552
Matt Gaetz ethics report says his drug use and sex with a minor violated state laws
(www.cbsnews.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Dec 2024
552 points (98.8% liked)
politics
19244 readers
2226 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And Biden appointed him after Trump tried to steal an election...
Do you think Biden is stupid and thought Merrick wouldnt be a "heel dragging clown"? Or do you think he knew and that's why he was picked?
Is Biden incompetent or intentionally maintaining the status quo where the rich and politically connected are above the law?
Like...
Is this the first time you noticed Merrick was a waste of a pick? Do you think up until now he's been doing a fine job?
You're completely ignoring the point of my comment. To answer your side-stepping question, I suspected Garland would be a heel-dragging clown the second Biden appointed him. Now back to our regularly scheduled program: you seem to be implying that the DoJ should prosecute Gaetz because they can. What exactly does that accomplish except to risk double jeopardy? Because I know you know this can't be tried in 28 days, and it could barely even be brought to trial in 28 days.
Double jeopardy doesn't prevent state and federal charges for the same crime...
So unless you think Trump's DOJ will prosecute them, I don't understand why you're talking about double jeopardy. I mean, you seem to think Biden has to charge and finish?
Like, you have some basic misunderstandings about our legal system (and other stuff) but you're very opinionated about this and openly antagonistic to people trying to assist you...
I'm not going to explain basic legal concepts while you try to have a slap fight over God knows what.
You're correct that double jeopardy applies separately to state and federal charges. Literally nobody in this thread was disputing that; this is a strawman.
Yes. For a successful federal prosecution started under this term, Biden has to charge and finish. Else you risk double jeopardy at the federal level while accomplishing absolutely nothing. Are you seriously suggesting that the DoJ assemble a case and attempt to bring it to trial in 28 days, then when that does fuck-all, hand this case off to a state AG which would presumably be Florida? You've still refused to answer what possible benefit Biden's DoJ charging Gaetz at the federal level today confers, which tells me that your answer is "I have no good answer and I've backed myself into a corner, so I'm going to refuse to say that and double down instead."
You think all federal charges just disappear every time there is a new administration?
Do you think that sentence constitutes an argument or even a complete thought?
Do you think we should abandon even attempting to follow the rule of (moral) law just because we know a certain piece of shit often ignores it? I think you have to do the right thing regardless as long as it's in your power.
No one said that and I'm not sure where you got the idea
No, I'm not actually suggesting the ridiculous strawman you've just constructed. Of course plenty of prosecutions have continued through more than one administration. That said...
Holy fucking shit, are you actually suggesting that Trump wouldn't direct his corrupt-ass DoJ to immediately drop the case against Gaetz? Is that actually how far in denial the "Um, actually, just charge him lol" camp is now? That they think if Biden charges him now, Trump will see to completion the federal prosecution of one of his cronies who he tried to nominate as the head of the DoJ? That's the argument you're running with? If so, then I'm done here, because that's a delusion well beyond anything that's worth anyone's time.
givesomefucks really cares about one thing and that's raging toward Democrats. That's all.
And weirdly, he has a fan club, apparently. I find it appalling that people upvote him and jump in to assist his "arguments"