Crime Matt Gaetz possibly under investigation for sex with a minor

[Loiosh]

Didn't think to ask? Did you ever read it?

HELL yes.

Deserved the Pulitzer.

 

[Darkballs]

YOU were the first to bring up the FBI in this discussion, not me.

"Well I'd imagine if I was an FBI agent about to walk into a US Attorneys Office and file charges against a sitting Congressman."

Yeah, and that was in response to your first post as to why you though this case was taking so long. I explained to you, something that I thought was already obvious to a lot of people: That prosecutors tend to take their time building a case, especially when the defendant is going to be a public figure, like a sitting US Congressman.

You responded with pictures of undercover federal agents at Biden's inauguration. And then you made a second post crying about how I didn't recognize when the first photo was taken. At no point did you make any effort to explain to us why you were posting these twitter posts, or how in the name of god you thought they were relevant to this thread.

So I'm quite happy to move off the topic of federal agents present in other states, at different times, for different reasons, none of which have anything to do with Matt Gaetz. So if you'd like to disclose the relevance of these pictures, I think nows the time.

I came into this thread with NO motive to defend Gaetz. I don't like him, and am basically asking why he hasn't been arrested yet and been forced to resign in disgrace, because if the aligations are true... and I'm believing they likely are... that's EXACTLY what should happen.

Ok. Well perhaps you know nothing about criminal law and need a bit of an explanation. Allow me to assist:

-Prosecutors use evidence to convict people of crimes.
-More evidence = good.
-Because more evidence is good, you should try to collect as much of it as possible before going to trial.
-Collecting evidence, particularly testimony from various witnesses, can often take up this think called "time."
-When we take "time" to do something, it often takes longer.

So put yourself in the shoes of the ADA who's gonna step in front of cameras and inside a court room to indict a sitting Congressman. That Congressman, likely has the wealth, clout and political leverage, to make a sound defense. Since this case involves a Congressman fucking underage girls and engaged in sex trafficking, it's probably gonna get a lot of media attention. So would you, as that ADA, want to go into the court room with anything less than your best shot to get a conviction?

So what particularly are you complaining about? Just that it seems to be taking awhile? Well we don't know much about what the prosecution/investigators have now. Sure, we got a bit of testimony from two of Gaetz's associates that seem pretty damning. Maybe those prosecutors are just fleshing that out. Maybe that testimony leads them to other people that can coaborate it (always good for a prosecution). Sometimes those people live far away, or in different jurisdictions. Sometimes it takes a long time just to coordinate when you take their testimony. This can get especially lengthy if that person resists giving testimony. The ADA might have to draft a subpoena, and then send it to a judge (not always a quick process) to get it approved. And then the witness must be served. And maybe that takes awhile because you can't find the guy or he resists service. And that isn't even touching on if you have a hostile witness who has competent counsel arguing every request by the court.

In short, there are a million different reasons why a case could drag on. But that alone isn't a valid reason to criticize the investigation, let alone (like some have here) claim that because he hasn't been charged yet, he must be innocent. Complex cases of sex trafficking involving US Congressmen are probably gonna move forward carefully and slowly. I think that's because of caution (because the case will be so public) and professionalism (taking more time so that you don't fuck up a big case). I think these would be more reassuring, rather than suspicious.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Yeah, and that was in response to your first post as to why you though this case was taking so long. I explained to you, something that I thought was already obvious to a lot of people: That prosecutors tend to take their time building a case, especially when the defendant is going to be a public figure, like a sitting US Congressman.

Yeah, but if they already had all the evidence the media says there already was against Gaetz, any wait another 10+ months for even more evidence when he's STILL in congress voting, and not voting, on important legislation?

You responded with pictures of undercover federal agents at Biden's inauguration. And then you made a second post crying about how I didn't recognize when the first photo was taken. At no point did you make any effort to explain to us why you were posting these twitter posts, or how in the name of god you thought they were relevant to this thread.

And YOU'RE making this point about me, and how I pointed out the FBI's credibility is in the shitter.

And it is.

If you're banking of the FBI's credibility to prosecute Gaetz, when they supposedly already have all they need, this isn't going to go well.

Trump/Russia2.0

Ok. Well perhaps you know nothing about criminal law and need a bit of an explanation. Allow me to assist:

Don't gaslight me as being ignorant about the criminal process.

And you forgot one point.

-When prosecutors believe they have enough evidence to convict a criminal, they press charges.

