So Rep. Matt Gaetz is unlikely to be charged in sex-trafficking probe...
The Washington Post, citing people familiar with the case, reported yesterday that prosecutors have recommended against charging Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) in a long-running sex-trafficking investigation
The prosecutors informed the Justice Department that a conviction is unlikely because of credibility questions with the two central witnesses.
These two witnesses are a 17-year-old girl and Joel Greenberg, a former tax collector and one-time associate of Gaetz.
Greenberg pleaded guilty to multiple crimes such as sex trafficking of a child, aggravated identity theft, wire fraud, and defrauding a government loan program.
While investigating Greenberg’s conduct that investigators allegedly discovered evidence potentially implicating Gaetz in sex trafficking.
Greenberg has been providing investigators with information about Gaetz since last year.
The investigation of Gaetz’s alleged involvement with a 17-year-old girl several years earlier began in late 2020 with the approval of then-Attorney General Bill Barr.
Investigators were attempting to determine if Gaetz had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and paid for sex in violation of federal sex-trafficking laws.
They were also exploring whether Greenberg paid women to have sex with Gaetz and whether the two shared sexual partners, including the 17-year-old girl.
Earlier this year, a federal grand jury in Florida heard testimony from associates of Gaetz, including his former girlfriend.
Back in 2021, the FBI charged a Florida resident Stephen M. Alford for attempting to extort $25 million from Gaetz’s father Don to secure a presidential pardon for the younger Gaetz amid the ongoing sex-trafficking probe.
Gaetz is up for re-election in November.
Senior Justice Department officials have not made a final decision on whether to charge Gaetz
Gaetz consistently denied any wrongdoing from the very day the allegations surfaced.
The New York Times broke the news about the investigation but hasn’t carried any report that Gaetz is unlikely to be charged.
The fact that Democrat mouthpieces are reporting that Gaetz is unlikely to be charged should be treated as an exoneration. If there was even a smidgen of evidence against Gaetz, you can be sure they would have pushed the narrative to the midterms.
When allegations of such a nature are made, they are likely to rattle any individual. Gaetz is no different.
Hours after the New York Times broke the news about Gaetz being under federal investigation for alleged sex trafficking, he appeared on Tucker Carlson’s to tell his side of the story. Gaetz seemed shaken and unprepared and did a poor job of representing himself. Some media outlets claimed that Gaetz’s awkward presentation implied his guilt.
When Matt Gaetz voted against an anti-human trafficking bill that gave the federal government more money to fight the illegal trade across the country, the media assassins again implied it was proof of his guilt.
Gaetz said he voted against the bill because he felt the federal government have all the resources required to combat human trafficking and he wanted to limit the powers of the federal government.
Axios reported that Gaetz had “privately told confidants he’s seriously considering not seeking re-election and possibly leaving Congress early for a job at Newsmax.” Once again the implication was that he was guilty and feared repercussions and was running away.
When Gaetz revealed he was raising an immigrant child from Cuba for more than six years, the media used it as a dog whistle to imply sordidness. In most of their reports, the word son was in quotes.
If a Democrat had adopted a child of color, he would have been lauded and elevated to become a national hero. The NYT would have carried op-ed pieces imploring society not to frown at single male parents.
But since it was a MAGA Republican, they resorted to innuendo. It is ironic that those making the allegations claim to be progressive, tolerant, and liberal
The New York Times and the Washington Post reported that Gaetz was seeking a preemptive pardon from President Trump shortly before Trump left office. The media attempted to imply that it was proof of guilt.
In all of the above reports, words such as ‘bizarre’ and ‘weird’ were always used to imply sleaze. They prefixed Gaetz’s name with ‘controversial’ and followed his name with the sex trafficking allegation.
The same news media and ‘comics’ never talk about Hunter Biden despite ample evidence of deviant and criminal behavior.
So what happens now?
The lies about Gaetz traveled around the world and back again while the truth was lacing up its boots.
The news that Gaetz is unlikely to be charged isn’t being carried with the focused frenzy of the announcement of the investigation.
This is why the late great Rush Limbaugh referred to them as drive-by media. They spread falsehoods, ruin reputations and inflame the situation. By the time real facts emerge, they have moved on to the next story.
They issue corrigendum and retractions on inner pages while unproved allegations are on front pages. They seldom have the decency or the concern to issue corrections or retractions to restore damaged reputations.
Should we be grateful for small mercies, i.e., the fact that at least some news outlets reported the news about Rep. Matt Gaetz unlikely to be charged? There may be light at the end of the dark tunnel, but that light is flickering and very far away.
Knowing the politicization of agencies, do not expect any clearing of Gaetz’s name until the midterms are over. Even if there is an exoneration, do not be too surprised if they release an ambiguously worded statement that allows the reader to imagine that some improper conduct did occur but Gaetz was let go because of the lack of solid evidence.
The nature of allegations of sex crimes or sexual misconduct is such that the suspicion of guilt is often permanent. Even people who agree with Gaetz politically could potentially view him through a lens of suspicion.
The human mind is vulnerable when the allegations of such a nature do leave an impression.
One often hears remarks such as: ‘I don't know but he looks creepy to me. The perception is creepiness is often irrational and the result of the constant bombardment of a narrative. Sadly a reputation is sullied forever.
These propagandists think they are at war with MAGA Republicans. Since it is a war, they have convinced themselves that fairness is not required. They think their job is not to inform but to influence and brainwash. Inconvenient facts have no place here.
It isn't just media assassins, but also rogue personnel within government agencies who are guilty.
The public has no choice but to presume falsehood until proven factual.