Sure….

Should? Yes. Will? Likely not.

Should he? YES! but most republicans seem to be above the law.

DeSantis will not let that that happen in Florida ! ! ! !

He’s the sort of person a criminal might pick to be Attorney General.

No. Thats perfectly acceptable behaviour for republicans

Probably.

What’s more important to me is I feel this is another sign that far right extremist billionaires who want to control the country use politicians who can be controlled via threats, bribes, and extortion. It’s a conspiracy theory that lives loud in my head.

Nope. The ethics panel is not a legal system…they are the group that looks at the by-laws of their little cabal. They do not apply the same standards to all parties, they are not a legal trial basis…nothing. You could say they could turn their findings over to the DoJ, but you can bet that was already done and the DoJ, the Gestapo for the Dems, couldn’t see enough of a case to push. This report makes good PR for the Dems and that is about it. The real question is why they released it at all. He is no longer in the House so their jurisdiction ended. The only reason to release it is to try to preemptively discredit him if he decides to shine a light on those remaining.

The real question is: If Gaetz were not a politician (and a notorious one at that), would his misdeeds be enough to get him arrested?

In other words, as a regular guy, would:

a) taking minors across a state line for sex
b) using drugs
c) paying prostitutes
d) statutory rape

be enough to have him arrested and charged.

The answer is clearly YES.

@elbanditoroso And yet the DOJ did not see enough evidence to bring charges. This was already investigated by them. And be honest: can you see this DOJ not going after a vocal Republican if they had the chance?

And it is interesting to me that this report was released after Gaetz was talking about being a possible Special Counsel appointed to look into insider trading by Congress.

Absolutely. There is enough evidence to bring forward minimum the statutory rape.

He is such a sleezeball. He stepped aside because he clearly he knew this would all come out. Does anyone have a conscious anymore?

@seawulf575 Yes, the timing is totally an aspect because he clearly had to be stopped before he waltzed into any more power.

Corruption is corruption. Party lines should not matter on things like this. Remember Bob Menendez? It took 18 years to get him his due.

^Exactly this. Corruption at all levels and parties needs to stop.

I am curious about those who so vehemently defend those who get accused (and often. convicted of) various things like this if they aspire to commit these acts, or have already, and figure that it’s just no big deal?

@seawulf575 “And yet the DOJ did not see enough evidence to bring charges. ”

They didn’t see enough evidence to bring federal charges. The report is mostly about crimes that would fall under the jurisdiction of states and municipalities.

@SavoirFaire That might be true. But apparently there wasn’t enough for the authorities in whatever state an local jurisdictions might be involved to take action on as well. But to your point, he has been accused of taking a juvenile across state lines to have sex. That is a federal offense. Yet still nothing was done. Why was that?

@seawulf575 ” But apparently there wasn’t enough for the authorities in whatever state an local jurisdictions might be involved to take action on as well.”

The report has been out for a day. Local jurisdictions have barely had a chance to read it, let alone file charges. We have no idea whether or not they will choose to prosecute him now that they have a fuller picture. My point was simply that DOJ deciding there wasn’t enough evidence to pursue federal charges says nothing about whether there is enough evidence to pursue charges in other jurisdictions.

“But to your point, he has been accused of taking a juvenile across state lines to have sex. That is a federal offense. Yet still nothing was done. Why was that?”

Because there’s a difference between accusations and evidence, and there’s also a difference between evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A DOJ prosecutor can’t just say, “yeah, seems like he did it—let’s indict him.” Whatever Gaetz did or did not do, what matters to a prosecutor is whether or not they have enough legally admissible evidence to build a case that will survive legal scrutiny. The DOJ concluded that they didn’t have enough evidence of that kind to warrant federal charges, so they declined to charge him.

@SavoirFaire “The report has been out for a day.” yes, but the claims have been out there for much, much longer. Are you really suggesting that state and local officials wouldn’t take any action to look into these things unless an ethics committee in Congress released their report? Think about that one for a moment. All this stuff was news long ago.

