Rep Matt Gaetz Had A No Good, Terrible, Very Bad Day

Andrew Donaldson

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonder and Home.

Related Post Roulette

63 Responses

  1. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    I guess my question is whether we’ve heard from the women involved. This is one heck of an allegation!

    Are the allegations coming from actual people? Are we in a place where we get to take the prosecution at its word that, seriously, they’re telling the truth about what they’re investigating?

    I’m not demanding that WOMEN BE NAMED AND THEIR PICTURES POSTED TO THE INTERNET ESPECIALLY THAT ONE WHERE SHE’S IN A BATHING SUIT. I’m just wondering if there is a source for this that is not the prosecutor. (Even an anonymous source!)Report

    • Andrew Donaldson Andrew Donaldson in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m torn on this one, since “SEX TRAFFFICKING OMG” headlines almost always end up not, in fact, being about sex trafficking at all. My initial feel was that Gaetz was overlapping a very unsavory character in Greenberg and that’s the gist of the DOJ push. What paused me from that was Tucker dropping information live on air that a half-decent defense attorney would tell him he probably shouldn’t even if innocent. That tidbit Gaetz dropped about the dinner with Tucker got a good online discussion going as to whether his reaction was on of:
      1. Your making that up didn’t happen
      2. I’ll play dumb cause I don’t remember
      3. Dude, that wasn’t my wife
      4. Are you threatening me?
      5. She was how old?

      Just really bizarre stuff. See where it goes from hereReport

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Andrew Donaldson
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m more than happy enough to say that the dude is a sleaze who needs to go and needs to go yesterday. Not just go, but go to jail! I’ve got a rope right here!

        Hey, I’ll even make a joke about how he should have followed the Pence Rule!

        I’m just asking if we have a source for how bad this guy is that is not the prosecutor.Report

        • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
          Ignored
          says:

          “We” certainly don’t. If anyone else does, it will come out in time. And if nobody else does, it will also come out in time.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
            Ignored
            says:

            Well, I’m comparing to the Cuomo allegations as those are the most recent ones that are in the same ballpark.

            There were a *BUNCH* of women who came forward and said “this happened”. You know what? I believe them, within some error bars and making a handful of qualifications (and those error bars got smaller with each additional woman and that one talk with the girl who was in that awful picture pretty much sealed the deal).

            For this… I’m just wondering if “we” have anything to go on that didn’t come from a prosecutor.Report

            • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
              Ignored
              says:

              Are vou actually wondering? Because the answer, at the moment, is clearly no, “we” don’t. Does anyone else have anything? “We” don’t know at the moment, but, again, we already know that. Or are you suggesting that that question will not be answered at some time in the not-too-distant future, and if not, why not?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, again, I’m comparing to Cuomo.

                I’m not suggesting that we cannot come to conclusions about Gaetz (he’s, apparently, a sleazeball even if his indiscretions do not rise to the technically illegal).

                I’m just noticing that, instead of multiple women coming forward, we have leaks.

                I’m not saying “I don’t think that Gaetz is a sleazeball!” Sure he is. Do we want to get rid of him? Sure! Throw the bum out!

                But I put “a woman made an accusation against a sitting politician” in a different category than “the NYT reports that prosecutors have announced an investigation into a sitting politician”.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                If you want to talk about Cuomo and can convince others on this thread to play along, knock yourself out. But “I’m just noticing” that you didn’t answer any of my questions. If you don’t want to, that’s fine. Just want to be clear about that.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, let me answer your questions. (I thought they were rhetorical.)

                “Does anyone else have anything?” I don’t know.

                “Or are you suggesting that that question will not be answered at some time in the not-too-distant future, and if not, why not?”

                I suppose that the question will be answered at some point but I know that the answers range from “we’ve got the girl, she says it happened” to “okay, as it turns out, the girl was not 17, as we reported, but 22, which is still pretty creepy!”

                That range of answers leaves me vaguely irritated.

