Garland let Gaetz walk

[Mr.WeRP]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/15/politics/matt-gaetz-justice-department/index.html

The Justice Department has informed lawyers for Rep. Matt Gaetz and multiple witnesses that it will not bring charges against the Florida Republican after a yearslong federal sex-trafficking investigation.

Senior officials reached out to lawyers for multiple witnesses on Wednesday, a source familiar with the matter told CNN, to inform them of the decision not to prosecute Gaetz.

We all knew this was wrong when the story broke three years ago. After reading the ethics report, what do Garland apologists have to say now?

Wait, let me predict: “Garland just got into office…” or “It wasn’t Garland, it was a Trump holdover…” or “Garland had bigger fish to fry…”

[piddyprints]

1. Well, basically,

Being a Republican in any branch of the government is a "Get out of Jail Free" card. They're all nothing but low-life trash.

Remind me again why Al Franken had to resign?

[Fullduplexxx]

4. Kirsten Gillibrand

[SocialDemocrat61]

21. Plus 38 other Senators

All led by Chuck Schumer.

[LakeArenal]

54. I haven't really forgiven those Senators

Even ones the that reached great heights.

But one this guy… I don’t care. He’s done politically. Bigger the crime, the easier to get off.

Unforgivable for the sake of the victims.

[dem4decades]

56. I'm a fan of Chris Murphy but his joining the Franklin lynch mob,

Really disappointed me.

[DeeDeeNY]

94. Murphy also voted to confirm Aileen Cannon judgeship

[Celerity]

83. Also, Kamala Harris was the first Democratic Senator to go on national televsion and call for Franken to resign

All but 5 Democratic Caucus Senators told him in public or private to resign, including multiple Seaantors who became 2020 POTUS candidates. It was FAR from just the Junior Senator from NY (Gillibrand).

The only ones who did not where:

Manchin (the only one who actually said he should not resign)

Then 4 who either could not say anything or chose not to:

The 3 on the Senate Ethics Committee (Schatz, Shaheen, and Coons) who could not take a stance either way.....

and then Bob Menendez from NJ, who was under a federal corruption indictment/trial at the time and chose not to comment (and who eventually in a second trial, was convicted).

Those last 4, I am sure, would have joined every other Democratic Caucus Senator in calling for Franken to step down, if they could have.

Women senators coordinated calls for Al Franken to resign

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/06/politics/senators-al-franken-resignation/index.html

Nearly three weeks after sexual harassment allegations first emerged against Sen. Al Franken, a wave of Democratic senators — in coordination and following a flurry of text messages and phone calls — called for his resignation in rapid succession Wednesday morning.

Starting around 11:30 a.m. ET, the senators posted statements in a coordinated effort, one after the other, on social media, saying the Minnesota Democrat should step down.

Some comments were elaborate, lengthy and loaded with a moral message. Others, like that of Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, were straight to the point. “Al Franken should resign,” she simply tweeted.

Link to tweet

Within the next 90 minutes, 16 Democrats – 10 of them women – and one Republican senator – Susan Collins of Maine – had publicly urged their colleague to vacate his seat.

The myth of the all-powerful, evil, Machiavellian junior Senator from New York, Gillibrand, who single-handedly used her Svengali-esque power to enthrall almost all the rest of the Dem Senate (including all of the leadership) to do her nefarious bidding has been etched in stone here for even longer than I have been a member.

The Franken situation is one of the single biggest revisionist, ahistorical rewrites on DU post-the 2016 Trumpian nightmare election.

Its 2 main elements that have been pushed here since I joined DU in summer 2018 are simple (and incorrect, plus ahistorical, of course)

1. It was 100% (or damn close) Tweeden and Tweeden alone and Franken only resigned because of Tweeden.

Often (almost always TBH) no mention is made of the multiple other women, including Democrats, who came forward. If no other women had come forward, Franken would extremely likely still be a Senator IMHO.

