Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Matt Gaetz Under Investigation for Sex Trafficking


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, stlrams said:

Please let me know named sources..

Show me yours for immediately blaming Biden. The investigation into Gaetz was part of a broader investigation of one his friends (found guilty, btw).

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 616
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Honestly, I think there are few things less productive than arguing about hypocrisy on a message board. First, it’s often a generalized comment about groups of posters, which seems facially ridiculous

Today’s GOP:  Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney - “BOOOOOOO!!!!” Matt Gaetz, Roy Moore - “CIRCLE THE WAGONS!!!”

Not nearly as bad as a can of tuna in a crowded movie theatre.

2 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Show me yours for immediately blaming Biden. The investigation into Gaetz was part of a broader investigation of one his friends (found guilty, btw).

So you got nothing.  Thanks for the deflection.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

If I'm following you...

  • For some reason you think Liz Cheney is relevant to the possible sex trafficking investigation against Gaetz.
  • Liz Cheney's spokesperson said some homophobic things about Matt Gaetz months ago.
  • You actually do understand Liz Cheney is a Republican.
  • But "the DNC" is going to lose votes over this.

Is that it?

 

WIKIPEDIA: Republican In Name Only

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only

 

*******

You are clearly not following, here's a post that clears everything up.

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/795779-matt-gaetz-under-investigation-for-sex-trafficking/?tab=comments#comment-23327550

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The General said:

I’ll let the Feds handle this perv.

So you have nothing yet are making unsubstantiated accusations.  I’m disappointed in you..  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, massraider said:

His Carlson interview might wind up being rather important.

 

https://twitter.com/nycsouthpaw/status/1377065621398126594

Its a troubling story, and he does himself no favors.

For instance, I thought part of his defense is that this is an extortion claim, yet, on Carlson he states that the woman in question does not exist.   Who is doing the extorting  :shrug:

 

Then, its probably nothing, but he suggests that he did not travel with a 17-yo, and that records all "bear that out".  It sounds like he is going with a "her ID said she was 18" defense, to the non-existent woman.  (In this respect, I think its noteworthy that Gaetz' friend - who was the original target in this investigation - was alleged to have been using his government position to create fake IDs for girls.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Ain't my story, chief. 

But yet you are running with it with no sources or collaboration. Got it.   Let me know when you find the Russian hooker peeing trump video.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stlrams said:

So you have nothing yet are making unsubstantiated accusations.  I’m disappointed in you..  

I look forward to following his career on Newsmax investigating voter fraud and UFO’s.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

Its a troubling story, and he does himself no favors.

For instance, I thought part of his defense is that this is an extortion claim, yet, on Carlson he states that the woman in question does not exist.   Who is doing the extorting  :shrug:

 

Then, its probably nothing, but he suggests that he did not travel with a 17-yo, and that records all "bear that out".  It sounds like he is going with a "her ID said she was 18" defense, to the non-existent woman.  (In this respect, I think its noteworthy that Gaetz' friend - who was the original target in this investigation - was alleged to have been using his government position to create fake IDs for girls.)

Sigh. 

These guys say it better and are more entertaining than I am. It's not entirely on topic, but it's still on point for Gaetz: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgWHrkDX35o 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 2
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The General said:

I look forward to following his career on Newsmax investigating voter fraud and UFO’s.

So you have nothing again. I think The NY Times might have an opening.  Can I make unsubstantiated claims about you now?

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, rct said:

Democrats will lose part of the LGBT vote because of Matt Gaetz? That is one of the most laughable things I have seen in a long time. 

 

Matt Gaetz is either heterosexual, gay or bisexual. ( For psychotics cancel culture woked out leftists here who want to start screaming about how I've just discriminated against pansexuals, please loosen the death grip on your Air Soft rifles right now, no one here is filming a western)

If Matt Gaetz comes out to this and says he's gay and he only sleeps with consenting adult males and only wants to sleep with consenting adult males, thus this makes any accusations of sexual criminal acts against a 17 year old girl impossible, then

1) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the Trump zealot

And

2) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the brand name Republican

And

3) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the myopic one trick pony enforcer for the old guard establishment Republican Party

Any continued attack on him by the leftist MSM and by any brand name Democrats will look like an attack on a gay American.

He's rebranded from Matt Gaetz Snow to Matt Stark! Then to Matt Targaryen!  The Breaker of Homophobic Chains! The First King Of The.... I digress

Actually he's rebranded to Matt Gaetz, a gay American being run through the dirt by a gay hating corporate toxic sold out left leaning MSM and corrupt left leaning Big Social Media.

