Matt Gaetz Attorney General...

Republicans in the Senate will decide whether Gaetz is qualified for the job and you can bet every Senator has seen that report. It will be a clear decesion as to whether they will act in the best interest of the nation or the best interest of the president as they are clearly not the same.

So why don't you tell us what's on the report since you seem to know? How you idiots can make assumptions and base opinions on things you have no knowledge of is what the question should be here.
 
See, that's the problem, you lefties think all you have to do is start an 'investigation' into someone, throw out allegations from 'anonymous' sources, and you can smear and ruin anyone you want. The problem is you've done it far too many times now without any results or true crimes having been committed. You're frauds, and no one believes you any longer. :dunno:

Sources are not anonymous.

Woman testified to House Ethics Committee that Gaetz had sex with her when she was 17: Sources
 
Yet the Biden DOJ apparently didn't feel her 'testimony' was enough to charge him.

What's the source for that article? Who gave the author the information as to what she (anonymous) testified to?

It wasn't a coincidence Gaetz resigned his seat.
 

FYI every single source/article that is running this story cites ABC News as the source, yet ABC News doesn't cite where they got this information from, as well as it being from June of this year. Everyone is rerunning the story from June because of the nomination. So there's one source, ABC News, for this story, who doesn't cite where their information came from. So it's all over the 'news' as if it's true, yet no one knows for sure whether or not it is, that's how the US 'media' works today, nothing but a propaganda machine. I no longer believe them, especially when it's a smear campaign, until I hear it directly from the source itself.
 
No idea how that addressed my statement.

You said the source wasn't anonymous, that wasn't true, you could not provide who came out with the testimony story or where they got the information from.
 
FYI every single source/article that is running this story cites ABC News as the source, yet ABC News doesn't cite where they got this information from, as well as it being from June of this year. Everyone is rerunning the story from June because of the nomination. So there's one source, ABC News, for this story, who doesn't cite where their information came from. So it's all over the 'news' as if it's true, yet no one knows for sure whether or not it is, that's how the US 'media' works today, nothing but a propaganda machine. I no longer believe them, especially when it's a smear campaign, until I hear it directly from the source itself.

He didn't step down for no reason. He didn't want the report released.

It's not just Democrats condemning him.
 
Saying they “had no case” is highly reductive and misleading.

Gaetz won’t answer tough questions. We need to see the House Ethics report.

If the Republicans bury it, the fix is in.
You said it
 
He didn't step down for no reason. He didn't want the report released.

It's not just Democrats condemning him.

Condemning him based on anonymous sources.

And of course not, he's made a lot of enemies in DC, that's what happens when you do that.

And he stated why he stepped down, yet you prefer to believe the unconfirmed smears reported about him than what he directly says himself. :dunno:
 
Where it comes to positions of leadership I see little difference.
Yeah but you’re an illogical and stupid person. So that’s OK. Cry more.

A criminal is objective

Not a good dude is subjective
 
Condemning him based on anonymous sources.

And of course not, he's made a lot of enemies in DC, that's what happens when you do that.

And he stated why he stepped down, yet you prefer to believe the unconfirmed smears reported about him than what he directly says himself. :dunno:

He stepped down to try and keep the report from being released. If he continues to seek a position it will get released.
 
Yeah but you’re an illogical and stupid person. So that’s OK. Cry more.

A criminal is objective

Not a good dude is subjective

Sadly, for far too many that subjection revolves entirely around what party the person belongs to.
 
Not a good dude and a criminal are vastly different.
They’re both on the other end of the spectrum of someone you’d want to be AG.

There’s a ton of people on the right where there’s no case against but it doesn’t stop MAGA from labeling them criminals.
 
Sadly, for far too many that subjection revolves entirely around what party the person belongs to.
Of course because those parties have certain ideologies tied to them. For example. Seth Moulton is a hypocrite. Does that make him a criminal? No. Hypocrites in my eyes aren’t good people. But you may think otherwise. So they aren’t one and the same.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom