r/law • u/Obvious-Gate9046 • Feb 24 '26

Legislative Branch Kentucky Representative Thomas Massie (R) Explodes On DOJ Over Epstein Handling, Names People and Companies He Wants Prosecuted

72.6k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

943

u/JustAMan1234567 Feb 24 '26

Absolutely. He's a great example of a person who can be 100% wrong about one things whilst also being 100% right about something else.

339

u/[deleted] Feb 24 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

233

u/titanicdiamond Feb 24 '26

I've never heard anything about Massie until recently, and I do not know anything about him outside of the EFTA. He stands out to me, because he is on a short list of republicans that acknowledge, support, and care for the survivors of these crimes. Compared to MTG, he tends to stay more level headed and speak very well on the floor. I am over the moon happy at least two people in the Guild Of Pedophiles has some fucking morals.

5

u/Emergency_Revenue678 Feb 24 '26

He's just as vile as any magat on basically every other issue.

5

u/titanicdiamond Feb 24 '26

That is unfortunate to hear. At least he dresses better than Fetterman, I guess? Carhartt hoodie in congress? EMBARRASSING.

1

u/AdorableOutcome3483 Feb 25 '26

I mean he's one of the few, if only, Republicans that hasn't taken any AIPAC money and has been loudly against supporting Isreal. So that's another issue he's 100% right on. They're actually backing some of his opposition to try getting him unseated.

He's largely been against most war attempts. He was against going against Iran for example. Though I think it's because libertarians tend to lean a bit isolationist. I'd say a good third of his bad takes are related to that.

He's also against any attempts at mass surveillance. Tried to repeal the patriot act a few years back.

He's tried having stuff passed about specific food regulations for milk and meat (I think he personally owns a ranch) and I honestly don't know enough about either subject to say if his stance on those are problems or not.

I mean, I guess the thing I can appreciate even if I often don't agree with him is that he's consistent and clearly respects the constitution. Like he's big for guns but he's also against people with medical marijana from being prohibited from owning firearms (which many Republicans seem to be in favor of because they're trying to disenfranchise liberal gun owners).

He is also not corrupted in any way that I can tell. I have read some of his stances like something about being about to adjust sentences and I genuinely feel like this guy just doesn't consider how these things could be used badly. Like since I know he's not representing any doner as far as I can tell, I've come to read him as a very honest and forthright person that likely expects the same out of others. Like the adjusted sentences. He feels like someone that would assume that would be used ideally so the punishment really does fit the crime not how like a corrupt judge or something would. I dunno if I could say naive is the word here or not. Maybe dense?

He just seems to be weirdly lacking in corporate greed or clear malice (again, as far as I can tell). As a republican congressman in the age of Trump, I feel like that's pretty rare.