Why do you leave out - close friend and associate. Every article describes Greenberg as a close friend and associate of Gaetz. Seems like you're glossing over it on purpose.
Greenberg’s case expanded into a probe of Rep. Matt Gaetz’s alleged interactions with underage girls, which has reportedly stalled as Gaetz denies all wrongdoing.
The hypocrisy in you citing a Garland prosecution decision with approval is not lost on anyone here who actually exercises logic and reason, or who bothers to read and educate themselves on facts. Whether you know it or not, you undermine your essentially nonexistent credibility when you do that.
Garland DOJ clearly would have indicted Gaetz if there was any evidence.
That's common sense.
Since when it is hypocritical to use common sense?
By the way. On your writing. Less is more. Way too many adjectives.
Yes, there is some common sense in the DOJ, you flip-flopping, tin foil head, redundant, uninformed, lame, anti-semite, lying, blowhard fool. But you are contradicting everything else you've said about Garland DOJ. That's the point, you jackazz, Russia-loving, geeky, unloved, semi-literate, loser, poncing twit.
Trump thought, "I need an AG who's a vile sexual predator like me. Then he'll never go after me." But Harvey Weinstein was in prison, Caligula was dead, and Jabba the Hutt wasn't real, so he chose Matt Gaetz.
Tons of evidence? Maybe someone should arrest him. 😂
Probably because he would just be pardoned. The rule of law only applies to some people in this country.
That isn't why. No prosecutor looks at a potential case and decides not to file because there is a possibility the defendant might some day be pardoned. Think about it.
There is significant evidence that Gaetz was involved in hiring an escort for a sex party who turned out to be underage (all participants believed she was over 18). The DOJ, however, has determined that they don't have enough evidence to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in prosecuting Gaetz. I'm sure they have plenty of documents showing Gaetz was there, and they do have Gaetz's former friend Greenberg's testimony that Gaetz was involved in the sex party. But prosecutors have to weigh how much credibility a jury will give that testimony given that Greenberg himself is a now an admitted felon on this issue (and on multiple other scams the creep was running). Greenberg would not be a good witness for the prosecution at trial. Perhaps more importantly, the DOJ also could not secure testimony from the victim who refused to help with prosecution. She presumably wanted to keep her name out of the national news and not be tied to this for the rest of her life. Very understandable choice.
All that said, no one except a similarly minded psycho would nominate Gaetz for AG given the above, or no one except a lying, flip flopping hypocrite would defend the Gaetz choice for AG on a message board.
Why do you leave out - close friend and associate. Every article describes Greenberg as a close friend and associate of Gaetz. Seems like you're glossing over it on purpose.
Probably because he would just be pardoned. The rule of law only applies to some people in this country.
There is significant evidence that Gaetz was involved in hiring an escort for a sex party who turned out to be underage (all participants believed she was over 18). The DOJ, however, has determined that they don't have enough evidence to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in prosecuting Gaetz.
Significant evidence per your 1st sentence.
Not enuff to prosecute per a DOJ headed by Garland that would love to get Gaetz.
The hypocrisy in you citing a Garland prosecution decision with approval is not lost on anyone here who actually exercises logic and reason, or who bothers to read and educate themselves on facts. Whether you know it or not, you undermine your essentially nonexistent credibility when you do that.
Garland DOJ clearly would have indicted Gaetz if there was any evidence.
That's common sense.
Since when it is hypocritical to use common sense?
By the way. On your writing. Less is more. Way too many adjectives.
Your so-called "common sense" doesn't reflect DOJ realities, so it isn't really common sense.
Of course the DOJ had evidence. They probably had flight logs and credit card receipts. They had testimony from his buddy, and may have had other witness testimony. That all is evidence. But here is the thing about the DOJ -- they hate to lose. And they especially hate to lose in a case with a newsworthy defendant. So they won't bring a case even if the evidence suggests a better than 50 percent chance the guy did it. What they want is a really high chance that a jury will find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So to sum up, there is evidence and the fact that they considered the case as long as they did suggests that the evidence was credible, but they weren't certain enough of persuading a jury that circumstantial evidence and a less than pristine witness were going to get a conviction.
