NWO/Illuminati US politics - Pt 3

[Kurve]

Here is US Politics Pt 2

The 2024 US presidential election is on Tuesday, 5 November 2024. The winner will serve a term of four years in the White House, starting in January 2025.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

No, we have not.

Will you accept The Guardian as a source?

Key findings from the House ethics committee’s Matt Gaetz report

Committee found ‘substantial evidence’ for allegations including that Gaetz regularly paid for sex

www.theguardian.com

That's why I wrote #3,735 in the first place.

 

[Stokey]

What you gonna change your username again?

That would require a premium membership and I don't give money to grifters.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

That would require a premium membership and I don't give money to grifters.

Ok, so you have been researching it.

 

[CM86]

Will you accept The Guardian as a source?

View attachment 2194221

Key findings from the House ethics committee’s Matt Gaetz report

Committee found ‘substantial evidence’ for allegations including that Gaetz regularly paid for sex

www.theguardian.com

That's why I wrote #3,735 in the first place.

Sure. I've been trying to stick with APNews mostly, as I feel that both 'sides' view them as reliable with reasonable integrity.

This is why the paper trail with the woman who was 17 at the time is so important now. And the ex-girlfriend cooperating and testifying.
If it can be shown that Gaetz did so knowingly, pay to transport an underage woman for sex, that's sex trafficking.

Gaetz did have sex with this woman. He also sent her money.
Most of the time the money went through Greenberg under the description of things like "Tuition", "School", "Groceries".

So they will have an example of Gaetz's messages with Greenberg organising an evening. They will have Gaetz send money to Greenberg and then that exact same amount will be sent to the woman via Greenberg.
BUT. That's not enough to prove intent or action. It might look suspicious, but it isn't enough to press charges.


To clarify, he has not been found not guilty.
You acknowledge that?

 

[Soldier Of Misfortune]

Proof I've ever posted that comment. You have 24hrs.

You sure take this seriously. You should laugh more often, it's good for your health.

 

[Stokey]

Ok, so you have been researching it.

The grifting? Yes I have

 

[faible]

You are all only upset cos of who it is. Gaetz may be a scumbag but until he has been charged and convicted he's still an innocent scumbag.

I’m opposed to any and all politicians who’ve likely committed crimes from holding positions.

I could accuse you of committing a crime. Does that make you guilty?

You could.

If they do a whole parliamentary investigation in to it, find multiple witnesses, and release a report documenting their findings, and those findings are I’ve engaged in that behaviour, then we can revisit whether or not a conviction matters to you.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Sure. I've been trying to stick with APNews mostly, as I feel that both 'sides' view them as reliable with reasonable integrity.

This is why the paper trail with the woman who was 17 at the time is so important now. And the ex-girlfriend cooperating and testifying.
If it can be shown that Gaetz did so knowingly, pay to transport an underage woman for sex, that's sex trafficking.

Gaetz did have sex with this woman. He also sent her money.
Most of the time the money went through Greenberg under the description of things like "Tuition", "School", "Groceries".

So they will have an example of Gaetz's messages with Greenberg organising an evening. They will have Gaetz send money to Greenberg and then that exact same amount will be sent to the woman via Greenberg.
BUT. That's not enough to prove intent or action. It might look suspicious, but it isn't enough to press charges.


To clarify, he has not been found not guilty.
You acknowledge that?

Mate you refused to accept that Gaetz has not been found guilty of child trafficking by both the DOJ and the ethics committee investigation and now you want me to agree to your double negative proposition? Stop wasting my time.

 

[CM86]

I thought I'd read statements from Gaetz that he did know this woman and did send her money. But I can't find this. So I'll say that he's denying all of it. Including that he slept with her, even though he thought she was of age.

 

[CM86]

Mate you refused to accept that Gaetz has not been found guilty of child trafficking by both the DOJ and the ethics committee investigation and now you want me to agree to your double negative proposition? Stop wasting my time.

Gaetz has not been found guilty of child trafficking.

He has never been charged with it either.

 

[Stokey]

I’m opposed to any and all politicians who’ve likely committed crimes from holding positions.



You could.

If they do a whole parliamentary investigation in to it, find multiple witnesses, and release a report documenting their findings, and those findings are I’ve engaged in that behaviour, then we can revisit whether or not a conviction matters to you.

