Vicki Pittman
Vicki (Victoria) Pittman is a former housekeeper for Patrick Bryant whose sworn affidavit, describing a May 2025 encounter at Charleston International Airport in which she says Rep. Nancy Mace pressed her to corroborate personal allegations about Bryant, was submitted in the federal litigation over whether Mace acted within the scope of her congressional duties.
Victoria "Vicki" Pittman is a North Charleston, South Carolina resident who, according to her own sworn affidavit, worked as a housekeeper for Charleston entrepreneur Patrick Bryant from approximately 2019 through 2023, including the roughly two years Bryant and Rep. Nancy Mace lived together as a couple. In her affidavit she states that she served the household "in a personal household capacity," "never worked for [Mace's] official office or had any connection to her official duties," and resides outside Mace's congressional district, so that she "is not her constituent."
The affidavit, as filed
Pittman's three-page sworn affidavit was submitted in the federal scope-of-employment briefing in Musgrave v. Mace (D.S.C. No. 2:25-cv-01823-RMG), Brian Musgrave's Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to the United States' Motion to Substitute, and was later cited in Patrick Bryant's publicly filed Motion to Remand in the federal removal of Berg v. Bryant (No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC). The version reproduced below is the redacted copy from the public record, her home address and two image descriptions are redacted, and the original PDF is available here.
Page 1, paragraphs 1-5: Pittman states she lives outside Mace's congressional district and "is not her constituent" (her home address is redacted), that she was Bryant's housekeeper from roughly 2019-2023, and that Mace approached her at the airport "gathering information" about Bryant; she recalls only one visible camera "mounted above the refrigerator" and says she knew of no hidden cameras. Two image descriptions in paragraph 3 are redacted.
Page 2, paragraphs 6-9: Pittman swears she believes "Nancy Mace's statements concerning hidden cameras, criminal behavior, or serious illnesses are false," that she had not spoken publicly before "because [she] feared possible retaliation," and her affirmation under penalty of perjury.
Page 3, Pittman's signature over "Victoria Pittman, Affiant," subscribed and sworn before a South Carolina notary public on May 27, 2025.
Connection to the Nancy Mace record
The affidavit (executed May 27, 2025). Pittman gave a sworn affidavit recounting an encounter she says took place in the first week of May 2025 in the lobby of Charleston International Airport. By her account, Mace approached her, greeted her by name, and questioned her about Bryant, showing her a photograph of a prescription-medicine bottle, raising a claim about Bryant's health, and asking whether Pittman knew of "hidden cameras" in Bryant's home or rental properties or of Bryant "secretly recording female guests."
Pittman swears she had no knowledge of any such conduct. She states she recalled only one visible camera, "mounted above the refrigerator" in the kitchen, which she says had been installed after Bryant discovered his minor son removing liquor from a cabinet, and which she understood was later removed when the home was rented on Airbnb. She attests she "never saw, or was aware of, any hidden or additional cameras."
By her account, Mace asked her to "corroborate" allegations against Bryant, and Pittman declined, stating she "had no knowledge of such matters." Pittman describes the exchange as brief, conducted "in a public area, within sight and hearing of airline passengers and co-workers," and says she "felt singled out and intimidated." Her affidavit states that "[a]t no point did Rep. Mace reference her role in Congress, any legislation, constituent matters, or official research," and that the questions "were strictly personal and focused solely on Mr. Bryant's private life."
In her closing statement, Pittman swears: "Based on my personal observations and experience, I believe Nancy Mace's statements concerning hidden cameras, criminal behavior, or serious illnesses are false and have been advanced to harm Mr. Bryant's reputation and for her own personal leverage." She adds that she had not spoken publicly "until now" because she "feared possible retaliation."
How it entered the public record. The Pittman affidavit was submitted in the federal dispute over whether Mace acted within the scope of her federal employment, the Westfall Act / Speech-or-Debate certification question raised in Brian Musgrave's defamation suit against Mace. It was later cited by Patrick Bryant in his publicly filed Motion to Remand briefing in the federal removal of Berg v. Bryant (No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC, D.S.C.), where Bryant pointed to Pittman's statement that Mace's inquiries were "strictly personal" and had "no connection to her official duties" in arguing that Mace's relevant conduct was personal rather than official.
The statements above are Pittman's own sworn allegations. Rep. Mace has denied wrongdoing and has maintained that her conduct was undertaken in her official capacity as a Member of Congress; the scope-of-employment question is contested and, as of this entry, unadjudicated. No court has made any finding of fact based on the affidavit, and the related litigation remains pending.
Sources
- The affidavit itself: Sworn Affidavit of Victoria Pittman (redacted, PDF, 3 pages), executed May 27, 2025; submitted in the Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to the United States' Motion to Substitute in Musgrave v. Mace (D.S.C.) and cited in Bryant's Motion to Remand briefing in the Berg v. Bryant federal removal.
- Mace Federal Removal (Berg v. Bryant → D.S.C.), Bryant's Motion to Remand briefing cites the Pittman affidavit; federal docket No. 2:26-cv-00305-BHH-MHC, available on PACER (pacer.uscourts.gov).
- Litigation Overview
- Brian Musgrave