                To return to Cuomo, I’ll go back and look at what we said when he was accused of sexual harassment:

                I have no insight into how he would have reacted if any of his accusers had, at an early stage, said “Cut it out; this bothers me.” And, given that he was the Governor, I’m not blaming any of them for not having said as much. Still, for a complete moral accounting, it would be good to know.

                No, I am not calling for anything even *CLOSE* to a complete moral accounting!

                I’m just putting “a woman made an accusation against a sitting politician” in a different category than “the NYT reports that prosecutors have announced an investigation into a sitting politician”.Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird, what exactly is your idea of what is going on here? Because I can’t figure out where you think there’s any ‘she said’ in this at all.

                Moving a minor, or paying to move a minor, or just arranging it at all, across state lines, to have sex with her, is actually a crime.

                By itself.

                (Notable, its not just ‘travelling’ with a 17-year-old, as his carefully-worded denial says. It’s illegal if you get them to come to you, if you, in some way, pay for the thing.)

                No one needs to allege any ‘misconduct’, every part of this can be ‘consensual’, because, actually, minors can’t consent to that.

                Same with the ‘exchanging money for sex’. I’m not sure I need to explain this, but that’s prostitution, and bringing someone across a state line for that is also a federal crime. Like, prostitution doesn’t normally have ‘allegations’ on the part of the prostitute, mostly because the prostitute also is part of the crime.

                Ie., there’s literally no ‘women accusing him of misconduct’ here. He’s being accused of crimes that, _even if full consensual and unobjected to by the women_, would be criminal acts.

                And there’s still scandal here even if the case holds no water. Tucker referred to ‘ex-girlfriends’ as if they exist, and ‘None of them were not minors’ would seem an _infinitely_ good thing to say…if none of them were minors.

                So…at minimum, that sorta means he was _dating_ at least one minor. A reminder: The man is currently 38, and this happened ‘two years ago’.

                Now, it is entirely possible that Matt Gaetz _legally_ dated an unaged girl literally half his age, and only had sex with her in places where that was over the age of consent, and didn’t transport her across state lines or pay to have that done, and his gifts were indeed just gifts, and…that’s the end of his legal problems.

                Doesn’t really end the scandal thing, though.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                Jaybird, what exactly is your idea of what is going on here?

                At this point, there seems to be a poltergeist.

                Doors slammed!
                Drawers opened!
                Gaetz accused!

                Accused by whom? Well, there is an investigation. The investigation is into whether he did something awful.

                Did he do the something awful?
                Well, there’s an investigation.

                Are there names?
                WHY DO YOU WANT NAMES?

                Is there an accuser?
                This isn’t a he said/she said. There is instead an investigation.

                So we’re not to “Matt Gaetz did something wrong.”

                We’re “Matt Gaetz is being investigated for doing something wrong.”

                Did he do the something wrong?
                Well, that’s what they’re investigating.

                Has the investigation found anything?
                We can’t say. The investigation is ongoing.

                If you want to say that the guy sounds as guilty as Ted Stevens was, I’d agree! The guy’s a sleaze!

                But I put “a woman made an accusation against a sitting politician” in a different category than “the NYT reports that prosecutors have announced an investigation into a sitting politician”.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                You mean to tell me that Trump was defeated yet politics is still being driven by opaque media reports of behind the scenes doings of anonymous bureaucrats and law enforcement officials? Insane.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                You’re assuming there’s a point. Probably a mistake. We’ve seen an enormous outpouring of words that say nothing more than we don’t yet know much — which everyone knows and agrees with — and try to make that sound like a bigger deal than it is. We’ll know more soon enough, but patience was never Jaybird’s strong suit. Got to have an early hot take, whether that adds any value or not.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Ehhh I sympathize with Jaybird’s side of this. There’s a long term problem with what I’d loosely call un-merited journalistic credulity. Now obviously it’s nothing new to note that too often the error or innuendo gets the front page and the correction comes out 6 weeks later buried on page 12. And yes, occasionally the front page gets it right the first time. What I would say is that those bad pathologies have been turned up ever louder post Web 2.0, with even greater levels of the surreal reached during the last 5 years.