I know that you guys who like to claim that Garland weaponized the DOJ won't like the evidence, but it is, in fact how the DOJ worked. And it is how it worked with Trump's documents case. He was given multiple opportunities to return the documents. He not only refused to do so, but engaged in obstruction and lying when the government tried to get the documents. Unless you believe that the government has no right or interest in protecting its confidential information, the government would have been neglecting its duty in not going in to get the documents. At that point, all the elements of a prosecution were presented.
Why is the house ethics committee investigating him?
He is not an establishment figure. That's why.
The relevant question is why was this non-establishment figure giving them ammunition by using drugs and showing colleagues photos of naked girls on the House floor? Or is that the way you non-establishment guys roll?
Why do you leave out - close friend and associate. Every article describes Greenberg as a close friend and associate of Gaetz. Seems like you're glossing over it on purpose.
What defines MSM? FOX news is more popular that all of the above sources and CNN, MSNBC. Some might say it is Main Stream and by your statement that makes it propaganda. Does news have to be from some less known source like a YouTube Vlogger or an X poster to be "not MSM" and therefore believable?
Garland DOJ clearly would have indicted Gaetz if there was any evidence.
That's common sense.
Since when it is hypocritical to use common sense?
By the way. On your writing. Less is more. Way too many adjectives.
Yes, there is some common sense in the DOJ, you flip-flopping, tin foil head, redundant, uninformed, lame, anti-semite, lying, blowhard fool. But you are contradicting everything else you've said about Garland DOJ. That's the point, you jackazz, Russia-loving, geeky, unloved, semi-literate, loser, poncing twit.
What defines MSM? FOX news is more popular that all of the above sources and CNN, MSNBC. Some might say it is Main Stream and by your statement that makes it propaganda. Does news have to be from some less known source like a YouTube Vlogger or an X poster to be "not MSM" and therefore believable?
Him being attorney general will require approval by the Senate. Most people don’t like him, so approval will be no slam dunk.
Trump is planning make all the appointments during Senate recess so that no one has to go through confirmation.
That is nothing but far Left propaganda.
In January, the Republicans have a 53-47 majority, plus the VP to break any 50-50 ties. Trump will get 99% of his nominees approved. There is absolutely no need to push them during recess and he won't do it. Stop listening to CNN and the far Left and instead start using common sense. They are straight up lying to the American people to try to support the "he wants to be a dictator forever" myth.
LOL. Newname defending Gaetz. The pedo resigned because this report is very damning against him and he is desperate for it not to get public. He thought resigning would do the trick. He was willing to give up a GOP voting seat and his career to save his ass from this report getting public. Trump must be involved too because he is likely wanting it not to be released. M@ga Mike will do Trump's bidding unless it gets leaked.
Trump is planning make all the appointments during Senate recess so that no one has to go through confirmation.
That is nothing but far Left propaganda.
In January, the Republicans have a 53-47 majority, plus the VP to break any 50-50 ties. Trump will get 99% of his nominees approved. There is absolutely no need to push them during recess and he won't do it. Stop listening to CNN and the far Left and instead start using common sense. They are straight up lying to the American people to try to support the "he wants to be a dictator forever" myth.
Trump tweeted it. I guess Trump is Left wing propaganda.
“Any Republican Senator seeking the coveted LEADERSHIP position in the United States Senate must agree to Recess Appointments (in the Senate!), without which we will not be able to get people confirmed in a timely manner,” Trump wrote in a post on the social platform X.
Garland DOJ clearly would have indicted Gaetz if there was any evidence.
That's common sense.
Since when it is hypocritical to use common sense?
By the way. On your writing. Less is more. Way too many adjectives.
Your so-called "common sense" doesn't reflect DOJ realities, so it isn't really common sense.
Of course the DOJ had evidence. They probably had flight logs and credit card receipts. They had testimony from his buddy, and may have had other witness testimony. That all is evidence. But here is the thing about the DOJ -- they hate to lose.
Evidence = they probably had this and that per you. Along with the statement of a convicted thief and child trafficker that you call his buddy. Plus might have had other witnesses..per you.
If the evidence is solid, why would they be afraid to indict? That makes no sense.
The MSM smeared him as a pedophile and many swallowed that lie and are clinging to it
