Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[pritch]

Trump has announced that Matt Gaetz is to be US Attorney General. Gaetz who has multiple charges of sex with underage girls hanging over him. As AG he can likely make most of those disappear. One though arises out of a civil defamation action. That could be problematical.

It becomes apparent why Trump doesn't want Senate to debate his Cabinet appointments.

[onearmedbandit]

Trump has announced that Matt Gaetz is to be US Attorney General. Gaetz who has multiple charges of sex with underage girls hanging over him. As AG he can likely make most of those disappear. One though arises out of a civil defamation action. That could be problematical.

It becomes apparent why Trump doesn't want Senate to debate his Cabinet appointments.

When I read this I was like 'wtf', so I looked into it. I could only find an investigation into sex trafficking that the DOJ dropped without charging him at all (ofc this doesn't mean he's innocent) and no mention of any charges of sex with minors (accusations but not charges). Do you have any links to these charges to confirm what you posted? If there are then this is a huge blunder.

[TheDemonLord]

Ha Trump has made Musk along with former GOP presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy head of DOGE, an obvious play on Musk's favourite cryptocoin. The Department Of Government Efficiency is not a government department as the name would suggest but rather they will work outside of the government advising the White House on spending issues.

I love everything about this.

The Memes.
The Shitposting.
The absolute Fuck You to the managerial types.

[pritch]

When I read this I was like 'wtf', so I looked into it. I could only find an investigation into sex trafficking that the DOJ dropped without charging him at all (ofc this doesn't mean he's innocent) and no mention of any charges of sex with minors (accusations but not charges). Do you have any links to these charges to confirm what you posted? If there are then this is a huge blunder.

The trafficking charge was one of the oddities of US law to do with crossing state lines for immoral purposes or similar. The particular woman, who was under age at the time, may have refused to give evidence. His former pal gave evidence, and there was proof that he had made payments to students via Venmo, but without the lady herself...

I only heard about the defamation thing on a lawyer's podcast this morning and I can't find the link yet.

There's this from only a month ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnogunOTNxY&t=116s





Update:

Gaetz has resigned from Congress today and now we know why the indecent haste. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UJfAdv613E

[sugilite:Me]

TDL seem to have wormed his way out of accepting any point made by anyone....reminds me of someone.

TDL looks to extend and expand arguments, and conceding a point does not provide that for him
Let us look at his "low bar" for proving corruption in the thomas case.
He expects us to believe that thomas received millions in gifts (basically cash) and home loans being paid off, childs education paid for equaling many, many times the judges annual pay with no paybacks expected in return. And these were just the things that the investigative journalists found, you can well imagine the scope of all the shit that was hidden better that was not discovered.
TDL also expects us to believe that it slipped thomas mind to declare them - all this from a justice so legally learned that he has never made a bum ruling in 30 years, but somehow does not know the rules that apply to receiving "gifts".
The low bar tdl refers to is actually from him towards thomas or any other right leaning operative.

The reason he is absolutely desperate for us to provide an example of a case we may feel goes against the constitution is just him looking to open up more ways to create multi quoted responses and expand arguments that are based on legal opinions - in other words never ending arguments, which is his default aim and keeps him in his happy place.

I do admit I do from time to time get bored enough to indulge him as i get a perverse sense of fun watching him get ever more ridiculous in his responses. Yesterday My wife was driving the truck from Timaru to Invergargill, so I had time to engage him and give myself a laugh watching his ridiculousness being ever expanded with each post.

The thing in this thomas scenario, if you swapped out thomas for a far left leaning supreme court justice, his response would be very, very different. If congress were wanting to hang the corrupt leftie judge, tdl would be emailing them plans for a more efficient gallows, rather than creating outrageously implausible mulligans - as he does for anyone on the right team. You would not be seeing any of these ridiculous stances he takes when it comes to any right wing operatives being naughty. Naturally he will dispute this and will at times give a very small handful of examples where he has criticized right leaning baddies, but in reality those are very, very, VERY few and far between. Mere grains of sand in a large quarry full of rocks.

[onearmedbandit]

The trafficking charge was one of the oddities of US law to do with crossing state lines for immoral purposes or similar. The particular woman, who was under age at the time, may have refused to give evidence. His former pal gave evidence, and there was proof that he had made payments to students via Venmo, but without the lady herself...

I only heard about the defamation thing on a lawyer's podcast this morning and I can't find the link yet.

There's this from only a month ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnogunOTNxY&t=116s

But you did say he had multiple charges of sex with a minor hanging over him. This clearly isn't the case, otherwise a simple search online would show this.

[Grumph]

But you did say he had multiple charges of sex with a minor hanging over him. This clearly isn't the case, otherwise a simple search online would show this.

All the details are being rehashed on many news sites currently.

After working for several years to get the House ethics committee investigation stopped - incl being the prime mover in getting McCarthy replaced as leader - he's
now sidestepped it completely by resigning to try and speed his confirmation as Attorney General.

In an ideal world his past would count against him and he wouldn't be confirmed.

But this is Trump's America where a convicted felon can be President - and another felon who's only just managed to escape conviction can head the DOJ.

I suggest you read some of his reported public statements. The man is a certifiable MAGA nutter. And dangerous.

[TheDemonLord]

TDL looks to extend and expand arguments, and conceding a point does not provide that for him
Let us look at his "low bar" for proving corruption in the thomas case.
He expects us to believe that thomas received millions in gifts (basically cash) and home loans being paid off, childs education paid for equaling many, many times the judges annual pay with no paybacks expected in return. And these were just the things that the investigative journalists found, you can well imagine the scope of all the shit that was hidden better that was not discovered.
TDL also expects us to believe that it slipped thomas mind to declare them - all this from a justice so legally learned that he has never made a bum ruling in 30 years, but somehow does not know the rules that apply to receiving "gifts".
The low bar tdl refers to is actually from him towards thomas or any other right leaning operative.

Which is all window dressing around the main point that there is no such example.

The thing in this thomas scenario, if you swapped out thomas for a far left leaning supreme court justice, his response would be very, very different. If congress were wanting to hang the corrupt leftie judge, tdl would be emailing them plans for a more efficient gallows, rather than creating outrageously implausible mulligans - as he does for anyone on the right team. You would not be seeing any of these ridiculous stances he takes when it comes to any right wing operatives being naughty. Naturally he will dispute this and will at times give a very small handful of examples where he has criticized right leaning baddies, but in reality those are very, very, VERY few and far between. Mere grains of sand in a large quarry full of rocks.

There are two halves here:

The first is that very often the critiques raised against the right are from hyper-partisan journalists and activists who distort the truth, wildly. And yes, I do dismiss a lot of them out-of-hand - because when looked into, they are blown way out of proportion. If a fraction of the investigative furor and fervor that had been applied to Trump et al was applied to the Left - The court would likely be backlogged for years.

Case in point - see the above discussion between Pritch and OAB - I have not waded into it - but we have gone from an accusation of raping a minor to allegedly taking a 17 year old over state lines - where the DoJ stopped investigating (due to lack of evidence).

Perhaps if the Media were a bit more honest, I would give their cries of Wolf a little more due - but I don't.

Secondly - there is the question of Actions. I expect Liberal SC Justices to vote along liberal lines. Classic case - RBG was highly critical of the reasoning behind Roe, but supported it steadfastly. I am not calling Sotomayer biased or corrupt.

I would call the NYC DA who publicly vowed to go after Trump and then got a 'conviction' that should have been dismissed - Her I would call Corrupt, not for any taking of Money (although I am sure she has been well compensated) but for her ACTIONS.

Every major decision I have read by Clarence - I see a deep historical understanding of the Constitution and a reverance for the ideals upon it is based: Individual Liberty (and all the problems that come with it).

If you feel this is a free pass - okay, I can't convince you otherwise - but I find it amusing that for someone you claim is completely corrupt - you cannot provide an example of him actually being corrupt.

[onearmedbandit]

I suggest you read some of his reported public statements. The man is a certifiable MAGA nutter. And dangerous.

I think you might be a little confused. I'm not defending the man, but Pritch said he has numerous charges of sex with minors hanging over him. I can't find any evidence of these charges. Once again, I'm not defending the man.

[TheDemonLord]

I think you might be a little confused. I'm not defending the man, but Pritch said he has numerous charges of sex with minors hanging over him. I can't find any evidence of these charges. Once again, I'm not defending the man.

But dont you see - when you dare to disagree with the mainstream media narrative - that is defending him...

Otherwise we would be able to smear people with lies in peace.

[pritch]

But you did say he had multiple charges of sex with a minor hanging over him. This clearly isn't the case, otherwise a simple search online would show this.

His buddy is doing eleven years for his part in the proceedings. Garland has proved to be ineffective. The House Ethics Committee had their ongoing inquiry due to be released in a couple of days.

In case you missed it elsewhere this should shed some light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UJfAdv613E

[onearmedbandit]

His buddy is doing eleven years for his part in the proceedings. Garland has proved to be ineffective. The House Ethics Committee had their ongoing inquiry due to be released in a couple of days.

In case you missed it elsewhere this should shed some light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UJfAdv613E

I watched the video. Accusations that definitely need to addressed. But no charges mentioned of having sex with a minor. You obviously know the difference between accusations and charges right? The guy might well be the biggest scum bag walking the face of the earth, but you claimed he had multiple charges of having sex with minors hanging over him. Do you accept that your claim was incorrect. If not, show me a video or article where it states he has been charged with having sex with minors.

[onearmedbandit]

But dont you see - when you dare to disagree with the mainstream media narrative - that is defending him...

Otherwise we would be able to smear people with lies in peace.

Thing is, I can't find anything in the mainstream media or otherwise that says he has been charged with sex with minors. Definitely for trafficking (although they were dropped even though his friend is currently serving time for the same thing) yes, but as far as charges relating to sex with a minor, nudda, not a thing. Pritch is normally good with his info so this surprises me.

[husaberg]

Trump has announced that Matt Gaetz is to be US Attorney General. Gaetz who has multiple charges of sex with underage girls hanging over him. As AG he can likely make most of those disappear. One though arises out of a civil defamation action. That could be problematical.
It becomes apparent why Trump doesn't want Senate to debate his Cabinet appointments.

But you did say he had multiple charges of sex with a minor hanging over him. This clearly isn't the case, otherwise a simple search online would show this.

Although I have no idea what Pritch knows or what is in the video
but I believe the term"Hanging over" means something is imminent or threatening. Google AI tends to agree

difficult or unpleasant is worrying someone because it could lead to something bad in the future. For example, "If an inquiry was hanging over his head, it is unlikely that the Home Office would want to appoint him".
Here are some synonyms for the phrase "hanging over someone": loom, threaten, menace, and impend

for instance if bob had been found guilty of murder, but not yet sentenced you could say he had a death penalty or life imprisonment hanging over him


I am open to correction but can't see where Pritch said he had been already charged?

[onearmedbandit]

I'm sure if Pritch felt that was the case Pritch would've said so himself. I'm happy to accept that as one interpretation but it wasn't one he proffered (yet). But it's still a stretch. I could accuse someone of child abuse, that would not indicate charges are hanging over them by the mere accusation. If the police were investigating, that still wouldn't infer chargers are imminent. If the police said, "we're following strong lines of inquiry and we are looking at possible charges", then yes I'd say charges are hanging over them.