                All of this has of course been discussed ad nauseum but I think it’s worth pointing out strong candidates for becoming such episodes as they arise. If I’ve been convinced of anything it’s that a reminder to exercise critical thinking should always be welcomed, in all circumstances.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                That would make sense if there were an issue of accuracy. But there isn’t. The Times reported that Graetz is being investigated for potential sex trafficking. And he is. Did he do what he is being investigated for? Maybe, maybe not. The reporting is scrupulous about not going beyond the undisputed fact of the investigation. Which, if Jaybird’s last long discussion of the subject is any indication, is what he doesn’t like. Fits a pattern, which has nothing to do with inaccurate reporting.Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Respectfully, I think you’re engaging in some tunnel vision here. This stuff goes out into the ether in ways with real-world consequences.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to InMD
                Ignored
                says:

                What “stuff”? An accurate report that someone is under investigation? Sure, it will hurt, even if, ultimately, the investigation doesn’t turn up wrongdoing. But what’s the alternative? Not reporting the fact?Report

              • Avatar InMD in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                My opinion is that news organizations need to recalibrate standards for how they report on these types of stories. Part of that recalibration involves considering whether the reporter has enough facts and context to feel good that they are not being used. It also includes things like willingness of sources to go on the record.

                There are others I could come up with but the idea is to keep reporting from making people stupider. If the balance of a piece is using the existence of some document or meeting in the bowls of government as a runway for a bunch of stenography and hearsay from unnamed sources then a responsible outlet doesn’t run it. Or rather the editors say ‘keep digging, but you don’t have this yet.’ Now you’d think this would be uncontroversial, and that independent media would be very concerned about the risks. Or I guess we could just accept that the news is probably fake or so misleading it might as well be and hope that there are no negative repercussions for society.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                The reporting is scrupulous about not going beyond the undisputed fact of the investigation.

                Allow me to quote myself:

                I put “a woman made an accusation against a sitting politician” in a different category than “the NYT reports that prosecutors have announced an investigation into a sitting politician”.

                This is not intended to be a defense of Gaetz.

                Unless, of course, you see a scrupulous article detailing the undisputed fact of the investigation as an attack on Gaetz.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                When you quote yourself, you’re talking about, well, yourself. And so it is here. Maybe you think it adds something to the discussion that you put this story in a different category than the Cuomo story. Most other people would say the same thing if they thought it worth saying. They didn’t. Maybe they were on to something.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I think that it is at least as worth as much as noting that we don’t know whether the women accusing Cuomo of sexual harassment ever told him to knock it off.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                We actually do know that. We know they didn’t. And we know why.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Pity that we can’t come to a complete moral accounting.

                Anyway, I will further amend my statement quoting myself.

                I put “a woman made an accusation against a sitting politician” in a different category than “the NYT reports that prosecutors have announced an investigation into a sitting politician”. And you should too.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Let me quote myself:

                Most other people would say the same thing if they thought it worth saying. They didn’t. Maybe they were on to something.

                Your amendment doesn’t meet the objection. But you probably knew that.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Wait, I misread your original quote!

                It wasn’t that we don’t know whether women told him to buzz off, it was that we don’t know how he’d respond if one of them did.

                Well, for what it’s worth, I think my comment (especially the amended one) is worth at least as much as the insight that we can’t come to a complete moral accounting of Cuomo’s acts without knowing how he would have responded if one of the women told him “no”.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                One difference: my comment came in a comment thread in a post about Cuomo. You are free to think what you will of the substance of the comment , but it was a comment about Cuomo in a comment thread in a post about Cuomo. It may or may not have been wrong, but it was pertinent.
                Here, you have taken up time and space to tell people that Cuomo’s case is not “in the same category” as Graetz’s. To which the only reasonable response is “no s**t Sherlock.” Because everybody already knows this. How do we know? Because no one was talking about Cuomo until you dragged him in. So how about the Yankees’ pennant prospects?Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, the shit, Sherlock, is that this is a leak from an investigation (apparently).

                I’m not sure how seriously we ought to take a leak.

                Angrily asserting that, unlike whether Cuomo would have stopped sexually harassing if asked, we will eventually know the answer to whether there are anything to the allegations is one way to look at the allegations, I guess.

                But if there’s nothing to the allegations, I kind of think that they shouldn’t have been leaked. I mean, insofar as we’re inspired to start quickly assessing an incomplete moral accounting based on these leaks.

                Like, to the point where I am not sure that waiting for us to hear more information is a sufficient demand on my part.

                (If there’s something to the allegations? THROW THE BOOK AT HIM! If there isn’t? Well, a bunch of folks have already commented on that sort of thing. I agree with them more than I agree with the people who insist that I just need to wait to see where the investigation that we didn’t know about until these events happened gets resolved.)Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Now that’s actually relevant. So “demand” away.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, that’s why I opened with asking whether we have any source on this other than a prosecutor.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                And the answer to that was so obvious — no, “we” don’t, and nobody suggests otherwise — that the question must have been rhetorical. And it’s by no means obvious that the current source is the prosecutor. As JS pointed out earlier, anyone who was questioned in the course of the investigation could have answered a reporter’s questions, and, unlike a prosecutor, would not be acting illegally or unethically.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I saw it as less obvious than, say, whether Cuomo would have stopped sexually harassing if asked early on in the harassment.

                Which, I’m sure we agree, isn’t obvious to those hoping to make a complete moral accounting.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                Take that up on a thread about Cuomo. You brought him into this thread for no good reason and, judging by the responses, nobody else seems to think it’s germane either. I’ll take the jury’s verdict on this.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to CJColucci
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m not using him as an example of something excusable.

                I’m using him as an example of a situation where stuff isn’t obvious enough to refrain from asking questions about stuff that other people might find quite obvious indeed.Report

              • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Jaybird
                Ignored
                says:

                But I put “a woman made an accusation against a sitting politician” in a different category than “the NYT reports that prosecutors have announced an investigation into a sitting politician”.

                And that politician then, of his own free will, went on TV, and very _carefully_ denied certain parts of the allegations, while letting other parts stand with no denial at all. You are inexplicably acting like the interview we are currently talking about didn’t happen.

                Allegation: Gaetz induced with money an underaged girl to travel across state lines for sex, a crime.

                Rebuttal by Gaetz: I gave normal gifts to an ex-girlfriend, and paying for shared hotel rooms is legal. And I did not travel with her.

                Missing things from the rebuttal: I don’t date 17-year-olds. I don’t have sex with 17-year-olds. I don’t meet them in hotel rooms in other states.

                He didn’t say any of that. Instead he implicitly confirms every bit of that by acting like everyone is talking about his ‘ex-girlfriend’.

                According to Gaetz, if what he said is true, he has not committed a crime.

                That does not change the fact that, if we take the allegations and _remove_ the denied-by-Gatez parts of it, what we are left with is a Representative that, at the age of 36, was sneaking off to hotel rooms to have sex with a 17-year-old girl…in a _legal_ fashion. Presumably in a state where that is over the age of consent.

                Are you following this? Are you following that this is still a scandal just based on the parts implicitly admitted to by Gaetz? I’m seriously not sure. This isn’t ‘sleaze’, this is wildly inappropriate behavior for 36 year old who, at that point, was running for public office, IIRC.

                This isn’t ‘a woman making an accusation’ (We honestly don’t even know if she has any complaints about anything!), and it isn’t the NYT _merely_ reporting an investigation. It started out that way, and then Gaetz admitted to a large section of it while denying some of the criminal parts…or, hell, he didn’t even ‘deny’ them, he just said ‘They have interpreted the law a little loosely and the gifts I gave were not paying for sex’.

                But…this is still a ‘no longer in office’ level scandal even if Gaetz is right.Report

              • Avatar Jaybird in reply to DavidTC
                Ignored
                says:

                Oh, if you want to talk about Gaetz?

                I’m more than happy enough to say that the dude is a sleaze who needs to go and needs to go yesterday. Not just go, but go to jail! I’ve got a rope right here!

                Hey, I’ll even make a joke about how he should have followed the Pence Rule!Report

    • Avatar Kazzy in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      I didn’t/can’t read the NYT article.

      Did the alleged victim come forward with the claims? Did she approach the NYT or other media outlets? Was she identified as part of the investigation into the other guy and, when interview, brought up Gaetz? How did the investigation become known to the NYT? Has the DOJ or anyone else involved in the investigation made any public, on-the-record statements? To me, that would really get at what you are asking about here.

      If this is an otherwise underwraps investigation and the alleged victim was identified and has made no public statements and someone involved spoke to the NYT when they weren’t supposed to, it would make sense that we aren’t getting much of the story. And that is frustrating and says something about the person leaking it and maybe something about the NYT but ultimately doesn’t give us much of anything about the veracity of the claims themselves.Report

      • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        This does not appear to be a he said/she said. As Andrew noted, the alleged evidence they have on Gaetz was unearthed during a different, separate investigation of Joel Greenberg, a GOP operative from Florida who is currently under indictment for child sex trafficking.

        The investigation of both Greenburg and Gaetz were approved by Bill Barr, so it’s unlikely that even if this is crooked set up, it is not one that’s part of some partisan strategy. Also, given the fact that the Gaetz investigation is an offshoot actual evidence discovered with Greenberg’s case, what we are probably seeing now is more likely an investigation that is nearing completion, not one that’s just getting underway.

        Unless Gaetz is telling the truth that he’s been some kind of FBI mole ferreting out the real culprits, it’s hard to see how things aren’t about to go very, very badly for him.Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Kazzy
        Ignored
        says:

        I’m down with “Believe Women”. I mean, sure. The statement has limitations and there are a bunch of shortcomings that attend the basic assumption, but I I’m down, for the most part, with “Believe Women”. (I’m sure that my issues with it take the form of quibbles that would get people to say “well, yes, of course…” and not “that’s crazy!”)

        I’m less down with “Believe Prosecutors”.Report

  2. Avatar Michael Cain
    Ignored
    says:

    How does the existence of an investigation leak out to the news media anyway? If my local paper ran a story under a heading “Michael Cain being investigated for sex with underage girls” I would be frothing-at-the-mouth angry. Can-I-sue-someone-into-bankruptcy angry. There are reasons that grand jury members and witnesses are sworn to secrecy. Any sort of investigation where just the rumor can be damaging ought to be equally secret.Report

    • Avatar Philip H in reply to Michael Cain
      Ignored
      says:

      You do know how DC works right?

      Let’s just say the the other guy named above is indeed the target. And lets just say the Goetz has been less cooperative then his bloviating suggests. And lets just say that the investigation (like the one that caught Jeffrey Epstein) is BIG POLITICO ADJACENT . . . . then a leak from DOJ is all about strong arming him to name names under oath.Report

      • Avatar Michael Cain in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Federal grand jury investigations almost never leak. FBI investigations seldom leak. What is this, the DOJ is sort of sniffing around, looking to see if it’s worth putting any serious staff time into it, so it’s okay to leak? There ought to be consequences.Report

    • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Michael Cain
      Ignored
      says:

      Another pretty common way they get leaked is by people who are public figures under investigation, as a way to get in front of the story and frame it in a way that’s more advantageous than whatever is about to be announced publicly will be.Report

      • Avatar JS in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        Not sure Matt’s team leaked this, as his Carlson interview was….really bad spin-wise. Like REALLY bad. Clearly he had not had time to prep himself, much less Tucker.