2. It was 100% Gillibrand and Gillibrand alone who drove the entire thing, who, despite being a junior Senator from NY, grasped all the levers of power to a degree sufficient enough to make every single Dem Senator do her bidding (other than Manchin, the 3 'not allowed to take a stance' Ethics Committee members, plus the Federal corruption trial involved Menendez).

This revisionism falsely states or implies that 'No Gillibrand, no resignation', and almost always ignores all the others Dem Senators or paints them as hapless tools (including all leadership from Schumer on down) caught up in the irresistible mesmerising energy waves that cascaded out from the Dark Force of Gillibrand.

Some of the accusations, power attributions, and motive invention (complex conspiracy theories included) I have seen over the years would not have seemed out of place at the Salem Witch Trials.

Bottom line for me is that IF all things had remained the same, except you remove Gillibrand, Franken still would have resigned, just as if it was only Tweeden and no other women had come forward, he would have easily survived it all.

[SocialDemocrat61]

88. Great summary

Thanks for posting.

[LizBeth]

27. This is so old and tired, pick one woman and eviscerate her.

8 women, one a DNC employee, who knows how many more and was going after the Republican Georgia dude. Little things yes, sexist? Probably. But you all go after one woman. Always going after a woman. Schumer was the first.

[NotHardly]

13. Garland is a waste of space

[3auld6phart]

25. What

A total waste of the taxpayers ‘s coin. Bloody shameful. I would bet there are a lot of of over charged libido Senators in volved in this shit.

[Groundhawg]

24. He didn't. He chose to resign.

[Charging Triceratops]

36. Only ONE senator made Al Franken resign

That was Al Franken.

[GoreWon2000]

104. Franken was right to resign

The issue of sexual harassment has been ignored for too long especially when the perpetrator is a powerful white man. Such accountability is long overdue on this issue.

[Lunabell]

86. He was too progressive.

And smart. The centrist Democrats got him booted.

[awesomerwb1]

101. Wrong

Here we go, more progressives are great and centrists bad stuff.

[Lunabell]

105. Neo liberalism is dead.

We need to move on from the old guard. Change or die. This party is dying and bleeding votes.

[GoreWon2000]

103. Sexual harassment is a serious issue

that's gone on for so long that it's now an epidemic. Women are fed up with this terrible treatment.

[dsc]

2. To be fair the only federal charge here would have been the Mann act

and for that they may well have needed the reprobate witnesses. The state of Florida is who really messed up here.

[W_HAMILTON]

18. They could have damn near copy and pasted Diddy's indictments.

And the underage witness that Gaetz sex trafficked was willing to speak to the House Ethics Committee, so I don't know why she wouldn't be willing to talk with authorities.

Instead, it sounds like we just need to add "GOP freak offs" to the list of IOKIYAR crimes.

[dsc]

20. did she witness the travel part and the money part

that is the issue I think he had.

[reACTIONary]

66. According to the report, there was no Mann Act violation or federal sex trafficking...

Last edited Mon Dec 23, 2024, 09:02 PM - Edit history (2)

According to the report, there was no violation of the Mann act because no one under 18 crossed state lines, and no one was coerced to cross state lines.

[gab13by13]

76. DOJ did not share it's evidence

With the ethics committee.

[reACTIONary]

79. DOJ did not share evidence, and they did not prosecute either, so....

... there doesn't seem to be any evidence of a Mann Act violation. Else they would have prosecuted. Which the House investigation independently supports.

[krawhitham]

89. you clearly didn't read Diddy's indictments

[mackdaddy]

23. Not if he was using or distributing Drugs in DC itself. The DOJ does this type of prosecutions in the district.

Also, If Gaetz purchased a weapon during this time he was using illegal drugs, he would have violated the same law they prosecuted Hunter for.

A final though is that if he did not claim all the gifts and prizes given to him, he may have violated Federal Tax Laws, and also Bribery laws.

But Gaetz is a member of the 'Just-Us' Club...

