection measures that would prevent fraud, waste,
and abuse before the money goes out the door of Congress.
From Massey, that is.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
I've already drafted the amendment to do that. Literally, it
mirrors what the president is trying to do that the
judge has shut down. I draft an amendment that says,
if you find fraud in a state, you can implement
these safeguards, these guardrails before the money flows to that state.
I literally wrote that into legislation. It's ready to go
(15:44):
into the bill. If the Rules Committee will allow it.
It would get a vote on the floor of the House.
And it's just common sense. But here's what I predict
what happened, Brian. I predict there will not be a shutdown.
I predict myself and several other Conservatives at the end
are going to say, this is insanity. We cannot fund
(16:04):
all the fraudulent stuff that we just found. We're not
voting for this. And what they'll do is they'll go
over to the other side of the aisle of the Democrats,
and of course the Democrats will vote for it. If
it's got the fraudulent funding and the refugee resettlement funds
and all that other stuff in it, they'll lap that up.
It'll be the unipart it'll be a uniparty bill on
(16:26):
January thirtieth, and then the President won't complain until after
he signs the bill and it Judge says, no, wait,
you're signing the build that funds all this stuff.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Oh great, this is why we have you Congress from
Messi to boil it down to its darkest terms.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
You also wouldn't know, you wouldn't have somebody introducing legislation
that's bold enough to take out the fraudulent stuff. They
will literally probably shut me down in the Rules Committee.
I was on the Rules Committee for two years. I
know how that works. This is where Republicans need to
make their stand. There are nine Republicans and four Democrats
on the Rules Committee. It would be so easy. You
(17:07):
don't even need every Republican. You only need seven Republicans
on the Rules Committee to put these amendments in there.
That's that's where the stronghold is. But I'm going to
predict all nine Republicans cave on the Rules Committee, don't
put it in there, and then complain later that the
fund that the money's in there.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
Well, why don't you use social media to out the
names of the Republicans that are on the Rules Committee
so we can bring about some measure of pressure from
at least my listening audience and everybody else who follows
you on social media to get their phones ringing, their
emails lit up, and the social media accounts overwhelmed with
you know, basically not threats but demands and and please
(17:49):
to get what you want done.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
I linked I didn't put their names on there, but
I put a link to the Rules Committee website which
has their names on it, so that folks can find
out if it's one of their congressmen that's on the
Rules Committee. But just go to the Rules Committee website.
It's right there. The nine Republicans that need to hear
put this in there. It's where Lucy takes the football
(18:15):
from the voters every single time. It's in the Rules Committee.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Vote and apparently where Republicans. Republicans stab their own constituents
in the committee in the back. Congressman Thomas Massey find
the Rules Committee listeners, get in touch with Republicans on
the Rules Committee, tell them to heed Congressman Massey's warning
and get it done. Congressman Thomas Massey can't thank you
so much for joining the program. Keep fighting the good fight,
(18:42):
and keep believing in the supreme supreme law of the
land because so many people just conveniently like to ignore it.
The talk station eight o five here a fifty five
KRCD talk station. I'm very happy one. See if you
always made an extra special when we get what might
call my favorite hour of radio with Congressman Thomas Massey,
followed by Judge edit of Poulitano. Say what you want
about the judge. He's got his own opinions. He's entitled
to them. Welcome back, Congressman Thomas Massy. Say what you
(00:22):
want about Congressman Massy. I know Donald Trump says what
he wants about you, sir. It's great to have you
back on the program. Always a pleasure, my friend, great.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
To be on. You know. Occasionally I get a mean
tweet from the President, but then I get about eighty
thousand dollars a donation sent to my website every time.
That happens, mostly by people who like the President and
like me as well.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Right that, See, that's me. Although I don't I haven't,
you know, submitted to fealty to Donald Trump. I do
have my occasional criticisms of him, and I'm entitled to them.
I do share your profound appreciation and respect for the
ultimate law of the way, which is the Constitution. I've
got a lot of questions legal and otherwise about some
of the things Donald Trump has done. And you know,
(01:06):
we're entitled to have these discussions because it does exist
within a discussion of the Constitution and what the Constitution
allows and does not allow. But you know, I can
really appreciate you, but also appreciate the work that Donald
Trump has done, because he's got a lot accomplished for
the good of all the humanity in the United States
since he took office. So you just can't step out
(01:27):
of line with him. When you're a politician, you're not
allowed to suggest something independent of his idea.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
I vote with the party ninety one percent of the time.
