Law Matt Gaetz to become Attorney General

[Poon Goon]

not enough evidence? interesting

Yes, I believe in multiple reports on the story I remember them specifying that there was evidence that he broke state laws in regards to statutory rape and drugs. I haven't heard that the report that was released has said there was evidence of sex trafficking.

looking forward to that, hopefully sooner than later.

Wouldn't be surprised if the statute of limitations has run out for the state crimes.

 

[pinger]

We know there was a 17 year old on the scene. We know Gaetz travelled with her across state lines to party and make secks.

The crux of the situation is whether or not gaetz knew she was 17, not 18.

And we know they made the fake IDs

 

[koquerelle]

I'm not forgiving him. I know he's fucked. Im asking if/ then why he hasnt been charged?

According to leaked info, he wasn't charged because they didn't think the prostitutes' testimonies would be taken seriously.

This is what happen when people in the justice system want pristine records. They don't want to go after hard cases and scumbags get away.

 

[Soggust]

We know there was a 17 year old on the scene. We know Gaetz travelled with her across state lines to party and make secks.

The crux of the situation is whether or not gaetz knew she was 17, not 18.

Is that relevant, though?

Meaning, I was under the impression that statutory rape and sex trafficking were both strict liability crimes and he could be held liable for either, even if she showed him a fake ID.

I realize some jurisdictions have exceptions for "reasonable mistake of age", but that defense is not universally accepted and usually has strict limitations, (i.e. - would require him to prove he went out of his way to check and was misled and may mitigate sentencing but still not completely absolve responsibility).

I definitely don't believe there is any exception in the country for "he didn't check".

 

[SKYNET]

he wasn't charged because they didn't think the prostitutes' testimonies would be taken seriously.

So not enough evidence, not enough credible witnesses.

 

[cincymma79]

So not enough evidence, not enough credible witnesses.

Don’t worry that won’t stop anyone

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Was she underage and sex trafficked?

She was 17 and by definiting paying the 2 women to come to NY is sex trafficking. Not to mention paying to have sex with the minor.

:::Sex trafficking is the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purposes of a commercial sex act, in which the commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such an act has not attained 18 years of age (22 USC § 7102).

Federal Law

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) of 2000 is the first comprehensive federal law to address trafficking in persons. The law provides a three-pronged approach that includes prevention, protection, and prosecution.

humantraffickinghotline.org

 

[Andy Capp]

So not enough evidence, not enough credible witnesses.

Don’t worry that won’t stop anyone

Do either of you think the evidence needs to reach the standard of a criminal prosecution before you can consider him unfit for public office? Particularly, AG? The committee report contains enough evidence to reach the conclusion, IMO, even if it's not enough to warrant* criminal charges. Isn't that what's important now since law enforcement declined to bring charges against him?

You, SKYNET, seem to be trying pretty hard to distract from that from what I have seen, but I may be missing context--I haven't read every single post ITT. I leave the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise in your hands.



*presumes taking into account things like whether to devote resources to a case where the outcome is in doubt ahead of other cases where a conviction is significantly more likely and not just whether it's worth pursuing or not on its own merits.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

This is where you just don't know what you're talking about. Jesus didn't have to say it. He himself did it-- and that's why others do too. It's an obvious development from having communities of people rising up to high levels of spirituality....

Jesus himself praised high levels of spirituality and that's why we do. And Jesus is teachings lead to high levels of spirituality and that's why we know that.....

But even if Jesus didn't and he absolutely certainly did you still just don't know what you're talking about because you think it has to be done by Jesus in order for it to be Christian and that is an indefensible statement.

You don't know anything about the early church and that's why you keep making these ridiculous arguments. The writings of the disciples disciples, the early extra biblical writings of the church precede the New testament and preceded some of the gospels. The gospels have always been explained through the extra biblical literature and passed on through the tradition. You cannot understand the Bible without reading those extra biblical writings.

And no one has ever thought any different until very recently.

There has never been a time in Christian history until Luther when that was not the case and there is no case to be made for it either...

You believe in Sola Scriptura whether you know you believe in that or not and it is an indefensible theological position. Without the extra biblical literature, you know what the Bible says, but you don't know what it means by what it says. And you live in a profound spiritual poverty because of this.


And I see that you failed to backup your lie that every saint that was made was made by a phile protector. Keep on slandering and lying. But the original argument that I refuted was that since some phile protector Bishop made a saint, the saint was not a saint but here you admit that original argument was wrong anyway.

Jesus prayed to John? Get outta here.

And if venerating humans was such a big part of the early church then why was Justin Martyr not venerated until the 1800s?

FTR, the earliest parts of the NT (Paul's letters) have been traced to 50AD. No part of the NT is dated no later than 120AD. And the earliest pronouncement of sainthood is after the year 900.