“Because there’s a difference between accusations and evidence, and there’s also a difference between evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Yep. And the DOJ had all the “evidence” to look at. These are serious charges. If there is so little evidence or the case is so weak that a prosecutor doesn’t believe they could make a case out of it, you have nothing substantial. I say this with great belief since I have seen the weak sauce they have tried throwing at Trump in all their lawfare. Call me cynical, but I believe the Garland DOJ to be as crooked as a dog’s hind leg. If THEY won’t bring a case, there isn’t a case to bring. And our justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty. And this report isn’t a legal proceeding in that they took accusation by itself. Gaetz wasn’t allowed to question witnesses or anything like that in a defense. So it is likely that there were some witnesses that were either lying or going on 2nd, 3rd, or rumor for their information.

News Flash ”MAGA Governor DeSantis tells the Florida Law Enforcement to stay away from prosecuting MAGA Member of US House Matt Gaetz !

@seawulf575 “Are you really suggesting that state and local officials wouldn’t take any action to look into these things unless an ethics committee in Congress released their report?”

No, I’m suggesting that report may have given them a fuller picture (which is why I said, “we have no idea whether or not they will choose to prosecute him now that they have a fuller picture”). If the report contains information they previously didn’t have, that could change things. Congressional reports often draw from more sources than local investigations, after all. I’m not saying anything will happen, just that a lack of federal charges doesn’t tell us that it will not happen.

(Interestingly, a quick search didn’t find any evidence of local investigations. But there are plenty of explanations for that other than “there weren’t any.”)

“If there is so little evidence or the case is so weak that a prosecutor doesn’t believe they could make a case out of it, you have nothing substantial.”

There’s also the fact that it is DOJ policy to (a) apply sex trafficking laws narrowly, and (b) only pursue charges in cases of “severe forms of trafficking.” There might be plenty of evidence that Gaetz did, in fact, commit statutory rape. But that alone does not warrant prosecution according to DOJ policy. So the question is whether they thought they had sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had engaged in a “severe” form of trafficking according to a narrow interpretation of the law. And apparently, the answer was “no.”

Other jurisdictions have different policies, however, and may decide otherwise. And this brings me back to my original point: a lack of federal charges does not tell us anything about whether there will—or will not—be other charges brought. Note that I have not argued that there should be charges brought against Gaetz. All I’ve said is that federal charges aren’t the end of the story.

@Tropical_Willie Do you have any sort of (reliable) source for that assertion?

No @SavoirFaire BUT DeSantis has a history https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/09/desantis-suspends-state-attorney-worrell-00110445

@SavoirFaire My point is that the ethics committee report is not a legal action against Gaetz, he was never allowed to question any of the “witnesses” from the report, and since Gaetz is no longer in the House, it was only released as a smear job. And this was such huge news when it was first breaking, when the ethics committee was meeting to review the case, that all the other jurisdictions had to have known about the accusations. You COULD try saying that the ethics committee was so upstanding that they wouldn’t have told the other jurisdictions but even that is demonstrably false. It was being reported on the news…what the allegations were, etc. They had no problem leaking it to the press so I doubt they would have a sticking point of informing other jurisdictions besides the DOJ.

As for the legitimacy of the report, one of their star witnesses, Chris Dorworth, is now suing the ethics committee to have them retract the report for gross inaccuracies (lies) in it that are attributed to him. This shows a breakdown of what that suit is all about. Go from about the 5 min point to about the 22 min point.

Everything he did carries a criminal penalty (although not from the House of Representatives).
But on top of all that stuff, he’s an insurrectionist. He should be shot to death in a firing line at the federal pen in Terre Haute for aiding and abetting Trump’s coup-by-court attempt. And everyone else involved in Trump’s coup attempt should suffer the same punishment.

@Kraigmo “he’s an insurrectionist.” Really? When was he charged with that? When was Trump charged with that? When was anyone charged with that? Oh yeah…in your mind.

As for “everything Gaetz did”, you mean “allegedly”. See, here is the problem. You have an ethics report that is suspect since they altered testimony of their star witness to make a case against Gaetz. They lied in the report. And you want to take the claims from this report and say he is guilty of criminal violations. The DOJ looked into the facts of the case and didn’t see enough to say he did or didn’t do anything illegal. Biden’s DOJ who we know are very biased against Republicans. So if they couldn’t find anything, and the report was falsified, how can you say he did anything?