I'm almost embarrassed to tell you I do it that
many times. Yeah, it's the nine percent where they're bankrupting
the company or starting another war or trying to cover
up for pedophiles where I disagree with the party, and
then I get in trouble for taking the other path,
(01:57):
which is the constitutional path or the path of transfer.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Well, it's never the path of the Democrats necessarily, Although
going over to the Epstein files, this has been a
real puzzler fort literally everyone. We can go through the
brief history of it. Donald Trump even campaigned on getting
the Epstein files out there. The Democrats were in power
under Joe Biden. They could have released them during that
entire period of time, because they were sitting in a
back room somewhere. They didn't lift a finger to release them.
(02:23):
Donald Trump gets selected, he then sort of does a
one to eighty and says no, no, there's nothing to
see there. And then the Democrats immediately say, well, Donald
Trump doesn't want to release them, so we all want
to release them, resulting in your discharge petition because you
know that we are entitled to see the Epstein files.
And then everyone, with a notable few exceptions, House and
Senate votes to release the Epstein files. Congressman Thomas Messey,
(02:46):
he did sign that piece of legislation. It was the law,
or it is the law of the land that those
documents were supposed to have been produced already. Am I wrong?
Speaker 2 (02:56):
You're correct. The President signed my bill which said that
the Steam files were due by December nineteenth. We're almost
we're a month past that date, and they've released like
maybe one percent of the files and things, and the
files that they're releasing are not the files that we need.
(03:17):
We've told them specifically, we want the draft indictments. We
want the three h two forms that FBI fills out
after they interview the victims. We want the stuff that
has the names in them. And we've told them you
can't redact them because you're trying to protect internal deliberations.
We want the internal deliberations. The law says, give us
the internal deliberations. So, because they've missed the deadline, but
(03:42):
more importantly, because they are over redacting these files, we
have asked the judge, Judge Ingelemeyer in the Southern District
of New York to appoint a special master to oversee
the redactions and the release of these files. And the
judge responded to us this week and told us and
(04:03):
the doj okay, give me your arguments within a week,
and then he may make some kind of decision here.
So that's our next step. There are other avenues available
to us legislatively and legally, legislatively, we can find Pambondi
in contempt. She is in contempt of Congress now, especially
(04:24):
because our law that the presidents signed also said fifteen
days after the original thirty day deadline, they've got to
give a report to Congress listing all the political folks
that they found in their files, and they have to
justify all the reactions. So they've missed both deadlines now
and one was specifically for a deliverable to Congress. So
(04:46):
they're in contempt of Congress. We can find them in contempt.
There's another level called inherent contempt, where you could find
her from the House of Representatives or send the Sergeant
at Arms to arrest her. We could do that. It
doesn't have to go to the Senate. We could impeach her.
That's a steep hill to climb in the Senate, but
(05:08):
the threat of that might compel her to start following
the law. Or we could bring a lawsuit. The victims
could bring a lawsuit, or myself and the co author
of my build, Rocanna, could bring a lawsuit if we
can establish standing in a court and then compel the
release of them. There's so many avenues. We're trying the
(05:28):
most polite avenue right now, which is to say, judge,
can you point a special master just to see what
they're doing over there?
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Well, the law is on the books. I'm going back
to this whole idea that they swore to uphold. The
Constitution and faithfully execute the laws. That would include a
swear by Donald Trump as well as Pam BONDI right,
she took the oath as well, didn't she?
Speaker 2 (05:52):
Yes. Here's another thing about the Well, go ahead, Brian.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
I guess absence some argument that the law in and
of itself is unconstitutional, which I don't think anybody has
made that argument, although you can correct me if I'm wrong.
The law says what the law says. There's really nothing
to review here other than try to figure out a
remedy based upon the various people involved making the decisions
(06:17):
refusal to follow what the law specifically says.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
They are making a legal argument that a first year
law student when no, doesn't hold any water. The legal
argument and they're trying to make is that the Privacy
Act protects these people, the perpetrators who've not been indicted.
Here's the problem. Our bill, which is a newer law,
overrides the old law. They're saying because you didn't repeal
(06:44):
the Privacy Act, that the Privacy Act overrules your new bill.
But our new bill is the law of the land
supersedes you don't have to yeah, supersedes it. And the
judges every judge in the country knows this. We just
need one judge to tell them. What's what. The other
thing they're doing is they're saying that our Foyer Standards
(07:06):
Freedom of Information Act allow us to redact things because
of internal deliberations. Well, here's the problem with this that
this is not a foy it this is not law.
