Report: Investigators Looking Into Gaetz Trip To Bahamas As Part Of Probe Into Sex Trafficking 1

Report: Investigators Looking Into Gaetz Trip To Bahamas As Part Of Probe Into Sex Trafficking

 

CBS News is reporting that “Federal investigators are looking into a Bahamas trip Matt Gaetz allegedly took in late 2018 or early 2019 as part of an inquiry into whether the Florida representative violated sex trafficking laws.” Aired on 04/07/2021.
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

About The ReidOut with Joy Reid: Joy Reid conducts one-on-one conversations with politicians and newsmakers while addressing provocative political issues both inside and outside of the beltway. Reid, who is also a best-selling author and public speaker, joined MSNBC in 2011 as a contributor. Drawing from her decades-long experience in politics, passion for addressing the intersection of race, justice and culture, as well as her signature tenacious interviewing style, Reid kicks off MSNBC’s primetime lineup by delving into American politics as it unfolds.
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com:
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

#SexTrafficking #MattGaetz #MSNBC

Report: Investigators Looking Into Gaetz Trip To Bahamas As Part Of Probe Into Sex Trafficking

54 comments

  1. When you under investigation, everything will be looked at. This is getting delicious and closer to the sounds of metal doors slamming shut. WTG.

    1. @Aranyani Green omg I just heard that quote on bill burr’s podcast and even wrote it down! coincidence? I think not! great quote, and true

    2. @Bunny, Easter It is a famous verse from Sir Walter Scott’s “Marmion,” but it is often assumed that it comes from Shakespeare, since it has that distinct “shakespearean wisdom” style. Like all poets, Scott was a keen observer of human nature and of the ways life tends to reverse the fortunes of men, and so more than a century later, Matt Gaetz’s current troubles are proving him right.

  2. MATT did alot of nasty tjings with these teenager’s thats WRONG that MATT was paying these TRIPS for wit campaign MONEY like for reel these PPL aint LYING on MATT he COMMITTED CRIMES

    1. @Michael Udeze a Trump blanket pardon for Gaetz would not have saved Gaetz from charges of these alleged crimes, because they are state crimes too.

      They could be prosecuted by the states unless there are also pardons from the governors from all the states involved. Remember, the allegation is s3. x trafficking of minors by Gaetz, trafficking requires the crossing of borders. Several state jurisdictions are involved here.

      Also, pardons must be specific or broadly specific. They cannot be outright broad. It must at least say for what category of crimes, if not for the crime itself in specific detail. If it doesn’t, the pardon will not be valid.

      Accepting the pardon is legally an admission of guilt, that is SCOTUS precedent.

      Lastly, a pardon (whether presidential or from a governor) only extinguishes criminal liability. The victim can still sue civilly. No pardon has the power to extinguish civil claims or stop court proceedings in civil courts. Pardons only extinguish liability in criminal courts and the power of government to punish you, it doesn’t extinguish a victim from seeking civil damages.

      De Santis or any other governor giving Gaetz a pardon would end that Governor’s career. Gaetz is not getting a Governor pardon for this.

      Gaetz, what did you do?

    2. It can only get better when either the Bahamas police or Interpol get into investigating Geatzgate , ha ha !!

    3. @D SP You are wrong. Blanket pardons for ANYTHING done previously are possible. They call them preemptive pardons and it started with the one Ford gave to Nixon. That is called a precedent. And it made it acceptable.
      Look it up.

    4. @TheJimprez preemptive pardons are totally different. Preemptive pardons refer to pardons for crimes not yet in the justice system. They preempt prosecution.

      You’re getting different concepts mixed up.

      But just for clarity, while purportedly blanket pardons have been issued previously, they’re simply void or voidable.

      Nixon was given a blanket pardon which the government CHOSE to honor, though they didn’t have to if they had challenged it, then they could’ve prosecuted him because the wording was unconstitutional because it was too broad.

      If you give me a pardon for theft, and make it blanket, I could be getting away with murders I committed unrelated to the thefts. This is why blanket pardons are null and void. They have to at least describe a broad category of crimes even if without specifics, or to avoid doubt they should specify the specific crime.

    5. @TheJimprez finally, the executive branch doesn’t create precedent with the acts they take. The judicial branch creates precedents with what acts of the executive SCOTUS allows to withstand judicial scrutiny.

      SCOTUS has NEVER created precedent for blanket pardons. If Nixon’s pardon had come before them they would have nullified it ab initio.

      It was the Ford DOJ which chose to honor the null and void blanket pardon Ford gave to Nixon by not challenging the pardon and prosecuting him. That choice by the DOJ did not create precedent. That pardon and any subsequent blanket pardon can at any time be taken to the courts to have actual judicial precedent established for or against blanket pardons, once and for all.

      The point is, there is no precedent as relates to blanket pardons, contrary to what you claimed, because only SCOTUS creates precedent, not officials, not the executive, not government agencies. All those non-judicial “precedents” must be followed within the agencies that created them until SCOTUS decides definitively.

      The precedent to not indict a sitting president is a good example of such a precedent within the DOJ. It must be followed by the DOJ until SCOTUS is asked to adjudicate on it. So far, a case has not come before SCOTUS for its determination, and so the rule that you can’t indict a sitting president is followed by the DOJ for now because they established it upon themselves.

  3. Trivia Question: Who is the only person in Congress to vote against a bill that combats 5exTrafficking?

    That’s right, it was Matt Gaetz, the same guy who is currently under investigation for 5exTrafficking.

    Coincidence? I think not.

    1. @Jon Dough the state trafficking allegations made it domestic. Bahamas made it international. Then I speak of both.

    2. @D SP write your comment properly.
      It’s the writer that must convey to the reader what they want.
      You’re lacking.

    3. @Jon Dough my comment even started with “…the *EARLIER* [emphasis added] alleged facts with Gaetz…” which I said made it domestic trafficking. That was immediately followed by “now…” (referring to the current video we are posting on which is about the Bahamas) “…it’s international trafficking”.

      It’s not my fault if you did not read all the words in my initial first sentence, and then misconstrued everything that followed. So you can take your little snarky comment and ask yourself what state # the Bahamas is, because I never said it was a part of the USA.

      You misread my comment.

  4. Who else feels like once he is prosecuted, he will talk and bring up other names. I feel like this is going to happen.

    1. Matt like Don would sell his children to avoid any real consequences.
      A portrait in dishonesty and cowardice….
      Squirrel!!

  5. A number of Gaetz colleagues have also spoken out about “love of alcohol and illegal drugs, as well as his proclivity for younger women”.

  6. I just started playing Diablo II again, after a lengthy hiatus. At a certain point in the game, my sorceress character says “Who would have thought that such primitive beings could cause so much trouble?” and in my mind I said “You’ve obviously never heard of Q-Anon.” Good times.

    1. @PrimordialMeow and you know that he already has that prosperity preachers grift going for him as well! Yuck

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.