• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


Jimmy Dore: The Matt Gaetz allegations

TheTexan said:
lol that $#@!'s nuts
Click to expand...

I thought it was odd that they just up and dropped the investigation, but the official fake IDs would throw a wrench in the accusation that he willingly and knowingly had sex with a minor.

Not a lot of difference between 17 and 18 and if she shows you an actual driver's license issued by a government office then that would be hard to fault.

I'd heard about the extortion of Gaetz's father but that's the first I've heard about the tax commissioner.
 
Just to provide me with better understanding of the situation, does anyone have a full body shot of this alleged 17 year old?

If she looks like Schwarzenegger's maid, then I would have serious concerns about his judgement.
 
CaptUSA said:
Reality?? I mean, I keep telling you that. Your fear-induced paranoia, notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

It's a start that you put those 2 question marks at the end. The answer is NO.

I just Follow the Money, brother. Don't tell me that there's no such thing as TSA, Patriot Act, Gitmo, NSA scooping up data without a warrant, etc. Otherwise, there really is no hope for you, even though you put 2 question marks at the end.
 
PAF said:
It's a start that you put those 2 question marks at the end. The answer is NO.

I just Follow the Money, brother. Don't tell me that there's no such thing as TSA, Patriot Act, Gitmo, NSA scooping up data without a warrant, etc. Otherwise, there really is no hope for you, even though you put 2 question marks at the end.
Click to expand...

Reality is that I never said any of that. Again, you're paranoid delusions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJB
The reality is that reality is reality. It is refreshing to have reality at least presented.

Complaining about everything especially things that cannot be changed is a waste of energy.

I think it would be wise to attach to the positive change, if any, and maybe that would gain momentum and possibly afford more change.

Any person that thinks that the USA will be a Libertarian Utopia is delusional. Truth be told there is no such thing. Libertarians cannot even agree on any basic concepts.
 
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged said:
The reality is that reality is reality. It is refreshing to have reality at least presented.

Complaining about everything especially things that cannot be changed is a waste of energy.

I think it would be wise to attach to the positive change, if any, and maybe that would gain momentum and possibly afford more change.

Any person that thinks that the USA will be a Libertarian Utopia is delusional. Truth be told there is no such thing. Libertarians cannot even agree on any basic concepts.
Click to expand...


Yeah, many of the new breed "libertarians" seem to completely disregard the basic Bill of Rights. I guess those are not wanted/outdated too, and folks should just go with the flow for the sake of the Billionaire's Club, Bankers and Technocrats.
 
In 1790, the benefits of U.S. citizenship included several key aspects:


1. **Political Participation**:
- **Voting Rights**: Citizenship conferred the right to vote in federal elections, although voting rights at the state level could be more restrictive based on property ownership, race, or gender.
- **Office Holding**: Only U.S. citizens could hold federal office or serve in certain capacities within the government.


2. **Protection and Rights**:
- **Legal Protections**: U.S. citizens were entitled to the protections of the U.S. Constitution, including rights under the Bill of Rights (freedom of speech, religion, etc.).
- **Diplomatic Protection**: Citizens could seek protection from the U.S. government when abroad, which was crucial given the geopolitical landscape of the time.


3. **Land Ownership**:
- **Property Rights**: While not exclusive to citizens, citizenship could facilitate easier access to land ownership in some states, especially as the U.S. expanded westward.


4. **Economic Opportunities**:
- **Trade and Commerce**: Being a citizen could ease the process of obtaining licenses or engaging in certain trades or professions, especially those regulated by federal law.
- **Access to Federal Lands**: Policies like the Homestead Act (which came later in 1862) would eventually provide benefits explicitly for citizens.


5. **Social Status**:
- **Social Integration**: Citizenship symbolized full membership in the American polity, providing a sense of belonging and acceptance in society.


6. **Military Service**:
- **Voluntary Service**: Citizens could join the military, which wasn't just about protection but could also offer paths to land grants or other benefits.


7. **Jury Service**:
- **Participation in the Legal System**: Citizens could serve on juries, an important civic duty and right that influenced legal proceedings.