This freaking law the President's signed. And second of all,
it says internal communications, including decisions about whether to indict,
(07:31):
decisions about this, and decisions about that. It's all we
need is like some judge somewhere to say, you, Pambinde,
you're full of it. And so that's hopefully we get
to that point soon. But here's what I was going
to say when I interrupted you, I'm sorry. I was
(07:51):
going to say, this is a law. And here's the
other feature of a law. Until it's repealed, it goes
on forever. So Pam Bondy, even though we could refer
contempt charges on her to the DOJ, she's not going
to find herself in contempt right, But the next Attorney
General could prosecute a prior attorney general for not following
(08:16):
this law because unlike a congressional subpoena, from the Oversight
Committee or the Judiciary Committee. This thing doesn't expire at
the end of our CONGRESSCT. It goes on forever. Well,
so they're putting themselves in legal jeopardy, and you can
be darn sure there are going to be future attorney
generals who will prosecute this thing when they get in
(08:36):
that seat. Now, Pambonni hasn't arrested or indicted anybody, not Fauci,
nobody for any of the things that you know, we
claim that's been going on, and we know that have
been going on. But I can guarantee you there will
be ags who will be aggressive.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Well, I guess to suppose the elephant in the room
is this amid all of this overwhelming legal support for
producing the damn docis given what we just you know,
what you and I just just talked about here, the
big looming question is why would you even go down
this impeachment or contempt or whatever legal action road is
going to be in front of us inevitably, What is
(09:14):
the reason they aren't being produced? The real reason? Who
are they trying to cover or hide? These are the
questions that always pop up when you try to hide
the ball from the American people.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
That's the thing. Pam Bondi's not in these files. Todd Blanche,
her deputy, is not in these files. Why are they
putting their heads their necks in a news literally yes,
but by violating this law they could be charged criminally.
Why are they doing that? Who are they covering up for?
(09:46):
Why is this so important to them? Why don't they
just comply with the law because they will get in
trouble in the cover up, not not for releasing the things.
Speaker 1 (09:58):
And going back to whether or not you like Donald
try over or not, isn't a little bit revealing perhaps,
or one can might reach the conclusion that it's revealing
that Donald Trump hasn't come out and say, what's the
damn problem here? Get the documents out? Like the law
that I signed says to.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Do well, that's the thing that paym Bondi worked for him.
We know that he does just need to walk down
the hall and say do it or come out and
say do it right, So in the absence of him
compelling her, he's complicit. Now he and this thing, it's
(10:36):
like everything in the world is happening. I call these
weapons of mass distraction. And now they're trying to just
completely ignore the document production. It's literally ground to a halt.
And they've admitted they've only released about one percent of
the files. They say there are a million files they've found. Oh,
we didn't know we had a million files on st right,
(10:58):
which brings another question. How does how is there an
FBI file? It's a million files big okay, a folder
with a million files in it, which may be five
million pages, and there's only two people guilty. I'm not
buying it. Oh, no, show us the draft indictments where
they had other people to indict that they didn't indict.
(11:21):
What happened with those indictments?
Speaker 1 (11:24):
Well, I think if you're betting and your you're you
wanted to put your money on a safe bet, I
would argue that anybody else who was facing an indictment
probably reached an out of court settlement with the victim
and a h which also included a confidentiality agreement. Just
one thought. You can't get someone to testify you in
a criminal trial. You've already bought them off. There isn't
(11:45):
going to be one. Let's see Congress and Matthews, Well.
Speaker 2 (11:50):
Yeah, and so our bill requires disclosure of those agreements
like we are pioneering here. This had this has never
been done, as far as I know, in the history
of your country. Nobody actually got a law passed that said,
for a specific case, you have to give us the
grand jury material, you have to give us everything.
Speaker 1 (12:12):
Well, that may answer some of the questions about Donald
Trump's unleashing ire upon you and calling you the worst
Republican congressman. Just a thought. We'll continue with Congressman Massi.
We'll find out what the government shutdown based upon. Defunding ICE.
