Should the ethics report on Gaetz be released?

[Ritzwatch]

it should be handled according to House rules. if the rules say it's released in cases like this then release it; if the rules say it's not when the person is no longer in the House then keep it private.

enough of the only release it or hide it if it helps my team stuff.

Novel concept, that the US Constitution should mean something.

Not just "innocent until proven guilty," but also Article 1, Sec. 5, Clause 2, providing each House of Congress, in essence, power to self-police, and to set the rules for doing so.

Don't like it? Amend the Constitution. Don't just ignore it.

 

[Vol423]

Is there a diary?

Can't trust those.

 

[whodeycin85]

heck no. at least on the level of accounting I would expect in a criminal case.

IF Gaetz was found innocent (not guilty) in a criminal investigation, but held liable in a civil investigation that would not rise to the level of proof to hold him out imo.

I just want it investigated/prosecuted at a criminal level by people not tied to any of the parties. In this case there are enough shared interests for me to question the prosecution. nothing has been proven, which is why I have been trying to correctly use "allegedly".

You seems to have good knowledge on this...the sex trafficking accusation, was it across state lines?

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

That's allot of people involved..seems like a conspiracy theory. Not saying it isn't true as most conspiracies have come true..just finding it hard to belief there is no criminal case there for some kinda charge.

Most conspiracy theories are true? Am I reading that correctly? Surely not

 

[LSU-SIU]

Most conspiracy theories are true? Am I reading that correctly? Surely not

If someone has reasonable information from which one can draw real "possibilities", does not make it a "conspiracy theory". We're getting to the part in the story where if the msm says "conspiracy theory", one should start looking for the fire. The suspect defense by the msm has been to label anything they don't want aired a "conspiracy theory". These types of gags not only don't work, I would say they have the opposite intended result now.


We are living in a post face diaper world.

 

[CobbVol]

it should be handled according to House rules. if the rules say it's released in cases like this then release it; if the rules say it's not when the person is no longer in the House then keep it private.

enough of the only release it or hide it if it helps my team stuff.

Warning, warning --- incoming

 

[LouderVol]

Understood. The salacious stuff is more icing on the cake of your opposition rather than the cake itself?

yes. I was responding to the people who were arguing that he wasn't a creature of the swamp.

 

[LouderVol]

it should be handled according to House rules. if the rules say it's released in cases like this then release it; if the rules say it's not when the person is no longer in the House then keep it private.

enough of the only release it or hide it if it helps my team stuff.

what happens if Gaetz ends up back in the legislature, even in a different capacity? Would it be ok to then?

like Gaetz doesn't get approved for AG, and is given Rubio's spot in the Senate. it wouldn't be a HOUSE issue then, but I don't see the logic being different.

I could get resigning and retiring as a reason not to throw dirt on someone. but in this case he is staying in politics, at an even higher level, or at least I don't think the standards have gotten any less. I don't think changing your job title gets you out of performance review.

 

[LouderVol]

You seems to have good knowledge on this...the sex trafficking accusation, was it across state lines?

I never really looked up Greenberg's (the ring leader) charges. I know it was a federal case, but I think sex crimes with minors fall in their jurisdiction. not sure if crossing state lines is still required for those cases.

what I remember is it was just recruiting local girls, but it may have been more than that.

 

[McDad]

what happens if Gaetz ends up back in the legislature, even in a different capacity? Would it be ok to then?

like Gaetz doesn't get approved for AG, and is given Rubio's spot in the Senate. it wouldn't be a HOUSE issue then, but I don't see the logic being different.

I could get resigning and retiring as a reason not to throw dirt on someone. but in this case he is staying in politics, at an even higher level, or at least I don't think the standards have gotten any less. I don't think changing your job title gets you out of performance review.

I don't know if "performance review" was intentional, but ethics investigation is not the same as performance review in my opinion.
There were 24 house ethics investigations recommended by the ethics committee over the last four years. I didn't know that until I looked it up. Most of them we are completely unaware they are happening and unaware what the outcome is.

 

[LouderVol]

I don't know if "performance review" was intentional, but ethics investigation is not the same as performance review in my opinion.
There were 24 house ethics investigations recommended by the ethics committee over the last four years. I didn't know that until I looked it up. Most of them we are completely unaware they are happening and unaware what the outcome is.

same overall employer. changing departments doesn't get one away from your history. ethics or performance based.

 

[McDad]

same overall employer. changing departments doesn't get one away from your history. ethics or performance based.

Disagree. Here's an example.

Remember the old place where you worked and the woman who was your boss? Should you be blackballed if your work (performance review) is stellar but your ethics ( routinely showing up 5 minutes late, and other stuff she didn't like) is lousy?

 

[NorthDallas40]

it should be handled according to House rules. if the rules say it's released in cases like this then release it; if the rules say it's not when the person is no longer in the House then keep it private.

enough of the only release it or hide it if it helps my team stuff.

I would guess it won’t be publicly released but will be made available to members of the Senate to review for the confirmation process. Which in this day and age it will be on CNN and WaPo 48 hours later

 

[LouderVol]

Disagree. Here's an example.

Remember the old place where you worked and the woman who was your boss? Should you be blackballed if your work (performance review) is stellar but your ethics ( routinely showing up 5 minutes late, and other stuff she didn't like) is lousy?

generally yes. ethics is part of the job, in both cases.

 

[McDad]

generally yes. ethics is part of the job, in both cases.

Ethics that are well-defined and applicable to all, yes. Ethics which are vague and based on inter-office politics, no.