Back to this 'likely committed crimes'?.

The DoJ determines whether crimes were committed. They determined their wasn't.
The Ethics committee cannot charge someone with a crime they can just adjudicate whether they feel House ethics have been breached. If so, they are booted from Congress.

 

[CM86]

The DoJ determines whether crimes were committed. They determined their wasn't.

No they didn't.

 

[faible]

Back to this 'likely committed crimes'?.

The DoJ determines whether crimes were committed. They determined their wasn't.
The Ethics committee cannot charge someone with a crime they can just adjudicate whether they feel House ethics have been breached. If so, they are booted from Congress.

The DoJ didn’t say he didn’t do it. They just didn’t charge him.

Plenty of crimes go uncharged. If you murder someone, but don’t get charged, that doesn’t mean you didn’t murder them.

 

[faible]

Also the irony of the same people who’ve got on and on ad nauseum about the weaponised DoJ and Hunter Biden’s laptop now arguing the DoJ not charging Gaetz means he’s all good.

 

[Stokey]

The DoJ didn’t say he didn’t do it. They just didn’t charge him.

Plenty of crimes go uncharged. If you murder someone, but don’t get charged, that doesn’t mean you didn’t murder them.

And we're back to guilty until proven innocent.

 

[faible]

And we're back to guilty until proven innocent.

There’s an entire ethics report that says he’s done most of what he’s accused to have done.

If you’d seen this much evidence against Biden you’d be up in arms. Apparently when it’s a 30 something year old conservative politician banging a 17 year it’s all good for Stokey though.

The moral compass of a rock

 

[CM86]

And we're back to guilty until proven innocent.

It's just to point out to you that he hasn't been "proven innocent".

The same way people shouldn't say he's been "proven guilty".

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal determination. Often cited incorrectly to defend a person in public discussion.

 

[faible]

Stokey in 2004; Epstein is just misunderstood, he hasn’t been found guilty of anything, I support him.

 

[Stokey]

Also the irony of the same people who’ve got on and on ad nauseum about the weaponised DoJ and Hunter Biden’s laptop now arguing the DoJ not charging Gaetz means he’s all good.

Who is saying that? We are not judging Gaetz the person, as I said he's more than likely a scumbag. Its just they he wasnt charged by the DOJ. In the eyes of the law that makes someone innocent. He doesn't suddenly become guilty because you think he should be.

 

[CM86]

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...h-minor-used-illicit-drugs-as-congress-member

It's only 37 pages if anyone would like to read it.

Don't just skim or search for single lines that could support your positions.
Just read it in its entirety, and then make a judgement.

 

[faible]

Who is saying that? We are not judging Gaetz the person, as I said he's more than likely a scumbag. Its just they he wasnt charged by the DOJ. In the eyes of the law that makes someone innocent. He doesn't suddenly become guilty because you think he should be.

So to clarify; you think Gaetz probably did have sex with a 17 year and find that problematic?

 

[CM86]

Its just they he wasnt charged by the DOJ. In the eyes of the law that makes someone innocent.

That's completely incorrect.

 

[Stokey]

There’s an entire ethics report that says he’s done most of what he’s accused to have done.

If you’d seen this much evidence against Biden you’d be up in arms. Apparently when it’s a 30 something year old conservative politician banging a 17 year it’s all good for Stokey though.

The moral compass of a rock

You like putting words in people's mouths.

Again this proves that he has breached ethics and if still in Congress he probably shouldn't be. This makes him guilty of ethics breaches not of being a pedo which is what you are all claiming here.

 

[faible]

You like putting words in people's mouths.

Again this proves that he has breached ethics and if still in Congress he probably shouldn't be. This makes him guilty of ethics breaches not of being a pedo which is what you are all claiming here.

Someone can be a paedophile without being found guilty of it.

One is a legal definition. The other involves actually having sex with a minor.

 

[CM86]

You like putting words in people's mouths.

Again this proves that he has breached ethics and if still in Congress he probably shouldn't be. This makes him guilty of ethics breaches not of being a pedo which is what you are all claiming here.

Don't do that.

The implication from the position you keep arguing is that you think it's gross and scummy, but in all you seem OK that he slept with a 17 year old.

So, put your words in your own mouth.
What is your position on Gaetz's 'unknowningly' sleeping with an underaged woman?