[dsc]

40. That is a fair point

[Wiz Imp]

52. I see no specific allegations in the report concerning the drugs.

Specifics are needed to know what he could have been or should have been charged with

[reACTIONary]

64. According to the report, there was no violation of the Mann act because....

Last edited Mon Dec 23, 2024, 09:02 PM - Edit history (1)

According to the report, there was no violation of the Mann act because no one under 18 crossed state lines, and no one was coerced to cross state lines.

[Southern_gent]

100. Only If

He transported them across state lines.

[sop]

3. Garland was protecting the long-cherished insitution of federal sex-trafficking.

[Fullduplexxx]

5. By Congressman

[onecaliberal]

19. Child rapist and insurrection lover.

[reACTIONary]

67. According to the report, there was no Federal sex trafficking...

According to the report, there was no violation of the Mann act because no one under 18 crossed state lines, and no one was coerced to cross state lines.

[yaesu]

6. He's just waiting for a really, really big case like a homeless person stealing a loaf of bread from the congressional

cafe.

[Think. Again.]

7. Maybe he'll give the federalist society another entertaining talk someday on this.

[gab13by13]

8. Garland had that evidence 3 years ago.

There is nothing new that Garland didn't know.

I am waiting for Emptywheel to chime in before I give a final opinion.

[gab13by13]

9. Elon Musk has been violating security protocols since 2022.

Maybe Pam Bondi will investigate?

[republianmushroom]

61. Odds are better that Pam will before Merrick the Meek would.

Way, way to political for Merrick the Meek.

But she has had a good tutoring from Merrick the Meek on the use of "unreliable witness and patience".

47 months and counting

Our only hope Jack. 28 days, Jack. Time is getting short.

[SWBTATTReg]

10. Typical Garland behavior. And 3 years later too. Why so long? Am I surprised? NO. I'm disgusted w/ him

and am now very glad that he's not part of the Supreme Court.

[uponit7771]

11. Leave Garland Alllllooooooooonnnnneee !!!! (in 3 .... 2 ..... 1)

[LW1977]

16. Won't hear that from me!

The cowardly lion would be a better AG

[Irish_Dem]

12. The DOJ will not touch Members of Congress who are criminals and traitors.

We know that many of the GOP leaders were involved or knew of J6.

The DOJ sees MOC as immune from all wrong doing.

[SheilaAnn]

14. President Biden made many a good decision in his tenure, Garland was NOT one of them. n/t

[LW1977]

15. Fuck Garland!

Biden should fire his ass now! It would make Christmas a little better! Worthless cowardice piece of shit!

[Ms. Toad]

17. What part of the report suggests the DOJ

Could have succeeded on sex trafficking charges?

[Bobstandard]

32. News flash: Prosecutors don't always win their cases. But the facts emerge at trial

This is one of the great canards, that the DOJ can’t proceed unless they are 100%, without a doubt, absolutely guaranteed, super sure that they are going to get a conviction. They can go to trial with a reasonable expectation that their evidence will convince a jury of guilt. The most important thing is that the prosecutors get to reveal all the evidence that they’ve collected. The jury gets to see and hear it and the public gets to see and hear it. By not prosecuting, all that evidence is locked away and the miscreant can tell the world he’s perfectly innocent. As Trump and Gaetz are doing.

Thanks Garland.

PS: We’re going to see TSF’s new DOJ engage in an avalanche of evidence free prosecutions without the slightest chance of getting a conviction. So there’s that.

[Ms. Toad]

46. Prosecutors don't bring cases they don't believe they have a reasonable chance of winning.

The House report supports their earlier decision not to bring sex-trafficking charges. It found no substantial evidence he engaged in see trafficking.

It certainly found substantial evidence for other charges - primarily state charges (which it is up to Florida to prosecute). But nothing in this report suggests the DOJ should have brought sex-trafficking charges.

