1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

To confirm, you’re saying when the House report is released you bet there will be proof that Gaetz is a sex offender, which is a felony?  You’re betting me alcohol that the house report will have evidence sufficient to uphold criminal charges of felony sex offense?

That is the rub, it will never come out.  It was going to be released today but because he resigned effective Wednesday, the case is closed.

1 hour ago, ClearedHot said:

That is the rub, it will never come out.  It was going to be released today but because he resigned effective Wednesday, the case is closed.

Then why did the Speaker ask for them not to release it?

1 hour ago, Sua Sponte said:

Then why did the Speaker ask for them not to release it?

Because some want to go outside the rules and release it to damage him.

Since Gaetz has resigned, the probe has ended as the panel only has jurisdiction over a member when they are serving in Congress.

44 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Because some want to go outside the rules and release it to damage him.

Since Gaetz has resigned, the probe has ended as the panel only has jurisdiction over a member when they are serving in Congress.

Would it only damage him if what they found was substantiated? Just because he’s no longer part of the House doesn’t negate the possibly of him doing, or not doing, the alleged conduct. He’s also nominated to be the top federal prosecutor, which would be perilous if he possibly committed ethical violations. 

3 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Would it only damage him if what they found was substantiated? Just because he’s no longer part of the House doesn’t negate the possibly of him doing, or not doing, the alleged conduct. He’s also nominated to be the top federal prosecutor, which would be perilous if he possibly committed ethical violations. 

I am guessing and would not be surprised if there were bad things in the report and while I agree with you in principle, we've already lived through two years of a the system bending the rules to punish political opponents.  Keep in mind, he was already investigated by DOJ and they decided NOT to pursue charges, seems like the system taking two bites at the apple to punish him politically. 

He is (or was), my rep and I do not care for him.  But I do care for the rule of law and while I think he is the wrong choice for AG, I am vehemently against changing the rules simply because we don't like him.

I want to hear about qualified immunity and civil forfeiture

Laptop - real as admitted by the FBI.  Gaetz allegations investigation not enough to charge -  also FBI.  If there is proof of crimes committed then charge him, convict him, and I'll gladly join the firing squad.  Unsubstantiated anonymous accusations which seem common in the last couple years or rumors do not a criminal make but do make for great reputation destroying MSM fodder.

23 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

You had a literal cartoon of a toxic progressive running for president against Donald Trump. That's why Trump won. If you sincerely think that a riot at the Capitol is the most dangerous threat to the Constitution in the past decade or so, then you just aren't paying attention. 

 

Shack!  If your point could be turned into a video, it would be this guy.  I'm right, you're wrong and I have the moral high ground, so you can't even talk.  This is why Trump won.  

 

 

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

Because this is my side, I care more about technicalities than if our attorney general committed actual sex crimes against minors.

Here we go again. 

 

If innocent until proven guilty is a technicality for you, then your evidence-free initial response to COVID seems to be the standard by which we should judge you. 

 

I'm old enough to remember when the Democratic party called Brett Kavanaugh a gang rapist based on absolutely zero evidence, including the newly-rejected vice president. So pardon me if I choose to trust our founding-principals on the assessment of guilt rather than the oft-corrupted media complex when deciding if Gaetz is a child rapist.

 

Until the sin of the Kavanaugh hearing is confessed and atoned for, I won't be trusting *any* accusations of guilt from Democrats unless I see the evidence myself. You know, the same way I literally saw the Hunter Biden laptop materials with my own eyes. 

Why is it you pop up here only to make the absolute dumbest arguments? 

Edited November 16, 20241 yr by Lord Ratner

46 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Here we go again. 

 

If innocent until proven guilty is a technicality for you, then your evidence-free initial response to COVID seems to be the standard by which we should judge you. 

 

I'm old enough to remember when the Democratic party called Brett Kavanaugh a gang rapist based on absolutely zero evidence, including the newly-rejected vice president. So pardon me if I choose to trust our founding-principals on the assessment of guilt rather than the oft-corrupted media complex when deciding if Gaetz is a child rapist.

 

Until the sin of the Kavanaugh hearing is confessed and atoned for, I won't be trusting *any* accusations of guilt from Democrats unless I see the evidence myself. You know, the same way I literally saw the Hunter Biden laptop materials with my own eyes. 

Why is it you pop up here only to make the absolute dumbest arguments? 

I don't think people who have never been falsely accused of a crime, and acquitted, understand the "innocent until proven guilty." They're also the dipshit who don't realize how easily it is to be accused of a crime and fuck up your personal and professional life. 

Their playbook has  a single page.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/15/politics/trump-transition-hegseth-allegations/index.html

Someone accused him, therefore he is unfit.  Sounds about right.  Oh, also he's an insider threat security risk because he's a Christian as classified by a security manager that admits to watching MSNBC while driving to work.  As if watching MSNBC wasn't bad enough, he said he was watching it while driving to work.  Yeah, I trust that dude's judgement.

