Is Matt Gaetz the next in a long line of prominent republicans to be convicted of child sex abuse?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Career prosecutors have recommended against charging Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in a long-running sex-trafficking investigation — telling Justice Department superiors that a conviction is unlikely in part because of credibility questions with the two central witnesses, according to people familiar with the matter.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/23/gaetz-no-charges-sex-trafficking/

This is a weird leak that wouldn't originate from DOJ. Almost as if a Gaetz-friendly source is leaking it to make any future prosecution look like it's politically motivated since it would require DOJ "superiors" to overrule the "career prosecutors."

That was my first thought when I read the second paragraph of the article. Like when someone from the conservative wing of SCOTUS leaked the draft decision to keep the conservative justices in line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Career prosecutors have recommended against charging Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in a long-running sex-trafficking investigation — telling Justice Department superiors that a conviction is unlikely in part because of credibility questions with the two central witnesses, according to people familiar with the matter.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/23/gaetz-no-charges-sex-trafficking/

This is a weird leak that wouldn't originate from DOJ. Almost as if a Gaetz-friendly source is leaking it to make any future prosecution look like it's politically motivated since it would require DOJ "superiors" to overrule the "career prosecutors."

That was my first thought when I read the second paragraph of the article. Like when someone from the conservative wing of SCOTUS leaked the draft decision to keep the conservative justices in line.

This is Bull$hit and you know it.
And, as for leaks from the DOJ..... they have shown they will leak about anything.
This whole story originated from a leak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Career prosecutors have recommended against charging Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in a long-running sex-trafficking investigation — telling Justice Department superiors that a conviction is unlikely in part because of credibility questions with the two central witnesses, according to people familiar with the matter.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/23/gaetz-no-charges-sex-trafficking/

This is a weird leak that wouldn't originate from DOJ. Almost as if a Gaetz-friendly source is leaking it to make any future prosecution look like it's politically motivated since it would require DOJ "superiors" to overrule the "career prosecutors."

That was my first thought when I read the second paragraph of the article. Like when someone from the conservative wing of SCOTUS leaked the draft decision to keep the conservative justices in line.

This is Bull$hit and you know it.
And, as for leaks from the DOJ..... they have shown they will leak about anything.
This whole story originated from a leak.

The whole story originated from Joel Greenberg’s indictment and guilty plea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Career prosecutors have recommended against charging Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in a long-running sex-trafficking investigation — telling Justice Department superiors that a conviction is unlikely in part because of credibility questions with the two central witnesses, according to people familiar with the matter.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/23/gaetz-no-charges-sex-trafficking/

This is a weird leak that wouldn't originate from DOJ. Almost as if a Gaetz-friendly source is leaking it to make any future prosecution look like it's politically motivated since it would require DOJ "superiors" to overrule the "career prosecutors."

That was my first thought when I read the second paragraph of the article. Like when someone from the conservative wing of SCOTUS leaked the draft decision to keep the conservative justices in line.

This is Bull$hit and you know it.
And, as for leaks from the DOJ..... they have shown they will leak about anything.
This whole story originated from a leak.

Mmm no. I don’t believe it originated from a DOJ leak. Receipts please?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Career prosecutors have recommended against charging Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in a long-running sex-trafficking investigation — telling Justice Department superiors that a conviction is unlikely in part because of credibility questions with the two central witnesses, according to people familiar with the matter.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/23/gaetz-no-charges-sex-trafficking/

This is a weird leak that wouldn't originate from DOJ. Almost as if a Gaetz-friendly source is leaking it to make any future prosecution look like it's politically motivated since it would require DOJ "superiors" to overrule the "career prosecutors."

That was my first thought when I read the second paragraph of the article. Like when someone from the conservative wing of SCOTUS leaked the draft decision to keep the conservative justices in line.

This is Bull$hit and you know it.
And, as for leaks from the DOJ..... they have shown they will leak about anything.
This whole story originated from a leak.

The whole story originated from Joel Greenberg’s indictment and guilty plea.