[Wiz Imp]

48. Exactly

There may have been evidence of sex trafficking but it wasn't strong enough to get a conviction. As you say, prosecutors aren't going to bring charges that they will not be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

From the Gaetz report:

The Committee Did Not Find that Representative Gaetz Violated Federal Sex
Trafficking Laws

The Committee did not obtain substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz violated
federal sex trafficking laws.

[Bobstandard]

55. You mistake the letter of the law for justice. nt

[reACTIONary]

72. In a court of law....

.... it is the letter of the law that counts. And that is as it should be.

[Ms. Toad]

82. Nope. Despite its name, the Department of Justice lives within the letter of the law.

As a general rule, they have far more crimes than they can prosecute, so their discretion regarding justice tends to be in the form of choosing not to prosecute marijuana use even though it is a crime of the same severity as use of LSD and heroin.

They don't as a general rule (at least pre-Trump) seek justice by prosecuting weak or non-existent cases.

[Bobstandard]

96. You illustrate what's wrong with the system

The system is meant to protect the citizenry. In some cases you do that by airing the evidence even if a conviction isn’t guaranteed. We’re here because Garland doesn’t get that. You may support him in that but I think you’re wrong.

[Ms. Toad]

98. The citizenry includes people like

The central Park Five, and other people dragged through the mud (and in to many instances convicted)

Just because you happen to believe the person being dragged through the mud deserved it doesn't make it right, unless there is a reasonable chance of conviction. The weight of the Justice system coming against an individual is a heavy burden that, when wrong, falls hardest on those who are least able to fight it - poor, non-white skin, non-English speakers.

Could you afford $100,000 or so to defend yourself if Trump decides justice would be served by having his justice department prosecute you for something for which there is a near zero chance of conviction? The US does not have a loser pays system - so you would be on the hook for attorney fees, recovering from whatever job loss happened while you were in jail of the courtroom and for rebuilding your life and reputation after you are doing not guilty.

Gaetz should have been prosecuted by Florida, fot the crimes for which there is sufficient evidence. The DOJ is not a back-up hammer for a state's failure to do it's job, unless there is a reasonable chance of conviction on Federal charges.

[Bobstandard]

106. Gaslighting now?

The Central Park Five were convicted by a jury. As an example of your point of view it’s such an egregious stretch that it lays waste to your other arguments.

[Ms. Toad]

107. My point is the burden on innocent people,

When prosecutors pressure cases misguided "interest of justice."

[Bobstandard]

108. Point badly made.

We’re talking about Trump and his ilk. Hardly resource poor innocents. Your airy principle is exactly the smoke screen they hide behind.

[Ms. Toad]

109. It is hypocritical to believe the justice department

Should seek justice from one political perspective, but not the other.

[Bobstandard]

112. And yet we see exactly that

If only we lived in your perfect world.

[reACTIONary]

71. Prosecuting a case without evidence to convict is ....

.... a gross violation of the principles of justice. Even investigating without probable cause is an injustice and is specifically prohibited by the constitution.

[Escurumbele]

22. "what do Garland apologists have to say now?"...I have the same question. I remember when I spoke against Garland

and that barrage of negative feedback I got..."You don't know what you are talking about, to press charges and bring justice takes time, read some, inform yourself before you give your opinion"...and much more.

The thing is, I do inform myself, I do analyze the facts, people's actions, and Garland was an open book from the beginning, anyone paying attention would have seen this guy was dragging his feet, and was more concerned with what people (republicans) thought of him than to follow the law as he should in the position he has, he did not want republicans to talk nasty about him, republicans understood that and took advantage of it, they still criticized him.

Biden should have replaced him.

One of these days we will have Democrats who are not afraid to fight the evil from republicans, who will expose them for what they are, then we will be able to open people's eyes but...wait a second, we do have those people, AOC is one of them but Pelosi fought hard to keep her out, and place a dinosaur in her place, a status quo fossil.

[Hotler]

29. They'll ask where you got your law degree. nt

[Orrex]

65. Perhaps they'll invoke their anonymous, well-placed sources

Sources that totally exist, mind you.

