Matt Gaetz Under Investigation

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2021, 04:44 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: It's very likely that the charges will be dismissed due to lack of evidence and then he'll be re-elected in a landslide.

Is he being charged?  I was under the impression that he was being investigated and that no charges had yet been filed.

Quote:Doesn't really matter if he did it or not.

It does to me.  I don't think his being forced to resign or be booted should need the same criteria as a criminal conviction.  If the investigation produces evidence that shows it's likely he did anything wrong he needs to go.

[CJD]

(04-05-2021, 04:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Is he being charged?  I was under the impression that he was being investigated and that no charges had yet been filed.


It does to me.  I don't think his being forced to resign or be booted should need the same criteria as a criminal conviction.  If the investigation produces evidence that shows it's likely he did anything wrong he needs to go.

Sorry, I expect the investigation to come up null. Misworded.

As far as whether he did it or not, what I mean is I don't expect him to face consequences regardless, so whether he did it or not is immaterial. 

Even if there was rock solid evidence that he did something improper, the right wing newsphere has so thoroughly primed its viewers to believe facing consequences for your actions/what you say is just "cancel culture" that I think even true issues would not resonate with his voters.

I wouldn't mind being proven wrong though.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-05-2021, 06:05 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Sorry, I expect the investigation to come up null. Misworded.

As far as whether he did it or not, what I mean is I don't expect him to face consequences regardless, so whether he did it or not is immaterial. 

Even if there was rock solid evidence that he did something improper, the right wing newsphere has so thoroughly primed its viewers to believe facing consequences for your actions/what you say is just "cancel culture" that I think even true issues would not resonate with his voters.

I wouldn't mind being proven wrong though.

No problem, and I wish I could disagree with you.  Also, I misworded in my post above, I meant to say his being removed from office should not have to meet the same level of proof as a criminal conviction.  While I wouldn't go with a "preponderance of the evidence" standard I'd certainly be satisfied with something less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

[GMDino]

My two favorite parts of Gaetz's op-ed are the parts where he lists past "scandals" and includes McCain being accused of having a black daughter...that was Republicans that started that one...and when he never even mentions the alleged plot to blackmail him that was his initial defense.

https://www.mediaite.com/print/matt-gaetz-defiantly-blames-dc-swamp-and-media-over-sex-trafficking-allegations-im-a-congressman-not-a-monk/

Quote:Matt Gaetz Defiantly Blames ‘DC Swamp’ and Media For Sex Trafficking Allegations: I Am ‘Not a Monk’

By Ken MeyerApr 5th, 2021, 1:03 pm
3923 comments



[img=58x20]http:://thebengalsboard.com/data:image/png;base64, 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[/img]

Congressman Matt Gaetz (R-FL) went on a full-throttle tear against his political foes in a new op-ed responding to the ongoing firestorm over a Justice Department investigation into allegations of sexual misconduct.

In a Washington Examiner column published Monday, Gaetz starts by lashing out at sex scandals from Democrats and their various outrages toward Republicans. He also blasted the news outlets that blew the lid on his scandalous allegations, saying they “are just repeating false allegations about a congressman who loathes the swamp and fights both sides of it on a daily basis.”


“Washington scandal cycles are predictable, and sex is especially potent in politics,” Gaetz writes. “Let me first remind everyone that I am a representative in Congress, not a monk, and certainly not a criminal.”


Gaetz continued going on the offensive against the “D.C. swamp” throughout the op-ed, but he eventually directed himself toward the accusations against him.

Quote:“I have never, ever paid for sex. And second, I, as an adult man, have not slept with a 17-year-old,” he said. “It comes as no surprise that my political opponents want to sensationalize and criminalize my prior sex life just as I am getting engaged to the best person I’ve ever known. It is regrettable that the battle of ideas should thus become so personal. But then again, when your ideas suck, you need to stoop this low.”

Gaetz coupled this with more attacks on the media and the Justice Department, but he underscored it all by re-stating, “no, I am absolutely not resigning.”

The link is in the story.

[CJD]

(04-05-2021, 06:20 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No problem, and I wish I could disagree with you.  Also, I misworded in my post above, I meant to say his being removed from office should not have to meet the same level of proof as a criminal conviction.  While I wouldn't go with a "preponderance of the evidence" standard I'd certainly be satisfied with something less than beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yea, I agree. The bar to convict is set very high for a good reason, but I think we can have a fairly good idea if he did something wrong without necessarily reaching that bar and, at that point, I do think removing him would at least be a good first step.

