Rapier108 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Wasn't this proven false years ago?

---

DOJ chose not to indict, but it was never proven nor disproven in court.

---

When does the DOJ not indict if they have evidence?

It's a weird sentence.

---

Not really.

DOJ investigated and clearly didn't have enough evidence to take it to trial. Therefore their choice/decision, or whatever word you find less "weird", was to not issue an indictment.

Therefore, is has never gone to court and no one knows what the DOJ actually found.

Good chance it will come out in the Senate hearings.

---

If they did not have enough to indict, then they do not have anything worth even considering. An indictment only requires probable cause. The second lowest standard of proof in our legal system.

Tom Fox said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Wasn't this proven false years ago?

---

DOJ chose not to indict, but it was never proven nor disproven in court.

---

When does the DOJ not indict if they have evidence?

It's a weird sentence.

---

Not really.

DOJ investigated and clearly didn't have enough evidence to take it to trial. Therefore their choice/decision, or whatever word you find less "weird", was to not issue an indictment.

Therefore, is has never gone to court and no one knows what the DOJ actually found.

Good chance it will come out in the Senate hearings.

---

If they did not have enough to indict, then they do not have anything worth even considering. An indictment only requires probable cause. The second lowest standard of proof in our legal system.

---

They didn't indict him for sex trafficking (a federal crime and the only thing they were investigating him for). Soliciting prostitution/sex with a minor would have been a state issue. I can't imagine the senate confirming without at least reviewing the report behind closed doors (which means basically all of it will get leaked anyways).

Dill-Ag13 said:

---

How do we know it's a lie?

---

Because every liberal media source is repeating the same story. Or were you being facetious?

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Wasn't this proven false years ago?

---

DOJ chose not to indict, but it was never proven nor disproven in court.

---

When does the DOJ not indict if they have evidence?

It's a weird sentence.

---

Not really.

DOJ investigated and clearly didn't have enough evidence to take it to trial. Therefore their choice/decision, or whatever word you find less "weird", was to not issue an indictment.

Therefore, is has never gone to court and no one knows what the DOJ actually found.

Good chance it will come out in the Senate hearings.

---

If they did not have enough to indict, then they do not have anything worth even considering. An indictment only requires probable cause. The second lowest standard of proof in our legal system.

---

They didn't indict him for sex trafficking (a federal crime and the only thing they were investigating him for). Soliciting prostitution/sex with a minor would have been a state issue. I can't imagine the senate confirming without at least reviewing the report behind closed doors (which means basically all of it will get leaked anyways).

---

The 17 year old "minor?" Or we talking about actual kids?

Tom Fox said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Wasn't this proven false years ago?

---

DOJ chose not to indict, but it was never proven nor disproven in court.

---

When does the DOJ not indict if they have evidence?

It's a weird sentence.

---

Not really.

DOJ investigated and clearly didn't have enough evidence to take it to trial. Therefore their choice/decision, or whatever word you find less "weird", was to not issue an indictment.

Therefore, is has never gone to court and no one knows what the DOJ actually found.

Good chance it will come out in the Senate hearings.

---

If they did not have enough to indict, then they do not have anything worth even considering. An indictment only requires probable cause. The second lowest standard of proof in our legal system.

---

They didn't indict him for sex trafficking (a federal crime and the only thing they were investigating him for). Soliciting prostitution/sex with a minor would have been a state issue. I can't imagine the senate confirming without at least reviewing the report behind closed doors (which means basically all of it will get leaked anyways).

---

The 17 year old "minor?" Or we talking about actual kids?

---

Looks like Florida's age of consent is 18, so the person referenced in the allegations would have been a minor according to their definition, assuming that's where this (allegedly) happened.

The "victim's" attorney in an interview explicitly stated that Gaetz did NOT know she was 17 & stopped seeing her until she turned 18; I realize lack of knowledge of a minor's actual age isn't an affirmative defense to a statutory rape allegation, but it is to the societal condemnation that the Dems seek in the absence of a criminal conviction.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Wasn't this proven false years ago?

---

DOJ chose not to indict, but it was never proven nor disproven in court.

---

When does the DOJ not indict if they have evidence?

It's a weird sentence.

---

Not really.

DOJ investigated and clearly didn't have enough evidence to take it to trial. Therefore their choice/decision, or whatever word you find less "weird", was to not issue an indictment.

Therefore, is has never gone to court and no one knows what the DOJ actually found.

Good chance it will come out in the Senate hearings.

---

If they did not have enough to indict, then they do not have anything worth even considering. An indictment only requires probable cause. The second lowest standard of proof in our legal system.

---

They didn't indict him for sex trafficking (a federal crime and the only thing they were investigating him for). Soliciting prostitution/sex with a minor would have been a state issue. I can't imagine the senate confirming without at least reviewing the report behind closed doors (which means basically all of it will get leaked anyways).

---

The 17 year old "minor?" Or we talking about actual kids?

---

Looks like Florida's age of consent is 18, so the person referenced in the allegations would have been a minor according to their definition, assuming that's where this (allegedly) happened.

---

Is that a yes? If so, they are going to need something more than that.

Even the Commie democrat congress found nothing to charge him. Commie swamp is afraid of him.

Tom Fox said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Wasn't this proven false years ago?

---

DOJ chose not to indict, but it was never proven nor disproven in court.

---

When does the DOJ not indict if they have evidence?

It's a weird sentence.

---

Not really.

DOJ investigated and clearly didn't have enough evidence to take it to trial. Therefore their choice/decision, or whatever word you find less "weird", was to not issue an indictment.

Therefore, is has never gone to court and no one knows what the DOJ actually found.

Good chance it will come out in the Senate hearings.