[Scrivener7]

95. And then they'll call you names. It'll be grand.

[reACTIONary]

73. That would be a good question.

[robbob]

45. I've noticed a disturbing trend here at DU; every time AOC issues a statement

telling truth to power some posters will come along with “…and what do you propose to do about it…?”, even if it’s something she really CAN’T do much about, like Eloons X posting increasingly unhinged misinformation recently.

[yellow dahlia]

57. You made some important (bottom line) points.

[Noel Kums]

26. but...but...he arrested hundreds with beards and tattoos - SWOON!

[Hotler]

28. "and to have purchased and used illegal drugs, including from his Capitol Hill office,"

From his fucking office. Hey Garland, what about the drug dealing and drug use on capital grounds? How about charging him for that.
Report Concludes Matt Gaetz Had Sex with a Minor
Former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) was found by congressional ethics investigators to have paid numerous women — including a 17-year-old girl — for sex, and to have purchased and used illegal drugs, including from his Capitol Hill office, according to a final draft of a comprehensive investigative report obtained by CBS News.
https://politicalwire.com/2024/12/23/report-concludes-matt-gaetz-had-sex-with-a-minor/

[reACTIONary]

75. Here is the report's description....

... related to his office:

There is also ample evidence that Representative Gaetz purchased and used marijuana; he appears to have set up a pseudonymous e-mail account from his House office in the Capitol complex for the purpose of purchasing marijuana.

[dchill]

30. All the things that the Nazipublicans did in the past 4 years...

...and were allowed to walk away from - and the things Hunter Biden couldn't walk away from - prove the overall worth and qualification of Merrick Garland. Which sits somewhere below nil. Justice delayed is justice denied. Justice ignored is way worse.

[johnnyfins]

31. Makes me wonder if Garland is a

Personal friend of Gates' father?

[moniss]

33. To be clear, the reported results of the investigation

are that he engaged in prostitution and illicit drug use and made illegal drug purchases from his office in the Capitol. Those are things he clearly knew he was doing according to the report. They did not establish that he knew one of the females was only 17. But of course the onus is on him to make sure he's not having sex with a minor.

Please don't misunderstand where I'm going with this line of thought. Nailing him on the charge with a minor might have been less of a slam dunk although it should have been pursued by Feds if possible but certainly the state except we know DeSenseless wouldn't allow it. My point in talking about the first two items separately is that basically DOJ gave a Federal official a pass on using government property from which to engage in illegal drug deals. The prostitution charge from what I can see would be a state case. But there was no reason to pass on the drug charge. None.

[Wiz Imp]

49. Whether he knew the girl was 17 is irrelevant to the law. But the statute of limitations ran out in 2020 anyway.

So they couldn't have prosecuted him for statutory rape.

[reACTIONary]

68. In addition....

.... my understanding is that statutory rape is a state, not a federal, crime, so DOJ would not have jurisdiction.

[Wiz Imp]

69. I believe you are correct.

Unless there is some special circumstance that I'm not aware of.

[moniss]

85. As I said trying to do the case of the 17 year old

was more difficult, even given that his question of knowledge could be argued as not a factor, because even if anything had been brought prior to a statute of limitations issue his defense would have argued it and appealed it and appealed it. So as I said it had more to deal with from a prosecution standpoint. The drug charge is clear cut. There is no ambiguity. He knew where he was and he knew that the drugs he was buying were illegal.

Remember that the drug charge would not only be the actual buying of the drugs but would be about using government resources to do so.

[chouchou]

34. And here in Florida, there's people in jail for 12 months because they smoked a God-Damn ONE joint.

Our Justice system is the best money can buy....

[paleotn]

35. Arguably the worst AG in American history.

Maybe McConnell did us a favor by not allowing him on SCOTUS.

[TheRickles]

37. Why didn't Biden fire Garland a couple of years ago, when this pattern became obvious.

Joe is complicit because of his passivity.

[yellow dahlia]

59. I believe Pres. Biden didn't fire his less than adequate Cabinet Secretaries and appointees, because...

...he didn't want to look like the grifter who fired and replaced Cabinet Secretaries left and right. It is a weakness of Dems, sometimes - they are dissuaded from doing something appropriate (at the time) because it was overdone and tarnished by the Repugs. IMHO

[reACTIONary]

38. Statutory rape is a ....

.... state crime, not a federal crime. DOJ does not have jurisdiction. The ethics report explicitly states that all women that involved crossing state lines are 18 years of age or older and that none were coerced.

If all this is true, there was nothing Garland could do. He's federal, not state.

I don't know about the reports of drug possession. They may be a different case.

[Mr.WeRP]

41. You have obviously skipped over many responses

That show you do not know what you are talking about.

Plenty of crimes Gaetz committed that DoJ could have prosecuted for that came out of the evidence collected by the ethics committee.

What is the next apologist talking point?

[reACTIONary]

47. Your right! There are lots of responses and most of them....

.... or at least the ones I scanned, are pretty contents free and unhelpful. Like "Garland is a waste space".

Help me out, since you have already looked them over, provide a link or two to some of the ones that are more helpful.

Thanks!

[Mr.WeRP]

53. Link

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19845257

[reACTIONary]

70. From replies to that comment...

There were no allegations of drug use in the report that were specific enough to be used for prosecution: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=19845832

I looked through the report and did not find any references to guns or weapons, so I don't know why that was mentioned.

As far as bribery goes, Menendez took gold, cash and other "gifts" from a foreign country and could not be convicted of bribery. So I doubt that would be a viable charge in this case.

[Mr.WeRP]

74. Sure there weren't. I have read the report and there is certainly probable cause.

The report cites that there is evidence he bought drugs and paid for prostitution, including from a minor. You’ve provided nothing to counter what’s in the report other than “you didn’t see anything”. Colonel Clink, Shultz sees nothing, move on…

[reACTIONary]

78. There certainly is probable cause...

... to initiate and follow through on an investigation. Which, of course, was done, by both the DOJ and the House committee.

There certainly is more than enough evidence to find him guilty of House "ethics and rules"' violations, which the committee did do.

There is more than enough evidence for him to be condemned in the court of public opinion.

But the question is whether there is enough evidence for him to be found guilty of a Federal crime in a Federal court of law, as opposed to state crimes and jurisdiction. The report does not provide for any level of certainty as to that question.

[Wiz Imp]

51. Plenty of crimes Gaetz committed that DoJ could have prosecuted for that came out of the evidence collected by the ethic

Such as?

[Wiz Imp]

50. Statute of limitations ran out on the statutory rape in 2020 anyway.

I didn't see specific allegations in the report concerning the drugs. Without specifics, it's hard to gauge exactly what he could be charged with.

[3auld6phart]

39. Good thing

Garland didn’t get to be a Supreme Court justice. It ay have been messy. At least Bill arr B could play the Bag pipes. … What a mess , probably a lot more cover up??.

[ecstatic]

42. I would have preferred him there

It's not clear to me yet if his horrendous (traitorous?) record is due to being weak/cowardly/incompetent or due to pro-maga activism. If the former, we all would have been better off with him on the supreme court.

[lees1975]

43. He needs to pay the taxpayers back every cent of his salary he received.

He didn't do anything to earn it.

[North Coast Lawyer]

44. Shameful

Garland's dereliction of duty just got worse. We're in the position we're now in because scores of people who could have taken action to defend democracy chose not to. Garland is top of that list. His inaction borders on treason.

[republianmushroom]

58. One must understand the need for patience.

And the label "unreliable" and not look political.

47 months and counting

[Diraven]

60. Bigger fish

Are too hard to catch, apparently. Easier to just net some minnows.

[claudette]

62. And

Dumpy, too

[Evolve Dammit]

63. Dereliction of duty

[robleb]

77. Disappointing

Did he really even want to be attorney general? Thank god he didn't make it to the supreme court - he would have been terrible at that job as well.