Lots of those on the left have cheered Liz Cheney, a Republican In Name Only ( just as much as Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat In Name Only) on for her anti-Trump stances or seemingly anti-establishment Republican stances. So now there's this ugly narrative of her office saying things that are clearly anti-gay. Her office, she's responsible for all the headlines that come out of it. The DNC can't have it both ways, they can't get the optics of "Liz Cheney is an example of a true populist Republican and a good leader" and simultaneously not take the hit for this kind of repugnant bigoted narrative. Liz Cheney stands with the DNC, there isn't much doubt to this, so what she eats, they eat.

Any brand name Democrat who wants to join in on the public media hunt for Gaetz, after this kind of move, will look like they hate gay people.

Part of "Identity Politics" is dogmatic defense no matter what of your own disenfranchised political sub group. You'll see a subset of black Americans who believe blacks can do no wrong no matter what. You'll see a subset of women who believe women can do no wrong no matter what. You'll see a subset of Jews who believe Jews can do no wrong no matter what. And you'll see a subset of the LGBT community who will believe a gay man, even Matt Gaetz, can do no wrong no matter what.

Lots of LGBT are hardline LGBT first and foremost, then Democrats second. Attacks on anyone who is gay or claimed to be gay like this is going to get an aggressive response back, including at the voting booth.

If the DNC didn't want this, they shouldn't have pushed for a backdoor "Matt Gaetz is secretly gay and ashamed of it" media narrative, through a RINO no less, to discredit him as a self loathing bigot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stlrams said:

So you have nothing again. I think The NY Times might have an opening.  Can I make unsubstantiated claims about you now?

I said let the Feds handle it :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Amused to Death said:

Ain't my story, chief. 

Chief is racially insensitive.  Did you find Russian hooker pee video yet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, stlrams said:

So you have nothing again. I think The NY Times might have an opening.  Can I make unsubstantiated claims about you now?

No, that's illegal if you know they're untrue and injure him in some way.

That's why newspapers typically get two (or more) sources to give them the same information.

Even a famous person like Gaetz is protected from knowingly false statements that might damage his reputation.  (yeah, I know, but work with me here for the sake of discussion)

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

 

Matt Gaetz is either heterosexual, gay or bisexual. ( For psychotics cancel culture woked out leftists here who want to start screaming about how I've just discriminated against pansexuals, please loosen the death grip on your Air Soft rifles right now, no one here is filming a western)

If Matt Gaetz comes out to this and says he's gay and he only sleeps with consenting adult males and only wants to sleep with consenting adult males, thus this makes any accusations of sexual criminal acts against a 17 year old girl impossible, then

1) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the Trump zealot

And

2) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the brand name Republican

And

3) He's no longer Matt Gaetz, the myopic one trick pony enforcer for the old guard establishment Republican Party

Any continued attack on him by the leftist MSM and by any brand name Democrats will look like an attack on a gay American.

He's rebranded from Matt Gaetz Snow to Matt Stark! Then to Matt Targaryen!  The Breaker of Homophobic Chains! The First King Of The.... I digress

Actually he's rebranded to Matt Gaetz, a gay American being run through the dirt by a gay hating corporate toxic sold out left leaning MSM and corrupt left leaning Big Social Media.

Lots of those on the left have cheered Liz Cheney, a Republican In Name Only ( just as much as Tulsi Gabbard is a Democrat In Name Only) on for her anti-Trump stances or seemingly anti-establishment Republican stances. So now there's this ugly narrative of her office saying things that are clearly anti-gay. Her office, she's responsible for all the headlines that come out of it. The DNC can't have it both ways, they can't get the optics of "Liz Cheney is an example of a true populist Republican and a good leader" and simultaneously not take the hit for this kind of repugnant bigoted narrative. Liz Cheney stands with the DNC, there isn't much doubt to this, so what she eats, they eat.

Any brand name Democrat who wants to join in on the public media hunt for Gaetz, after this kind of move, will look like they hate gay people.

Part of "Identity Politics" is dogmatic defense no matter what of your own disenfranchised political sub group. You'll see a subset of black Americans who believe blacks can do no wrong no matter what. You'll see a subset of women who believe women can do no wrong no matter what. You'll see a subset of Jews who believe Jews can do no wrong no matter what. And you'll see a subset of the LGBT community who will believe a gay man, even Matt Gaetz, can do no wrong no matter what.

Lots of LGBT are hardline LGBT first and foremost, then Democrats second. Attacks on anyone who is gay or claimed to be gay like this is going to get an aggressive response back, including at the voting booth.

If the DNC didn't want this, they shouldn't have pushed for a backdoor "Matt Gaetz is secretly gay and ashamed of it" media narrative, through a RINO no less, to discredit him as a self loathing bigot.

Reed Richards can't stretch as much as you are stretching here.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The General said:

I said let the Feds handle it :lol:

So again you have nothing yet it’s funny. Are you momala?