For an example from the Democrat's side, I feel the same way about Andrew Cuomo. Are the accusations enough to convict him of anything? I don't think so, based on what I've read, but they are definitely enough for me to think "you're causing more of a distraction from governing with all of your problems than you would solve if you stayed" so even if he is "innocent" by the courts' standards, I think it would be wise for the New York Democrats to impeach and remove him.

[GMDino]

(04-06-2021, 08:58 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, I agree. The bar to convict is set very high for a good reason, but I think we can have a fairly good idea if he did something wrong without necessarily reaching that bar and, at that point, I do think removing him would at least be a good first step.

For an example from the Democrat's side, I feel the same way about Andrew Cuomo. Are the accusations enough to convict him of anything? I don't think so, based on what I've read, but they are definitely enough for me to think "you're causing more of a distraction from governing with all of your problems than you would solve if you stayed" so even if he is "innocent" by the courts' standards, I think it would be wise for the New York Democrats to impeach and remove him.

The other issue, for me, is that some of these guys portray themselves as the "Good guys" fighting for you to keep the godless liberals from "changing" the country.  Like the old "family values" gop Newt and Hassert.  Or when the guys fighting "gay rights" get caught with male escorts.  Or when the mega-preacher is having an affair.  Just don't act that way if you aren't that way.  But I get that their egos are why they wanted to be "big" in politics or Hollywood or whatever and that leads them to think they are smarter and above all of the other stuff and will never get caught.

You and I and others can look at the hypocrisy of a Cuomo or Gaetz or Trump or Clinton and know they should step away because they are not fit for telling anyone else how to lead their lives.  But they know that too often they can get away with it and in many cases USE IT to garner more support as they play the victim card.

[GMDino]

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2021/04/katie-hill-on-matt-gaetz-needing-to-resign

Quote:MATT GAETZ DEFENDED ME WHEN MY NUDES WERE SHARED WITHOUT MY CONSENT. NOW HE’S ACCUSED OF DOING JUST THAT

Matt and I forged an unlikely friendship in Congress, and he was one of the few colleagues who spoke out after a malicious nude-photo leak upended my life. But if recent reports are true, he engaged in the very practice he defended me from—and should resign immediately.
BY KATIE HILL
APRIL 5, 2021


Since I resigned from Congress, I’ve gotten used to my phone blowing up whenever another politician is accused of sexual misconduct. Supporters want to know, “How can this person still be in office but you’re not?” Reporters ask, “How does it make you feel that so-and-so refuses to resign?” My mom just says, “I love you and I hope you are doing okay,” because she already knows the answer.

The messages stop after a few days when the accused men defiantly stay in office or quietly decide not to run for reelection. The press, the public, and the politicians themselves move on to things like the behavior of Joe Biden’s dogs. 

I am always advised by those closest to me not to weigh in on these situations. If I say anything whatsoever, people like Ben Shapiro will inevitably share it with a comment: “Sexual predator Katie Hill says what?” or, “Shouldn’t you be naked smoking a bong or nailing some staff?” 

That’s when the trolls start reposting the pictures of me that were shared without my consent.

Last week’s scandal, which centers on a Justice Department investigation into allegations of possible sex trafficking of a minor, also involves accusations of the same crime of which I was a victim: the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. And in a twist of irony, the accused person, Matt Gaetz, is one of the few colleagues who came to my defense when it happened to me. 
Matt and I served on the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) together. It’s one of the last places in Congress with any semblance of bipartisanship. On one of the early days, I got lost, as freshman members sometimes do. Matt found me in the hallway and showed me to the hearing room where we were about to be briefed by top brass at the Pentagon. He said that in the previous term, he had no idea where anything was either, joking about how he was no longer the youngest one on the committee. He told me that he was the least popular Republican on HASC because he believed in climate change and was anti-war.

When I was first elected, I went on Fox News sometimes because it was by far the most watched cable-news channel in my district. Matt and I sometimes ended up in the greenroom together, back when you actually went to the studio for TV hits instead of appearing via Zoom from a corner of your kitchen. We’d frequently run into each other on the way to or from votes and have brief conversations.

