No, soliciting prostitution is definitely illegal in Florida. Showing nude pics of women might be illegal too, if he took the pics without their permission. Either way it's a POS thing to do and his own fellow Republican congressmen said he did it.
No, it wouldn't be. Hearsay would be if the Congressman said somebody else told him that Gaetz did that. He observed it happening. That is an eyewitness account.
Innocent until proven guilty is about criminal sanctions. Is that really the only bar? If you, as an employer, called a reference for an employee and that reference said that they caught the person stealing from the business and fired them but did not have them arrested, charged, and convicted, would you have hired the person?
Weird how whichever way their "logic" is twisted, MAGA is all about abetting potential crime, and defending an alleged criminal. Who could have ever guess it?
Relevant portion of Florida Statutes 796.07 Prohibiting prostitution and related acts.— (2) It is unlawful: (f) To solicit, induce, entice, or procure another to commit prostitution, lewdness, or assignation.
well number 1 it is illegal for the previous employer to tell me that all they can provide it dates of service and whether or not they would rehire them number 2 I polygraphed people who wanted to be a manager for me number 3 I drug tested manager candidates as well
You are attacking the specifics of the analogy and not the principle conveyed. I've said this before, but a criminal conviction should not be required to consider a person's actions in a confirmation hearing for a high level post, as the standard for evaluating suitability for high office includes ethical judgment, integrity, and public trust. These can be compromised by credible allegations or evidence of misconduct, even without a conviction. Do you really believe one's conduct should only be held against him if there is a conviction. Really?
So you stated you polygraphed people... let's polygraph Gaetz!! But we know he refused to cooperate with the House investigation so let's say your potential hire refuses to polygraph for you or cooperate by taking a drug test.... would you hire him then? Would not that polygraph in your business analogy equate to the House report? See if a potential employee does not provide essential background (polygraph, drug test), he removes himself from consideration. That's why the report is needed.
You are attempting to extract logic, from a vapid black hole where no such higher logic exists. There is a base logic to MAGA. Does it own da libz? Yes or no. That’s it. That’s as deep as it gets. It’s sometimes amusing watching them try to reconcile their own debasement, but in the end this poster already admitted to the base logic. If Trump says it, that’s good enough, disconnect all critical thought.
A congressman saying that Gaetz showed him the photos is not hearsay. It is direct evidence. Even without benefit of legal training, I’m fairly sure of this.
LOVE Scot Maxwell from the Orlando Sentinel. This morning on Gaetz. Matt Gaetz: Full cringe Lastly, much of America is peeling back the Matt Gaetz onion and finding new stench with every layer. Forget the highest profile stories everyone knows. Here are a half-dozen headlines that appeared in Florida newspapers long before Gaetz was Trump’s nominee for attorney general: “Matt Gaetz’s State of the Union guest? A white nationalist from Vegas” (Gaetz said the two had a shared passion for cryptocurrency.) “Witnesses: Matt Gaetz attended drug-fueled parties with call girls at Seminole lobbyist’s home” (That one’s pretty self-explanatory.) “State rep accuses U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz of inventing sex game” (One of Gaetz’s GOP peers from his State House days said Gaetz played a game where members scored points for every person they slept with — with the most points going to lawmakers who slept with other married lawmakers.) “Attempted coup, scheming at Orlando airport raise bright red flag” (Gaetz was pushing appointees who were scheming to award no-bid contracts.) “Joel Greenberg, Matt Gaetz visited closed Seminole tax office together on weekend, source says” (At night. When the story said Greenberg was reportedly “seen going through baskets where driver’s licenses, turned in by residents for disposal, were stored.”) “Former lawmaker says Gaetz fought ‘revenge porn’ law: ‘He thought that any picture was his to use as he wanted’” (The source here was another GOP lawmaker, Tom Goodson, who said Gaetz believed he had a right to share nude pictures of others without their consent. The bill passed 114-2 with the only dissenters being Gaetz and … wait for it … one of his former roommates.) Listen, from the moment he was nominated, I’ve thought Gaetz was a distraction tactic — a sacrificial lamb meant to make other nominees seem more palatable. The problem with Gaetz isn’t that he has skeletons in his closet. It’s that his skeletons have been dancing across the front pages of newspapers for years, offending decent people of all political stripes.
What could be a case of being careful what you wish for if Mike Johnson and the House Republicans end up suppressing the report of the House Ethics Committee or at a minimum the evidence developed by that Committee, the Senate may very well end up conducting its own investigation of the allegations against Gaetz from the bottom up with witnesses who testified against Gaetz behind closed doors for the House investigation ending up testifying in public if and when the Senate holds its own hearings. If that happens the optics will be even worse for Gaetz and indirectly the President who nominated him.
Agreed, and while I don't otherwise care about politicians' personal/sexual behavior so long as it's consensual, part of the problem with prostitution, 'hard drugs,' and the alleged involvement of minors is that they make officials potential targets of extortion/blackmail. There was at least one investigation into an alleged attempt to extort Gaetz that I'm surprised hasn't gotten more recent coverage. I don't remember if anything came of it but recall it being a crazy and confusing story as it unfolded. Wouldn't things like this typically affect one's ability to obtain or maintain the needed security clearance(s)? chevron-right PENSACOLA, Fla. -- Pensacola law firmBeggs & Lane said Wednesday that Rep. Matt Gaetz's claims thatDavid L. McGee --a partner in the firm -- tried to extort money from Gaetz are "both false and defamatory." After it was reported Tuesday afternoon that the Northwest Florida Congressman was being investigated for trafficking a minor for sex, Gaetz appeared Tuesday night on "Tucker Carlson Tonight", saying McGeeattempted to extort $25 million from Gaetz and his family in exchange for McGee making the investigation "go away." **** "During his tenure with the Department of Justice, [McGee's] reputation for integrity and ethical conduct was impeccable,"Beggs & Lane said in a statement Wednesday. "It has remained impeccable throughout his 25 year tenure with our firm. While he was with the DOJ he would never have entertained a scheme such as what Congressman Gaetz suggests nor would he today. Unsubstantiated allegations do not change that fact." While calling himself and his family "victims of an organized criminal extortion," Gaetz revealed in a statement Tuesday that his father has been wearing a wire at the FBI's direction in an attempt to catch McGee's alleged wrongdoings.
