Also, not sure about Gaetz blowing up the details of an FBI sting operation on national television makes much sense......
Hey now, no need to take a shot at the Rams.AAABatteries said:For the love of god please stop replying to him.2Squirrels1Nut said:I think I understand now why the Rams left St. Louis.
Did you miss the part where he says something like “buying stuff for someone you’re dating that is of age isn’t illegal”?I frankly thought the most cringe-worthy moment of the interview was Gaetz initially referring to her as a 17 year old woman (as opposed to “girl”). I took it as an admission of him trying to normalize the behavior. You’ll notice Tucker tried to rehabilitate him a bit by saying “girl” but Gaetz would only give him “17 year old.”
Then Gaetz basically admits by implication that he took a 17 year old to dinner with Tucker. I again took this as an attempt to normalize.
Barr is too buoyant to be deep state. He’s surface level state.Bill Barr was Deep State all along? That makes sense.
The odd part about it is that he is asserting in the interview that the FBI is on his side, working on an undercover sting to bust the guy trying to extort him. That’s why it’s odd for him to expose the details of the operation on national television.VIDEO: Gaetz explodes at impeachment witnesses: You don't get to interrupt me •Dec 4, 2019
Rep. Matt Gaetz went off on Democrats' impeachment witnesses, repeatedly prodding the constitutional scholars on whether they donated to Democratic campaigns such as Barack Obama's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLU11AXWvXE
VIDEO: WATCH: Rep. Gaetz calls out Hunter Biden’s drug use | Trump's first impeachment •Dec 12, 2019
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., called out Hunter Biden’s history of drug use during a markup of the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, saying it’s unlikely the Ukrainian oil company Burisma would have put Biden on its board without his connection to his father, former vice president Joe Biden. Gaetz offered an amendment to the articles of impeachment that would indicate Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the Ukrainian oil company Burisma and Hunter Biden, not Joe Biden.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHyfCo1APO8
VIDEO: Rep. Matt Gaetz Says Republicans Won't Drop Hunter Biden Investigation •Jan 13, 2021
The debate is heated almost from the start as the House sets up a vote to impeach President Donald Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqYiNyQ-qfs
********
It actually makes total sense. One could argue lots of people believe the DOJ and FBI are already partisan and comprised ( i.e. Comey was just the tip of the iceberg)
This isn't just about Gaetz's seat in Congress, this is about potential prison time and the rest of his entire life. After the Comey situation, I don't think either side of the aisle should take a whole lot of stock in feeling safe in the hands of the FBI.
Is there motive for the power brokers at the Democratic Party to hunt Gaetz and silence him no matter what? I believe so.
TRUNCATED FOR LENGTH**
I’m going to amend my comment here, the guy was stealing identities but I don’t think he made fake ids for underage girls.Here is the part I’m talking about
1. I don’t think he’s talking about “pay for play” scheme the way most people refer to it with regards to politicians.
2. “Providing for flights and hotel rooms for people you are dating who are of age isn’t a crime.”
Sounds like the doj approached his 17 year old girlfriend, who had dinner with Tucker and his wife, about being trafficked. Just going by Gaetz’s own words here.
Greenberg investigation article here.
Connecting some dots, and listening to what Gaetz is saying, it sounds like Greenberg was making fake IDs for underage girls he was trafficking, although it’s unclear how many times this happened. I’m assuming one of these girls “dated” gaetz, and he bought her flights and hotel rooms and whatever else, in a “sugar daddy” type relationship. The girl was 17, which I guess is age of consent, so gaetz is claiming she “absolutely wasn’t underage.”
I didn’t say the FBI didn’t leak info. Read what I said.GordonGekko said:Direct Headline: Ex-FBI Agent Strzok Acknowledged Steele Dossier Was ‘Intended to Influence’ Media
Brittany Bernstein December 17, 2020
https://news.yahoo.com/ex-fbi-agent-strzok-acknowledged-193459573.html
Direct Headline: DOJ declines to prosecute Comey despite finding that he leaked info
By Andy Sullivan August 29, 2019 7:39 AM
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-russia-comey/doj-declines-to-prosecute-comey-despite-finding-that-he-leaked-info-idUSKCN1VJ1UO
******
If that's your opinion, go for it. It's your free speech.