The Armed Services Committee is responsible for one of the few must-pass bills each year: the National Defense Authorization Act, which governs the hundreds of billions the U.S. spends annually to maintain the most powerful military force in the world. One day a year, committee members and staff stay through the night in what’s called a markup to debate and vote on dozens of proposed amendments to the base bill, and ultimately pass a package that can go to the full House. Our markup was on June 12, 2019, the day that would have been my ninth wedding anniversary. But the weekend prior I had flown home, asked for a divorce, and moved my things to my mom’s house. I knew what that might mean for me and my career, but I had no choice. I was a new congresswoman with a personal shitstorm brewing and no idea what to do about it. 

I was a wreck. I held it together for the markup, barely, but spent a lot of time in a room off to the side that served as a break room where members could rest, eat, or talk to each other away from the C-SPAN cameras as the night dragged on. Matt must have noticed something because he asked me what was wrong. Liz Cheney dozed nearby while I told him about the divorce, though not what might be coming because of it—not even I knew then that, somewhere, a trove of photos of my naked body existed.

In the other room members were taking turns shouting into the microphones about immigration. The bill was stalled because Donald Trump wanted to put hundreds of millions of dollars through the defense bill into building his border wall. The newly empowered House Democrats were saying no, and the Republicans didn’t like being back in the minority. At one point I said to Matt, “So what is it with you and Trump? You don’t really believe that stuff, do you?”

“Well, you gotta give the fans on Fox what they want, but I do love Donald Trump,” he said. “I don’t think I want to be in Congress after he’s done as president.”

I stared at him blankly and shook my head in dismay. But I was still grateful for the company.

Our collegial (and unlikely) friendship continued throughout my time in Congress. We rarely agreed on policy and we never agreed on Trump, but as two young people of the same generation serving in Congress on the same committee, we got along and often chatted about life and shared experiences. On many occasions Matt had told me about the younger brother of an ex-girlfriend, Nestor, whom he referred to as his son and said he’d adopted when his ex disappeared years ago. He seemed proud of the kid and said he wished he could talk about him publicly, but didn’t want to expose Nestor to the shitty world of public scrutiny. I didn’t blame him.

Fast-forward to October 2019, when the worst outcome I had feared when I left my marriage came true. People across the world were seeing images of my naked body, many of which I hadn’t known were taken and none of which I had consented to share. I was the victim of nonconsensual pornography, also known as intimate-image abuse or revenge porn. But the photos also showed that I’d had a relationship with someone who had worked on my campaign. A relationship that was inappropriate, though not illegal, and that I never should have engaged in and never would have outside the context of an unusually close-knit campaign and a crumbling marriage. I was labeled an abuser by many, which was especially hard to take as someone who has been abused herself. 

The people I had worked with and cared about didn’t know how to engage with me, either directly or publicly. Some of my colleagues offered support privately, but didn’t want to make a statement because of the potential political backlash. Most said nothing, waiting to see how the scandal unfolded. The silence from my own Democratic colleagues was deafening. I was devastated, though I understood. People were nervous. And no one wants to defend an abuser. 

Meanwhile, Republicans were having a field day. Then, suddenly, the golden boy of Fox spoke up for me. Matt was the first member of Congress who publicly and unapologetically defended me, saying that while I might have made mistakes, I was a victim in this circumstance. At one of the darkest moments of my life, when I was feeling more alone than I ever had, Matt stood up for me—and that really mattered. 

Matt and I corresponded a bit throughout 2020. I was horrified by his ongoing support of Trump and I told him so. We also talked about writing our books, which came out around the same time, and about the election. 

When Matt did publicly talk about his son, Nestor, and was attacked, I was upset by it. The way their relationship was characterized, based on what I knew from Matt and his family, was gross and unfair. I felt like I needed to return the favor he had done for me. I got a ton of heat for defending him, as I’m sure he did when the situation was reversed. But at the time it felt like the right thing to do.

Later Matt attacked Florida Democrat Andrew Gillum on Twitter, and I called him and said the way he did it was bi-phobic and bullshit. We argued on the phone. Eventually Matt backpedaled somewhat, but we didn’t talk much after that.


Once Trump lost and Matt started perpetuating Trump’s dangerous lies about the election results, our occasional texts stopped altogether. When Matt doubled down after the January 6 insurrection, I questioned how I could have ever considered us friends. But in difficult times, sometimes the unlikeliest people support you. 