However, these benefits had significant limitations:


- **Racial Restrictions**: The Naturalization Act of 1790 restricted citizenship to "free white persons," excluding many from these benefits based on race.
- **Gender**: Women's rights were tied to their husbands' or fathers' citizenship status, with few independent rights.
- **Slavery**: Enslaved individuals were not considered citizens and thus had no access to these benefits.


Remember, the concept of citizenship and its benefits evolved over time. The benefits listed were foundational and would expand (or in some cases, be redefined) as the nation grew and its laws changed.
 
At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, migration into the United States wasn't controlled in the modern sense, but there were foundational steps towards what would become immigration policy:


- **Lack of Formal Control**: There were no extensive federal immigration laws or border controls as we understand them today. States had some local regulations, but the federal government did not have a comprehensive system for immigration control.


- **Naturalization Process**: The first significant legislative action on citizenship was:


- **The Naturalization Act of 1790** (passed shortly after the Bill of Rights, in 1790):
- This act established the first federal procedures for naturalization, essentially how one could become a U.S. citizen. It set forth:
- **Eligibility**: Only "free white persons" of "good character" could apply for citizenship.
- **Residency Requirement**: Applicants needed to have resided in the U.S. for two years before applying for citizenship.
- **Procedure**: Applicants needed to appear before a court to declare their intent to become citizens and to swear an oath of allegiance.


- **Race and Citizenship**: The 1790 Act explicitly limited citizenship to "free white persons," reflecting the racial biases of the time which would influence immigration policy for over a century. This act was the first to legally define who could become a citizen based on race.


- **Context of the Bill of Rights**: While the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) does not directly address immigration or naturalization, it laid down the framework for individual rights which would later be interpreted to include non-citizens in certain contexts. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, would eventually extend citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States.


- **Posts from X**: Discussions on social media platforms like X often highlight the Naturalization Act of 1790, focusing on its racial restrictions, indicating public interest or debate on how early U.S. citizenship laws were structured.


In summary, at the time of the Bill of Rights, migration control was minimal, but the groundwork for citizenship was laid with the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was very restrictive in terms of who could become a citizen based on race and residency.


Citations:
- [](http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/immigrationlaw/chapter2.html)
- [](https://x.com/kenzietuff/status/1685720951126642688)
 
It is kind of funny how the main reason for citizenship was to be able to participate and vote. Now some think open borders and allowing illegals to vote is fine.
 
The first real immigration policies in the United States were enacted in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with significant milestones including:


1. **The Page Act of 1875**:
- This was the first restrictive federal immigration law, aimed at limiting the entry of certain groups:
- It prohibited the entry of convicts, prostitutes, and Chinese contract laborers.
- This act is often cited as the beginning of federal control over immigration because it was the first to define categories of people who were inadmissible.


2. **The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882**:
- This was the first law to explicitly exclude an entire ethnic group from immigrating to the United States.
- It suspended Chinese immigration for ten years and later made this exclusion permanent until its repeal in 1943.
- It also barred Chinese immigrants from naturalization.


3. **The Immigration Act of 1891**:
- Created the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration within the Treasury Department, formalizing federal administration of immigration.
- This act expanded the list of excludable classes, including those likely to become public charges, people with contagious diseases, and polygamists.


4. **The Immigration Act of 1903**:
- Further expanded exclusion criteria to include anarchists, epileptics, and those with mental or physical disabilities.
- It also established the practice of deporting immigrants who had entered the country illegally or committed crimes after entry.


5. **The Immigration Act of 1917 (also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act)**:
- Introduced a literacy test for immigrants over 16, which was designed to limit immigration from southern and eastern Europe.
- Created an "Asiatic Barred Zone," excluding immigration from most of Asia, except for Japan and the Philippines.


6. **The Emergency Quota Act of 1921**:
- Introduced the first numerical limits on immigration, setting annual quotas based on 3% of the number of foreign-born individuals of each nationality residing in the U.S. in 1910.
- This act marked the beginning of a policy based on national origins, favoring immigration from Western Europe.