No. That should be included too in context.Did you miss the part where he says something like “buying stuff for someone you’re dating that is of age isn’t illegal”?
I believe his explanation for that is that he blames the fbi for leaking information to The NY Times.The odd part about it is that he is asserting in the interview that the FBI is on his side, working on an undercover sting to bust the guy trying to extort him. That’s why it’s odd for him to expose the details of the operation on national television.
There’s a tax collector bible joke to be made here but I’m not funny enough to make it.It's Maddow, I know, but her segment on the Greenberg guy is worth watching. (First segment on tonight's show.)
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Holy moly.
Nah. First off nothing has been proved, he may or may not have done anything illegal or immoral.Moe. said:Tucker Carlson interview he gave tonight was nuts. The guy is finished
Can I ask you some lawyer questions?There’s a tax collector bible joke to be made here but I’m not funny enough to make it.
Yes. NYT stance is, we don't know about this extortion attempt. An extortion attempt by a 3rd party really doesn't address the NYT article.It’s probably also telling that he’s trying to direct the focus to the extortion. I would imagine one just tells somebody trying to extort him that he hasn’t done anything wrong so good luck. Here, the alleged person trying to extort him presumably has to have something on him for the threat to carry at least some weight.
I wonder if a 17-year-old might have any text messages that could be helpful in proving any allegations.Can I ask you some lawyer questions?
1. If he’s dating a 17 year old girl, is that illegal (assuming consensual relationship?)
2. If he took her to another state and paid her way, is that illegal?
3. Federal law, I believe, is taking someone under 18 across state lines for sex is illegal, would the state have to prove they had intercourse in another state?
4. If he was introduced to her by this Greenberg guy, and he has more than one instance of some sort of commercial sugar daddy behavior, does that change anything?
Seems like a high bar to prove for some of this unless Greenberg flips.
My Lord, what a piece of work.It's Maddow, I know, but her segment on the Greenberg guy is worth watching. (First segment on tonight's show.)
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show
Holy moly.
The age of consent in Florida is 18. (There are exceptions for 17-year-olds *if* the partner is no older than 23, but old man Gaetz wouldn't qualify.)Here is the part I’m talking about
1. I don’t think he’s talking about “pay for play” scheme the way most people refer to it with regards to politicians.
2. “Providing for flights and hotel rooms for people you are dating who are of age isn’t a crime.”
Sounds like the doj approached his 17 year old girlfriend, who had dinner with Tucker and his wife, about being trafficked. Just going by Gaetz’s own words here.
Greenberg investigation article here.
Connecting some dots, and listening to what Gaetz is saying, it sounds like Greenberg was making fake IDs and using Florida database to look up underage girls. I’m assuming one of these girls “dated” gaetz, and he bought her flights and hotel rooms and whatever else, in a “sugar daddy” type relationship. The girl was 17, which I guess is age of consent, so gaetz is claiming she “absolutely wasn’t underage.”
I think that’s the federal law, taking anyone under 18 over state lines+sex=trafficking. More of an expert on bird law though.The age of consent in Florida is 18. (There are exceptions for 17-year-olds *if* the partner is no older than 23, but old man Gaetz wouldn't qualify.)
I suppose it's possible that Gaetz flew her to a state where the age of consent was 17.......but isn't that the very definition of sex trafficking?
It sounds like gaetz was implicated, and this whole “sugar daddy” scheme, was discovered after seizing the devices of Greenberg and his wife. I’m guessing maybe they had correspondence.Yes. NYT stance is, we don't know about this extortion attempt. An extortion attempt by a 3rd party really doesn't address the NYT article.