As for the rest of your post, which I skimmed because its obvious shit, the longer the 'millions of reasons why' it drags on, the less interest the public has and everyone begins to figure 'oh well, guess they never had what they say they had.'

 

[Darkballs]

Yeah, but if they already had all the evidence the media says there already was against Gaetz, any wait another 10+ months for even more evidence when he's STILL in congress voting, and not voting, on important legislation?

What exactly is the totality of the evidence the media reported that you are so certain means the investigation could be wrapped up? Are you 100% confident you know everything about this case? Because you probably don't, just like the rest of us. So we could speculate, but what would be the point? Maybe despite the media reporting on these two individuals recent testimony about Gaetz, investigators are still working with that information. Maybe they are trying to corroborate it through yet more witnesses. Maybe they are verifying all the little details so that there is nothing for a defense to pick apart.

You seem to the think the media has declared this an open and shut case, and are perplexed as to why it's taking so long for charges to be filed. Well the rest of us aren't sure how you've come to that conclusion so certainly that you think we should all lay off. So go ahead and dole it out then. What evidence do you find so compelling as to warrant the immediate halt of any further investigation?

And YOU'RE making this point about me, and how I pointed out the FBI's credibility is in the shitter.

And it is.

Well, thank you for finally explaining your use of a twitter posts about federal agents on inauguration day.

But I'll ask you for the third time: Why the fuck are you bringing this up? What the fuck does this have to do with Matt Gaetz? You were just arguing that the media had you convinced that this was an air-tight case and were complaining about how charges haven't been filed yet. Then, in the next breath, you pivot to the FBI (one of several agencies looking into Gaetz) and I guess I'm supposed to conclude that I shouldn't be trusting the info the media is reporting, because it comes from the FBI, and the FBI is in the shitter because of their undercover activities on inauguration day and something about Trump Russia (I'm assuming you're referring to the Special Investigation that uncovered over a dozen felony offenses and multiple arrest, but was utimately shitcanned by a hack AG who got the job based on his brilliant legal paper entitled The President Can Never Break the Law Ever).


At this point you're just throwing out random deflections. On one hand, I'm supposed to think we should be charging Matt Gaetz right now. On the other hand, we should trust anything the FBI says because....MAGA, or something. I'd honestly be amazed if you could pull a coherent argument out of these two contradicting theories. Would you care to try?

Don't gaslight me as being ignorant about the criminal process.

And you forgot one point.

-When prosecutors believe they have enough evidence to convict a criminal, they press charges.

And that's why I'm making fun of your lack of knowledge about the criminal process. Because the line that I highlighted, is remarkably dumb. As a former ADA, no, I most certainly won't rush to charge anyone (absent some statutory deadline) just as soon as I've got a case. Especially if I think there is more evidence out there that I can use. Why the fuck would I go into court with anything less, and risk a loss?

As a prosecutor, you can have the worlds greatest case, and still have a jury come back with a retarded decision. You wouldn't believe some of the things jurors will believe. Did you know that prosecutors can contact jurors after the case has closed? They aren't obligated to speak to you, but theres nothing against them doing so. I'd recommend any new prosecutor do this, if anything, just to perfect their delivery to their audience. But that being said, I've heard some truly wild shit from a juror. Unfortunately I can't get into specifics, but I've had jurors just to into a room to deliberate and come out with pure Q-Anon levels of CT to justify how they ruled one way or another. Like, I've had jurors rule on guilt based upon the idea that the 9-11 recordings in an armed robbery case that happened in bumbfuck nowhere, could have been faked because "the CIA can do that." This, despite neither the prosecutor, nor the defense, even mentioning this possibility.

My point in all this is, NO, I absolutely disagree that a prosecutor should just rush forward the second he thinks he's got a case. A case will likely never seem as strong as it does to a prosecutor, as it would to a jury. This by virtue of the jury often being excluded from evidence the prosecution has, but cannon introduce; and by the juror being stupid. So if there is more evidence out there, you shouldn't rest until you get it. And that goes up by a 1000 if I'm trying a sitting Congressman with an army of lawyers and national media attention on my case.

In fact, I can't think of a good reason why a prosecutor would rush this case, let alone, why you think this is common practice.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

What exactly is the totality of the evidence the media reported that you are so certain means the investigation could be wrapped up? Are you 100% confident you know everything about this case? Because you probably don't, just like the rest of us. So we could speculate, but what would be the point?

