Trump Nominates Matt Gaetz as Attorney General

if the proof is real and can be brought forward I will have no problem with him being dumped- right now all you have is conjecture and the usual lib responses to all things Trump

 

I don't understand why you are so willing to suspend common sense for this scumbag.

If you leave your house in the morning and your car is covered with water, the grass is wet along with the driveway, your gutters are wet, your newspaper is soaked and you notice the same things at your neighbors' houses, it rained, Bill. Even if you slept through it and didn't see or hear a thing during the night, it rained. Matt Gaetz might try to tell you someone with a long garden hose did it all, but it rained.

 

like I said prove your claim

if he is guilty then throw the book at him but until then your stance is right out of the liberal playbook

 

It doesn't make any sense that they would debase themselves by defending this guy. But that's the MAGA cult for you. It's warped their brains.

 

So if thousands of dollars in payments to an, at the time, underage sex worker along with her testimony that he paid her for sex aren't proof to you that he had sex with an underage sex worker, what would be? What would constitute a proper amount of evidence of him doing that for you to admit that he probably did that?

 

No, you're wrong. And this is the fallacy of the Republican Party under Trump in the Trump era.

Right now what we specifically have is a political party actively trying to prevent evidence from being brought out and seen. Were the evidence publicly known, you might have a point. But this refusal to release the report is just either preventing the truth from being known, or at worst, a cover-up.


Then after that, we get people like you saying; "See, look! There's no evidence against him!!" Uh, yeah - because it wasn't released.

The circular argument is childish by now. I'd say it's surprising, but at this point it's not surprising at all from either Trump, his lackeys, or his cultish supporters.



And for the record, it's no different than the classified document case or the J6 case, both of which should have landed him behind bars. He had a corrupt judge in FL slow-walk and then dismiss the case, and a corrupt USSC grant him a false immunity. Then.... voila..... "nothing to see here, because there was no trial and no evidence made public!! dindu nuffin!!"

It's freaking childish. And criminal. But you guys clearly don't mind abetting criminality.




Edit : now you can do your neg rating, Bill, without refuting this in any way shape or form. We know how you do.

 

you are funny- did they break any laws by not releasing the report- no
are they required to release the report - again no
did the DOJ decide not to prosecute- yes
did the DOJ say the witnesses were unreliable - yes

would I prefer they release the report - yes

but until taht happens all you have is the typical lib playbook of slander and discredit

so what's your point

 

To use your logic, you have no evidence of "slander," which is a civil offense. Major figures in this country, including a Republican Congressman/Former Speaker of the House, have said he had sex with a 17 year old. He didn't bring suit. So wouldn't you argue that you are engaging in a typical playbook of "discrediting?"

Again, what evidence would you suspect is enough for you to state that he did it? We have payment info now that appears to match what you would expect for fairly regular payment to a sex worker. He has provided no alternative explanation. What would count as sufficient evidence?

 

again, you supposedly have those things and where did they supposedly come from - a liberal rag

if they can bring forth the proof then I say bring it and let the chips fall where they may- but until then he is innocent until proven guilty

 

There is a picture taken from what was apparently Exhibit 6 of the report written by the Republican-led House Ethics Committee. Here you go:



Beyond that, Venmo payments are generally public.

You keep repeating that, but that doesn't answer my question: what would constitute proof? Since we have now established that regular payments to an underage sex worker who says that the payments were for sexual services do not constitute proof, what would?

 

what is on the venmo statements that constitute actual proof of any wrong doing - I am quite positive the DOJ had this report and decline to prosecute

 

Why argue.

They're parasites; break the law when it's convenient, claim full protection of the law when that suits them instead.

No respect for the norms or laws of our country - and as we see, why would they respect the norms of honesty in discourse?

 

Hypothetically, let's say it does prove that he had sex with a 17 year old. What federal law (the only law that the DOJ can prosecute) does it violate? It seems like there is another component that needs to be proven to violate sex trafficking laws (transport across state lines for the purposes of sex), but perhaps there is another law that you have in mind that they decided against prosecuting.

If not, then that doesn't seem like evidence that they didn't think they had sufficient evidence that he had sex with a 17 year old.

 

the age of consent in Florida is 18- if he knew she was 17 then he broke the law - if they can prove he was guilty of trafficking then throw the book at him- none of this stuff is new and was according to what I read investigated for several years with no finding of enough evidence to charge him

 

Sure, but the DOJ doesn't get to prosecute Florida crimes. So the fact that he was having sex with a 17 year old is not something the DOJ is empowered to prosecute unless he takes her across state lines to do it while she is 17.

But there does appear to be a pretty good amount of evidence that he had sex with a 17 year old. I am at a loss for why he was handing an initially 17 year old sex worker $10K over a little over a year if not for sex. Do you have an explanation for that behavior beyond paying for sex services? Does he?

 

Pretty sure soliciting prostitution is a felony in Florida. So even if she was 18, he broke the law. It's as obvious as can be what he was doing. He's a scumbag who liked to show his fellow congressmen nude photos of the girls he slept with. Why defend him?

 

How much is Twitter valued at compared to purchase price
How does free speech relate to "have control of"?

 

in your mind it is but that is because of how much you dislike him and Trump- his showing pics if it really happened makes him a cad but is not illegal - again if any of it can be proven then I will be right with you on sending him packing, but at this moment he is innocent until proven guilty

 

"We won't release the report on Gaetz. Or have a fair trial for the felonies Trump was indicted for, by a jury of citizens."

also....

"See!! They're innocent until proven guilty!!"

 

I am not sure what this even means^^

when you are the richest man in the world not everything you buy is going to be a total success- he fired 80% of the twitter staff and seems quite happy with what he has in Twitter