And, a leak to the media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Career prosecutors have recommended against charging Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in a long-running sex-trafficking investigation — telling Justice Department superiors that a conviction is unlikely in part because of credibility questions with the two central witnesses, according to people familiar with the matter.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/09/23/gaetz-no-charges-sex-trafficking/

This is a weird leak that wouldn't originate from DOJ. Almost as if a Gaetz-friendly source is leaking it to make any future prosecution look like it's politically motivated since it would require DOJ "superiors" to overrule the "career prosecutors."

That was my first thought when I read the second paragraph of the article. Like when someone from the conservative wing of SCOTUS leaked the draft decision to keep the conservative justices in line.

This is Bull$hit and you know it.
And, as for leaks from the DOJ..... they have shown they will leak about anything.
This whole story originated from a leak.

The whole story originated from Joel Greenberg’s indictment and guilty plea.

And, a leak to the media.

If you’re construing “leak” broadly to mean “anyone on any side talking to the media,” then sure, okay, go with that.

[Anonymous]

I guess it's not a political witchhunt.

[Anonymous]

Seems like Republicans can get away with any sexual crimes they want to, without any impact on their elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry but prosecutors talking about charging decisions anonymously? Horsecrap

Did it say that prosecutors were the ones who were quoted?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry but prosecutors talking about charging decisions anonymously? Horsecrap

Did it say that prosecutors were the ones who were quoted?

Nope it said sources familiar with the matter said prosecutors weren’t going to recommended charging. Who would the source be with that kind of access? Not anyone credible IMO. Because anyone with that kind of access who would talk to the post about it, is shady.

[Anonymous]

Probably leaked by Gaetz's side as they know the DOJ won't levy charges before Election Day. We are inside the informal 60-day window.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sorry but prosecutors talking about charging decisions anonymously? Horsecrap

Did it say that prosecutors were the ones who were quoted?

Nope it said sources familiar with the matter said prosecutors weren’t going to recommended charging. Who would the source be with that kind of access? Not anyone credible IMO. Because anyone with that kind of access who would talk to the post about it, is shady.

Probably Gaetz’s team, to try to force DOJ not to bring charges and to give them grounds to claim to the public that’s purely politically motivated.

[Anonymous]

The story is on par with Peter Alexander getting played. Trumpworld knows the reporter is a patsy because they used him to plant information regarding the MAL search that Cannon attributed to a DOJ leak with no basis. Gaetz knows (1) DOJ can’t comment on an ongoing grand jury investigation and (2) DOJ won’t hand down an indictment before the election so he gets his team to plant this story for pre-election rehabilitation. It reeks of Roger Stone ratf**kery. And when an indictment is issued it can be attacked as a political witch hunt by Garland.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The story is on par with Peter Alexander getting played. Trumpworld knows the reporter is a patsy because they used him to plant information regarding the MAL search that Cannon attributed to a DOJ leak with no basis. Gaetz knows (1) DOJ can’t comment on an ongoing grand jury investigation and (2) DOJ won’t hand down an indictment before the election so he gets his team to plant this story for pre-election rehabilitation. It reeks of Roger Stone ratf**kery. And when an indictment is issued it can be attacked as a political witch hunt by Garland.

Peter Alexander was also the reporter who said that he had sources inside the Secret Service who said Cassidy Hutchinson testimony was BS. Then no one officially ever came forward to refute it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The story is on par with Peter Alexander getting played. Trumpworld knows the reporter is a patsy because they used him to plant information regarding the MAL search that Cannon attributed to a DOJ leak with no basis. Gaetz knows (1) DOJ can’t comment on an ongoing grand jury investigation and (2) DOJ won’t hand down an indictment before the election so he gets his team to plant this story for pre-election rehabilitation. It reeks of Roger Stone ratf**kery. And when an indictment is issued it can be attacked as a political witch hunt by Garland.

Peter Alexander was also the reporter who said that he had sources inside the Secret Service who said Cassidy Hutchinson testimony was BS. Then no one officially ever came forward to refute it.

I personally think it’s unethical to publish this stuff when you know your source is an interested party. Not saying it for sure happened here but sure seems like it happens a lot and reporters just say, meh, okay, it’ll sell.