It would be refreshing to hear someone make an argument for or against based on his merits.

To hear Senator Pocahontas Warren calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Asset and Spy pisses me off beyond recognition. Unless she can actually prove it isn't that slanderous and legally actionable (even towards a public figure)? I'd love to see her charged and tried.

As I understand it, the threshold for libel is way higher when speaking about a public figure.  However, if someone really said that they were a Russian agent, I think that would still meet that threshold.

1 hour ago, bfargin said:

To hear Senator Pocahontas Warren calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Asset and Spy pisses me off beyond recognition. Unless she can actually prove it isn't that slanderous and legally actionable (even towards a public figure)? I'd love to see her charged and tried.

Let her talk.  Just digging a deeper hole.

8 hours ago, bfargin said:

To hear Senator Pocahontas Warren calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Asset and Spy pisses me off beyond recognition. Unless she can actually prove it isn't that slanderous and legally actionable (even towards a public figure)? I'd love to see her charged and tried.

Rich isn't it.  The double standard is astounding especially when you look at the case of Democrat Congressman Eric Swalwell who actually WAS having an affair with a Chinese agent...no big deal according to Democrats.

Very few on the left will admit that they got beat badly a couple weeks ago because the majority of Americans disagree with them on most of the important issues.  So of course they’re not going to support anything Trump does going forward, and in addition, they’ll slander his cabinet picks.  And the progressives will do this on left wing/establishment media sources (redundant) which by and large continue to lose more and more support as their ratings plummet.  I see this all as a good thing.

15 hours ago, bfargin said:

To hear Senator Pocahontas Warren calling Tulsi Gabbard a Russian Asset and Spy pisses me off beyond recognition. Unless she can actually prove it isn't that slanderous and legally actionable (even towards a public figure)? I'd love to see her charged and tried.

Don't forget that bonkers chick from FL. Wasserman-Shultz

On 11/14/2024 at 7:50 AM, BashiChuni said:

I know. And I’m happy you don’t think all countries should have a say in our foreign policy as you eloquently wrote below. Which is exactly why the US should tell Zelenskyy and Ukraine to pound sand and negotiate for peace. Something tulsi will be in favor of. 
 

“Zip ahead to 4:45 when she goes into "just like we wouldn't want Venezuela to come to our country..." to over throw our government, we shouldn't go into theirs...blah, blah, blah. It underscores this neo liberal idea(l) that all country's are equal and get to have an equal say in the way the world works. Nah. No thanks. Venezuela's merry-go-round of dictators don't get to have an equal say in the way the world works because they're a so-called country with borders on the map.”

Ukraine is a friendly democratic nation with zero expansionist desires that was invaded by an unfriendly, undemocratic nation with expansionist desires. That’s the reason that Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland joined NATO. Because none of them could trust Russia. And as long as Putin is in power and attempting to derail our foreign policy on every continent, neither can we.

Abandoning Ukraine is giving him a historic come from behind win, and it damages trust in the US for every ally.

Just because a prosecutor declines charges doesn't always mean it didn't happen.

Does anyone know WHY the DOJ chose not to prosecute Gaetz?  Perp's status?  Poor/incomplete investigation?  Procescutor bias?  Victim cooperation?  Facts/witnesses sufficient to convince a jury?  Politicians making deals to hold leverage? P. Diddy?  Epstein/Trump connections? Aliens?

Rhetorically, why doesn't Trump do his homework and pick someone who isn’t under investigation and maybe have some quals in justice? 

PS. Those last 3 excuses are sarcasm.

1 hour ago, Majestik Møøse said:

Ukraine is a friendly democratic nation with zero expansionist desires that was invaded by an unfriendly, undemocratic nation with expansionist desires. That’s the reason that Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Finland joined NATO. Because none of them could trust Russia. And as long as Putin is in power and attempting to derail our foreign policy on every continent, neither can we.

Abandoning Ukraine is giving him a historic come from behind win, and it damages trust in the US for every ally.

keep feeding yourself the delusion.

ukraine is not NATO. and should never become nato. the west provoked putin's actions. a total retarded and unnecessary war.

keep feeding yourself the delusion.
ukraine is not NATO. and should never become nato. the west provoked putin's actions. a total retarded and unnecessary war.

Indeed, it was totally unnecessary for Putin to invade a nation unprovoked.

So how many of you are just alt burner accounts for kinzinger?

SAD!

3 hours ago, SurelySerious said:

Indeed, it was totally unnecessary for Putin to invade a nation unprovoked.

If you really think he did that with no reasons you’re a historical retard. Truly. 
 

 

If you really think he did that with no reasons you’re a historical retard. Truly. 
 
 

Your “interpretation” of “history” is the mentally deficient part. There were no hostilities, and then someone initiated hostilities…who started shooting and taking another country’s land? Oh, right. It was Putin.