Now disturbing information has come out that the Justice Department is investigating Matt’s alleged relationship with a 17-year-old girl, possible sex trafficking, and more. Matt has denied the accusations. As the press requests started coming in, I ignored them (as usual) and hoped that the investigation would ultimately clear him. 

But then CNN reported that Matt had shown at least two lawmakers photos and videos of naked women. The women on his phone likely had no idea that the nude photos and videos they’d either privately shared or that he’d taken (with or without their consent) were being passed around and ogled by Republican congressmen. If true, Matt had engaged in the very practice he’d defended me from.

Sharing intimate images or videos of someone without their consent should be illegal, plain and simple. It shouldn’t matter if it was done to hurt someone, as with revenge porn, or to brag about your sexual conquests, like Matt has been accused of doing. In fact, I’ve spent the last few months advocating for a bill called the SHIELD Act to be included as part of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, which just passed the House and is headed to the Senate. If enacted, it will become a federal crime to knowingly distribute an intimate visual depiction of someone without their permission. 

While we don’t know enough to determine whether what Matt allegedly did would constitute distribution, this legislation clarifies that it’s a crime whether you intend to hurt someone or not by sharing their images. Even if he was just showing off and meant no harm to those women, it’s still unacceptable. Unfortunately, Matt voted against the bill.

As my phone blows up this time, the usual messages are replaced with ones like, “What do you think of your friend Matt Gaetz now?” and, “So that’s why he was nice to you when your shit went down.” Some people say once again, “How is he not resigning when you had to?”

There are moments when you learn that someone you’ve considered a friend has done something abhorrent. You have to decide whether to stick by them, stay silent, or speak out against them. Many lawmakers have been in this position, but regular people face the same dilemmas in their own lives. Like when a buddy shows you the private pictures of the hot girl he’s sleeping with. Or you find out that a colleague you like and respect has had an inappropriate relationship with a subordinate. Sometimes it’s a tough call. But sometimes it’s not. 

Let me state it as clearly as possible: If, despite his denials, Matt Gaetz did have sex with a minor, if he did provide girls and young women with drugs and money and gifts in exchange for sex, if he did ask these girls and young women to recruit other women for the same purpose, and if he did show his colleagues images of nude women without their consent, he needs to be held responsible. Some of these actions are criminal and some of them should be. All are morally reprehensible and unacceptable for a lawmaker. 

If there is even a fraction of truth to these reports, he should resign immediately. 

When the news about Matt Gaetz broke, my mom once again called to ask if I was okay. She knew about our friendship and didn’t like it. From the very beginning she’d told me to be careful and not to trust him. When he defended me, she raised her eyebrows and told me I’d better not sleep with him (I did not, for the record).

“Yeah, I’m okay,” I replied. “I just don’t really know what to say. I really hope it’s not true.”

“I’m sure it’s true.”

“Jeez, Mom, why??”

“Because it’s always true. Hopefully this time a man actually takes the fall.”

We’ll see.

[GMDino]

Lot of smoke...lot of smoke...wonder if there will be a fire?

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-ne-matt-gaetz-revenge-porn-20210405-5qbme6ilzna3rhry6gzqeevwpq-story.html

Quote:Former lawmaker says Gaetz fought ‘revenge porn’ law: ‘He thought that any picture was his to use as he wanted’
By JASON GARCIA
ORLANDO SENTINEL |
APR 05, 2021 AT 7:01 PM





In this March 3, 2016 file photo, Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, speaks during the legislative session in Tallahassee, Fla. (Steve Cannon/AP)


While serving in the Florida Legislature, U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz opposed a bill meant to stop people from sharing sexually explicit images of their ex-lovers because Gaetz believed that recipients of those images had a right to share them, according to the sponsor of the legislation.

Former state Rep. Tom Goodson, a Republican from Brevard County, spent three years sponsoring legislation to outlaw nonconsensual pornography — sometimes called “revenge porn.”

And Goodson said Monday that Gaetz was the chief opponent to that legislation. Goodson said he remembered a meeting in which Gaetz said that if someone sends an intimate image to their romantic partner, then that image becomes the partner’s property to use however they want.

“Matt was absolutely against it. He thought the picture was his to do with what he wanted,” Goodson said. “He thought that any picture was his to use as he wanted to, as an expression of his rights.”



Neither Gaetz nor his office responded to requests for comment Monday. The Panhandle Republican is reportedly under federal investigation over allegations that he had sex with a 17-year-old girl and that he and former Seminole County Tax Collector Joel Greenberg recruited other women online and paid them for sex.
Gaetz has said he has never slept with an underage girl nor has he ever paid for sex.


The Gaetz investigation, which emerged out of a sprawling criminal probe into Greenberg, has put a national microscope on Gaetz’s personal behavior in Washington, where has been a member of Congress since 2017, and in Tallahassee, where he served as a state legislator from 2010 until 2016.

The Washington Post reported last week that Gaetz boasted to people in Florida politics about women he met through Greenberg, citing two unnamed people who said they heard Gaetz’s comments directly. Those people also told the Post that Gaetz had shown them videos on his phone of naked or topless women on multiple occasions.

CNN reported that Gaetz showed other lawmakers photos and videos of naked women that he said he had sex with — including while on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. CNN cited two unnamed people who said they had been shown the material.

Before he became a member of Congress, Gaetz was a prominent figure in the Florida Legislature, where he was a member of the House and his father served as president of the Senate.

That made Gaetz a powerful opponent to legislation he didn’t like — like the bill to outlaw nonconsensual porn, which happens when someone shares intimate photos or videos of former lovers without their consent. (Activists prefer that term to “revenge porn,” because the word revenge suggests the person in the images did something deserving of retaliation.)

• POLITICS
  

Joel Greenberg, Matt Gaetz visited closed Seminole tax office together on weekend, source says
APR 01, 2021 AT 10:01 PM

Beginning around 2013, activists spent at least three years trying to pass a nonconsensual pornography law through the Florida Legislature. But they had trouble getting by Gaetz.


In 2014, for instance, a bill cleared two Senate committees and the full Senate by unanimous votes. But the House version of the legislation, which attracted 17 co-sponsors, was never given a hearing in the first committee it was assigned to — a committee that was chaired by Gaetz.

It was around that time that Goodson said he had the meeting with Gaetz in which Gaetz said he felt that intimate images voluntarily sent to someone were the recipient’s property to use however they pleased. Goodson said the meeting was between he, Gaetz and the late Sandy D’Alemberte, a former state legislator and Florida State University president and law professor who died in 2019.

At the time, several other lawmakers and lobbyists who worked on the issue said privately that Gaetz was the chief antagonist to the legislation, though nobody would say so publicly.
“If you crossed him, he was after you,” Goodson said Monday.

The nonconsensual porn legislation finally passed in 2015, clearing the state House on a 114-2 vote. The only two no votes were Gaetz and former Republican state Rep. John Tobia, who was one of Gaetz’s roommates in Tallahassee and is now a Brevard County commissioner.

But even then, the House significantly weakened the legislation before approving it.

For instance, the Senate version of the bill would have made it illegal to post explicit photos or videos without someone’s consent or to email or text them to others. The House narrowed the bill down so that it only outlawed posting the images to websites — emailing or texting them to others remained legal.

The Senate was forced to accept the House’s weakened version of the bill because the state House abruptly ended its session early that year amid a broader fight over whether to expand Medicaid coverage to more low-income Floridians.

“We passed a less-than-adequate version [of the law] as a result of the fact that the House went home,” former state Sen. David Simmons, R-Altamonte Springs, the sponsor of the Senate bill, said Monday.

The Legislature didn’t pass another bill strengthening the state’s nonconsensual porn law until 2019 — after Gaetz had moved on to Washington.

[BmorePat87]

lol dude is scheduled to speak at a pro-Trump women's group event in Florida.

[Vas Deferens]

(04-07-2021, 12:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol dude is scheduled to speak at a pro-Trump women's group event in Florida.

Pinnacle of excellence. Great work GOP

[Belsnickel]

(04-06-2021, 08:58 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, I agree. The bar to convict is set very high for a good reason, but I think we can have a fairly good idea if he did something wrong without necessarily reaching that bar and, at that point, I do think removing him would at least be a good first step.

For an example from the Democrat's side, I feel the same way about Andrew Cuomo. Are the accusations enough to convict him of anything? I don't think so, based on what I've read, but they are definitely enough for me to think "you're causing more of a distraction from governing with all of your problems than you would solve if you stayed" so even if he is "innocent" by the courts' standards, I think it would be wise for the New York Democrats to impeach and remove him.

