The real reason Garland did not charge Gaetz.

[Hamlette]

The statutory rape charge is not a federal crime. Also, it occurred in 2017 so the Florida statute of limitations, 3 years, had passed by the time Biden took office. Florida could not have charged him either. If that matters.

As for the Mann Act violation, which is a federal crime, the woman in question did not believe she was trafficked for the purposes covered by the Mann Act. Relying on the testimony of a witness like that makes it extremely difficult to prosecute or get a conviction. She would have testified that he took her across state lines for a vacation, not for sex. And since the transportation has to be for purposes of sex, Bob's your uncle. No crime.

[cyclonefence]

1. I am surprised that the Mann Act's application

depends on the victim's belief in why she was being transported. Seems to me her (mistaken) belief that it was to be a "vacation" only makes the crime more heinous.

But what do I know.

[crickets]

5. +1

[H2O Man]

14. Caminetti vs United States (1917)

The USSC ruled that the victim's thoughts are not a factor.

[Wiz Imp]

22. Gaetz report renews debate about how he escaped federal charges

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/23/matt-gaetz-ethics-report-doj-criminal-charges-00195955

The modern federal sex trafficking law is limited to cases involving coercion, fraud or the interstate or international movement of minors for sex. Despite its damning evidence of wide-ranging violations of law and House rules by Gaetz, the Ethics Committee report did not find those factors.

An older statute, known as the Mann Act, sweeps more broadly, but the Justice Department as a matter of discretion limits its application to particularly egregious acts of trafficking.

The most egregious allegation Gaetz faces is having sex with a 17-year-old. But the Ethics Committee report does not say that he transported or arranged for transport of the alleged victim across state lines — an important point because some connection to interstate commerce is required for it to become a federal sex-trafficking crime. The report also says the then-17-year-old told investigators she did not tell Gaetz her age at the time, and that he didn’t ask.

The report does bluntly accuse Gaetz of having violated Florida’s statutory rape law. But it concluded that a state prosecution is impossible at this point because he allegedly had sex with the 17-year-old in 2017, and the state’s statute of limitations has expired.

[H2O Man]

51. Right.

My only point was that the USSC had, long ago, ruled that the victim's ideas of the nature of events is not a factor. The OP had noted the minor didn't think she was being trafficked for sex. While true, it was not why the DoJ didn't prosecte. As has been noted numerous times here on DU, there were other reasons why the DoJ under Biden could not prosecute under the Mann Act.

[Hamlette]

58. Not what I said

or I was not clear enough. It is my understanding that the 17 year was not the person involved in the alleged Mann Act violation.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. How dare you!

Injecting facts into a perfectly good recreational outrage session! Who ever heard of such a thing?

Now you’ve gone and ruined Christmas for all the scapegoating Garland haters!

I hope you’re happy with yourself!





(Cheers from the reality based community)

[Orrex]

6. It's a shame that smug condescension can't be harnessed as a power source.

Let the rapists walk free! As long as no one expresses anger or frustration, justice is served!

[Fiendish Thingy]

20. I'm angry and frustrated too

I’m just not so blinded by misdirected hatred that I scapegoat the wrong villain.

[reACTIONary]

26. The only allegation of rape..

... is the statutory rape in the state of FL. Statutory rape is a state crime, not a federal crime. Garland does not have jurisdiction.

Just as a practical matter, I think you would generate a lot more watts from recreational outrage than you will ever get from the reality based community.

[WarGamer]

12. WHY CAN'T I REC THIS 100X??

[Fiendish Thingy]

21. This member of the reality based community thanks you for your support. Nt

[yankee87]

3. But Hunter

Meanwhile, 10 years of investigating about the freaking laptop. Special council, going back on a deal.

[Beastly Boy]

4. Because Garland has an agenda.

To uphold the rule of law.

Shameful!

[Zorro]

7. The report says the Justice Department stonewalled the committee's requests

[reACTIONary]

28. So? If the DOJ had hard evidence...

... of a crime that could have been successfully prosecuted, they would have done so. Whether they cooperated with an "ethics and rules" investigation is not relevant to whether or not they had evidence that would stand up in a court of law.

