For the gaslighted mental cases on the left who think Matt is a sex trafficker - Justice Department drops sex trafficking probe of Rep. Matt Gaetz

[Truth Detector]

In September 2022, after more than two years of investigating Gaetz, prosecutors recommended that no charges be filed against the Florida congressman.

Five months later, in February 2023, the department formally closed the investigation.

Is Matt Gaetz still under investigation? Sex-trafficking probe timeline

The Justice Department spent more than two years investigating if Matt Gaetz violated federal sex-trafficking laws.

www.newsweek.com

prosecutors recommended that no charges be filed....that's happens when nothing is found!

The simple-minded leftist liars are not interested in facts. They prefer lying, gaslighting, innuendo and hearsay.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

In September 2022, after more than two years of investigating Gaetz, prosecutors recommended that no charges be filed against the Florida congressman.

Five months later, in February 2023, the department formally closed the investigation.

Is Matt Gaetz still under investigation? Sex-trafficking probe timeline

The Justice Department spent more than two years investigating if Matt Gaetz violated federal sex-trafficking laws.

www.newsweek.com

prosecutors recommended that no charges be filed....that's happens when nothing is found!

First of all the FBI never said that Gaetz was exonerated. Then you admit they continued to investigate even after prosecutors said there wasn't enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt proving that the FBI didn't exonerate him.

The standard for declining prosecution is not "nothing is found". The standard for prosecution is the evidence should be sufficient to obtain and sustain a prosecution.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

How is Gaetz a horrible person for the job? Other than these moronic and laughably inept efforts to tarnish his character with hearsay and innuendo?

You don't seem to know the first thing about what hearsay is. If someone witnesses an act, it isn't hearsay when they say they saw it.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You illustrate what stupid looks like.

Did you color that with statement with the 3 crayons you are allowed access to?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Justice Department drops sex trafficking probe of Rep. Matt Gaetz without charges, lawyers say​

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department has formally decided not to charge firebrand Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz in a sex trafficking investigation, the lawmaker's lawyers said Wednesday.

"We have just spoken with the DOJ and have been informed that they have concluded their investigation into Congressman Gaetz and allegations related to sex trafficking and obstruction of justice, and they have determined not to bring any charges against him," attorneys Marc Mukasey and Isabelle Kirshner said.

Justice Department drops sex trafficking probe of Rep. Matt Gaetz without charges, lawyers say

The investigation coincided with Matt Gaetz’s rise to prominence as a vocal supporter of Donald Trump and antagonist to congressional Democrats.

www.usatoday.com

Too late! The Left has already found Gaetz guilty in their Court of Public Outrage and sentenced him to... something or another they find appropriate.

 

[Joe]

Hmm still sore.

I admit I am still very sore.

I will neither apologize nor be shamed for it.

These evil motherfuckers need to be held accountable and then we can talk about reconciliation.

 

[Truth Detector]

First of all the FBI never said that Gaetz was exonerated. Then you admit they continued to investigate even after prosecutors said there wasn't enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt proving that the FBI didn't exonerate him.

The standard for declining prosecution is not "nothing is found". The standard for prosecution is the evidence should be sufficient to obtain and sustain a prosecution.

What part of NO EVIDENCE to support the claims are you struggling with? Good lord leftists are stupid.

 

[Truth Detector]

You don't seem to know the first thing about what hearsay is. If someone witnesses an act, it isn't hearsay when they say they saw it.

If someone claims they witnessed an act, but there is no corroborating evidence to support such a claim, it is hearsay you brain dead mental case.

 

[Truth Detector]

Did you color that with statement with the 3 crayons you are allowed access to?

Poor little Richard, resorting to meme's now. I accept your complete and utter capitulation on the topic. Now run along and play on a busy street.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

What part of NO EVIDENCE to support the claims are you struggling with? Good lord leftists are stupid.

What part of not enough evidence to obtain a conviction for a federal crime are you struggling with?
It is not a federal crime for a 38 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old. It is a state crime for a 38 year old man to pay a 17 year old to have sex with him. The FBI could have found evidence of Gaetz having paid a 17 year old to have sex with him and the DOJ would have declined to prosecute since it is not against federal law.

 

[The Trump Administration]

Gaetz is a stalking horse. Trump will concede a Gaetz loss and his real choice will be even more interesting.

I posited the same scenario.

Thread 'Will Trump get his first-round picks? A thread'

Nov 16, 2024

He may not want to. He's been known to feint and bluff the left before.

Maybe these initial nominees are stalking horses.

Why would anyone suspect that?

Many of Trump's first-round picks share some common characteristics.

Obviously, Democrats will try to oppose whoever he proposes, and he could be playing the long game to draw them out so he can use their own arguments against them if he has alternative nominees he'll produce after Congress is in session again...

