'Try it': GOP congressman ripped for threatening to read top-secret documents on the House floor
By: Alex Henderson
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky is among the many Republicans who has been attacking the Biden Administration and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in response to the 37-count federal criminal indictment that former President Donald Trump is facing. Massie claims that the indictment is politically motivated, but Trump's critics — including special counsel Jack Smith — have maintained that the indictment is about national security, not politics.
Trump is accused of mishandling government documents he was storing at his Mar-a-Lago compound in Palm Beach, Florida, and 31 of the 37 counts are for alleged violations of the Espionage Act. The former president has insisted that all the documents at Mar-a-Lago were "declassified," but Smith disagrees and alleges that Trump endangered national security by moving documents with classified, top-secret information to Mar-a-Lago — documents that, according to Smith, should have remained in Washington, D.C. when Trump left the White House on January 20, 2021.
On Monday, June 12 , Massie claimed that the U.S. Constitution allows members of Congress to read "aloud" any of the documents in question.
The Tea Party Republican tweeted , "For what it's worth, under the Constitution, no member of Congress can be prosecuted for reading aloud on the floor any of the documents Trump allegedly has copies of."
In response to that tweet, Democratic activist Kim Harris posted, "Go ahead, try it, Mr. Massie. @TheJusticeDept @DOJPH @FBI." And Susan Vermazen , a former photo editor for New York Magazine and Rolling Stone, tweeted, "So you are on the KGB/Mafiya payroll too? The Saudis send you money?"
Tags
Who is online
296 visitors
I swear...
tells you how fucking intelligent the teabags are. go ahead and read it scumbag, have fun in club fed...
[✘]
[✘]
Go back the the washington examiner. Seems more your speed.
ashington examiner. Seems more your speed.
Yeah, unlike rawstory it doesn't take advantage of their reader's illiteracy and ignorance to fool them into outrage.
That is funny.
RULES of the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
PREPARED BY Cheryl L. Johnson
Clerk of the House of Representatives
January 10, 2023
13. Before a Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may have ac-
cess to classified information, the following oath (or affirmation) shall be executed:
‘‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will not disclose any classi-
fied information received in the course of my service with the
House of Representatives, except as authorized by the House of Rep-
resentatives or in accordance with its Rules. ’’
Copies of the executed oath (or affirmation) shall be retained as part of the records of the House, in the case of a Member, Delegate, or the Resi-
dent Commissioner, by the Clerk, and in the case of an officer or employee of the House, by the Sergeant-at-Arms. The Clerk shall make the sig-
natories a matter of public record, causing the names of each Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who has signed the oath during a
week (if any) to be published in a portion of the Congressional Record des ignated for that purpose on the last legislative day of the week and mak-
ing cumulative lists of such names available each day for public inspection in an appropriate office of the House.
The village idiot strikes again.
maybe the idiot could read it aloud and then just claim he lied about it.
its worked before.
I mean, damn, what the "F" are SCIFs (secure rooms) for and secure hearings for if BOZOs can threaten and proceed to read classified documents on the house and senate floors? What about the public milling around and observing from the rafters above the 'theater'?
Independents for how much longer will these red-states be allowed your support or want of support when they are obviously non-critical thinking angry 'elephants' - no insult to real elephants?!
[✘]
Rawstory preys on the borderline illiterate again. I swear, a lot of people have to work on their reading comprehension.
Let me make this as simple as possible for those struggling with basic English. All he said was " I could do this, and nothing would happen" That's 100% true.
He's not threatening to do it or claim he's going to do it. He just tweeted a simple statement of fact.
So say dumb things and have the right wing defend them...
Sounds about right.
So you believe this statement to be true?
It’s 100% true. There’s no question about it.
Show me where in the constitution that it say members of congress can read out loud stolen classified documents....
Like the third or fourth line?
and
And for those who want to read it from the horses mouth, here's Article 1 Section 6 of the US Constitution
Lol.
Read the article 1, section 6 and tell me what limits are placed upon a congressman’s speech. Pay attention to punctuation.
if you don’t believe me, read the Supreme Court cases dealing with absolute immunity for congressional speech during debate.
This isn’t controversial. It’s a shame progressives are so uninformed about our constitution.
I see he was correct. Seems they can say whatever the fuck they want.
I didn't understand the last line...
That one I don't get.
It is a shame conservatives can be so dismissive of idiots in congress.
From your link.
Basiclly courts. So whatever they say in debate can't be used as a basis for any other official proceeding.
So you think it says congress people cannot be compelled to go to court proceedings?
Never mind. I understood what you said.
Basically what they say cannot be used against them.
To me that is still different than reading out loud classified information.
(Allowed. Haha my mind....I am sober believe it or not)
Or, even in the rules of the house and senate.
A Closed session will be motioned and voted in for the ("debate/reading) of classified materials. The doors will be locked, the public, and the press taken out of the proceedings. So it is not an OPEN anything: Why won't you state that clearly?!
Wait, that is a word. Aloud....
And you don't have to worry your head about what progressives (liberals) know about the constitution because someone told you what you know (in bits and spurts) too. However, this information is the same as a "torture report" and while the deed can be done, there are repercussions in the house and senate for revealing national secrets "helter skelter" to the public.
So what is YOUR point? Only a fool would screw the country and like his or her career just trying to be a "dick" exercising a 'forbidden right' in the Constitution.
BTW, such was the case with Gravel and Udall (both on their way of the congress-with the door to hit them in the backside).