 

[volinbham]

what happens if Gaetz ends up back in the legislature, even in a different capacity? Would it be ok to then?

like Gaetz doesn't get approved for AG, and is given Rubio's spot in the Senate. it wouldn't be a HOUSE issue then, but I don't see the logic being different.

I could get resigning and retiring as a reason not to throw dirt on someone. but in this case he is staying in politics, at an even higher level, or at least I don't think the standards have gotten any less. I don't think changing your job title gets you out of performance review.

whatever the rules are - follow them

 

[LouderVol]

Ethics that are well-defined and applicable to all, yes. Ethics which are vague and based on inter-office politics, no.

granted we don't know what is in the ethics report, but IF it is about his Congressional-Ethic level guilt in the sex trafficking case, I would say that is pretty well defined and applicable to all. assuming its direct involvement, and not just that his name appears in a text message one time type of thing.

 

[Ritzwatch]

I never really looked up Greenberg's (the ring leader) charges. I know it was a federal case, but I think sex crimes with minors fall in their jurisdiction. not sure if crossing state lines is still required for those cases.

what I remember is it was just recruiting local girls, but it may have been more than that.

I think the federal connection is interstate commerce. Otherwise I think it is just a state level crime. (However labeled: “trafficking” vs “prostitution” or some similar charge.)

 

[McDad]

granted we don't know what is in the ethics report, but IF it is about his Congressional-Ethic level guilt in the sex trafficking case, I would say that is pretty well defined and applicable to all. assuming its direct involvement, and not just that his name appears in a text message one time type of thing.

I still don't follow your thought process with this. To me, it seems you're saying:
Criminal investigation is likely corrupt.
Ethics / political investigation is likely honest.

 

[LouderVol]

I still don't follow your thought process with this. To me, it seems you're saying:
Criminal investigation is likely corrupt.
Ethics / political investigation is likely honest.

I haven't heard the same type of things, connections/cover up, about the political ethic investigation as I have with the criminal. Haven't seen anything about Gaetz, or anyone, trying to influence it, ending it prematurely, or them just going thru the motions.

I mean I guess if you are saying he is avoiding the investigation again, that is a fair point. but that "corruption" is just on him, unlike previously where other parties were involved in the "cover up". so in this case I don't have the same reasons to question the investigation itself, even if the subject of the investigation is worth scepticism.

 

[McDad]

I haven't heard the same type of things, connections/cover up, about the political ethic investigation as I have with the criminal. Haven't seen anything about Gaetz, or anyone, trying to influence it, ending it prematurely, or them just going thru the motions.

I mean I guess if you are saying he is avoiding the investigation again, that is a fair point. but that "corruption" is just on him, unlike previously where other parties were involved in the "cover up". so in this case I don't have the same reasons to question the investigation itself, even if the subject of the investigation is worth scepticism.

You find the things you've heard about the criminal investigation to be credible?

 

[LouderVol]

You find the things you've heard about the criminal investigation to be credible?

calling into question the happenstances of the criminal investigation dismall, yes I find it credible.

but I likewise don't have issue with the end result, no trial thus not guilty. I just find the way that end result came to be as questionable.

which I guess I do take similar exceptions to how the political ethics investigation is ending. he doesn't have to be found "not guilty" for me to assume he is not guilty; I just find the constant avoidance to be suspicious. part of the suspicion is definitely fed from my questions regarding the way the criminal investigation ended.

I think if there had been fewer questions about the criminal investigation I wouldn't think twice about the ethics investigation being ended with no public report.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Marjorie Taylor Greene Threatens GOP Colleagues over Ethics Reports: ‘Put It All Out There’​

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) slammed her Republican colleagues for talking about releasing ethics reports related to former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), telling them to “put it all out there.”

In a post on X, Greene stated that if her Republican “colleagues in the House and Senate” were going to release ethics reports “and rip apart” people from their party that President-elect Donald Trump had selected to be in his cabinet, then they should “put it ALL out there.”

Greene continued: “all of your sexual harassment and assault claims that were secretly settled paying off victims with tax payer money, the entire Jeffrey Epstein files, tapes, recordings, witness interviews but not just those, there’s more, Epstein wasn’t/isn’t the only asset. If we’re going to dance, let’s all dance in the sunlight. I’ll make sure we do.”

MTG on GOP Colleagues Releasing Ethics Reports: 'Put It All Out There'

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) slammed her Republican colleagues for discussing the release of ethics reports on Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL).

www.breitbart.com

 

[lawgator1]

Marjorie Taylor Greene Threatens GOP Colleagues over Ethics Reports: ‘Put It All Out There’​

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) slammed her Republican colleagues for talking about releasing ethics reports related to former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), telling them to “put it all out there.”

In a post on X, Greene stated that if her Republican “colleagues in the House and Senate” were going to release ethics reports “and rip apart” people from their party that President-elect Donald Trump had selected to be in his cabinet, then they should “put it ALL out there.”

Greene continued: “all of your sexual harassment and assault claims that were secretly settled paying off victims with tax payer money, the entire Jeffrey Epstein files, tapes, recordings, witness interviews but not just those, there’s more, Epstein wasn’t/isn’t the only asset. If we’re going to dance, let’s all dance in the sunlight. I’ll make sure we do.”

MTG on GOP Colleagues Releasing Ethics Reports: 'Put It All Out There'

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) slammed her Republican colleagues for discussing the release of ethics reports on Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL).

www.breitbart.com

Again, this omits the point that Gaetz is nominated to be AG. That does change things.

 

[lawgator1]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/19/politics/matt-gaetz-house-ethics-testimony-lawyer/index.html

The allegations in here ought to be relatively easy to show, there are photos or not, and there ought to be some evidence of the payments.