The House report has ample evidence of ethical and house rules violations. There is nothing in it that suggests that he could have been successfully prosecuted of Federal crimes.

[Bird Lady]

8. The real reason

Is because Garland is a gutless wonder that I wish nothing good for.
I will always blame him for the second horror show 45 has in store for us.

[Wiz Imp]

10. That's right. Garland should have just made shit up about Gaetz and charged him anyway.

Then he would have lost in court, so all the people complaining now would have complained then anyway because he wasn't convicted. Gaetz was and is a scumbag, that doesn't mean he did anything that the DOJ could have charged him with and gained a conviction in court. The level of madness here about this is insane.

[reACTIONary]

29. Thanks! Keep speaking truth to...

... well, to whoever. Your efforts are appreciated!

[stopdiggin]

36. thanks. really appreciate your efforts here.

this is one of those things where people have made up their minds - regardless of what is put in front of them.

[Bird Lady]

50. It could just be a reflection of your insanity?

[Wiz Imp]

9. Thank You

Both the DOJ investigation and the Ethics Committee investigation came to the same conclusion - that there was not enough evidence of trafficking to gain a conviction. In fact the DOJ actually empaneled a grand jury who apparently failed to indict. Nothing nefarious on the part of DOJ - as big of a scumbag as Gaetz is, there just wasn't convincing evidence that his actions constituted sex trafficking.

Now as for his drug offenses, the report didn't really go into details with specifics of what he did. It's possible that he could have been charged with drug offenses but without more specifics, it's hard to tell definitively. Hopefully we will get more details.

The biggest thing that came out of the report (beyond confirming the statutory rape, unfortunately too late to prosecute), was the dozens (at least) of ethics violations he committed. It's pretty clear that many Republicans in Congress knew of at least some of these a long time ago, yet the covered up for him. He wasn't even reprimanded. The volume and severity of ethics violations he committed should have resulted in expulsion from Congress, and it should have happened a long time ago.

[moniss]

16. The report is not exhaustive of

everything Gaetz did and it clearly says DOJ refused to cooperate. So it is wrong to conclude that there isn't more out there that DOJ knows about but didn't pursue. A huge question, for which they will never be forced to answer, is why they refused requests for cooperation and information from the Committee. It is not a matter of "Oh we thought we needed to protect our evidence for if we brought charges". Because if it was that then when they made the decision not to charge anything there was no longer any reason to continue to withhold that material from the Committee. Suffice it to say the DOJ files look different than the Committee files when in fact they should be the same. What is DOJ continuing to hide? Are they keeping their own questionable conduct in Florida over the years hidden from view?

Disclosures and conduct over the last many, many years clearly show improper actions within DOJ and the FBI. To think that all disappeared beginning in 2021 and isn''t still there is folly.

[reACTIONary]

35. The reason they refused to cooperate with the committee is simple and straightforward...

.... the purpose of a (federal) criminal investigation is to determine if a (federal) crime has been committed and if so, is there is enough evidence to support a successful prosecution. That's it; if the answers is no, then it is done and over with.

It is NOT a fishing expedition into moral character or "house rules" violations. It is not to be used for character assessment, character assassination, or smear campaigns. To make it into such an exercise would turn it into a tool for harassment and grave injustice.

This is why grand jury investigations are conducted in secret and are sealed if an indictment is not returned. To do otherwise would be an injustice in any specific case and would undermine and errode justice overall.

[moniss]

39. Everything DOJ did was not

in front of a Grand Jury. Everything they had for information or could have assisted the Committee with was not necessarily presented to the Grand Jury. They would only have presented what they thought might support an indictment. There is no such thing as a high level investigation in which every shred of information learned is used either in the Grand Jury process or at trial. The DOJ was not precluded therefore from yielding that to the Committee but it is even worse than that because they openly refused to help the Committee at any point on anything.

There may well have been names of people or pieces of information the Committee would have liked to have had that were nothing to do with anything given to the Grand Jury. The DOJ presented material to the Grand Jury that DOJ discovered. The Grand Jury did not run an investigation, hire investigators etc. Nobody went before the Grand Jury to testify without first having been interviewed and investigated by DOJ/FBI.