Really maybe a word or chowing Venezuela and perhaps Ron
Thomas Massey Moore after this quick oh no, after these
brief words station Hey twenty here fifty five krc DE
(12:36):
talk station, Happy Wednesday, Judgenna Paulatano coming up next after well,
maybe finished the conversation we're having right now with Congressman
Thomas Massey. Looks like are we going to face another
government shutdown? I know it was all about the Obamacare
covid Era subsidies before masking the reality of the epic
failure that is Obamacare and doing nothing to lower the
cost of healthcare, just masking it. That was one reason,
(13:00):
and we went through that. Are we going to do
that again, or is it now going to be over
ice funding, which I've heard some elected officials argue it
should be.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
I would argue it should be over something else. By
the way, the deadline is January thirtieth. The House is
proceeding by passing mini buses, okay, but these aren't necessarily
being passed in the Senate. And I think we could
hit an impasse here pretty soon because I don't know
how many of my colleagues are going to agree to
(13:30):
fund the fraudulent daycare centers in Minnesota, and how many
will agree to fund the National Endowment for Democracy. This
is like a three hundred million dollar fund that has
been widely recognized now as a leftist but also a
Neocon source of meddling in the world. But the money
(13:51):
also comes back and influences our own government. I've offered
an amendment and I've co sponsored an amendment to take
out the money for the National Endowment for Democracy. It'll
be interesting to see how that plays out this week
and then in subsequent weeks. Before January thirtieth, I've already
(14:11):
got my amendments written to target basically to reduce and
eliminate this fraud in Minnesota. I don't know if you
saw the president. This administration tried to withhold funding from
five of the states where it's clearly fraudulent, and a
judge ruled that you can't withhold the funding. He's got
(14:34):
to send the funding there. And people are like, how
can a judge have this much power? The reason the
judge has that power to make that ruling is the
President signed to freaking bill that funds all the fraudulent
daycares and Congress passed it. And we've got a chance
January thirtieth to basically stop that. And then the judge
can't make the president spend the money. All we got
(14:56):
to do is change it in law. Spending bills are law.
That is coming up. That deadline is coming up January thirtieth.
Speaker 1 (15:04):
Is it too much of an ask when drafting legislation
in connection with any large government program where a lot
of money is going to be flowing out to the
masses to put in upfront protection measures that would prevent fraud, waste,
and abuse before the money goes out the door of Congress.
From Massey, that is.
Speaker 2 (15:23):
I've already drafted the amendment to do that. Literally, it
mirrors what the president is trying to do that the
judge has shut down. I draft an amendment that says,
if you find fraud in a state, you can implement
these safeguards, these guardrails before the money flows to that state.
I literally wrote that into legislation. It's ready to go
(15:44):
into the bill. If the Rules Committee will allow it.
It would get a vote on the floor of the House.
And it's just common sense. But here's what I predict
what happened, Brian. I predict there will not be a shutdown.
I predict myself and several other Conservatives at the end
are going to say, this is insanity. We cannot fund
(16:04):
all the fraudulent stuff that we just found. We're not
voting for this. And what they'll do is they'll go
over to the other side of the aisle of the Democrats,
and of course the Democrats will vote for it. If
it's got the fraudulent funding and the refugee resettlement funds
and all that other stuff in it, they'll lap that up.
It'll be the unipart it'll be a uniparty bill on
(16:26):
January thirtieth, and then the President won't complain until after
he signs the bill and it Judge says, no, wait,
you're signing the build that funds all this stuff.
Speaker 1 (16:37):
Oh great, this is why we have you Congress from
Messi to boil it down to its darkest terms.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
You also wouldn't know, you wouldn't have somebody introducing legislation
that's bold enough to take out the fraudulent stuff. They
will literally probably shut me down in the Rules Committee.
I was on the Rules Committee for two years. I
know how that works. This is where Republicans need to
make their stand. There are nine Republicans and four Democrats
on the Rules Committee. It would be so easy. You
(17:07):
don't even need every Republican. You only need seven Republicans
on the Rules Committee to put these amendments in there.
That's that's where the stronghold is. But I'm going to
predict all nine Republicans cave on the Rules Committee, don't
put it in there, and then complain later that the
fund that the money's in there.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
Well, why don't you use social media to out the
names of the Republicans that are on the Rules Committee
so we can bring about some measure of pressure from
at least my listening audience and everybody else who follows
you on social media to get their phones ringing, their
emails lit up, and the social media accounts overwhelmed with
you know, basically not threats but demands and and please
(17:49):
to get what you want done.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
I linked I didn't put their names on there, but
I put a link to the Rules Committee website which
has their names on it, so that folks can find
out if it's one of their congressmen that's on the
Rules Committee. But just go to the Rules Committee website.
It's right there. The nine Republicans that need to hear
put this in there. It's where Lucy takes the football
(18:15):
from the voters every single time. It's in the Rules Committee.
Speaker 1 (18:20):
Vote and apparently where Republicans. Republicans stab their own constituents
in the committee in the back. Congressman Thomas Massey find
the Rules Committee listeners, get in touch with Republicans on
the Rules Committee, tell them to heed Congressman Massey's warning
and get it done. Congressman Thomas Massey can't thank you
so much for joining the program. Keep fighting the good fight,
(18:42):
and keep believing in the supreme supreme law of the
land because so many people just conveniently like to ignore it.
Brian Thomas News
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.