7. **The Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act)**:
- Established a more stringent quota system, reducing the annual quota to 2% of each nationality's population in the U.S. as per the 1890 census, effectively reducing immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.
- It also completely excluded immigration from Asia (formalizing the exclusion of Japanese immigrants).


These laws were the first to systematically control immigration based on nationality, race, health, political beliefs, and economic criteria, setting the foundation for modern U.S. immigration policy. They reflect a shift from an era of relatively open immigration to one where the U.S. government began to more explicitly select who could enter based on various criteria, often with discriminatory intent.
 
PAF said:
Yeah, many of the new breed "libertarians" seem to completely disregard the basic Bill of Rights. I guess those are not wanted/outdated too, and folks should just go with the flow for the sake of the Billionaire's Club, Bankers and Technocrats.
Click to expand...
To consider how the founders might view the Bill of Rights in relation to the present day, we must analyze their original intentions, the context of the time, and how those intentions align or diverge from current interpretations and applications:

### **Original Intentions and Context:**


- **Protection Against Government Overreach**: The founders, particularly those like James Madison, George Mason, and Thomas Jefferson, saw the Bill of Rights as essential protections against potential tyranny. They aimed to ensure that the new federal government would not infringe upon fundamental liberties that the states and individuals were to retain.


- **Specific vs. General Rights**: Some founders, like Madison, were initially skeptical about the need for a Bill of Rights, fearing that listing specific rights might imply that those not listed were not protected. However, the inclusion of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments was meant to address this, preserving rights not explicitly mentioned to the people or the states.


- **Federalism**: The Bill of Rights was intended to limit the federal government's powers, not initially the states'. The concept of "incorporation" (applying the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment) would have been a significant shift from the original federalist structure.


### **Present-Day Application and Interpretation:**


- **Expansion Through Incorporation**: The founders would likely be surprised (or perhaps pleased, depending on their views on state vs. federal power) by how the Supreme Court has applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.


- **Interpretation of Rights**:
- **First Amendment**: The breadth of free speech protections today, including digital speech, would be a notable evolution. Founders might be intrigued by the debates over social media platforms and free speech.

- **Second Amendment**: The founders would likely see the current debates over gun control and the right to bear arms quite differently from today's polarized perspectives, given their context of militias and personal defense in a less densely populated, less technologically advanced society.


- **Fourth Amendment**: The implications of digital privacy and surveillance would be a significant consideration, as the founders worried about unlawful searches but could not have foreseen modern technology's capabilities.


- **Civil Rights and Liberties**: The extension of rights to groups not explicitly considered at the founding, such as women, African Americans, and other minorities, would be a profound change. Founders like Jefferson and Madison, who later advocated for broader human rights, might appreciate this evolution, while others with more restrictive views on citizenship might not.


- **Modern Challenges**:
- **National Security vs. Individual Rights**: The balancing act between security measures and civil liberties post-9/11 would be a point of contention, reflecting debates about the balance of power and liberty that were central to the founding era.

- **Technology**: The founders would have to grapple with how rights apply in the digital age, from privacy online to free speech on platforms not envisioned in their time.


### **Potential Views:**


- **Madison**: Might view the incorporation doctrine and expansive interpretation of rights as necessary adaptations to ensure liberty in a changing society, though he might also caution against overreach by a central government.


- **Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists**: Federalists who were initially against a Bill of Rights might see its modern application as an overreach unless they accepted the necessity of adapting to new threats to liberty. Anti-Federalists would likely be pleased with the Bill's enduring role in protecting individual rights against government power.


- **General Reaction**: The founders would probably recognize the Bill of Rights as having evolved into a more dynamic tool for liberty than they might have anticipated, possibly with mixed feelings about how some rights have expanded while others remain contentious in modern debates.


In summary, the founders would likely have a complex view, appreciating the enduring relevance of the Bill of Rights but also debating its application in contexts they never could have imagined, like digital rights, modern weaponry, and the balance between national security and personal freedoms.
 
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged said:
The reality is that reality is reality. It is refreshing to have reality at least presented.

Complaining about everything especially things that cannot be changed is a waste of energy.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The point of PAF's posts lately is to derail every thread into his paranoid fears coupled with a purity test. Case in point, this thread was about Matt Gaetz and the weaponization of these blackmail schemes. There was a time not so long ago, that these things could be done without fear of being exposed. It's good that this is no longer the case.
 
GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged said:
It is kind of funny how the main reason for citizenship was to be able to participate and vote. Now some think open borders and allowing illegals to vote is fine.
Click to expand...

You seem to somehow think that voting actually matters. It's not as if immigrants prevented Trump to win.

You guys are given a "choice" among the preselected by the tptb, this time Trump/Kamala, who were both given money by BlackRock and Israel Firsters. And then you go into a voting booth and actually feel like you participated in something wonderful as you put that sticker on your jacket. Immigrants didn't force you to vote for Trump anymore than they did Kamala. Peter Thiel, Miriam Adelson, BlackRock, the MIC, throw literally millions and millions into those campaigns when immigrants don't even have enough left over to shine their own shoes.

Voting. Fair elections. Cheating. Good grief, the Bankers, Technocrats, Israel, MIC et al thank you for your dedication to this thing called "voting". Yippee. And when Rights are trampled on, you blame the immigrants as you allow it to happen because "it's going to happen anyway".

Purity test my @ss [MENTION=30558]CaptUSA[/MENTION] As Sheldon says: think, monkey, think. Instead of parroting lamestream msm propaganda. Where's the ball!


PS, [MENTION=30558]CaptUSA[/MENTION] , "weaponization" of Matt Gaetz. I'm glad his sorry @ass is out of there:


Matt Gaetz voted YES on S. 546 Federal Police Grants - Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution does not authorize Congress to support local law-enforcement agencies. Federal funding of local police departments and county sheriffs comes with strings attached, usually in the form of oversight, regulations, and other homogenized standards — none of which are constitutional.

Matt Gaetz voted YES on H.R. 4824 Carbon Sequestration - The federal government has no authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to engage in energy or environmental policy. Furthermore, carbon sequestration is closely connected to the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which is antithetical to the Constitution and U.S. sovereignty.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?564423-Matt-Gaetz-On-The-Record
​
 
Last edited:
Glad that Jimmy Dore covered this story. From another thread:

Brian4Liberty said:
...
Incredible thread. If true, it would make sense that the Trump Admin would not want to open this can of worms right now. When Gaetz said he dropped out because it was a "distraction", that may have been more true than anyone realizes. This could go so far down the rabbit hole that no one would want this to come out.

⚡️Matt Gaetz ��: What Actually Happened

Alright frens, now that Matt Gaetz is out of the running you’re going to hear a lot of takes on what happened and plenty of “keep your d*ck in your pants” lines too.

And while that’s always good advice, the story I’m about to share goes way beyond anything you could possibly imagine. So if you’re interested in the whole story, consolidated in one place, of what really happened with and to Gaetz, take a seat and let me tell you a story.

Part I: The Tax Collector

This story begins in Fall 2019 in Florida, with this man: Joel Greenberg.

At the time Joel Greenberg was 2.5 years into his first term as the Tax Collector for Seminole County.

Greenberg is your classic rich kid who dinks through life lighting fires everyone else is forced to put out. Never landing hard bc daddy’s money always catches his fall. You know the type. We all do. And Joel approached his role as tax collector no different than any other.

By Fall 2019 Seminole County was awash with rumors about the federal investigation into Greenberg’s crypto scam with tax collector dollars.
These rumors inspired a local music teacher, Brian Beute, to throw his hat in the ring and challenge Greenberg in the Republican primary slated for the following year.

Despite the many advantages Greenberg held over Beute in the race (incumbency, wealth, name recognition, etc) Greenberg’s significant criminal activity as tax collector likely contributed to him becoming obsessed with destroying Beute, both publicly and privately.

So throughout late 2019 and into 2020 Greenberg rolled out a series of ever escalating smear tactics targeting Beute. They started rather typical, labeling Beute, who is from Michigan, as a carpetbagger.