A pope declaring that a human person is a saint and can be prayed to is not scriptural - and is borderline blasphemous. An infallible Pope is not scriptual and is damn sure not taught by Christ.

I never said every person named a saint was made a saint by a -protector. I just pointed out that the very last Saint was named so by a -protector.

If that hurts you feelings, I'd say you need to look ar that infalliblility of the Pope little harder.

And for the last time being spiritually close to God is not the determining factor in becoming venerated, which has been shown to you by multiple posters.

Also for the last time... Make a thread on the subject. Tag me; I'll happily join the convo, but quit derailing this thread with your mental gymnastics of how one becomes a saint.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

that's an adult.

Name her then.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

It sounds like if you don't read the Bible alongside of the extra biblical literature that went with it, and grow in the subjective experiential spirituality it produces, you can't understand what they meant at all....


It's basically that simple.

I'm going to break my own rule and ask you 1 question to glean your understanding of the Bible.

Why was it wrong for Onan to cast his seed on the ground?

 

[Andy Capp]

I'm going to break my own rule and ask you 1 question to glean your understanding of the Bible.

Why was it wrong for Onan to cast his seed on the ground?

Sadly, I don't think that will get you anywhere. ChatGPT gives a pretty clear answer (I didn't remember anything about the incident without searching it myself.)

But good luck with that. I admire the effort, being as how I lost patience for this awhile back.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Sadly, I don't think that will get you anywhere. ChatGPT gives a pretty clear answer (I didn't remember anything about the incident without searching it myself.)

But good luck with that. I admire the effort, being as how I lost patience for this awhile back.

True enough, but to claim he understands that he'll have to explain how that became a prohibition on using birth control and masterbation.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Is that relevant, though?

Meaning, I was under the impression that statutory rape and sex trafficking were both strict liability crimes and he could be held liable for either, even if she showed him a fake ID.

I realize some jurisdictions have exceptions for "reasonable mistake of age", but that defense is not universally accepted and usually has strict limitations, (i.e. - would require him to prove he went out of his way to check and was misled and may mitigate sentencing but still not completely absolve responsibility).

I definitely don't believe there is any exception in the country for "he didn't check".

“Ignorance of the law is no excuse to break it” or something. I’m with you

 

[SKYNET]

Do you think the evidence needs to reach the standard of a criminal prosecution before you can consider him unfit for public office?

Yes.

You, SKYNET, seem to be trying pretty hard to distract from that from what I have seen, but I may be missing context-

Extracting facts is a distraction? I have no doubt you will get to the bottom of this. Detective Mandy is hot on my trail

-I haven't read every single post ITT. I leave the opportunity to demonstrate otherwise in your hands.

Lazy bum. President of the WR is a full time job buddy. Don't let it happen again

 

[Source]

Yes.

Extracting facts is a distraction? I have no doubt you will get to the bottom of this. Detective Mandy is hot on my trail

Lazy bum. President of the WR is a full time job buddy. Don't let it happen again

Do think he should still be up for AG despite the findings of the house ethics report?

 

[SKYNET]

Do think he should still be up for AG despite the findings of the house ethics report?

No

 

[Source]

No

Do think he’s still fit for public office despite the report?

 

[SKYNET]

Do think he’s still fit for public office despite the report?

Yes absolutely

 

[kflo]

This is where you just don't know what you're talking about. Jesus didn't have to say it. He himself did it-- and that's why others do too. It's an obvious development from having communities of people rising up to high levels of spirituality....

Jesus himself praised high levels of spirituality and that's why we do. And Jesus is teachings lead to high levels of spirituality and that's why we know that.....

But even if Jesus didn't and he absolutely certainly did you still just don't know what you're talking about because you think it has to be done by Jesus in order for it to be Christian and that is an indefensible statement.

You don't know anything about the early church and that's why you keep making these ridiculous arguments. The writings of the disciples disciples, the early extra biblical writings of the church precede the New testament and preceded some of the gospels. The gospels have always been explained through the extra biblical literature and passed on through the tradition. You cannot understand the Bible without reading those extra biblical writings.

And no one has ever thought any different until very recently.

There has never been a time in Christian history until Luther when that was not the case and there is no case to be made for it either...

You believe in Sola Scriptura whether you know you believe in that or not and it is an indefensible theological position. Without the extra biblical literature, you know what the Bible says, but you don't know what it means by what it says. And you live in a profound spiritual poverty because of this.


And I see that you failed to backup your lie that every saint that was made was made by a phile protector. Keep on slandering and lying. But the original argument that I refuted was that since some phile protector Bishop made a saint, the saint was not a saint but here you admit that original argument was wrong anyway.

lol. Terrapin gonna terrapin.