Ultimately, what I am talking about is grave consequences, not just capability under the law. You should be too.
and this:
See 5.2.14 below. There is a "mountain" of consequences to being an arrogant fool to read classified information into the public record "helter skelter" like. So wisdom dictates one not be a fool to do so (publicly).
I still don't see where it says they are exempt from anything but civil suits.
It may be like an unwritten rule as to not push boundaries. I can see where some may want something in congressional records yet I highly doubt it would be classified information.
Sigh, since you didn’t understand the first part it’s not surprising you didn’t get this either. Would you like it explained to you?
This should be comical.
Go right ahead.
[✘]
So you cannot explain it yourself?
I explained it quite clearly, your inability to understand it isn’t my problem.
There is a thing called using your own words.
[✘]
This is why unless the congressional member is intent on ending his/her career over a privilege (from criminal action) he/she would follow house rules (which require he/she do not disclose classified materials similar or the same in the possession of FORMER President Donald J. Trump) to the public. The constitution article:
Rules of the 118 congress (current).
Though a congressman/woman may wish to flout the rules she or he can do so and find themselves thrown out of congress and in deepest trouble on some residual rule involving congress or other governmental office of governance. It would be a fool's play in any case. Including loss of pension, etc.
If I was a teacher I would give you an F. Using other people's homework is not doing it yourself.
Your words also do not even mention classified information.
The title of the article says in so many words: Try it. (And see what happens to you, Congressman.)
It does not have to be a criminal prosecution, . . . to be a prosecution (censure, loss of seniority, expulsion, loss of benefits, etc as the House dictates). And, more importantly it does not have to be criminal. These "show-offs" in congress like their 'cushy' representative seats and want to keep them long enough to get the benefits coming to them. They WILL toe the line for safety sake.
Thanks for all the info.
Meaningless, it takes 2/3’s vote to expel a member. They are literally protected under the constitution, only an idiot would think anything trumps that.
You bet! We don't have to take partial truth as the be all that is all from conservatives. Conservatives are notorious for only sharing the parts of information that 'strokes' their narratives!
Thank you for this exchange.
[✘]
And you said that to say what? That not a thing would happen to such a fool? Can you prove that?
Do you think a congressman/woman having been explained to them that this is a serious breach of house rules based on the character of the documents would take the civil risk of having the 'hammer' come down on her or him if she/he wants to continue to function and serve in the House?
Would it be worth it to you, for instance to put your career on the line to test your 'theory' that all will go well for you in this climate of back and forth ('horse-trading') in the house.
As the title says: Try it! See what happens to you, . . . congressman.
Oh and by the way, disloyal Trump/'Everyman' for Trump - Trump would not throw himself under a bus for the sake of a gang of congresspersons, let know -one lonely fool!
BTW, if it an idol threat then why waste time making it? Furthermore, if nothing would happen and as it you suggest that's 100% true. . . .how about this:
Why don't he go out to the steps of the Capitol or onto the surface avenue below it and read classified documents aloud? Because seeing that it will be public when the media picks up the information. . . no harm no foul right? RIGHT??
Sean, really? How long will conservatives defend the indefensible seeing that each time conservatives do so it only increases to deepening levels of absurdities?
It'd not a threat. Words matter. In no way can you murder meaning enough to turn his statement of fact into a threat. He's simply pointing out the different Constitutional protections Congressmen and the Executive have.
out to the steps of the Capitol or onto the surface avenue below it and read classified documents aloud?
That would be illegal. Pay attention to his words.
w long will conservatives defend the indefensible seeing
What is indefensible about stating a simple statement of fact about the Constitutional protections offered to Congressmen? Why are progressives so horrified by our Constitution?
He teaches you a lesson about how our government works and progressives act like they've been personally attacked.
You are really stretching to defend his statement.
Not at all. Getting upset over this is like becoming enraged that massie said there are two houses of congress. It’s a basic truth of our system.
I want them to do it now.
He is teaching us not a damn thing as we need no schooling. He is talking out his ass, either stating the obvious for effect (and that not explicitly for he can not read classified materials on the floor of congress in an open session) or he is trying to get a "idiot" set of acts by Donald Trump "forgiven" by running interference and providing 'filler' for Trump in hopes of confusing somebody to say: "Oh yeah that is true." It is not.
Worse. You conservatives should know better.
Stop. It's laughable. Conservatives not only deny the law, but the spirit of the law when you try to bend truth into a 'chisel' to protect a repeat loser of a former president. BTW, a loser who would have YOU ALL apologize to the country on his behalf before he will do so.
And then where will we be the instance he does similarly, having learned nothing, the next time?
Look ahead to NEXT TIME!
The Executive Branch can not retaliate against a fool reading classified information (outloud) or against house/senate rules, but Congress can retaliate against its own members!
What is this "allegedly" stuff? Trump is indicted for having classified documents or copies of the same. And, this "idiot" of a politician so desperately to support the cause of Trump's idiocy is willing to go one-step farther than Trump by intentionally reading the documents out-loud? Trump would love this. Why? Because then this congressman's problem with DOJ would overshadow the first idiots actions!
BTW, what part of Florida and Mara Lago do conservatives imagine to be Washington D.C. and the U.S. Capitol Building? Because if you can not make the connection; your comparison to Trump's ballroom/bathroom/office is a waste of our time! Courts deal with facts and not whimsical former presidents and his disingenuous house and senate compatriots who dream up this kind of shit to confound the masses-whom they must consider dumb and unread.