But they grew increasingly viscous. He created fake Facebook profiles pretending to be Beute’s students, leaving comments on public posts trashing Beute as an awful teacher and a pervert.

Greenberg’s antics finally reached an apex when he mailed handwritten letters to the administrators at the school where Beute taught, accusing him of sexually assaulting his students.

Greenberg probably didn’t expect those letters to be taken so seriously or else he likely would’ve been a little more careful.

But alas he was not, and when the letters were turned over to the local sheriff’s office both his fingerprints and DNA were lifted from them and he was arrested on June 23, 2020 and charged by the DOJ with stalking.

At the time of his arrest, Greenberg’s phone was confiscated and searched. And… believe it or not, this is where his REAL legal troubles began.

On his cellphone (and later home computers) police found evidence of Greenberg committing damn near every crime in the book: embezzlement, drugs, prostitution, identify theft, wire fraud, crypto market manipulation… but the silver tuna was a series of messages that occurred in the late Spring through early Fall of 2017 between Greenberg and a then 17 year old girl discussing, among other things, their many sexcapades around Florida and beyond.

Further investigation revealed that from December 2016 through 2018 Joel Greenberg was a customer on a “Sugar Daddy” website where he solicited various women for sex and escort services. This is where he met the aforementioned 17 year old.

All told, Mr. Greenberg spent over $70,000 on hookers he met on the Sugar Daddy website, much of which he paid for with his government issued AMEX card.

In August 2020 the DOJ charged Joel Greenberg with sex trafficking of a minor, identify theft and production of false identification documents, among other things.

Turns out, in Florida, the office of county tax collector doesn’t just collect taxes, they also issue driver’s licenses and state IDs.

And Mr. Greenberg had taken full advantage of this privilege during his time in office. Greenberg had not only created multiple false Florida ID cards for himself, he also created a fake ID for his underage lover after finding out that she had been lying to him about her age.

And this is where Matt Gaetz comes into the story.

From what I can gather, Gaetz and Greenberg became acquainted at some point in the first half of 2017. The first public record of them associating on a private level comes from a picture posted to X (then Twitter) on July 8, 2017 with none other than Roger Stone.

I think it’s safe to say that the two did become friends. How good a friends? That’s up for debate. But there was a relationship.

After getting arrested in June 2020, at some point Mr. Greenberg (lawyer’s?) approaches Bill Barr’s DOJ with a proposition: he claims he can provide evidence that a sitting Congressman (Gaetz) had engaged in sex acts with a minor.

Bill Barr’s DOJ then proceeds to open a secret investigation into these allegations, that remains a secret until it is leaked the next spring, on March 30, 2021 by The NY Times.

PART II: The Man In Iran

Faithful viewers of the Tucker Carlson were treated to a peak behind the DC curtain on a random Tuesday night in late March 2021.
Earlier that day The New York Times had released a bombshell story alleging that the DOJ had opened an official investigation into Gaetz over allegations he had engaged in sex with an underage girl.

Following Tucker’s opening monologue he introduced Matt Gaetz and gave him free rein to tell his side of the story. Anyone watching is unlikely to soon forget the absolute bizarre story that Gaetz proceeded to tell.

It involved a $25 million extortion threat against his father to help free an American hostage in Iran that would then be paid back with a presidential pardon for Gaetz on all these charges.

Gaetz demanded that the FBI release the tapes they had in their possession of the recordings made by his father in interviews with his extortionist. He didn’t hesitate for a second to name the alleged extortionist: David McGee.

Said he was a former prosecutor for the Northern District of Florida who now worked at the prestigious Biggs & Lane law firm in Pensacola.

He was resolute and unafraid when talking… and yet he sounded like an absolute lunatic. I know. I was watching live. And I wasn’t the only one.

Tucker was clearly extremely annoyed and unconvinced by the end… and yet 3.5 years later, I now know that everything he said was TRUE.
Bob Levinson was the man in Iran.

The official story about Bob Levinson is he was a retired FBI agent who was contracted by a semi-off the books CIA unit to run a covert-op in Iran.

He was kidnapped from Kish Island following a meeting with an American fugitive living in Iran that had been arranged by a former NBC producer named Ira Silverman.

(This thread is already long enough so I’m not going to speculate on what I think, but there’s plenty out there if you want to go chasing rabbits.)

So Levinson gets kidnapped in March 2007 and his disappearance was acknowledged by George Bush in June 2007 as “concerning.” But no one from the federal government will admit that Levinson was working for the CIA.

Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, from 2009-2011 the FBI was running its own covert operation to get their retired agent back and they had devised an ingenious plan to keep the whole thing off the books:

they contracted with a Russian billionaire, Oleg Deripaska, to pay for the rescue mission ($20 million in total) in exchange for a fast tracked green cards for Deripaska and his family.

Enter: David McGee. During his time at the DOJ McGee worked an organized crime task force. That’s how he knew Bob Levinson- who specialized in Russian money laundering. McGee became a liaison between the Levinson family and Deripaska.

(Now let me just stop right here and say this whole thing is NUTS and stinks to high heavens. To make matters worse, who was the FBI point man on the Deripaska deal? Andrew McCabe. Yep. That Andrew McCabe.)

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...-and-it-leads-directly-to-a-russian-oligarch/
Anywho, the FBI team gets a couple proof of life videos and they have a soft arrangement in place when the Clinton State Department steps in and shuts the whole thing down. Something got them spooked. What that was has never been disclosed.

After 2011 Levinson is never heard from again. All along the Iranians deny any involvement in his disappearance (expected) so eventually the CIA gets desperate and a handful of classified documents confirming Levinson’s contract with the CIA are leaked to the AP in Dec 2013.
Still, the Iranians don’t budge. This was surprising because at this point they no longer have any reason to lie. The Americans weren’t lying anymore. Time to start negotiations. But nope. The news was greeted with radio silence.

Years go by and no more pictures or videos ever arrive. And then comes the Iranian Nuclear Deal of 2016.
Unbeknownst to most, the Obama team had negotiated the release of four Americans being held in Iran in exchange for the US dropping charges against seven Iranian nationals for sanctions violations. Bob Levinson was not one of those Americans.

The American Jewish community was furious. They already saw the Iranian deal as a stab in the back to Israel. But when word broke about the prisoner exchange and Bob Levinson wasn’t on the list, many took it as a deliberate betrayal of American Jews too.

American Jews Ask, #WhatAboutBob?

Robert Levinson, now the longest-held hostage in US history, disappeared in Iran in 2007 while working unofficially for the CIA

https://www.voanews.com/a/american-jews-ask-what-about-bob/3154879.html

Flash forward some more, Trump takes office, cancels the Nuclear Deal; Christine Levinson sues Iran in US Courts and is awarded a $1.2 billion judgement in January 2020, and in March 2020 the US government declares Bob Levinson legally dead. Case closed, right?

Wrong.

At some point in Summer 2020 a former Air Force intelligence officer named Bob Kent claims to have received news from his “network in Iraq” alleging that Bob Levinson was still alive. Kent even claims he received pictures to prove it.

So Kent contacts David McGee who then tells Kent about the last privately funded search and rescue for Levinson and that’s when Kent hatches the plan to rope Don Gaetz into paying for this one.

Now I know what you’re all wondering: how did these men know about the Matt Gaetz investigation?

To my knowledge that has never been revealed. If I had to guess, I’d say someone in the DOJ or FBI leaked that info to McGee who then told Kent about it when he was contacted. But that’s still only have the answer.

(This is the part of the story where I start spiraling. I start wondering just how long this plan had been in the works. Nothing adds up. But for now, I’ll spare you my suspicions and stick to what I know.)

Part III: The Grand Plan

It was March 16, 2021 when Don Gaetz received the first text message from Bob Kent about his grand plan.
In exchange for Don fronting Mr. Kent’s rescue mission of Bob Levinson, unnamed agents with powerful contacts in the Biden administration would convince the president to give Don’s son Matt a full presidential pardon on his looming sex trafficking charges.

The price: 25 million dollars.

(I wish I had a picture of Don Gaetz’ face when he read that.)

Naturally Gaetz Sr. was incredulous. What in the world was this man talking about? Matt wasn’t facing any sex trafficking charges. Don called Matt who immediately told him to contact the local FBI office.

The FBI suggested that Don meet with David McGee wearing a wire and Don agreed. However, just before the meeting took place, Don requested a written acknowledgment from the FBI on the purpose of this investigation and meeting.

He was worried something he said could be used against Matt in the case they still didn’t know anything about. The FBI was reluctant at first but they eventually agreed.

The very next day The New York Times ran the leak on the DOJ’s case against Gaetz.


Matt Gaetz Is Said to Face Justice Dept. Inquiry Over Sex With an Underage Girl (Published 2021)

An inquiry into the Florida congressman was opened in the final months of the Trump administration, people briefed on it said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/...e_code=1.b04.vOXN.Yoa3PmFsIbyL&smid=url-share

Going back and watching the Tucker/Gaetz interview again this week, everything he said finally made sense. The FBI had planned to use Don’s meeting with McGee against Matt.

The quasi-immunity demand from Don quashed that so they leaked the story to The NY Times and then buried the wire tapes.
McGee and Kent denied everything. They said there was no extortion. It was a simple proposition. They accused Matt of using this to distract from his charges.

A third man was eventually charged with wire fraud in relation to case. And then the FBI just drops it all and pretends like none of that happened.
But wait, there’s more! Because this story wasn’t already weird enough… here’s another twist:

So at the same time that Don Gaetz was getting those messages from Kent and McGee… Scott Adams, you know, the Dilbert guy, receives a message from an acquaintance of his, Jacob Novak, who works as the media director for the Israeli Consulate.

The first one arrives the Saturday before the story breaks:

The next two arrive on Wednesday the 31st after Gaetz went on Tucker and revealed David McGee’s name to the world.

To his credit, the whole thing was sketchy as hell to Scott Adams so he took it upon himself to release Novak’s messages. The Israeli Consulate immediately distanced themselves from Novak’s messages but he was not fired or disciplined.

Part IV: Wrap Up

Joel Greenberg plead guilty to sex trafficking, identity fraud, wire fraud and host of other charges in May 2021. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison, with 10 of those coming from the mandatory minimum imposed by the sex trafficking charge.

The DOJ did not close its case against Matt Gaetz until October 2022. They never publicly acknowledged why he was not charged although it becomes fairly obvious once you learn that Joel Greenberg had produced fake IDs for the underage girl in question.

How can you convict someone of statutory rape when this woman was using a real state of Florida driver’s license to present as being of age?

But of course, because it’s the swamp, that’s not where Matt’s troubles ended. The snakes in DC were going to milk that investigation for all its worth and when Gaetz went for McCarthy during the speaker fight, McCarthy and his allies plotted carefully to get their revenge.

We saw the culmination of that plotting on full display today. There are still lots of unanswered questions. Who is the “we” that Jacob Novak referenced in his texts to Scott Adams? Who leaked the info about the Gaetz case to Bob Kent?

Was Joel Greenberg running a honeypot scheme? If so, for who? Sure would be nice to get an Attorney General in office who actually gave a damn about answering any of those questions.

Thank you so much for taking the time to read the whole thread! I know it was long but there really wasn’t any way to shorten it.
...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1859748387291107797.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Swordsmyth
Matt Gaetz explains why Massie is wrong and Trump right on passing the CR
2
Replies
34
Views
561
asurfaholic
asurfaholic
jmdrake
Jimmy Dore : ABC FINALLY Fact Checks Kamala’s Biggest Lie!
Replies
0
Views
353
jmdrake
jmdrake
jct74
Trump taps Rep. Matt Gaetz as attorney general
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
6K
Snowball
Snowball
susano
Matt Gaetz withdraws from nomination
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
tebowlives
tebowlives
W
John Bolton The War Hawk isnt Happy with Trump's Cabinet Matt Gaetz
Replies
5
Views
305
unknown
unknown
Back
Top