Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Matt Gaetz Under Investigation for Sex Trafficking


Recommended Posts

  • 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 hours ago, bigbottom said:

 

Also, not sure about Gaetz blowing up the details of an FBI sting operation on national television makes much sense......

 

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**

Edited by GordonGekko
Link to post
Share on other sites

*******

Gaetz is not unskilled. He's an enforcer that unfairly gets called a partisan thug far too often. But he has the same flaw as Trump - He sees himself as a hammer, the rest of the world as nails, and believes all nails needed to be smashed constantly. That works some of the time, but many times it's not the best tool for the job.

One of the major discussion points on Parler, in private conversation with some of the heavy hitters, is that Trump would eventually push to go after Obama/Biden through Operation Fast & Furious, which ironically brings in Liz Cheney again, as OF&F was an off shoot of W Bush's Operation Wide Receiver, that deeply involved the Bush/Cheney regime. Lots of incentive for brand name Democrats to want to preemptively pick off Trump's roster of usual suspects, who openly defended him in impeachment, to stop the hunt of OF&F in Congress. Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz. And, of course, Gaetz just won't let go of the Hunter Biden scandal. No surprise the current administration would want his scalp.

Gaetz is outcome independent and relentless. He's like Dollar Bill Stern from Billions. You can't buy off a guy like that. You can't blackmail him. You can't extort him. You can't cut a deal with him. Guys like that don't negotiate. I'm sure many here know the type. Everyone has met this kind of person at least once in their life. (Probably in a fight gym....) If you want to silence him, you need to carpet bomb him.

This is a double win for the DNC, at least for today. The daily media cycle can be shoved in a different direction, Gaetz, versus the constant battering taken over the border crisis. And it possibly starts a path to neutralize one of Trump's main Congressional allies.

One thing Gaetz does very well is keep his discussion point in simple terms. A lot of Trump's base will deal with poor white rural Christian America. You aren't going to push Bill Simmon's style Grantland type messenging with this crowd. You need a much more direct and simpler type of communication style. Gaetz is short, direct and brutal. Verbal blunt force trauma. It's one of the largest blind spots I see here at FBG, you have lots of white educated white collar professionals who are the kind of Grantland type sports audience, but there is simply a wider range of personality/demographic/socioeconomic tiered types out there. Both in sports and in politics.

Gaetz has nothing to lose now. That makes him a cornered wounded animal. He's actually more dangerous right now than he's ever been before.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AAABatteries said:
4 hours ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

I think I understand now why the Rams left St. Louis. 

For the love of god please stop replying to him.

Hey now, no need to take a shot at the Rams.  😉

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zow said:

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. 

Did you miss the part where he says something like “buying stuff for someone you’re dating that is of age isn’t illegal”? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.” 

Edited by Snorkelson
  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

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**

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. 

Edited by bigbottom
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Snorkelson said:

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’m going to amend my comment here, the guy was stealing identities but I don’t think he made fake ids for underage girls. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, 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.

I didn’t say the FBI didn’t leak info.  Read what I said. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

Did you miss the part where he says something like “buying stuff for someone you’re dating that is of age isn’t illegal”? 

No. That should be included too in context. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

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. 

I believe his explanation for that is that he blames the fbi for leaking information to The NY Times. 
 

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

There’s a tax collector bible joke to be made here but I’m not funny enough to make it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Moe. said:

Tucker Carlson interview he gave tonight was nuts. The guy is finished 

 

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.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Zow said:

There’s a tax collector bible joke to be made here but I’m not funny enough to make it. 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Zow said:

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. 

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.  

8 minutes ago, Snorkelson said:

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.

I wonder if a 17-year-old might have any text messages that could be helpful in proving any allegations.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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.

My Lord, what a piece of work.   

"Greenberg faces 14 federal charges, including stalking, identity theft and sex trafficking of a minor."

That is pretty impressive...

Edited by Godsbrother
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Snorkelson said:

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.” 

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?

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

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?

I think that’s the federal law, taking anyone under 18 over state lines+sex=trafficking. More of an expert on bird law though.

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

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.  

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zow said:

I believe his explanation for that is that he blames the fbi for leaking information to The NY Times. 

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bigbottom said:

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. 

That’s how I interpreted it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 2Squirrels1Nut said:

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.  

I think his dad was wearing the wire to bust the guy trying to extort Gaetz. 

  • Thinking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Godsbrother said:

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.

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".  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JPPT1974 said:

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!

 

Al Franken says hello. 

Edited by dkp993
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Amused to Death said:

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.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sand said:

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.

Perfectly reasonable question and should be discussed in the Swalwell thread.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not great no matter.  

28 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

Al Franken says hello. 

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.  

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sabertooth said:

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.  

AND there’s a perception that DEMs get away with it.  I’m not even a Dem and think that’s ridiculous. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sabertooth said:

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.  

This stuff is all over the map with multiple subjects.  Ralph Northam says hi, BTW.  :P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Thunderlips said:

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".  

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.  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, massraider said:

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.  

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Sand said:

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.

1.  I dunno that the Tucker appearance cleared anything up.  If that was frst you saw of this, you probably still in the dark.

2.  Fox is only non-lefty news?  Oh man, I wish.  My dad gets his news from NEWSMAX, so yeah..........and my mom gets hers from Facebook and Hannity.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone mentioned the rumor that Gaetz accidentally killed his colllege roommate in a sex game gone wrong?  That was floating around a couple years ago.  Kind of a Craig James killed 5 hookers type of thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Sabertooth said:

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.  

I am shocked at their consistency honestly.  They didn't remove the Northam when they could have easily done so.  

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

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!!!

Really have no idea what point you’re trying to make here in your response to me.   🤷🏻‍♂️

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, massraider said:

1.  I dunno that the Tucker appearance cleared anything up.  If that was frst you saw of this, you probably still in the dark.

As I said earlier, that was bizarre.  But you certainly heard about it if you pay attention to Fox at all.

 

33 minutes ago, massraider said:

2.  Fox is only non-lefty news?  Oh man, I wish.  My dad gets his news from NEWSMAX, so yeah..........and my mom gets hers from Facebook and Hannity.  

Neither Newsmax or OAN are mainstream news.  They get tiny viewership.  That's like saying Cheddar is MSM.  I don't count them.

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...