New Court Filings Place Matt Gaetz at a Party at the Center of the Sex Trafficking Scandal
www.notus.org
This is the first public filing that cites sworn testimony alleging that Gaetz attended one of the long-rumored parties with a teenage girl.

Yesterday’s crazy keeps on keepin’ on…

  • nkat2112@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    611·
    2 months ago

    A noteworthy paragraph for context:

    The minor, who was a junior in high school at the time, arrived in her mother’s car for a July 15, 2017, party at the Florida home of Chris Dorworth, a lobbyist and friend of Gaetz’s, according to a court filing written by defense attorneys who interviewed witnesses as part of an ongoing civil lawsuit Dorworth brought in 2023.

    And shortly following that, this:

    One eyewitness cited in the court filings, a young woman referred to as K.M., provided a sworn affidavit that claimed the teenage girl was naked, partygoers were there to “engage in sexual activities,” and “alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy … and marijuana” were present. The teenage girl was identified in the filings only as A.B.

    This is all horrible.

    The article then goes into detail about recent developments with testimony. Many dots appear to be connected.

  • realcaseyrollins@thelemmy.clubEnglish
    301·
    2 months ago

    It’s looking more and more like his big fight with Kevin McCarthy was just about delaying this investigation. Shameful!

  • Soup@lemmy.cafeEnglish
    19·
    2 months ago

    Everyone pay close attention to how quickly nothing is done about this. Then be sure to forget about it in a week or so when Trump says some new dumb shit.

  • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
    16·
    2 months ago

    Is this more detail on the prior reports of him being a human trafficking pedophile that came out years ago, or something new?

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        142·
        2 months ago

        Nothing mysterious, no evidence. Everyone figured his buddy would squeal to spare himself jail time. Nada. The 17-yo girl in question wouldn’t testify either. Also, she had since started an OF site and prosecution felt she would get torn up as a witness.

        • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
          101·
          2 months ago

          After educating myself, agree - nothing mysterious.

          However, is this really the same as “no evidence”? -

          The recommendation comes in part because prosecutors have questions over whether the central witnesses in the long-running investigation would be perceived as credible before a jury.

          Sounds like they did have evidence, but it was more about the reaction of the jury to the witness for other reasons.

          • Tyfud@lemmy.worldEnglish
            61·
            2 months ago

            No objective evidence. It’s tough to build a case around key witnesses and testimonies that are easily assailable by the defense, especially ones that could play well to a jury.

            It’s not fair, and this all very, very likely happened as the court documents allege. But proving it in a court of law is a whole different thing.

            Prosecutors generally try not to take cases they’re not confident they can win. They’re underpaid and overworked and try and follow the 80/20 rule, which is that they can do more good prosecuting the 80% of cases that are slam dunks, than waste tax payer money chasing 20% of the cases that require just about “everything to go right” for them to come out on top.

            It’s one of the many things flawed within our justice system right now that a DA won’t pursue this because the blowback of losing the case would end their career.

          • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            2 months ago

            I had understood that the girl wouldn’t testify and the DA didn’t want that in any case?

        • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
          35·
          2 months ago

          since started an OF site

          Link?

          (You were all thinking it, I just care less about my fake internet points)

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
    62·
    2 months ago

    Why fucking bother? They’re just going to do what they did last time and let him go.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      102·
      2 months ago

      No, he wasn’t “let go”. The feds didn’t have the evidence and the witnesses wouldn’t talk. Now it’s different.

        • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
          73·
          2 months ago

          He’s my Congressman so I’ve followed this sordid tale closely. You, on the other hand, are going off memes and social media commentary.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            2 months ago

            I’m not looking at him. It doesn’t matter what he’s done or how much evidence there is.

            I’m looking at our legal system. It’s useless at holding the wealthy and connected accountable. He’ll walk.