I haven't paid too close attention to the story since it was first reported 10 months ago, and came into this thread asking simple questions in good faith hoping someone give summarized answers to those questioned.

You failed to do so you're asking ME questions, sooo.... why bother converse with you again?

Sounds like you're just looking to get in a flame war with writing LONG posts that no one is going to bother reading, including me, about a topic that very few have interest in.

 

[AWilder]

I haven't paid too close attention to the story since it was first reported 10 months ago, and came into this thread asking simple questions in good faith hoping someone give summarized answers to those questioned.

You failed to do so you're asking ME questions, sooo.... why bother converse with you again?

Sounds like you're just looking to get in a flame war with writing LONG posts that no one is going to bother reading, including me, about a topic that very few have interest in.

Delaying tactics are quite common in legal battles. Also, a lot of the deals made and testimony is relatively recent.

 

[HARRISON_3]

There's an American Greed episode about that Greenberg dude.

Guy was a scumbag.

 

[12ga.]

What exactly is the totality of the evidence the media reported that you are so certain means the investigation could be wrapped up? Are you 100% confident you know everything about this case? Because you probably don't, just like the rest of us. So we could speculate, but what would be the point? Maybe despite the media reporting on these two individuals recent testimony about Gaetz, investigators are still working with that information. Maybe they are trying to corroborate it through yet more witnesses. Maybe they are verifying all the little details so that there is nothing for a defense to pick apart.

You seem to the think the media has declared this an open and shut case, and are perplexed as to why it's taking so long for charges to be filed. Well the rest of us aren't sure how you've come to that conclusion so certainly that you think we should all lay off. So go ahead and dole it out then. What evidence do you find so compelling as to warrant the immediate halt of any further investigation?



Well, thank you for finally explaining your use of a twitter posts about federal agents on inauguration day.

But I'll ask you for the third time: Why the fuck are you bringing this up? What the fuck does this have to do with Matt Gaetz? You were just arguing that the media had you convinced that this was an air-tight case and were complaining about how charges haven't been filed yet. Then, in the next breath, you pivot to the FBI (one of several agencies looking into Gaetz) and I guess I'm supposed to conclude that I shouldn't be trusting the info the media is reporting, because it comes from the FBI, and the FBI is in the shitter because of their undercover activities on inauguration day and something about Trump Russia (I'm assuming you're referring to the Special Investigation that uncovered over a dozen felony offenses and multiple arrest, but was utimately shitcanned by a hack AG who got the job based on his brilliant legal paper entitled The President Can Never Break the Law Ever).


At this point you're just throwing out random deflections. On one hand, I'm supposed to think we should be charging Matt Gaetz right now. On the other hand, we should trust anything the FBI says because....MAGA, or something. I'd honestly be amazed if you could pull a coherent argument out of these two contradicting theories. Would you care to try?





And that's why I'm making fun of your lack of knowledge about the criminal process. Because the line that I highlighted, is remarkably dumb. As a former ADA, no, I most certainly won't rush to charge anyone (absent some statutory deadline) just as soon as I've got a case. Especially if I think there is more evidence out there that I can use. Why the fuck would I go into court with anything less, and risk a loss?

As a prosecutor, you can have the worlds greatest case, and still have a jury come back with a retarded decision. You wouldn't believe some of the things jurors will believe. Did you know that prosecutors can contact jurors after the case has closed? They aren't obligated to speak to you, but theres nothing against them doing so. I'd recommend any new prosecutor do this, if anything, just to perfect their delivery to their audience. But that being said, I've heard some truly wild shit from a juror. Unfortunately I can't get into specifics, but I've had jurors just to into a room to deliberate and come out with pure Q-Anon levels of CT to justify how they ruled one way or another. Like, I've had jurors rule on guilt based upon the idea that the 9-11 recordings in an armed robbery case that happened in bumbfuck nowhere, could have been faked because "the CIA can do that." This, despite neither the prosecutor, nor the defense, even mentioning this possibility.

My point in all this is, NO, I absolutely disagree that a prosecutor should just rush forward the second he thinks he's got a case. A case will likely never seem as strong as it does to a prosecutor, as it would to a jury. This by virtue of the jury often being excluded from evidence the prosecution has, but cannon introduce; and by the juror being stupid. So if there is more evidence out there, you shouldn't rest until you get it. And that goes up by a 1000 if I'm trying a sitting Congressman with an army of lawyers and national media attention on my case.