So, here are my thoughts on it all. I fully believe that indictment resulting in committee removal is a good move. It's a political decision, after all. The difficult thing about removal from office is it being such an extreme measure. I am fine, however, with preponderance, unlike SSF. I could agree with the clear and convincing standard, though. Regardless, the problem becomes how do you determine that? Unlike an impeachment trial in the Senate, you are relying on the criminal judicial system which relies on a higher level of certainty.

All of that being said, I just wish that our elected officials would have the personal courage to admit to their wrongdoings and step away from office. I know that I'm a bit idealistic with this thinking, but the integrity is just missing in our elected officials and it's sad.

[GMDino]

(04-07-2021, 12:08 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: lol dude is scheduled to speak at a pro-Trump women's group event in Florida.

Oh the cheers he will get!

And that's not sarcasm.

[GMDino]

(04-07-2021, 07:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here are my thoughts on it all. I fully believe that indictment resulting in committee removal is a good move. It's a political decision, after all. The difficult thing about removal from office is it being such an extreme measure. I am fine, however, with preponderance, unlike SSF. I could agree with the clear and convincing standard, though. Regardless, the problem becomes how do you determine that? Unlike an impeachment trial in the Senate, you are relying on the criminal judicial system which relies on a higher level of certainty.

All of that being said, I just wish that our elected officials would have the personal courage to admit to their wrongdoings and step away from office. I know that I'm a bit idealistic with this thinking, but the integrity is just missing in our elected officials and it's sad.

I'm with you but then the question will be what is "bad enough" for someone to step down.  Just accusations/investigations like this?  You and I can agree (probably) that Clinton, Cuomo, Weiner, Trump, and others should have stepped down if just out of principle.  But I can hear the arguments for example what about Gingrich?  Didn't break any laws and in fact did something millions of Americans do all the time...cheat on their wives. 

Then there are other legal failings.  These guys will almost never step down just to do the right thing so they have to be removed the legal way.

[Au165]

(04-07-2021, 07:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here are my thoughts on it all. I fully believe that indictment resulting in committee removal is a good move. It's a political decision, after all. The difficult thing about removal from office is it being such an extreme measure. I am fine, however, with preponderance, unlike SSF. I could agree with the clear and convincing standard, though. Regardless, the problem becomes how do you determine that? Unlike an impeachment trial in the Senate, you are relying on the criminal judicial system which relies on a higher level of certainty.

All of that being said, I just wish that our elected officials would have the personal courage to admit to their wrongdoings and step away from office. I know that I'm a bit idealistic with this thinking, but the integrity is just missing in our elected officials and it's sad.

The reason they don't step away is that we have allowed politics to become a career and a very lucrative one at that. Stepping away is essentially stepping away from their livelihood which shouldn't be a thing, and is in fact the root of a lot of the issues we see in our government is because of the career politician. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-07-2021, 07:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here are my thoughts on it all. I fully believe that indictment resulting in committee removal is a good move. It's a political decision, after all. The difficult thing about removal from office is it being such an extreme measure. I am fine, however, with preponderance, unlike SSF. I could agree with the clear and convincing standard, though. Regardless, the problem becomes how do you determine that? Unlike an impeachment trial in the Senate, you are relying on the criminal judicial system which relies on a higher level of certainty.

All of that being said, I just wish that our elected officials would have the personal courage to admit to their wrongdoings and step away from office. I know that I'm a bit idealistic with this thinking, but the integrity is just missing in our elected officials and it's sad.

I don't disagree with much here, I just don't like the idea of ruining someone's life over odds only slightly better than a coin flip.  A preponderance level of proof is literally 50.1% likely vs. 49.9% unlikely.  I realize we're delving into the realm of subjectivity here, but I'd want it to be around 60% likely before I'd be ok with removal from office.

[Belsnickel]

(04-07-2021, 01:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't disagree with much here, I just don't like the idea of ruining someone's life over odds only slightly better than a coin flip.  A preponderance level of proof is literally 50.1% likely vs. 49.9% unlikely.  I realize we're delving into the realm of subjectivity here, but I'd want it to be around 60% likely before I'd be ok with removal from office.

