Massie Calls DOJ's Epstein Release 'Grossly Inadequate' — Unlike Media's Israel Coverage
While The Hill dutifully reports Massie's grievance over the Epstein documents, they—and much of the corporate press—often gloss over far more immediate and verifiable issues of accountability. For instance, the US State Department's own reports on human rights abuses by Israeli forces, detailed meticulously year after year, rarely receive the same prominent, outrage-fueled coverage. And when it
comes to the financial levers of influence, Massie himself stands out among his colleagues for consistently rejecting AIPAC donations , a fact conveniently omitted from most reports about his stances. You won't find nearly the same media scrutiny on the 'grossly inadequate' explanations accompanying billions in unconditional aid to a government currently under international investigation for
potential war crimes. It's almost as if some government failures to disclose (like Epstein's client list) are considered scandalous, while others (like the true cost and implications of unwavering support for an occupying power) are simply... 'complex.' One might wonder if the 'legal obligations' for transparency are only enforced when it doesn't inconvenience those who write the checks for
campaign ads and think-tank policy papers. How many other 'grossly inadequate' disclosures are we meant to accept as the cost of doing business?