Several who've been victimized by Democrats and unelected bureaucrats drunk with power have now been nominated to be put...

• The Trump Administration
• Replies: 30
• Forum: Current Events Forum

 

[The Trump Administration]

The simple-minded leftist liars are not interested in facts. They prefer lying, gaslighting, innuendo and hearsay.

Since it appears that's all they have...

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If someone claims they witnessed an act, but there is no corroborating evidence to support such a claim, it is hearsay you brain dead mental case.

No. It is not hearsay. It is eyewitness testimony. Hearsay would be someone claiming they were told Gaetz was having sex with a 17 year old.
At this point, it seems you are only here to prove how stupid you are.

hearsay /hîr′sā″/

noun​

2. [*]Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.


If someone sees something then they have personal knowledge that they saw it so it can't be hearsay. If I saw someone robbing a bank, my testimony would not be hearsay. If I saw someone having sex then my testimony would not be hearsay.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Poor little Richard, resorting to meme's now. I accept your complete and utter capitulation on the topic. Now run along and play on a busy street.

You illustrate what stupid looks like.
run along and play on a busy street.

It's rather hard for me to capitulate to someone that capitulated long ago if your standard for capitulation is resorting to "memes."

 

[Truth Detector]

What part of not enough evidence to obtain a conviction for a federal crime are you struggling with?

If there is not enough evidence to convict, it's the same as NO evidence you brain dead dumbass. God, this is why I hate arguing with uneducated morons.

It is not a federal crime for a 38 year old man to have sex with a 17 year old. It is a state crime for a 38 year old man to pay a 17 year old to have sex with him. The FBI could have found evidence of Gaetz having paid a 17 year old to have sex with him and the DOJ would have declined to prosecute since it is not against federal law.

If "if's" and "buts" were candy and nuts. Morons on the left engage in a lot of hyperbole, bullshit and innuendo.

 

[The Trump Administration]

If there is not enough evidence to convict, it's the same as NO evidence you brain dead dumbass. God, this is why I hate arguing with uneducated morons.



If "if's" and "buts" were candy and nuts. Morons on the left engage in a lot of hyperbole, bullshit and innuendo.

No proof, no truth.

 

[Truth Detector]

No. It is not hearsay. It is eyewitness testimony. Hearsay would be someone claiming they were told Gaetz was having sex with a 17 year old.
At this point, it seems you are only here to prove how stupid you are.

You're too stupid to argue with. It's hearsay when there is no other corroborating evidence dumbass.

hearsay /hîr′sā″/

noun​

2. [*]Evidence that is not within the personal knowledge of a witness, such as testimony regarding statements made by someone other than the witness, and that therefore may be inadmissible to establish the truth of a particular contention because the accuracy of the evidence cannot be verified through cross-examination.

If someone sees something then they have personal knowledge that they saw it so it can't be hearsay.

If someone CLAIMS they saw something and there is nothing other than he said, she said, it is hearsay dotard.

If I saw someone robbing a bank, my testimony would not be hearsay.

That's because the bank was actually robbed.

If I saw someone having sex then my testimony would not be hearsay.

If no one else corroborated your testimony, it is hearsay asswhipe.

 

[Truth Detector]

It's rather hard for me to capitulate to someone that capitulated long ago if your standard for capitulation is resorting to "memes."

Run along little man. You don't have to prove you're an idiot every damned day.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If there is not enough evidence to convict, it's the same as NO evidence you brain dead dumbass. God, this is why I hate arguing with uneducated morons.

No. It means there IS evidence and if there IS evidence it is not the same thing as no evidence.

If "if's" and "buts" were candy and nuts. Morons on the left engage in a lot of hyperbole, bullshit and innuendo.

Facts are facts.

Let's see if I can put it in perspective for you. Since no court found there was enough election fraud to affect the outcome of the 2020 election, does that mean there was no evidence of election fraud? Not enough evidence is the same thing as no evidence, correct?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You're too stupid to argue with. It's hearsay when there is no other corroborating evidence dumbass.



If someone CLAIMS they saw something and there is nothing other than he said, she said, it is hearsay dotard.



That's because the bank was actually robbed.



If no one else corroborated your testimony, it is hearsay asswhipe.

No. It is uncorroborated witness testimony not hearsay. (In this case 2 people actually testified to seeing Gaetz having sex with the 17 year old. I believe one of them was the 17 year old.)

Let's put it into perspective again. If you think there is no evidence to support an eyewitness testimony makes the eyewitness testimony hearsay then all those people that signed affidavits claiming election fraud were only hearsay and the courts can just ignore them since hearsay is not accepted in courts. Congratulations, you have just made the claim there is no evidence of election fraud in 2020.