People's lives are ruined all the time with preponderance level. Lawsuits that bankrupt people, people getting fired from jobs for far less, the list could go on and doesn't even include how just an arrest, not even an indictment or conviction, can alter someone's life in a devastating way. In thinking about this response I actually became even more committed to the preponderance level for these situations. Getting to that level with some sort of process would be more benefit of the doubt that many, if not most, Americans are entitled to in their occupations. Due process needs to exist because of the role of an elected official, but I don't think the bar needs to be higher than preponderance.

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2021, 08:29 AM)Au165 Wrote: The reason they don't step away is that we have allowed politics to become a career and a very lucrative one at that. Stepping away is essentially stepping away from their livelihood which shouldn't be a thing, and is in fact the root of a lot of the issues we see in our government is because of the career politician. 

I have never understood the problem with "career politicians".

In ever other job people value experience.  Everyone would pick a heart surgeon with 15 years experience over a guy who just did it for a year.

Also politicians have to make the voters happy to become "career politicians".  I don't know why so many people think we need to get rid of elected officials who are making the voters happy.

[Au165]

(04-07-2021, 03:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have never understood the problem with "career politicians".

In ever other job people value experience.  Everyone would pick a heart surgeon with 15 years experience over a guy who just did it for a year.

Also politicians have to make the voters happy to become "career politicians".  I don't know why so many people think we need to get rid of elected officials who are making the voters happy.

To be a career politician you must get re-elected, to get re-elected you need large sums of money, to get large sums of money you need to get the backing of corporate lobbyists, and to get the backing of corporate lobbyists you must assist in passing legislation that looks out for those lobbyists interests sometimes as they are directly counter to their own constituents desires or best interests.

Now you will probably say, but isn't that their constituent's jobs to vote them out then? The answer is yes, but it isn't that easy. Nobody is reading 900-page bills, not even the politicians, and so what you get are a bunch of favors slipped in under pages and pages of words people can't possibly sift through to find and expose them. Even still, what happens when they are found out is that the general public is really too dumb to know they have been sold out. We know that people, in general, are not all that intelligent and if you mutter enough buzz words they will forget that they were sold out in favor of getting their pitchforks out to go after a "real" enemy.

Also, you are then the incumbent at some point and that is often too difficult or expensive to unseat. We have seen it many times over, a politician who is rarely even in their area they represent sticking around far too long based on name recognition and national sentiment that trickles back to voting for or against your party in an outdated two-party system. 

As for the experience, did the heart surgeon require a basic understanding of his field to get the job first? He probably had to go to school right? Does the heart surgeon have people who try to sway his decision-making with money? Does the surgeon sacrifice some people for others based on their ideological beliefs? A surgeon that is horrible and still has his license 15 years later doesn't make him competent just because he still has his license, I know that from experience. We see this with LEO all the time, after they do something wrong the first thing you see in the press release is their time of service as if that means they couldn't possibly be awful at that job all along. 

I guess this is a long-drawn-out way of saying the system is pretty damn broken, and while career politicians aren't the only problem they are most definitely part of the problem. If we could somehow remove lobbyists and dark money out of politics I would have no issues with it all, but my biggest problem is that money wins an election, and often times those who can get the money to keep coming back sold out the public a long time ago.

[fredtoast]

(04-07-2021, 04:58 PM)Au165 Wrote: To be a career politician you must get re-elected, to get re-elected you need large sums of money, to get large sums of money you need to get the backing of corporate lobbyists, and to get the backing of corporate lobbyists you must assist in passing legislation that looks out for those lobbyists interests sometimes as they are directly counter to their own constituents desires or best interests.

1.  The candidate that spends the most money spent does not always win the election.

2.  Even if they did why is "re-election" different from "election"?


I 100% agree that money and lobbyist are a problem with our system, but that has nothing to do with "career politicians" because the same money has the same influence the very first time a new politician is elected.

[hollodero]

(04-07-2021, 04:58 PM)Au165 Wrote: To be a career politician you must get re-elected, to get re-elected you need large sums of money, to get large sums of money you need to get the backing of corporate lobbyists, and to get the backing of corporate lobbyists you must assist in passing legislation that looks out for those lobbyists interests sometimes as they are directly counter to their own constituents desires or best interests.

But the same thing is true for a "new" politician as well. If any, the new faces need money for ads and co even more urgently, for no one knows them yet.