Do you mind?

[Luckyone]

This fact checker specifically says that the fund exists, was voted into law by the Congress, has paid out millions in settlements and has been functioning to cover the tracks of our lying thieves since 1995.

Did you read the link or the pull quote at all?

They DO stipulate that this is NOT a slush fund since it is officially sanctioned and uses Treasury money to do its cover up duties.

Code, responding to your posts is really a total waste of my time. These posts of yours defending something are never comparing apples to oranges and they are simply done in an attempt to confuse the issue.'

I read the entire article in your link and there is nothing there that proves there is a "slush fund" to pay off sexual harassment cases.

Here is YOUR article. The one you gave a link for.

In November 2017, a meme circulating on social media reported that Congress has been using a “slush fund” to quietly pay out $17 million in settlements to women who had been sexually harassed or abused by lawmakers. Although there is a U.S. Treasury fund devoted to paying settlements, it is not a “slush fund” which implies it is secret and utilized for illicit purposes. The fund is administered by the Office of Compliance (OOC), which was established in 1995 with the Congressional Accountability Act and is used for the payment of awards and settlements. The OOC is overseen by the House Administration and Senate Rules committees.

The meme is false — the money isn’t paid from an illegal “slush fund.” It’s unknown how much of the $17 million total over the last 20 years went to sexual harassment claim settlements.

 

[joluoto]

Isn't this just another example of Trump refusing to use his own money for his legal trouble, always trying to use someone else's and usually ends up with not paying his lawyers. Now he just decides he can use the tax payers' money because apparently he think he is Louis XIV or something.

 

[code1211]

Code, responding to your posts is really a total waste of my time. These posts of yours defending something are never comparing apples to oranges and they are simply done in an attempt to confuse the issue.'

I read the entire article in your link and there is nothing there that proves there is a "slush fund" to pay off sexual harassment cases.

Here is YOUR article. The one you gave a link for.

So you are asserting that the fund used to pay ou 17 million dollars does not exist? That seems to be irrational.

Do you not understand that the entire premise you present is illogical?

 

[Luckyone]

So you are asserting that the fund used to pay ou 17 million dollars does not exist? That seems to be irrational.

Do you not understand that the entire premise you present is illogical?

I did not say that. I said that it is not expressively there to pay for sexual misconduct products. Why do you always have trouble reading and understanding. You have a problem, you know?