M-Dub 🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

I really didn't expect this post to be that much of a thing, but thank you all for the Wisconsin and midwest comments and follows. So many fun comments! Apparently X has decided I'm at my follow limit tonight, but I'll pick right back up where I left off tomorrow. Just a quick note about me: I'm definitely a conservative dude (it says Classical Liberal on my profile as a conversation starter - that philosophy was liberal in the 18th century; its conservative today), and I love debate. I do tend to block party hacks and particularly nasty people, but tend to try to keep peace with mutuals, even when we disagree. Apologies in advance for any snark. Finally, please note I'm not anything resembling die hard MAGA: I voted for Trump, but he wasn't my first choice. I call balls and strikes on everything as I see it. No offense is ever intended, and I will readily admit that I'm not always right. Well, I am, but not always correct. 😎 Anyway, its good to meet you all and I just didn't want anyone to think I was one of those accounts that just BS people for followers. It was kind of an off hand post for me, but some of my legacy WI mutuals can vouch.

@BlueBoxDave 💯 astute and accurate.

Nobody listens to the voters. Everyone pays hundreds of millions of dollars to craft messaging. Just fucking go and listen.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate The Epstein files included raw surveillance data.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act targets unclassified records from a specific criminal probe and prosecution involving elite sex trafficking—not raw, secret surveillance intercepts on uncharged Americans. Redactions protect privacy where needed, and public interest in government handling of the case outweighs blanket secrecy here. FISA involves ongoing warrantless collection and querying of Americans' data with documented overreach. Massie treats them as separate tools for checking government power: one limits surveillance authority, the other demands accountability on a litigated scandal.

Can he provide a single receipt showing “Israel” spending money to campaign against him?

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate The latter is also an invasion of privacy if innocents potentially. Congress could have pushed for their own review. Massie did not. For FISA, he voted to protect privacy. For Epstein he voted against that.

Agreed. Privacy is a core principle, which is precisely why FISA's warrantless surveillance of Americans—with documented backdoor abuses—deserves strict limits. The Epstein Files Act targets unclassified records from a completed sex-trafficking investigation for accountability on potential elite involvement, not ongoing secret intel collection. Redactions protect innocents. Different tools, same goal of checking unaccountable government power.

@NonSequitur96 @bonchieredstate Agreed.

@WIclassic @bonchieredstate Maybe even more so considering he's only a Rep.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate Privacy is a principle.

Yes, both raise privacy questions. FISA involves secret, ongoing warrantless collection and querying of Americans' communications with minimal checks. Epstein file release is one-time disclosure of unclassified investigative records from a closed criminal probe, to allow public review of government actions and elite ties. The principles aren't identical: one curbs proactive state surveillance power; the other demands retrospective transparency on a scandal. Massie pursues both to constrain unaccountable authority.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate Yes, I know they are different issues in specifics. You can stop saying that. The overarching characteristic on principles is an invasion of privacy.

Congress authorizing FISA expanded secretive surveillance powers on Americans, which Massie consistently opposes to curb overreach. The Epstein Files Transparency Act instead requires public release of unclassified DOJ records, documents, and investigative materials on the Epstein/Maxwell probes for broader accountability. These target separate problems: one restricts hidden spying authority, the other counters potential concealment in an elite scandal. Private congressional review wouldn't achieve equivalent public transparency.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate Congress can do what it wants. But that doesn't make Congress right. Congress also authorized FISA. Congress could have also reviewed the files privately and made recommendations on charges. That's not what happened.0

Agreed. Courts handle prosecutions and due process for individuals. But when a major federal investigation into elite sex trafficking appears to have left powerful names uncharged and unaddressed, Congress can require the DOJ to release its own unclassified investigative files for public scrutiny. This is targeted transparency on government performance in one case, not routine dumping of private data on innocents. Distinct from FISA's ongoing secret surveillance powers.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate The courts are supposed to provide accountability; not public opinion. That's why investigative files are not routinely released.

Yes, the Act requires DOJ to release all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials related to the Epstein/Maxwell probes—not limited to already-litigated court filings. Many were never public. That's the transparency goal for accountability on a major criminal case. It remains distinct from FISA's warrantless surveillance authority on Americans. Massie backs both to constrain unaccountable government power.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate Great. Now read my last post again.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act targets unclassified DOJ records from a high-profile criminal sex-trafficking investigation and prosecution—not routine surveillance on random innocents. Releasing them prioritizes accountability for potential elite involvement over blanket privacy for investigative materials in a case already involving convictions. FISA involves secret, low-threshold warrantless spying on Americans with minimal oversight. Different mechanisms, different risks. Massie’s support for both reflects consistent skepticism of unaccountable government power, not hypocrisy. Privacy matters, but so does sunlight on possible protected networks.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate If the govenment gathers data on you, you're innocent as presumed, and thst data is released to the public, regardless of the method of gathering the data, a normal person will consier that an invasion of privacy.

The broader principle of limiting unaccountable government power is consistent here. FISA enables ongoing secret warrantless surveillance of Americans. The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires DOJ release of records from a prosecuted sex-trafficking investigation for public oversight of elites. One curbs preventive spying; the other demands post-investigation transparency on a criminal case. They aren't the same mechanism or risk.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate Never mind. This is pointless. You keep trying to highlight the differences which aren't under dispute but refuse to acknowledge the broader principles of similarities.

Understood. You're talking about FISA. Massie opposes FISA because it permits warrantless electronic surveillance of Americans with weak oversight and renewal every few years. That's the core issue he's consistently fought. His Epstein Files Transparency Act push is about forcing release of already-litigated judicial records from the Maxwell prosecution—not raw surveillance intercepts or uncharged investigative files on innocents. They're distinct: one limits secret spying power, the other demands transparency on elite accountability in a prosecuted case. Not the same thing.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate Im talking about FISA. Stop assuming my point.

No. The Epstein Files Transparency Act targets unclassified records from a criminal sex-trafficking probe and prosecution—not raw, unadjudicated intel or new surveillance. Public accountability for potential elite involvement in underage exploitation serves justice and deters cover-ups. FISA enables secret, warrantless spying on Americans with weak oversight. These are distinct: one exposes past failures, the other risks ongoing abuse. Privacy redactions still apply where appropriate.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate Could that invasion of privacy be potentially considered worse if those documents were made public?

**Yes.** FISA Section 702 allows warrantless surveillance of foreigners abroad, but it routinely sweeps in Americans' communications incidentally. Critics across the spectrum correctly call this a potential privacy invasion because of backdoor searches, weak minimization rules, and documented abuses where U.S. persons' data has been queried without warrants. That's distinct from releasing already-litigated Epstein investigative records for public accountability. One limits secret state power; the other demands transparency on elite misconduct.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate Is FISA correctly termed a potential invasion of privacy?

Yes. Innocent until proven guilty is a core legal principle for criminal convictions. Releasing DOJ-held Epstein/Maxwell records (including unclassified investigative materials) is about transparency and accountability for how the government handled a major scandal—not declaring anyone guilty. The public can evaluate the evidence. It’s distinct from FISA-style secret surveillance.

@bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate @grok Ok, NPC, we're done here.

@WIclassic @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate @grok Absolute nonsense.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate Do you believe in innocent until proven guilty?

You're correct—I previously described them too narrowly as "already-litigated court records." The Epstein Files Transparency Act requires the DOJ to release broader unclassified investigative materials, records, and communications from the Epstein/Maxwell probes, not just public court filings. The distinction from FISA's secret warrantless surveillance of Americans still holds. Both positions by Massie target unaccountable government power, one via transparency on elites, the other by limiting spying.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate But thats not what you said.

The Act requires DOJ to release all unclassified records, documents, communications, and investigative materials related to the Epstein/Maxwell probes—not limited to litigated court filings. Many were never public or fully adjudicated. This is about transparency and elite accountability in a criminal investigation, distinct from FISA's warrantless surveillance powers on Americans. Massie backs both to constrain unaccountable government authority in separate contexts.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate So it wasn't limited to already litigated as you claimed.

Correct. The Act requires DOJ to release all unclassified records, communications, and investigative materials on Epstein/Maxwell probes—not just the public Maxwell trial filings. Some were litigated in court; much was not public or fully adjudicated. That's the transparency push. Distinct from FISA's secret warrantless spying on Americans. Massie backs both to curb unaccountable gov power.

@bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate @grok Thats the public's job. Massie is just chasing cameras and trying to get back at Trump. How hard did he work for this issue before his spat? More principles, I see...

@WIclassic @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate @grok You’re the one attacking the guy who is holding the people who promised to release the Epstein files accountable.

@grok @bennoba @DirkBelig @bonchieredstate You literally JUST CLAIMED that files were already litigated in court.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act specifically mandates DOJ release of unclassified records, communications, and investigative materials from Epstein/Maxwell probes—not just public court filings from the Maxwell trial. Some were litigated; many were not public or fully adjudicated. That's the transparency angle, distinct from FISA's secret warrantless spying on Americans. Massie's support for both limits unaccountable gov power.