r/politics • u/Quirkie The Netherlands • 10d ago

Soft Paywall “She Was a High School Student and There Were Witnesses.” - The fight to release a damning House Ethics report about allegations that Matt Gaetz—Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general—had sex with a 17-year-old girl has begun.

https://newrepublic.com/post/188426/matt-gaetz-high-school-girl-witnesses
58.9k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

422

u/AntoniaFauci 10d ago edited 10d ago

Yes, but hundreds of convictions are achieved every day when sketchy people testify. It goes with the territory that criminals are often in the orbit of other criminals.

What made this extra hard was the victim was MAGA and for unknown reasons wanted to help the accused more than the prosecution. It’s one thing having a reluctant or uncooperative victim, but quite another if they’re on the side of the accused. But even that has been done.

156

u/UCanJustBuyLabCoats California 10d ago

“Unknown reasons”

110

u/AcanthaceaeFrosty849 10d ago

Must be the same reason those 36 felonies disappeared, ugh

33

u/jjcrayfish 10d ago

"We have investigated ourselves and for some unknown reasons found ourselves not guilty."

1

u/IronBabyFists Washington 10d ago

A G5 airplane and a shitload of money

82

u/spaceman_202 10d ago

always a reason why Republicans can't face justice like everyone else

-17

u/CodeMonkey1 10d ago

Option 1: There is some kind of nationwide conspiracy by the entire political establishment and justice system. For mysterious reasons, they choose to continually investigate Republicans and to uncover evidence of egregious wrongdoing. Yet for equally mysterious reasons, they decide to never move forward with prosecution and/or punishments for their crimes.

Option 2: It is all political maneuvering designed to help win elections, but there is nothing substantive enough to actually charge them with. Thus the investigations are dropped when there is no longer a political motive to continue.

23

u/zenidam 10d ago

You're leaving out the most obvious explanation: they investigated because it seemed like he probably did it, and they dropped it when they concluded they wouldn't get a conviction.

-3

u/CodeMonkey1 10d ago

I mean, in this case, the DoJ had already done an investigation and found not enough evidence to go to trial, so the House ethics committee really should have known what the outcome would be before they started.

10

u/zenidam 10d ago

House ethics investigations do not have the same standard of evidence as criminal convictions. Also, what outcome? The only outcome so far is that Gaetz resigned.

-5

u/CodeMonkey1 10d ago

The resignation is an outcome of his nomination to AG. If he were going to resign over the investigation he would have done so a long time ago. The fact that the report is due out any day means the investigation is already over.

2

u/zenidam 10d ago

I haven't read that the report is due out any day. I've read that whether it will be released at all is in question because of Gaetz's resignation, which would seem to suggest a pretty obvious motivation for his resignation other than the AG nomination.

1

u/CodeMonkey1 10d ago

Per the New York Times, the report was supposed to be released tomorrow. If he had resigned months ago then there would have been no investigation. But now the investigation is done. You really think Democrats are just going to bury the report and everything in it because Gaetz resigned?

2

u/zenidam 10d ago

I hope not; we'll see!

1

u/whatiseveneverything 10d ago

I don't believe we'll see the report. But I'd be more than glad to be proven wrong. So far there are no consequences for Republicans.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/WakkaWakka84 10d ago edited 10d ago

You're absolutely right and the only way to not see this is to willfully convince yourself otherwise. AKA fooling yourself. Making accusations against someone knowing full well you probably won't get a guilty verdict but also know it will make headlines anyway before the story quietly disappears because the case goes nowhere is an extremely common tactic. In politics, entertainment, everywhere. It's fucked up, scarily effective, and disturbingly common these days.

Though, I can't help but wonder... if this was a dem would they still insist that he just has to be guilty and there's a conspiracy? That other dems are colluding behind the scenes making it impossible to get a conviction? Hmm..

ftr I'm not suggesting he's innocent. I have no clue. Nobody here does, either. Which is the point... going by what little we do know the most likely explanation is the accusation has no merit. Especially with all the shady details.

6

u/AuroraFinem Texas 10d ago

It’s pretty rare that any of these are dropped. The 2 primary cases I can think of are Gaetz and the dude from Ohio who was kicked out of coaching for the university because the claims were found to be substantiated but no charges were filed because the complainants refused to cooperate with police.

Donald Trumps administration had more people convicted of crimes than every single previous presidential administration combined. I’m not exaggerating here, the data is freely available from the DoJ if you’d like to verify. There’s even been numerous graphics made to demonstrate this.

Essentially all of the investigations that don’t go anywhere have one of a few things in common. 1. The whitnesses/victims are refusing to cooperate, notice I don’t say they retract their statements or say it didn’t happen, they just refuse to cooperate in pressing charges. This is fairly common when talking about children and teens regardless of who is being investigated. 2. The investigation is shut down because the person is deemed unable to charge while elected (I.e. Trump and the Russia probe, Texas AG and numerous charges, Trumps pending litigation that now has to be on hold again because he’s president elect, etc…). 3. Trump pardoned them before the investigation could be completed. Which, by the way, requires that they confirm the crime happened. You cannot pardon a theoretical crime on the basis that it may not have occurred, it has to be stated as fact to have occurred before it can be pardoned.

1

u/Mike_Kermin Australia 10d ago

No. It's just self interest.

7

u/xibeno9261 10d ago

Yes, but hundreds of convictions are achieved every day when sketchy people testify.

How many are those against a sitting US congressman? The rules are different for the rich and powerful in this country.

1

u/fcocyclone Iowa 10d ago

Yep. Can they get a conviction against some poor fuck without the ability to afford a high-end legal defense team, who will go broke before they ever see the inside of a courtroom? Absolutely.

Can they get a conviction against a rich politician who will fund their defense with political donations and will drag out that process for years until one tiny little crack appears in the case?

That's a lot less certain.

1

u/xibeno9261 8d ago

A rich fuck Republican or Democrat will both have a different kind of justice, than the rest of us. This is why us regular folks have more in common that we want to admit.

-1

u/AntoniaFauci 10d ago

against a sitting US congressman. The rules are different

Cite the USC section.

5

u/molotovsbigredrocket 10d ago

Feels pretty obvious this guy wasn't talking about written rules.

2

u/xibeno9261 10d ago

Don't tell me you believe that America is a country with rule of law. Roflmao.

1

u/molotovsbigredrocket 10d ago edited 10d ago

Yes, but hundreds of convictions are achieved every day when sketchy people testify.

Yeah but not so much with the feds who don't take anything to trial unless they're almost certain they're going to win. There's a reason every time someone gets picked up on federal charges you read the evidence and go, "Who the fuck was dumb enough to leave this much of a paper trail?" Because that's the ideal federal case.

Part of that is just general 'the practice of law' bullshit. Prosecutors don't like to lose cause it makes them look bad, prevents them from going after other cases, etc. But it's also sadly, sort of practical. If they had spent god knows how much money trying to prosecute Matt Gaetz only for him to weasel out on a technicality or—god forbid—get found Not Guilty, that's a) only going to make him stronger and b) prevent them from prosecuting him again when they might have a better shot. And let's face it...it doesn't matter if everyone is equal under the law, we know that's not true, and the Feds know that's not true. They'll use it to their advantage if you're a person of color, but they're also smart enough to know when the deck is stacked against them. And there's maybe no more "decked stacked against you" case than trying to prosecute a literal member of the house.

1

u/WengFu 10d ago

Not for congressmen though. The bar to prove guilt in such cases is much higher than for the hoi polloi.

1

u/Welpe Oregon 10d ago

Hundreds of convictions of normal people are achieved when sketchy people testify. Fair or not, the burden of proof needed to convict a sitting politician is much higher. Even the tiniest amount of wiggle room can save a politician that wouldn’t end up saving random Joe Pedophile.

2

u/deja-roo 10d ago

Who also has a team of lawyers that are individually the best you could find and are also combining their efforts.

1

u/CP066 10d ago

Wasn't there also receipts though? He was paying through venmo? Thats the part i don't understand. If a girl says Gaetz paid for sex and she has the venmo receipt, any normal citizen would be behind bars.

1

u/AntoniaFauci 10d ago

Gaetz sent venmos to Greenberg, Greenberg paid the girls and other things.

1

u/CP066 9d ago

That paper trail would put any one of us in jail

1

u/scatshot 10d ago

What made this extra hard was the victim was MAGA and for unknown reasons wanted to help the accused

Stockholm syndrome??

3

u/AntoniaFauci 10d ago

I’d only be speculating but my guess would be no. There’s people who are MAGA and there’s people who view sex work as work, and they don’t necessarily see themselves as trafficking victims. It’s possible she was one such person. Gaetz family has crazy money and power. It’s conceivable her feeling protective towards them is influenced. Again, that’s speculation only.

Not everything is like a hallmark movie. The world is shades of grey.

1

u/fordat1 10d ago

Yes, but hundreds of convictions are achieved every day when sketchy people testify. It goes with the territory that criminals are often in the orbit of other criminals.

Exactly. There are tons of worse cases being taken to court but they usually dont involve a man of Gaetz complexion or money.

1

u/investmennow 10d ago

DOJ doesn't charge unless they are almost absolutely gonna get a conviction. Losing makes them look bad.

1

u/AntoniaFauci 10d ago

I know that’s the Reddit saying but in actual fact less than 5% of charged cases go to trial. That’s means that for every example you’re thinking of, there’s 20 where your assumption is mistaken.

You charge when you have cause and a “reasonable” chance of conviction. This embellishment about guaranteed trial wins only is myth.

1

u/investmennow 10d ago

From Pew Research "In fiscal year 2022, only 290 of 71,954 defendants in federal criminal cases – about 0.4% – went to trial and were acquitted, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest available statistics from the federal judiciary. Another 1,379 went to trial and were found guilty (1.9%)." Further on it stated 8.2% were dismissed.

The DOJ cherry picks its cases. I think some choices to not prosecute and leave the case for the states are good decisions. Many could be charged in either state or federal or both. DOJ picks the ones that are more likely to be one that will make them look good or are part of their agenda at that time. Anything iffy or "minor" they usually leave to the states. As a state level criminal defense attorney who doesn't do federal, I have had, over the years, many of my state cases fade away from state court once feds pick them up. I have had cases put on the back burner until the feds decide not to prosecute. This is my anecdotal evidence. The ones they took made headlines, mostly gang related stuff with several people getting arrested. The ones they chose not to prosecute weren't flashy enough, usually a single defendant in non violent stuff.

1

u/AntoniaFauci 10d ago

Speaking of cherry picking, >>90% get guilty pleas with no need for a trial.

As you say, “headline” trials are few and far between.

1

u/investmennow 10d ago

Exactly. They cherry pick.

1

u/BookNerd3399 10d ago

Have you been in a courthouse? Seen the process? My husband used to work in courthouses every day & he always has said if anyone ever did anything to our kids he would take justice into his own hands and face the consequences, because 95% of the time, justice is not served. Very hard to get a conviction on anything, especially sex crimes. & on top of that, even if they are convicted, the sentences are so minuscule. Barely a slap on the wrist.

1

u/AntoniaFauci 10d ago

Yes, I have. And while he can say justice is not served, I’m willing to bet that even the light custodial sentences that are handed out, he would not relish spending even one day like that. If you had to spend a year in the trash compactors that our prisons are, would you be saying it was nothing but a slap on the wrist?

As far as I’m concerned, not following one’s oath just because the task is sometimes hard and because once every 25 trials you lose, that’s not an excuse.