In fact, I can't think of a good reason why a prosecutor would rush this case, let alone, why you think this is common practice.

Fascinating post. I've thought we need professional jurors, like judges to decide cases since OJ trial IMO.

 

[Loiosh]

Didn't think to ask? Did you ever read it?

 

[Andy Capp]

So.... it wasn't air-tight before?
Or was it media bullshit?

And don't pretend the FBI are honorable civil servants.



And if the federal prosecutors in the DoJ had the evidence the media says they do, they'd press charges immediately, unless they're planning to make the announcement to do so right before his reelection at the end of the year.

So, Rogan is FBI too, I guess?

 

[44nutman]

So, Rogan is FBI too, I guess?

 

[Loiosh]

So, Rogan is FBI too, I guess?

Fucking right he is.

Worst. Cover. Ever.

He can't just fade away when the op is over and he has to testify.

 

[FIMN]

Fucking right he is.

Worst. Cover. Ever.

He can't just fade away when the op is over and he has to testify.

It was an honour to call your insurrection. What if anything surprised you about the events on January 6th?

 

[LangfordBarrow]

Ok, this story is approaching 10 months old, so can someone give a summary why Matt Gaetz still hasn't been arrested yet?

Seemed like a sure thing he was guilty given what was initially reported, and Gaetz did himself no favors going on Tucker Carlson and giving one of the most bizarre interviews ever.

Personally, I don't like him. He seems like a slimy corrupt politician usually seen on the left, but he's on the right, saying the typical talking points to satisfy his Trump-Supporting base.

But if everything the media has been saying about him is legit, why hasn't the FBI arrested him yet?

He seems to me to be pretty typical of the type of politician/lawyer Trump has in his orbit. If I understand it correctly his ex girlfriend received immunity in order to testify in front of a grand jury so if he's going to be charged it should be soon.

 

[Seano]

The hysteria over this book and one school deciding not to endorse it is insane.

 

[Loiosh]

The hysteria over this book and one school deciding not to endorse it is insane.

Does it come close to Fox and the GOP loosing their shit over Mr. Potato Head, Dr. Seuss, sexy M&Ms and Minnie Mouse in a pantsuit?

And it's a school board, not school. They also pulled To Kill a Mockingbird, because the last thing they want coming out of Tennessee is a well educated person with perspective.

None of this holds a candle to the two thousand titles pulled in Texas, though. They saw the blue wave and felt they needed to fortify their stronghold of illiteracy.

 

[Seano]

Does it come close to Fox and the GOP loosing their shit over Mr. Potato Head, Dr. Seuss, sexy M&Ms and Minnie Mouse in a pantsuit?

And it's a school board, not school. They also pulled To Kill a Mockingbird, because the last thing they want coming out of Tennessee is a well educated person with perspective.

None of this holds a candle to the two thousand titles pulled in Texas, though. They saw the blue wave and felt they needed to fortify their stronghold of illiteracy.

School boards make decisions for the school, I assumed everyone knew that. I don't really see the need for hysterics because a tennessee school doesn't want this book.
I honestly haven't seen people "losing their shit." I've seen people mock those things for the absurdity of it.
Not really sure what any of this has to do with what I said.

 

[Loiosh]

School boards make decisions for the school, I assumed everyone knew that. I don't really see the need for hysterics because a tennessee school doesn't want this book.
I honestly haven't seen people "losing their shit." I've seen people mock those things for the absurdity of it.
Not really sure what any of this has to do with what I said.

Why do you keep saying "school" singular? Do you not know how these things work? This one school board made this decision for nine schools, several thousand students.

And yeah, conservatives are definitely absurd and spend far too much time worrying about the things I mentioned, things they're the only ones talking about.

 

[Loiosh]

Also

 

[SBJJ]

School boards make decisions for the school, I assumed everyone knew that. I don't really see the need for hysterics because a tennessee school doesn't want this book.
I honestly haven't seen people "losing their shit." I've seen people mock those things for the absurdity of it.
Not really sure what any of this has to do with what I said.

Just so you know, he is mixing up districts, boards and stories. While the TN school board did remove Maus(stupid decision imo). It's actually other districts removing Mockingbird from the reading lists.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2022/1...concerns-as-wave-of-book-challenges-continues

Needless to say, both parties are guilty of this.