Matt Gaetz reported to be leaving the House

Stacyhs said:
From: Politico
Joel Greenberg was set to be sentenced on Nov. 18 for six crimes he pleaded guilty to ...but prosecutors successfully implored U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell to wait until March so they can track down all of the leads Greenberg has given to investigators.

One of the problems though is that the closer they get to the mid-term elections, the less likely they will be to press charges against Gaetz, because they don't want to be seen as interfering in an election. (Not sure if it would be better or worse to see him arrested before the election, or immediately after.)
Click to expand...
The elections are over a year away. They have time to charge Gaetz well before.
Click to expand...
The elections may be in the fall, but the primaries are in the late summer. And the filing deadline is in the early summer.

Right now, that's over half a year away. But cases like this often drag on and on.
 
Segnosaur said:
The elections may be in the fall, but the primaries are in the late summer. And the filing deadline is in the early summer.

Right now, that's over half a year away. But cases like this often drag on and on.
Click to expand...

There isn't any law that a politician running for office, even near an election, cannot be charged with a crime. It's certainly been done before.
 
Stacyhs said:
There isn't any law that a politician running for office, even near an election, cannot be charged with a crime. It's certainly been done before.
Click to expand...

I can envisage a double standard emerging here. Officials wouldn't be allowed to charge a Republican with a crime within, say, 18 months of the primary for fear of political influence in the election - effectively making them above the law.

OTOH a Democrat could be charged at any point in time because the integrity of the election process is paramount and the public deserve to know that a candidate may be facing charges. :rolleyes:

It's the same kind of move they pulled with SCOTUS appointments
 
The Don said:
I can envisage a double standard emerging here. Officials wouldn't be allowed to charge a Republican with a crime within, say, 18 months of the primary for fear of political influence in the election - effectively making them above the law.

OTOH a Democrat could be charged at any point in time because the integrity of the election process is paramount and the public deserve to know that a candidate may be facing charges. :rolleyes:

It's the same kind of move they pulled with SCOTUS appointments
Click to expand...

It isn't like a mere indictment has hurt the political career of a republican politician. See the AG of Texas for one. He was indicted on securities fraud 6 years ago I think, but for some reason the AG of Texas seems to be holding the case back.
 
Stacyhs said:
The elections may be in the fall, but the primaries are in the late summer. And the filing deadline is in the early summer.

Right now, that's over half a year away. But cases like this often drag on and on.
Click to expand...
There isn't any law that a politician running for office, even near an election, cannot be charged with a crime. It's certainly been done before.
Click to expand...
I know there's no law about charging a politician running for office. It is more of a policy.

I can certainly understand the reasoning... an indictment is not a guarantee of guilt, and an over-zealous prosecutor could (in theory) "flip" a seat by a last-minute indictment days before an election that gets dropped after the vote.

(I do suspect it would depend on the crime too... a charge like murder might be treated differently than fraud, due to the nature of the crime and the investigation.)
 
Last edited:
Segnosaur said:
I know there's no law about charging a politician running for office. It is more of a policy.

I can certainly understand the reasoning... an indictment is not a guarantee of guilt, and an over-zealous prosecutor could (in theory) "flip" a seat by a last-minute indictment days before an election that gets dropped after the vote.

(I do suspect it would depend on the crime too... a charge like murder might be treated differently than fraud, due to the nature of the crime and the investigation.)
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the timeline. If an investigation has come to its natural conclusion and a charges can and are going to be levied, then so be it. Tough for the alleged culprit. It's when it's used as a political weapon that the ethics come into question. For example, Comey opening his mouth about Clinton when the investigation was not complete, much less charges even being considered, is when it's wrong.
 