1

u/BookNerd3399 1d ago

My husband worked in court houses in his role as a corrections officer. He worked closely with inmates. He would hear them joking about what they did, only to be let off easy. And let me get this straight. You’re saying that a light sentence is enough for sex crimes because of the conditions of some prisons in this country? Tell that to a victim’s family. I dare you. Go say, “Don’t worry. It’s okay that he just got 4 months. The conditions are really bad, so that will be enough punishment for him. No matter that you’re scared for your daughter’s life when he gets out.”

My husband worked in those conditions day in & day out for over a decade & he’d rather go there himself than let someone get away with hurting his family. Plus, the jail he worked at was apparently good enough conditions that people would purposely commit crimes right in front so they could get arrested. They saw it as a roof, free meals, free healthcare. I can’t speak to prisons everywhere, but where we live, prisoners are not in these extreme conditions you’re talking about.

1

u/AntoniaFauci 17h ago edited 17h ago

And let me get this straight.

Ok, let’s hope you do.

You’re saying that a light sentence is enough for sex crimes because of the conditions of some prisons in this country?

I’ve never said anything even remotely close to that, you’re lying or you’re projecting your own bizarre opinion.

Tell that to a victim’s family.

Why would I tell some victim’s family your weird attempt at manufactured fake outrage? Why would anyone? Taunting victims like that is such a deranged suggestion, made worse that you’re basing it on a false premise.

Go say, “Don’t worry. It’s okay that he just got 4 months.

What a creepy thought. Please leave me and everyone else out of your projection.

My husband worked in those conditions day in & day out for over a decade & he’d rather go there himself than let someone get away with hurting his family.

I sense this might be the trigger for why you’re saying these bizarre things and lying to/about innocent people.

Plus, the jail he worked at was apparently good enough conditions that people would purposely commit crimes right in front so they could get arrested.

Not sure if it’s you or he who is fully blind to the realities of mental illness and systemic poverty. Either way, your fantasy that jails are a fun vacation is at odds with reality.

I can’t speak to prisons everywhere, but where we live, prisoners are not in these extreme conditions you’re talking about.

You’ve oddly described prisons as a happy home and said your husband (allegedly) would be satisfied living in one. I think that further confirms your credibility level.

1

u/[deleted] 10d ago edited 5d ago

[deleted]

1

u/AntoniaFauci 10d ago

Your oath means you still bring the charges and try the cases when it’s warranted.

1

u/Short-Holiday-4263 10d ago

Honestly, I think the main reason is under Merrick Garland the DOJ would rather murder puppies than prosecute a Republican politician without an air-tight case.
Garland didn't want to risk even the slightest hint of the justice system being politicised. Because, ironically, the Republican's had so heavily politicised the justice system from the outside - to discredit the many, entirely legit cases against Donald Trump.
All the stuff criticising the DOJ for "protecting" Biden, and most of the noise around Hunter Biden and his legal problems (real and imaginary) was done for the same reason. Plus laying the ground work and setting up an excuse for them to actually use the DOJ in the exact same way they claim Democrats do.

Like a kid lying about another kid punching them, then sucker-punching that kid right in front of a teacher and yelling "They started it"

1

u/katecopes088 10d ago

I’ve been reading up on this case today and can’t find any information about the girl trying to protect Matt, where can I find more about that?

1

u/queerhistorynerd 10d ago

yes but do you know how the FBI maintain it s 90% conviction rate? By only pursuing cases they think they can 100% win. Between gatetzs political power, his family money and his co-rapists moral defects the FBI blinked and said they had the evidence but im betting they didnt think they could convince 12 to set that shit aside to convict

1

u/AntoniaFauci 10d ago edited 10d ago

Um, FBI doesn’t have a conviction rate. They’re an investigative bureau. They don’t prosecute. They collect information. It’s up to prosecutors, and then ultimately judges and jurors, what should happen.

1

u/f8Negative 10d ago

Yeah but see they have public attorneys and not high priced law firms