It is fallacy to allow DOJ to hide behind the excuse of the Grand Jury when they know very well they had the ability to share things not presented. This is the very same DOJ that stonewalled the 1/6 Committee for so long to the point it became a huge issue on the Committee.

[reACTIONary]

41. The grand jury is an example of the general principle...

... which holds for the entire investigation.

In fact, the Justice department tends to avoid even acknowledging that an investigation is underway, since that, in and of itself, could unfairly taint an innocent persons reputation.

Looking at news stories about the investigation, most of the information came from attorneys for the various witnesses and Gaetz himself. The DOJ refrain was "A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment". And they stuck to that, as well they should, when the House asked them to comment.

[moniss]

43. For heaven's sake

this may all be the case in a perfect application but is this how DOJ functioned with Hillary? Is this how they functioned with Hunter Biden? They had all kinds of things to say and disclose that were not a part of any charges ever brought. Good grief we can go back to the FBI under Hoover and COINTELPRO and subsequently. The FBI is part of DOJ and all of those files most certainly were investigations of those people. Damaging information was disclosed by the FBI in absence of any charges. So this idea that DOJ can "never disclose" or "doesn't disclose" is simply false. They do when they want to. They hide behind your reasoning when they don't want to disclose anything. Plain and simple and proven by decades of experience.

Furthermore to say the Committee was asking DOJ to "comment" is disingenuous. Investigators for multiple entities work behind the scenes with each other all the time. DOJ stonewalled the Committee period.

[reACTIONary]

44. They stonewalled the committee....

.... as well they should. As a matter of justice.

And, by the way, the committee did just fine without them. It was a good report.

[moniss]

46. It was not as complete or extensive of his wrongdoing as it

could have been. I find 3 of the bodies of a serial killer and because of restrictions can go no further then you hardly have a "good " report. DOJ chose to stonewall in this case for this defendant while in other recent cases they have not. The question is why now and why for this subject of the investigation.

[reACTIONary]

48. It's simple....

..... they didn't have any evidence that would stand up in a federal court against him. End of story. Anything else is "creative speculation" - that is, a conspiracy bullshit.

[moniss]

52. We're not talking about the half hearted questionable

DOJ effort. I am talking about the Committee. What is bullshit is the DOJ selectively applying its "we don't talk" "policy".

[reACTIONary]

53. Do I understand? You seem to think that....

.... the DOJ has some secret incriminating evidence against Gaetz that is unknown to anyone else and would be enough to put him jail, but instead they, for some reason, decided not to prosecute him? And that the fact that they did not cooperate with the house somehow proves this to be the case?

That seems pretty unlikely to me.

[moniss]

54. No you don't understand and

have demonstrated you don't want to but would rather mischaracterize what I'm talking about. Further interaction with you is useless.

[moniss]

11. There is still the drug charges

that could have been brought by the Feds for using Federal resources to commit a criminal act. The facts are that DOJ interfered with the Committee investigation according to the report. The report is what everybody is citing but because of the interference it is wrong to conclude these are the only things Gaetz ever did that were known by DOJ investigators. In fact it is reasonable to conclude that there was more and that is what DOJ protected. It could also go to corruption within DOJ regarding years of soft deals for Federal investigations of people in Florida.

[Hamlette]

59. when did the possession of cocaine occur?

seems we have lots of information about the 2017 conduct so if that was when the cocaine possession occurred it was nearing or past the federal statute of limitations when Garland took office.

Additionally, I don't hate Gaetz for doing drugs or sleeping with 17 year olds. I don't excuse the latter but I've done my share of drugs. I hate Gaetz because he is an unserious person who has made a mockery of governing and is a shill for Trump. If the DOJ went after him for possession of cocaine while it let all the other members of Congress who have done the same thing it looks like a political hack job. YMMV

[moniss]

61. I don't know about the possession details per se only that

using any Federal facility to commit a crime is a separate charge. A major problem I have always had with Congress demanding the rest of us all undergo random drug testing is that they exempt themselves.

[uponit7771]

13. Mann act is a federal crime and there was enough evidence to arrest him for it

[Wiz Imp]

18. There was absolutely no chance of ever getting a conviction

None of the alleged victims believed they were trafficked so their testimony would have killed the case. Without victims you're not going to win. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

[uponit7771]

34. That was up to the jury not forum posters

[Wiz Imp]

40. No. That was up to the lawyers who know when they have an unwinnable case .

[reACTIONary]

49. As a matter of justice, you do not prosecute a person....

.... on the off chance that you might be able to get a jury to convict. You have the evidence to convict in advance.

Reading a bit further about this, the recommendation not to prosecute came from the DOJ's professional prosecutors. If they had a case they would have gone after him.

[uponit7771]

64. Marilyn Mosby her FA testified he cleared her for the transaction and DOJ still prosecuted ...

...cause they left the belief up to the jury

The DOJ does prosecute cases with weaker evidence

[reACTIONary]

65. They shouldn't.

[AZJonnie]

45. "The White Slave Traffic Act of 1910", you mean?

It's a dinosaur of a law, and IMHO was federal overreach to legislate morality, based on right-wing lies about immigrant and black men forcing white women into prostitution. It is not regularly used anymore, in part because of the racist ways it was applied over the years.

When it is used these days, it's in 'sting' cases where a fake underage girl gets some creep to send her a plane ticket so that she can come and collect more money and have sex with him. In other words EASILY provable cases where the shit is documented.

Just saying.

[JohnnyRingo]

15. That's how I look at it. The women were hookers who were compensated...

...from what I read. They even brought him the drugs they did and probably took a profit on that end as well.
The 17 year old was statuary, but she had a husband and didn't tell him her age. That's a tough one to get past a jury.

We have to understand, they were prostitutes, not innocent waifs that he conned into sex. He's not that bright. Gaetz is a sleazeball pervert, but criminal? That'd be hard to prove.

Should have never been elected to Congress, for a lot of reasons.

[paleotn]

23. But is this the only time he delved into underaged females?

We keep hearing only about this incident, yet, my sense tells me there have probably been plenty of others afterwards. I suppose federal investigators just don't investigate like they use to. Can't charge for this, but what else has this goober been up to? He didn't all of a sudden go clean. It doesn't work that way.

[reACTIONary]

25. Your sense of the matter wouldn't be ...

.... admitted into evidence in a court of law.

[paleotn]

31. My sense of the matter might lead to paths of investigation that turn up evidence that's admissible.

That's kind of how investigations work.

And do you actually believe ole Matty led a sainted life after this one incident? No more blow and underaged prostitutes?

[reACTIONary]

37. The "paths of investigation" were pursued by the DOJ, and...

... they didn't lead to anything that could be successfully prosecuted in a (federal) court of law.

As detailed in the House report, Matty was certainly no Saint, and will probably will never be one. The DOJ, however, is not in the business of prosecuting sinners. Their job is to prosecute criminals, in accordance with the letter of the law, without a reasonable doubt, and with a moral certitude.

Having investigated, and found the evidence to be wanting, that's the end of it.

[JohnnyRingo]

55. You have a point there.

Perhaps this will spur others to come forth.
It seems they often do.

[BeyondTheVeilJack]

24. Now that image of her being statuary is stuck in my mind

I pictured her with Gaetz 's underwear hanging off her outstretched marble hand.

[JohnnyRingo]

56. hahaha oops!

I have spell check, but I could make use of dumb check.

[W_HAMILTON]

17. Yeah, no. There was plenty of evidence to charge him.

And it would be up to the jury to determine whether or not the "it wasn't for sex, it was for vacation!" excuse was believable -- not the victim. And it would be quite easy to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt when you have numerous other incidents of Gaetz doing the exact same thing.

If Gaetz had been prosecuted by a team that wasn't interested in undermining their own prosecution, I have no doubt he would have been found guilty.

[AZJonnie]

57. From The Guardian ...

"3. The committee did not find evidence that Gaetz engaged in sex trafficking
While Gaetz was “did cause the transportation of women across state lines for purposes of commercial sex,” according to the report, “the Committee did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that Representative Gaetz violated the federal sex trafficking statute” because the individuals weren’t minors and the sexual activity did not occur through force, fraud or coercion"

But I guess you know more about the matter, somehow?

[W_HAMILTON]

67. Convenient of them to leave out the rest of the statute:

22 U.S.C. 7102 prohibits sex trafficking, which is described as a commercial sex act induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or recruitment, harboring, transportation, or obtaining someone for labor or services, or coercion for the purpose of subjecting them to involuntary servitude, peonage, debt bondage, or slavery.

Taken from: https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/federal-human-trafficking#:~:text=a%20federal%20prison.-,22%20U.S.C.,%2C%20debt%20bondage%2C%20or%20slavery.

PS - Even the DOJ didn't use this flimsy excuse as to why they chose not to prosecute; instead, this is the bullshit they went with:

"The attorneys briefed about aspects of the case said the probe stalled over concerns about the credibility of two key witnesses or a lack of direct evidence implicating Gaetz, who has denied all wrongdoing."

Taken from: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/doj-decides-not-charge-rep-matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation-rcna70839

Like I said, freak-offs = IOKIYAR. Garland has been a massive disappointment and he should have cleaned house of Trump's MAGA moles that kneecapped Hillary in 2016 with their antics and have continued to pull politicized shit like this throughout his pathetic tenure.

[AZJonnie]

69. To me it's pretty clear that the intent of the statute is

"commercial sex act induced by force, fraud, or coercion", the rest is just clarification of that idea. More importantly, I assume professionals have a better idea than I do as to what is going to fly in front of a jury or grand jury. I mean, when you think of 'sex trafficking', you assume some there's some degree of 'force' being applied, don't you? Otherwise, if I just drove my ex-girlfriend from AZ to the new job she just got at the Bunny Ranch in Nevada, I'd be guilty of 'sex trafficking across state lines'. Or would you be favor of the DOJ pressing sex trafficking charges on me for that?

[paleotn]

19. Drugs? So is blow now de rigueur in House offices?

[Beastly Boy]

63. Not if the prosecutors never get past a preliminary hearing

where a judge, not the jury, decides if there is probable cause to prosecute.

And usually, judges are fairly familiar with the federal statutes.

[LexVegas]

30. What a poor persecuted guy Garland is. nt

[stopdiggin]

32. doggonit now. you're just dashing cold water on a really good hissy fit!

why'ya' gotta go and be like that?

[GreenWave]

33. How about his dead roommate Mr. Garland? They made the arresting officer resign!

[usonian]

38. Because it would look political, unlike Hunter Biden.

[Emile]

42. nly one thing more sick than a child rapist

[Blue_Tires]

47. Now let's chat about all the other people he let off the hook

[Hamlette]

60. the tragedy about our disagreements here is we are not talking about why this report is so damaging

it should be damaging to Trump. We all knew what happened, the 17 has been talked about forever as has the alleged Mann Act violation and drug use.

But Trump decided Gaetz, with all that baggage, should head the DOJ which is not only over all federal prosecutors but over federal law enforcement. That's the scandal. Trump knowing and not caring.

[DiverDave]

62. It WAS a Mann act violation.

He knew it was for sex. SHE knew that sex would be required for the "vacation".
But, since there a two interpretations of justice in this country, he will never be charged.

[Hamlette]

66. It was not a violation of the Mann Act.

The Mann Act (also known as the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910) is a federal law that criminalizes the transportation of “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for “any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense.”

Since the woman he took to the Bahamas or across state lines was not underage, it was consensual sex which is no longer a criminal offense.

[W_HAMILTON]

68. That's not a very good defense.

Your first paragraph explicitly states "...for the purpose of prostitution..." -- the report found that, yes, Gaetz engaged in "commercial sex" AKA prostitution.

Your second paragraph makes no sense -- are you saying that prostitution can only occur if one of the parties is underage? Because of course that's completely wrong.