Link to post
Share on other sites

With how aggressively he’s doing ‘damage control’, he must know he’s in trouble. Gotta love even Tucker thinking he’s crazy. How long until Trump says he barely knew him?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

No, that's illegal if you know they're untrue and injure him in some way.

That's why newspapers typically get two (or more) sources to give them the same information.

Even a famous person like Gaetz is protected from knowingly false statements that might damage his reputation.  (yeah, I know, but work with me here for the sake of discussion)

Really?  That’s absolutely not true. Papers have gone with stories with less then two sources. So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Biff84 said:

With how aggressively he’s doing ‘damage control’, he must know he’s in trouble. Gotta love even Tucker thinking he’s crazy. How long until Trump says he barely knew him?

Please let us know what you know here...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stlrams said:

So again you have nothing yet it’s funny. Are you momala?

I hope Geatz has time to get to the bottom of the Antifa at the Capitol riots. 

  • Laughing 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Really?  That’s absolutely not true. Papers have gone with stories with less then two sources. So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?

This is a really good question. Trump usually has no problem suing people. I'm now questioning why he hasn't sued a bunch of people over this.

Edited by tymarsas
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, stlrams said:

Really?  That’s absolutely not true. Papers have gone with stories with less then two sources. So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?

You are confused here.

The dossier made that allegation.  Not a newspaper.

Actually the dossier didn't even argue it was true.  It was presented it as a rumor that Steele looked into, but couldn't confirm.

But either way, no one needed a source.  They could read the dossier for themselves.

Saying "there's a dossier written by a former British agent (fact checked) that makes these allegations (because you've read them) and the FBI is looking into the story (fact checked)" isn't arguing the allegations are true.

Maybe you don't think the press should have run with the story.  Fine.  The big papers appear to have sat on it for months before Buzzfeed published their piece -- so they had that debate themselves.

Edited by Dinsy Ejotuz
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

No, that's illegal if you know they're untrue and injure him in some way.

That's why newspapers typically get two (or more) sources to give them the same information.

Even a famous person like Gaetz is protected from knowingly false statements that might damage his reputation.  (yeah, I know, but work with me here for the sake of discussion)

So according to you , if I find 1 other person that agrees with me then I can make any claim against anyone , right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, stlrams said:

So who was sued on the trump hooker peeing story?

:shrug: Probably nobody.

 

I am not aware of any major media company that reported the trump hooker peeing story as fact.  What was widely reported is that the allegation of Trump hooker peeing story was in the Steele Dossier - which was, in fact, true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, The General said:

I hope Geatz has time to get to the bottom of the Antifa at the Capitol riots. 

Please respond to question rather then deflection.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sinn Fein said:

:shrug: Probably nobody.

 

I am not aware of any major media company that reported the trump hooker peeing story as fact.  What was widely reported is that the allegation of Trump hooker peeing story was in the Steele Dossier - which was, in fact, true.

Please provide video of trump peeing on Russian hooker..  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stlrams said:

Please provide video of trump peeing on Russian hooker..  

Why would anybody want to see that? :yucky:

 

That is not even the allegation...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, stlrams said:

Another example why The NY Times is not reputable and worthless yet posters here defend them..

In what way is that an example of them not being reputable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sinn Fein said:

Why would anybody want to see that? :yucky:

 

That is not even the allegation...

So no one made that allegation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stlrams said:

So according to you , if I find 1 other person that agrees with me then I can make any claim against anyone , right?

Well, that's probably a little broader than I'd word it.

And because newspapers can (and do) get sued all the time they're going to be very careful with you as a source if they don't know you. 

That's what you're missing here.  Newspapers use anonymous sources, but they aren't anonymous to the reporter writing the story.  The reporter knows who it is and has an opinion about whether they can be trusted.  Most of the time the reporter has known the source for many years and the two have come to trust each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

In what way is that an example of them not being reputable?

Unnamed sources again and again. That was a standard at one point but let me know if we moved the goalposts  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, stlrams said:

Unnamed sources again and again. That was a standard at one point but let me know if we moved the goalposts  

Multiple sources confirmed.  Any reputable publication would go with that the way the NYT did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, stlrams said:

So no one made that allegation?

No...I don’t believe anyone made that allegation.

Edited by sho nuff
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Dinsy Ejotuz said:

Well, that's probably a little broader than I'd word it.

And because newspapers can (and do) get sued all the time they're going to be very careful with you as a source if they don't know you. 

That's what you're missing here.  Newspapers use anonymous sources, but they aren't anonymous to the reporter writing the story.  The reporter knows who it is and has an opinion about whether they can be trusted.  Most of the time the reporter has known the source for many years and the two have come to trust each other.

Just stop the gymnastics. Let this play out because you have NO facts at this point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...