Don't believe Gaetz discussed suing the NYT.
I wonder if a 17-year-old might have any text messages that could be helpful in proving any allegations.
So the explanation is the FBI was on his side and helping him, and then betrayed him? That didn’t come through clearly in the interview, but you may be right about the explanation.I believe his explanation for that is that he blames the fbi for leaking information to The NY Times.
That’s how I interpreted it.So the explanation is the FBI was on his side and helping him, and then betrayed him? That didn’t come through clearly in the interview, but you may be right about the explanation.
I think his dad was wearing the wire to bust the guy trying to extort Gaetz.Maybe this is a question for another thread but I can't imagine my dad agreeing to wear a wire to bust me for something unless he thought I was a monster.
This.Nah. First off nothing has been proved, he may or may not have done anything illegal or immoral.
But even if everything he is being investigated for is 100% true most GOP voters just don't care about scandals.
Al Franken says hello.It seems if a Democrat did that, it would be getting a free ride unless you are Andrew Cuomo.
Not a good time to be a GOP these days sheesh!
Can we throw Swalwell out of the Intelligence Committee too? He let the little head make decisions that allowed a Chinese spy to get close to him (pun intended) for quite a while. Logic says there's no way he should be on the Intel committee.He's not wrong.
Ted Lieu tweets:
Rep Matt Gaetz should be taken off the @HouseJudiciary Committee until the @TheJusticeDept investigation is completed. He should not be sitting on a Congressional Committee with oversight over the DOJ while the Department is investigating him.
Perfectly reasonable question and should be discussed in the Swalwell thread.Can we throw Swalwell out of the Intelligence Committee too? He let the little head make decisions that allowed a Chinese spy to get close to him (pun intended) for quite a while. Logic says there's no way he should be on the Intel committee.
They can leave hand in hand.
It always blows my mind that Democrats cancelled Franken for a few pictures while the Republicans overlooked Trump’s boasts of sexual assault. Shows you the respective moral compasses of each party at least.Al Franken says hello.
AND there’s a perception that DEMs get away with it. I’m not even a Dem and think that’s ridiculous.It always blows my mind that Democrats cancelled Franken for a few pictures while the Republicans overlooked Trump’s boasts of sexual assault. Shows you the respective moral compasses of each party at least.
This stuff is all over the map with multiple subjects. Ralph Northam says hi, BTW.Not great no matter.
It always blows my mind that Democrats cancelled Franken for a few pictures while the Republicans overlooked Trump’s boasts of sexual assault. Shows you the respective moral compasses of each party at least.
They won't even know.This.
I'm not going to support or defend the notion of him with a 17 year old....but I'd imagine a large % of his constituency will just shrug their shoulders and say "if it was good enough for the guy in that Winger song...it's good enough for a loyal Trump supporting politician".
Wasn't he on Tucker just last night on this subject? Given that Fox is the only non-wacky left news outlet on the tube I'd say this has at least gotten coverage.They won't even know.
Their 'news outlets' won't even cover this.
Unless someone from their Facebook group shares a meme, they simply won't know.
1. I dunno that the Tucker appearance cleared anything up. If that was frst you saw of this, you probably still in the dark.Wasn't he on Tucker just last night on this subject? Given that Fox is the only non-wacky left news outlet on the tube I'd say this has at least gotten coverage.
I am shocked at their consistency honestly. They didn't remove the Northam when they could have easily done so.Not great no matter.
It always blows my mind that Democrats cancelled Franken for a few pictures while the Republicans overlooked Trump’s boasts of sexual assault. Shows you the respective moral compasses of each party at least.
So does Bill Clinton and his 26 trips to Epstein Island.Al Franken says hello.
Really have no idea what point you’re trying to make here in your response to me.So does Bill Clinton and his 26 trips to Epstein Island.
So when @Godsbrother and @Thunderlips proclaim that GOP voters don't care about scandals, we can be certain that they are only doing that because - SIDES!!!