        I mean there was some crazy stuff on that interview. Dragging Tucker into the mess, insane claims of blackmail (yes, because if you’re being blackmailed for 25 million over a story that IS ALREADY PUBLIC you’re gonna pay your 4 million tomorrow, publicly. You know, the way blackmailers like to be paid? PUBLICLY), talk of wearing wires (was that a warning to people? a threat? trying to spike an investigation? Craziness?)

        That doesn’t mean the DoJ leaked it — if the FBI was asking questions, there are people who got asked questions. All it takes is a reporter to get a whiff of one of them, one way or another, and to start following up.

        Hell, Gaetz himself could have accidentally leaked it — complained to the wrong person (or in earshot of the wrong person), or perhaps someone in his family is unhappy about the situation.

        Short answer is — I doubt Gaetz leaked it on purpose, but he clearly learned in the last day or so it was gonna come out, but didn’t have time (or didn’t make the effort) to prep. But a big investigation into a juicy subject? Too many people know — inside and outside of the investigation — to ensure it stays quiet, just through the process of investigation.Report

        • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to JS
          Ignored
          says:

          Yeah, I do not believe this case was a leak from the accused. (Or on the very off chance that it was, it wasn’t one from Matt’s legal team to fit some strategy, so much as something he did on his own in a complete panic.)Report

        • Avatar Kazzy in reply to JS
          Ignored
          says:

          “ Clearly he had not had time to prep himself, much less Tucker.”

          Yes and no. This was not an interview but a highly prepared sermon wherein he wanted to get certain claims out into the world and did so through his little soliloquy.

          That doesn’t mean it was smart or good… but he didn’t get caught with his pants down by some gotcha-questions.Report

          • Avatar dhex in reply to Kazzy
            Ignored
            says:

            doing self-pr generally is a lot like doing self-surgery. you can absolutely make that choice, but it’s not necessarily gonna be pretty.

            doing it about when you’re dealing with the federales? that’s like self-surgery on the back of a motorcycle ON FIRE.Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Tod Kelly
        Ignored
        says:

        If “I’m being investigated for child sex trafficking” is the good spin….yikes.Report

  3. Avatar Oscar Gordon
    Ignored
    says:

    The death of Epstein leave a power vacuum that Greenberg is trying to fill?Report

  4. Avatar Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    Ick. Why is this an article? I’ve spent years building my favorites and bookmarks just to avoid stuff like this.Report

  5. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    Robby Soave, predictable as a clock, comes in with a well actually defense because who else would:

    https://twitter.com/edroso/status/1377052179165483015?s=20

    Right before the DOJ investigation broke, Gaetz was mulling quitting Congress for Newsmax.Report

  6. Avatar Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    I’ll repeat what I’ve said before, that sex scandals among politicians are like dental decay, something so common as to be unremarkable.

    More to the point, they adhere to the individual, and don’t really lend themselves to making Big Statements about political ideas.

    None of which is to say we should be complacent or dismissive; These are serious things that need to be aired out and the behavior stopped. But they don’t tell us anything other than men like to have sex with young women.

    About the only Big Statement I think could be made here is that this initially began as an investigation into political corruption. The Republican Party (IMO of course) has steadily devolved from a group of people pushing ideas into just a sordid racket of grift and cynical corruption. So it is inevitable that out of this swamp of stagnant corruption at least a couple sitting politicians will get stuck.

    Even seen in their most charitable light, the rising stars of the GOP like Gaetze, Boebert, Greene, Cawthorne aren’t young Reagans-in-the-making. None of them have any sort of vision of society they can articulate or comprehensive idea of how the world should work, other than “I want money and power”.

    Say what you want about the tenets of Reaganism, but at least it was an ethos.Report

  7. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    As can only be predicted, the story is getting worse:

    https://twitter.com/BriannaWu/status/1377628298721828866Report

  8. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    And we have a person who is not a prosecutor!

    Yeah, throw the book at him.

    (A cash app? A *CASH APP*? The only good thing you can say about this is that at least the money got transferred. (There were a handful of scandals in the 90’s about bounced checks.))Report

Leave a Reply

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