I’m not forgiving Republicans for bad behavior, but it takes more in my view than skewed claims and falsified evidence before I jump on the “Hang Him!” bandwagon.

I am amused to see the republicans agree with my earlier comments

@SQUEEKY2 because Gaetz is a republican and Biden is a democrat. I mean really, having sex with children is fine if your a republican. Did you not know that?

@seawulf575 , Matt Gaetz favored the “cancelling” of 2020’s election results and was in favor of a “re-do”. Not that that’s Constitutionally possible. But whether or not it’s possible… he favored it. He promoted Trump’s election lies. He promoted Trump’s 70 fraudulent lawsuits. The PURPOSE of those lawsuits was to cancel Joe Biden’s 2020 election win. Even though Joe Biden won. Trump’s attempt to overturn the election simply beause he lost is the most Un-American thing any President ever did. And anyone who favored that attempt is an enemy of America. No exceptions.
How would you feel if your neighbor claimed you did something horrible to his kid? And then sued you for it? Well that’s what Trump and his supporters did to America.
There were no rigged Dominion machines. There were no rigged Smartmatic machines. There were no ballots in suitcases. FOUR dead people voted in Georgia (not thousands) and they all voted for Trump. There were no “paid mules”. That Mule movie was retracted by its own distributor, Salem Media, and they apologized for the bullshit.
The claims made by Trump to the courts and to the People-at-large was a coup-by-court attempt. Anyone who denies that is an enemy of America. Our country depends on the peaceful transfer or power. Trump’s philosophy is “fight like hell and truth be damned”. Only a very evil person or a very stupid person would favor what Trump did. In what universe is what Trump did…. somehow an innocent thing?
If you support Trump after that, it shows your true colors. It shows you don’t believe in fair play, and that you want to dominate other people. How deeply sick.

@seawulf575 , as for the Ethics report itself, let’s say it is falsified. In that case, he shouldn’t be punished for anything in the report.
But we KNOW what Gaetz did in regards to supporting Trump during, and after the coup-attempt.
Just like we know what a school shooter did, prior to actual conviction. The guilt is prima facie.

@Tropical_Willie “No @SavoirFaire BUT DeSantis has a history”

The key word in that answer is “no,” meaning it’s not a “news flash” so much as it is a guess framed as a fact. Got it.

@seawulf575 “My point is that the ethics committee report is not a legal action against Gaetz”

And no one is saying it is. It’s a report that others may or may not take as providing relevant information to whether or not they should pursue investigations (or further investigations), which may or may not in turn lead to charges.

“And this was such huge news when it was first breaking, when the ethics committee was meeting to review the case, that all the other jurisdictions had to have known about the accusations.”

Sure, but most local jurisdictions don’t engage in thorough investigations in the absence of a specific complaint (i.e., an accusation made to them, rather than one that’s just in the news) or the release of evidence (i.e., the report). Knowing that Gaetz was accused would probably be enough to get jurisdictions to review existing complaints and evidence or maybe even pursue some basic investigations, but a mere accusation isn’t going to drive them to invest all that heavily into anything. It’s the same reason that public figures who are well known for using illegal drugs usually don’t get into legal trouble until they are caught red-handed or are involved in some other sort of proceeding that lays out evidence of their crimes.

“As for the legitimacy of the report, one of their star witnesses, Chris Dorworth, is now suing the ethics committee to have them retract the report for gross inaccuracies (lies) in it that are attributed to him.”

Dorworth is not suing the ethics committee. His lawyers submitted a request for a retraction of three sentences contained within the report, only the first of which has any potential basis. The second two are purely rhetorical, which isn’t surprising given that the request is clearly a political document (as it lacks many of the hallmarks of standard legal writing). Furthermore, it is overstating by a lot to call the supposed discrepancies “gross inaccuracies” (again, with the possible exception of the first one).

But let’s get back to the original point: the absence of federal charges does not tell us anything about whether there will or will not be state or local charges. You’ve said a lot of things in response to me making that simple point, but none of it seems to actually contradict what I wrote.

yes