Gaetz is still under the microscope:

https://news.yahoo.com/justice-department-reportedly-hired-prosecutors-130046467.html:
The Justice Department (DOJ) has hired two new prosecutors to work on the team investigating Rep. Matt Gaetz, a prominent congressional ally of former president Donald Trump.
...
Two sources familiar with the matter told the New York Times that one of prosecutors hired by the DOJ to work on the Gaetz case specialises in child exploitation matters, while the other specializes in public corruption.
Click to expand...
 
Stacyhs said:
I think it depends on the timeline. If an investigation has come to its natural conclusion and a charges can and are going to be levied, then so be it. Tough for the alleged culprit. It's when it's used as a political weapon that the ethics come into question. For example, Comey opening his mouth about Clinton when the investigation was not complete, much less charges even being considered, is when it's wrong.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. Not only were no charges looking at being pressed\considered, they just found a laptop with some emails on it. He didn't have to say anything at all until that laptop was thoroughly examined. I thought Comey should have faced a punishment for that, myself.

Galaxie said:
Gaetz is still under the microscope:

https://news.yahoo.com/justice-department-reportedly-hired-prosecutors-130046467.html:
Click to expand...

I would be concerned if I were Gaetz. Odd timing as well since the FBI announced that whatshisname that's cooperating moved back his sentencing until next year. I wonder what he's pointing them towards.
 
plague311 said:
I think it depends on the timeline. If an investigation has come to its natural conclusion and a charges can and are going to be levied, then so be it. Tough for the alleged culprit. It's when it's used as a political weapon that the ethics come into question. For example, Comey opening his mouth about Clinton when the investigation was not complete, much less charges even being considered, is when it's wrong.
Click to expand...
I agree wholeheartedly. Not only were no charges looking at being pressed\considered, they just found a laptop with some emails on it. He didn't have to say anything at all until that laptop was thoroughly examined. I thought Comey should have faced a punishment for that, myself.
Click to expand...
I seem to remember hearing that had Comey not said anything, there were republicans familiar with the laptop that would have leaked the information anyways.

Of course, even if that was true, it doesn't absolve Comey, who handled the situation poorly. Even if he thought he was being forced to talk about the laptop before information was leaked about it anyways, what he COULD have done was ran an 5 minute search for the most basic/obvious of information, say "we have the laptop but our initial search found nothing". (Then they could have done a more comprehensive search later, but it wouldn't have had the impact it did.)
 
Comey made the same mistake Garland is currently doing: assuming that the right side will win anyway, so they don't have to make an effort to protect it from abuse and lies.
 
Oh no! We almost lost one of the final legal minds of our generation!

From: The Independent
Florida congressman and Trump ally Matt Gaetz was briefly labelled a “delinquent” by the Florida Bar Association for failing to pay the $265 fees that allow him to practise law in the state.

Oh no! What would we do without Gaetz in the legal profession?

Also from the Independent...
Mr Gaetz has since paid the fees and been returned to the status of a “member in good standing,”

Whew... crisis averted.
 
Segnosaur said:
Oh no! We almost lost one of the final legal minds of our generation!

From: The Independent
Florida congressman and Trump ally Matt Gaetz was briefly labelled a “delinquent” by the Florida Bar Association for failing to pay the $265 fees that allow him to practise law in the state.

Oh no! What would we do without Gaetz in the legal profession?

Also from the Independent...
Mr Gaetz has since paid the fees and been returned to the status of a “member in good standing,”

Whew... crisis averted.
Click to expand...

Without Lin and Giulani able to practice, and possibly Powell, we'd have been in dire straits indeed!
 
Segnosaur said:
Oh no! We almost lost one of the final legal minds of our generation!

From: The Independent
Florida congressman and Trump ally Matt Gaetz was briefly labelled a “delinquent” by the Florida Bar Association for failing to pay the $265 fees that allow him to practise law in the state.

Oh no! What would we do without Gaetz in the legal profession?

Also from the Independent...
Mr Gaetz has since paid the fees and been returned to the status of a “member in good standing,”

Whew... crisis averted.
Click to expand...

I knew his fundraising had fallen on hard times, but $265....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom