Republican Matt Gaetz Investigated For Sex Trafficking

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: rnaa

Why are you trying to conflate obviously different crimes (?).

I find it very creepy that anyone would try to argue that sexually torturing pre pubescent children is anything like a reproductively mature 17 year old having a sexual relationship with a 20 something. Its absurd and minimizes the horror of the first crime.

A sexual relationship is not possible under your auspices.... a 17 year old is a minor and not an Adult therefore the very decision to reproduce cannot be considered to be a legally binding or permissive decision....therefore reproductive maturity cannot be projected......a sexually orientated physical interaction may happen within a dynamic containing a Perpetrator and a Victim.

No Women No Children....Society has legal definitions of such....if you dont like those definitions then vote for someone who will change them for you.

a reply to: neutronflux

see above post

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Boadicea

do you think billy barr would allow his DOJ to open an investigation if it didn't have anything of substance?

Then why is he not held on bond?

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: neutronflux

see above post

So all you have is hearsay from unnamed sources?

a reply to: knoxie

All you do is make things up and repeat allegations as fact without any evidence. Pretty pathetic.

a reply to: knoxie

If he is guilty. I want him held on bond.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

skip on over to the Q thread that'll really blow you mind. matty loves him some Q idiots.

a reply to: one4all

Reproductive maturity is biological not legal and your reply didnt address my post at all.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

there are some 11 year old children who are reproductive, what does that have to do with anything? gross..

a reply to: knoxie

So. You have no actually evidence. And your here for just innuendo and to insult people. Got it.

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: one4all

Reproductive maturity is biological not legal and your reply didnt address my post at all.

I disagree....stop using the word "mature" you are attempting to weaponize it and use it permissively.

You cannot by proxy be Reproductively Mature until you can make the legally vetted adult decision to reproduce.

I already clearly outlined why you have failed to consider respect or meet Societally parsed legal definitions and requirements within your context and syntax.

a reply to: rnaa

What part of "a 17 year old CANNOT engage in a 'consensual' relationship with an adult - BY DEFINITION. It is called statutory rape.

Of course a 17 -year-old can engage in a "consensual' relationship with an adult -- BY DEFINITION. Lots of 17-year-olds say "yes" to sex with adults. It happens all the time.

However, in some states, a 17-year-old cannot LEGALLY engage in a "consensual" relationship. THAT is called statutory rape. In other words, it is "rape" by statute... by law... not by the strict definition of rape, which is forced intercourse. In statutory rape, it is the state that is saying "no," not the 17-year-old, who is saying "yes".

Where did I say anything about pimping her out?

By invoking "trafficking."

He is accused (by the internet)...

No. He was accused in an anonymous media report -- I believe the NY Times broke the story. The "internet" is just repeating and analyzing and embellishing the reports.

...of taking a child under the age of 18 on all expense paid trips while engaging in a sexual relationship with that child - that is defined by Federal Law as Child Trafficking.

No, it is not. The legal definition of "trafficking" -- the legal definitions YOU provided, and I already excerpted for you -- involves commercial interests. In other words, trafficking requires an element of monetary gain for the trafficker.

Or am I misunderstanding you, and you think the girl is a literal whore who was charging him, and she was receiving the monetary gain? In which case the girl isn't a victim, but an accomplice who "trafficked" herself?

When the story broke, he was quoted as defending it as consensual, and when he realized the ramifications he started denying it. I cannot find the original story now, it has either been 'hidden' of just ratioed away, so I cannot prove my charge. That does NOT exonerate Gaetz in anyway.

Or it was an outright lie and was quickly erased (once the damage was done) to protect their own sorry arses. I find it very hard to believe that any perceived admission of guilt on Gaetz' part would not be plastered across the world. Newspapers, websites, magazines, news shows... THAT would be THE story if it happened.

The only thing that comes close to such an admission from Gaetz that I've found is this:

In other strange Gaetz commentary, the congressman spoke to Axios and told reporter Jonathan Swan, “I have definitely, in my single days, provided for women I’ve dated. You know, I’ve paid for flights, for hotel rooms. I’ve been, you know, generous as a partner. I think someone is trying to make that look criminal when it is not.”

Matt Gaetz says he's under federal investigation for sexual misconduct

And there are more charges each day that are exposing his depravity. If (I will give the benefit of the doubt because 'innocent until proven guilty') the investigation can demonstrate the charge he is going down.

I'm not too sure about that. If this were about justice, it wouldn't have been leaked. If this were about justice, the investigation would be completed by now and he'd already be charged.

At this point, all we have are unsubstantiated rumors and a political football. That's it. Standard Operating Procedure for the critters.

a reply to: knoxie

Just that pedophilia has a definition.. its a sexual attraction to pre pubescent kids.. and claiming that sexually torturing pre pubescent kids is "pretty much the same" as a 17 year old and 20 something.. is absurd.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

Funny how the Right are always claiming that the Left are going to try to lower the age of consent yet the second one of their own gets accused of having sex with minor all of a sudden it's, "Age is just a number."

a reply to: neutronflux

it's an ongoing investigation. apparently matty boy pays for sex. and, yikes, paid a minor possibly. his good buddy is currently sitting in jail and is probably screaming to high heaven to get a reduced sentence, not good for matty boy.

ya, i'll insult anyone who embraces the Q idiots. talk about no evidence. lolol

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Boadicea

do you think billy barr would allow his DOJ to open an investigation if it didn't have anything of substance?

I wouldn't put anything past Bill Barr.

Bill Barr is a Fixer. Bill Barr doesn't protect and defend the innocent. Bill Barr protects and defends the guilty. Of the most horrendous crimes. Crimes that shock the conscience. Like an FBI sniper killing an unarmed mother, who is holding her infant in her arms, in the doorway of her own home.

Bill Barr is the enemy of justice.

a reply to: Boadicea

Considering matty is a close confidant of Trump. Do you think Barr informed Trump of the investigation?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I didnt say anything like what you claim.. i said that sexually torturing pre pubescent kids is much different than a 17 year old and 20 something in a sexual relationship.. yoid have to be a very sick loon to disagree.

STOP lying.. its pathetic.

The left argues that kids can reasonably choose to mutilate their sex organs etc. If that is the case its idiotic to also argue that 17 yearn olds cant reasonably decide whether to have sex/with who.

PICK ONE.. it cant be both.

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: neutronflux

it's an ongoing investigation. apparently matty boy pays for sex. and, yikes, paid a minor possibly. his good buddy is currently sitting in jail and is probably screaming to high heaven to get a reduced sentence, not good for matty boy.

ya, i'll insult anyone who embraces the Q idiots. talk about no evidence. lolol

And again. If you want to play the innuendo game.

If he is guilty. I want him held on bond.

Evidently. There’s not even evidence for an arraignment? Because law enforcement just loves letting sex offenders run around.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

it's still against the law and matty knows that damn well.