[Janbdwl72]

80. Is this really a surprise?

Merrick Garland lacked the fortitude to prosecute anyone, especially Republicans accused of high crimes and misdemeanors.

As I have stated previously, he is easily the worst appointee Biden made and no one else even comes close.

[BluenFLA]

81. Garland is hands down Buden's worst cabinet pick

Imagine if he chose Doug Jones or Sally Yates instead. Maybe they would have gone after Trump more aggressively and we would not have been in the mess we're in today.

[Cattledog]

84. So did Pam Bondi.

[onenote]

97. which state laws could he have been tried on?

Bondi without doubt is a partisan hack But my understanding is that the statute of limitations for sta6tory rape n florida is 3 years

[Across-the-Desk]

87. Because Garland is a timid WIMP

[summer_in_TX]

90. Bill Barr was the Attorney General overseeing the investigation of Matt Gaetz when it started.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/matt-gaetz-was-once-under-investigation-for-sex-trafficking-now-he-could-lead-the-justice-department

The federal sex trafficking investigation that began under Attorney General Bill Barr during Trump’s first term focused on allegations that Gaetz and onetime political ally Joel Greenberg paid underage girls and escorts or offered them gifts in exchange for sex.

It continued until 2023.

-------------------------

https://bsky.app/profile/emptywheel.bsky.social/post/3ldxzqzc3js2g
·
16h
I get that 1000 of you are going to whinge that Merrick Garland didn't make a prosecutorial decision it's virtually certain he wasn't involved in. But before you do, please review these details.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/matt-gaetz-ethics-report-released/
"Victim A recalled receiving $400 in cash from Representative Gaetz that evening, which she understood to be payment for sex," the committee wrote. *"Victim A said that she did not inform Representative Gaetz that she was under 18 at the time, nor did he ask her age."*

In his written responses to the committee, *Gaetz denied having sex with a minor.* The Department of Justice previously investigated Gaetz for violating sex trafficking laws but did not bring charges. The committee said *it did not find sufficient evidence Gaetz violated the federal sex trafficking statute* because although he transported women across state lines for the purpose of sex, those women were all 18 or older at the time.
ALT




‪emptywheel‬ ‪@emptywheel.bsky.social‬
·
16h
The reason I say it's virtually certain he wasn't involved in it is bc the only reason anyone outside of FL would be involved is for approval to CHARGE a politician. And the sentencing filings for Joel Greenberg suggests the prosecutors were very skeptical of these charges, tho Greenberg pushed them

__________________

Looks like US attorneys in Florida did most of it, then the DOJ sent a couple more in from DC to determine whether charges could be made. The House Ethics Committee and the DOJ alike concluded they didn't have enough evidence to charge him with trafficking. He was clever, paying after the fact and not in advance quite often – which apparently makes it less obvious he was buying sex, but that it could be a gift.

[nilram]

91. Had to build a case really, really thoroughly.

Really, really, really, really, really, really, thoroughly. No, more thoroughly than that.

[2naSalit]

92. I really had...

Reasonable expectation for justice to come for the criminal political party when he was sworn in. Now I am far beyond sorely disappointed in his "performance" as AG.

[Kaleva]

93. Everyone who supports Biden is a Garland apologist

As Biden is the only person in this country who can fire Garland.

Continuing to support Biden means that one is fine with his decision to keep Garland as AG. One may not like it but it's not that important.

[Clouds Passing]

99. One would ponder if MG has young girls/boys in his closet.

[union rep]

110. Garland is a pussy

Garland set the table of what was to become reality "nothing". Garland has the force of a -10 hurricane. Turns out they are all owned at some level by the billionaires. We or most of us thought Justice would prevail, when we going to learn all America ever was, was the best form of slavery on earth. I rest my case.

[prodigitalson]

111. bigger fish to fry would certainly be the most infuriating