---

If they did not have enough to indict, then they do not have anything worth even considering. An indictment only requires probable cause. The second lowest standard of proof in our legal system.

---

They didn't indict him for sex trafficking (a federal crime and the only thing they were investigating him for). Soliciting prostitution/sex with a minor would have been a state issue. I can't imagine the senate confirming without at least reviewing the report behind closed doors (which means basically all of it will get leaked anyways).

---

The 17 year old "minor?" Or we talking about actual kids?

---

Looks like Florida's age of consent is 18, so the person referenced in the allegations would have been a minor according to their definition, assuming that's where this (allegedly) happened.

---

Is that a yes? If so, they are going to need something more than that.

---

Sounds like they may have more than that, but I guess we'll find out soon enough. Was just pointing out that the fed investigation was limited to one charge. The house committee's investigation was a lot broader so the feds not charging him for trafficking isn't really relevant.

The difference between Gaetz and dem womanizers is that he stopped when he got married. Dems on the other hand continue when they are obligated not to.

Gaetz being a sleezeball who showed nudes at work is different than Gaetz committing a crime. As for the 17 year old, based on the early headlines she was likely not a minor at time any sexual relations occurred. There has been absolutely no accusations of rape or drugging or anything like that.

The FBI targeted him, in what looked like an extortion attempt, and the Biden DOJ closed their investigation into him in 2023, no charges. So this is all most likely a smear campaign.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

GenericAggie said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

DonHenley said:

---

Wasn't this proven false years ago?

---

DOJ chose not to indict, but it was never proven nor disproven in court.

---

When does the DOJ not indict if they have evidence?

It's a weird sentence.

---

Not really.

DOJ investigated and clearly didn't have enough evidence to take it to trial. Therefore their choice/decision, or whatever word you find less "weird", was to not issue an indictment.

Therefore, is has never gone to court and no one knows what the DOJ actually found.

Good chance it will come out in the Senate hearings.

---

If they did not have enough to indict, then they do not have anything worth even considering. An indictment only requires probable cause. The second lowest standard of proof in our legal system.

---

They didn't indict him for sex trafficking (a federal crime and the only thing they were investigating him for). Soliciting prostitution/sex with a minor would have been a state issue. I can't imagine the senate confirming without at least reviewing the report behind closed doors (which means basically all of it will get leaked anyways).

---

The 17 year old "minor?" Or we talking about actual kids?

---

Looks like Florida's age of consent is 18, so the person referenced in the allegations would have been a minor according to their definition, assuming that's where this (allegedly) happened.

---

Is that a yes? If so, they are going to need something more than that.

---

Sounds like they may have more than that, but I guess we'll find out soon enough. Was just pointing out that the fed investigation was limited to one charge. The house committee's investigation was a lot broader so the feds not charging him for trafficking isn't really relevant.

---

I am a former federal Leo and you understand that there are state and local Leo task force officers assigned to the feds.

If they uncovered state offenses that they could actually prove, there would have been charges back when the investigation was conducted.

The absence of charges means there was an absence of reliable evidence.

This is now being wielded to prevent someone that they do not like politically or personally from serving as AG.

Decay said:

---

General Jack D. Ripper said:

---

I voted for Trump, but Gaetz is a sleazeball.

---

Defend this claim because every time I've encountered it, the answer ends up being "because the TV said so"

---

Exactly. And this isn't just about Gaetz. Expect the Deep State and their propaganda arm the MSM to pump out an endless supply of lies about every nominee, every member of Trump's team, you name it.

They're nervous. They should be.

Margot Cleveland has an excellent article on Gaetz's nomination

Quote:

---

Why then is anyone giving credence to the accusations against Gaetz, especially given the FBI after thoroughly investigating the matter for two years decided not to charge Gaetz? Rather, career prosecutors for the Department of Justice concluded there were credibility problems with "the two central witnesses" to the case.

Earlier this week, The Federalist's editor-in-chief, Mollie Hemingway, detailed not just the DOJ's conclusion that the women's stories would be unconvincing to a jury, but the many additional problems with the entire hoax. Take, for instance, the fact that a jail-house informant revealed that his cellmate, Joel Greenberg, was behind the woman's claims that she had sex with Gaetz when she was 17. And Greenberg himself had admitted to "fabricating allegations against a schoolteacher who was running against him to be a tax collector," with Greenberg sending "letters to the school falsely claiming the teacher had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a student."

Yet now that Trump has nominated Gaetz to serve as his attorney general, opponents to the former Florida representative are dusting off the sex trafficking claims. On Friday, ABC News ran an interview with the lawyer who represents two women who testified before the House Ethics Committee about Gaetz's supposed misconduct. According to ABC News, those two witnesses had previously testified as part of the DOJ investigation. So, the very same witnesses the FBI which holds no love lost for Gaetz concluded lack credibility are the impetus for the House Ethics Committee investigation.

---

Salacious Lies as Political Weapon

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

.. but then all the sudden, you're in the public eye and about to get promoted into a very high-visibility office position such as a President's Cabinet...

... and you can't understand why that would ruffle the feathers of your accusers?

---

She testified over the summer. Long before Gaetz was nominated.


My son has a crazy theory that this is all being done to get rid of Gaetz and the Ethics complaint.

Gaetz resigns and will eventually withdraw from the nomination in return for the ethics probe staying under wraps.

---

Looks like my son may not be crazy afterall!

did some pedos get Gaetz cancelled with the accusation of secs with a 17 year old? swamp never loses, does it?

oh no said:

---

did some pedos get Gaetz cancelled with the accusation of secs with a 17 year old? swamp never loses, does it?

---

Gaetz's attorneys were apparently hacked.

By whom? The feds?

Our government has some very serious issues with ethics.