Here are some ideas potentially explaining why you have not seen much discussion on the meeting of Congress in question. They have been numbered to sort of separate them. Since your post mentions that there is an opinion out there on this topic with Dennis Kucinich's name over top it, this is an excellent segue into listing the first potential idea that comes to mind.
1 - As recent as having occurred within the past 7 days, there was considerable back and forth - pro & con, discussion on a thread posted to the Chemtrails. People may or may not be aware that several years ago, a legislative bill was submitted - with Dennis Kucinich's name over top it, calling for the elimination or reduction in the use of certain types of hi-tech weaponry, such as but not limited to chemtrails. People may or may not be aware that in theory, while Americans are said to vote for / elect people to re present them, they do not get to vote for / elect the staffers - the entourage of pages, sages, consultants and the like that elected officials employ on their behalf from behind the scenes. As such, people may or may not be aware that whether or not Al Webre and Carl Rosin were the literary sources to said legislative bill, as far as people at large should be concerned, this is the same as if Dennis Kucinich authored the entire language of the bill. During the back and forth posting on this topic, one poster who had been speaking on behalf of the con side had put forth a good handful of nuggets of contradictory value on this topic, to include the assertion that a legislative bill that had been submitted with Kucinich's name on it was not to be attributed to Kucinich. This generally speaks to the kind of rationale - excuses, that people by and large have been conditioned to employ when it comes to the matter of them ultimately shirking responsibility for, theoretically, their own acts.
In my opinion those were some classic nuggets that really spoke to the heart of why some people are able to realize aspects of the Conspiracy
unfolding before their eyes while, instead, other people see the same as theory. some of those nuggets have been revised since they were first authored.... let me guess, this was Rosin's fault, or Webre's, right? ;) Even though, on the overall, both the original version and subsequent were directed towards one specific aspect of Conspiracy
- chemtrails, the same kind of thinking tends to prevail for the Conspiracy
as a whole, and this is in ways similar to how the idea of a secret meeting of Congress applies to the conspiracy as a whole. By way of paraphrase, here are some of the high points of those nuggets as I remember them.
The poster seemed to be trying to make the point that there is generally a dire need in this world for people to not bother with giving appreciable consideration to a situation if they do not first have facts and proof. To not do so connotes paranoia and illness of people "getting sucked in", and the internet has become a breeding ground for this. All the while the poster left unsaid how the television and collective broadcast media predating the internet by, conservatively, half a century, also served as its own breeding grounds. Not mentioned was how the typical spawn from this early-gen hatchery was, is and continues to be the same boiler-plate thinking that tends to be contradictory to those ill, paranoid, modern-day people getting "sucked in", without fact, without proof. In the same breath, this poster then asserted that on a specific aspect of the conspiracy - chemtrails, rather than having allowed themselves to get sucked in, instead they rely on the explanation of this subject as promoted by meteorological science. This appears to be a spin on an old observation of how people tend to "take a step backwards for every step or two forwards". The new spin seems to be - takes one step backwards, followed by another step backwards for good measure. There are layers of contradiction contained in this brand of wisdom. On the one hand, it stands to reason that a person who is attempting to stand on what they believe is a well-grounded principal would also be able or willing to provide real life examples of how they have applied this very same principle in their own life, for some matter ... or topic ... or issue ... or subject ... or aspect of this world that is at least somewhat on par or of the same magnitude of importance. Just once it would be nice to see a person calling for "proof and facts" to give a real life example of A) what they perceive as constituting the kind of proof and facts that they B) applied, with good results, in their own lives; role model. It generally remains as a fact that people often given to handling a situation by calling for proof and facts, tend to do so minus any indication that they themselves know what proof and facts are, for the matter in question, or any other matter of similar importance. These layers of contradiction make for a perfect posterchild of how to confront the crux of a critical issue; by rote, as a programmed robot, all the while advising other people to do what they themselves have thus far avoided doing.
2 - this secret meeting might be just a recent example of how old proverbs - like the tree that fell in the forest, are subject to new spin applied to old proverbs.... new spin that promotes a newer brand of thinking; wash & wear, permanent-press. If a tree falls in the forest, but the monopolized media decides not to be there to report the tree having fallen, did the tree fall - officially speaking, or is there merely a paranoid theory floating around that the tree fell?
3 - conspirators involved with evil plans and subsequently perpetrating these plans are obligated to broadcast a clear trail of facts and proof that will make it a simple and easy task for the average person at large, if/when so minded, to come along after the fact - whether it be moments, hours, days, months, years, centuries or eons - and piece together the precise plans and the agendas, motives and actual acts perpetrated by or on behalf of the conspirators. If the secret meeting in question has produced no such trail, then for all practical purposes this meeting is not anything for reasonable people capable of critical thinking to waste time critically thinking about.