All Trump supporters must commit now, any "Republican" Senator who votes against Gaetz gets primaried

[Slade3200]

The Senate is controlled by Mr. Gaetz's political enemies.

Doesn't sound unethical at all. There weren't enough votes to expel him anyhow.

They are in his own party and are political enemies because of the unethical partisan show boat crap he pulls

 

[Slade3200]

Based on what evidence? What evidence did they have to bring an investigation? Unnamed sources and 'allegations'? And wasn't he cleared by the DOJ of any wrong doing?

That was about to come out in their report until he quit. Saved by daddy Trump. How pathetic

 

[Blaster]

Trump may use a recess appointment to get Gaetz confirmed.

 

[Blaster]

That was about to come out in their report until he quit. Saved by daddy Trump. How pathetic

Are you butt-hurt?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The DoJ does not release the case file of someone who is not charged.

But clearly an exception should be made here since he’s trying to get such a highly trusted position.

You guys must have no objection to this, right?

If the case file in its entirety, with no redactions, were to be released, I would welcome that as a breath of fresh air. Especially recordings and transcripts and FD 302’s from witness interviews.

I’m not interested in a highly redacted, self-serving, selective leak, if that’s what you mean.

Not to mention the precedent it would set for Attorney General Gaetz to be transparent about his investigations of the anti-democracy activists in the DOJ/FBI who spent years undermining the voters’ choice because we didn’t “vote right.”

 

[Marener]

.

Why would I have an objection to making an empty file of non-compelling evidence public?
I was telling you that you were lied to and the file you want containing the evidence you desire will never be public ...
Because it doesn't exist ...

.​

Pretending the file doesn’t exist is a lie you tell yourself.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

 

[Marener]

If the case file in its entirety, with no redactions, were to be released, I would welcome that as a breath of fresh air. Especially recordings and transcripts and FD 302’s from witness interviews.

I’m not interested in a highly redacted, self-serving, selective leak, if that’s what you mean.

Not to mention the precedent it would set for Attorney General Gaetz to be transparent about his investigations of the anti-democracy activists in the DOJ/FBI who spent years undermining the voters’ choice because we didn’t “vote right.”

Great. So we agree that if he doesn’t call for the release of the file, it would be a strike against his appointment due to lack of transparency.

 

[BlackSand]

Pretending the file doesn’t exist is a lie you tell yourself.

.

I don't have to pretend anything ...
I understood what the Prosecutor meant when they indicated that there was not compelling evidence ...

You have no evidence ... Only the desire to insist there is evidence ...
When absolutely none has been provided to you.

.​

 

[OldFlame]

That was about to come out in their report until he quit. Saved by daddy Trump. How pathetic

So they've presented nothing to back up their claims or to support even doing an investigation to begin with? So you believe them just because they 'said so'.

That's what I thought, thanks.

 

[Marener]

.

I don't have to pretend anything ...
I understood what the Prosecutor meant when they indicated that there was not compelling evidence ...

You have no evidence ... Only the desire to insist there is evidence ...
When absolutely none has been provided to you.

.​

We have no evidence because the file isn’t published.

If there’s nothing in it, great. But I’m not going to assume any such thing like you are, simply because you want to believe it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Great. So we agree that if he doesn’t call for the release of the file, it would be a strike against his appointment due to lack of transparency.

Sure.

He wasn’t charged so what do you think will be in the files?

I hope you call for all files from the lawfare era to be released unredacted and not just that one.

Because I don’t remember any unredacted documents being released under Garland, do you? So that’s tens of thousands of strikes against the Democrat activists of the current DOJ.

Correct?

 

[Marener]

Sure.

He wasn’t charged so what do you think will be in the files?

I hope you call for all files from the lawfare era to be released unredacted and not just that one.

Because I don’t remember any unredacted documents being released under Garland, do you? So that’s tens of thousands of strikes against the Democrat activists of the current DOJ.

Correct?

Files will be redacted to protect individual privacy as required by law.

You don’t want to violate the law, do you?

 

[BlackSand]

We have no evidence because the file isn’t published.

If there’s nothing in it, great. But I’m not going to assume any such thing like you are, simply because you want to believe it.

.

You could have stopped with "we have no evidence" ... Because that is what you have to support your argument ...
As well as what the Prosecutor indicated ...

.​

 

[Marener]

.

You could have stopped with "we have no evidence" ... Because that is what you have to support your argument ...
As well as what the Prosecutor indicated ...

.​

I don’t know. The fact that he was sending money to a person convicted of sex trafficking seems to be something we would call “evidence”.

Can you source the statement from the prosecutor?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Files will be redacted to protect individual privacy as required by law.

You don’t want to violate the law, do you?

Weren’t you calling for full release of Gaetz’ information?

Redacting is at the sole discretion of the AG.

General Gaetz will use that discretion with wisdom and mercy, being careful not to release any truly personal information on the plotters. The plot itself consists of official act by government officials. That is in no way of matter of privacy. The American people have a right to know what they were doing while we were paying their salary.

But real privacy will be protected, of course. More than can be said for the lawfare administration.

 

[Marener]

Weren’t you calling for full release of Gaetz’ information?

Redacting is at the sole discretion of the AG.

General Gaetz will use that discretion with wisdom and mercy, being careful not to release any truly personal information on the plotters. The plot itself consists of official act by government officials. That is in no way of matter of privacy. The American people have a right to know what they were doing while we were paying their salary.

But real privacy will be protected, of course. More than can be said for the lawfare administration.

It’s essential to redact names of private individuals who don’t have any charges. There are privacy laws that require that.

Surely you don’t want innocent Americans being doxxed by government? The only reason you’d want that is if you would want them to be harassed and threatened.

 

[BlackSand]

I don’t know. The fact that he was sending money to a person convicted of sex trafficking seems to be something we would call “evidence”.

Can you source the statement from the prosecutor?

.

You're welcome to just stick with your opinion and "I don't know" ... That's accurate ...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/15/politics/matt-gaetz-justice-department/index.html

In the above story from CNN ... Not friendly to President Trump but reason enough to stop looking there ...
Not only does it describe the fact the investigators refused to bring charges ...
It also says the decision was supported by senior officials at the DOJ.

As for the major reason they chose not to bring charges ...
The article indicates the investigators had questions about the credibility of the key witnesses.

What that means ... They think the key witnesses could be lying ...
Feel free to cite any evidence you don't have to the contrary.

.​

 

[Marener]

.

You're welcome to just stick with your opinion and "I don't know" ... That's accurate ...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/15/politics/matt-gaetz-justice-department/index.html

In the above story from CNN ... Not friendly to President Trump but reason enough to stop looking there ...
Not only does it describe the fact the investigators refused to bring charges ...
It also says the decision was supported by senior officials at the DOJ.

As for the major reason they chose not to bring charges ...
The article indicates the investigators had questions about the credibility of the key witnesses.

What that means ... They think the key witnesses could be lying ...

.​

So your article confirms there’s plenty of evidence against him.

I think we should see what the witnesses said and then we can decide if they’re credible or not.

Don’t you agree?

 

[BlackSand]

So your article confirms there’s plenty of evidence against him.

I think we should see what the witnesses said and then we can decide if they’re credible or not.

Don’t you agree?

.

The article confirms that the investigators and senior officials at the DOJ believe there wasn't enough credible evidence to prosecute.

I never suggested that your stupid ass didn't want to hear the lies the witnesses told ...
Just that there is no reason for anyone to think you are smarter than everyone at the DOJ ...
Even all the people there that hate President Trump.

How fucking retarded do you have to be to keep believing you still have an argument ...

.​