Gaetz has talked about this long before, so it is not a new claim, if that is what you are inferring. That said, I would really like to know if the FBI wire on Gaetz's father is true. I'm assuming we'll never find out, because the FBI typically won't comment on investigations. But Gaetz is taking a chance by lying about it if it's not true. Lying about something like an FBI wire is a good way to get on the FBI's shit list and raise more suspicion where none more is needed in the case of Gaetz. So I am guessing the FBI wire claim is true. Which means the FBI found the allegation credible enough to facilitate the wire. In terms of "While he was with the DOJ he would never have entertained a scheme such as what Congressman Gaetz suggests," that gets a humongous LOL from yours truly. Such a statement should go without saying, no? So why the need to say it? And of course, it's the DOJ. Not exactly the bastion of integrity, so we all know how dubious such words are from the start.
No, it's not a new claim. I don't know what, if anything, was determined about the lawyer Gaetz was accusing of being involved. He is apparently still a member of the firm, and it's a well regarded firm. (That subplot also involved the FBI agent who disappeared in Iran, which was an even more convoluted aspect). I think the claim about Don Gaetz wearing a wire is true; the businessman pled guilty. https://www.politico.com/states/flo...tortion-attempt-of-matt-gaetzs-father-1394858 A Florida businessman pleaded guilty Monday to involvement in an effort to extort $25 million from the wealthy father of Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) as part of a bizarre scheme that involved a pledge to secure a presidential pardon for Gaetz in the high-profile federal sex trafficking investigation the lawmaker faces. Stephen Alford, 62, appeared in federal court in Pensacola to plead guilty to one count of wire fraud in connection with the convoluted shakedown, which also included securing the release of Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent who disappeared in Iran in 2007. During the hearing, U.S. Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Timothy recommended that Alford’s guilty plea be accepted. Alford, of Fort Walton Beach, faces a maximum of 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000 at his sentencing, set for Feb. 16 before U.S. District Court Judge M. Casey Rodgers. Defendants typically get a sentence far below the maximum, but Alford could face a stiff prison term because he has prior federal convictions for fraud.
Thanks for the link and being open in your discussions. I found this part of the Politico report interesting: How, if at all, Alford hoped to get a pardon from President Joe Biden for one of former President Donald Trump’s most vocal supporters has never been clear. A court filing Monday says Alford admitted that he lied about having such assurances. While I don't think Biden or his people ever promised a pardon, it is interesting Alford would suggest this because it indicates such a scheme would be believable for Gaetz and his father. I.e. Alford seemed to think Gaetz would believe Biden could deliver the pardon, which meant Gaetz assumed Biden was the source of the investigation. The Gaetz's would have to feel pretty confident about the investigation's origins to hand over $25 million, would they not? And then this: In a tweet posted before the plea hearing Monday, Matt Gaetz faulted the Justice Department for not charging others who allegedly worked with Alford on the scheme. “Alford wasn’t acting alone. DOJ is having him take the fall to protect their own,” the congressman said. Which reads as though Gaetz viewed this scheme as a setup. Why would he pay $25 million if the charges were false? DOJ uses such a payment as evidence of guilt. Things like this don't transpire unless people have reason to believe certain events will unfold as a result of their claims or action. Ultimately, Gaetz passed the test and I think he's probably correct that Alford took the fall for the DOJ. Usually, a good con man knows that to extort (especially at these sums), there has to be a strong undeniable element of truth to the underlying accusations. In this case, Alford made no reference to any dirt he had on Gaetz. Who was Alford relying on to deliver on his implied threat if it wasn't himself? Lots of weirdness around this whole thing and yet still no actual evidence of any wrongdoing on Gaetz's end.
Gaetz has declined the nomination. Matt Gaetz Withdraws Attorney General Nomination Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) met with Republican Senators this week accompanied by Vice President-elect JD Vance. With the House Ethics report leaking to the press, Mr. Gaetz has decided to withdraw his name from nomination as our next attorney general. In a tweet, Mr. Gaetz said he didn’t wish for the incoming administration to exhaust any unnecessary political capital. He added that his nomination fight, which triggered Justice Department staffers and the political establishment, would be a “needlessly protracted Washington scuffle. “I had excellent meetings with Senators yesterday. I appreciate their thoughtful feedback - and the incredible support of so many. While the momentum was strong, it is clear that my confirmation was unfairly becoming a distraction to the critical work of the Trump/Vance Transition. There is no time to waste on a needlessly protracted Washington scuffle, thus I'll be withdrawing my name from consideration to serve as Attorney General. Trump's DOJ must be in place and ready on Day 1. I remain fully committed to see that Donald J. Trump is the most successful President in history. I will forever be honored that President Trump nominated me to lead the Department of Justice and I'm certain he will Save America.
