Republican Matt Gaetz Investigated For Sex Trafficking

a reply to: one4all

A sexual relationship is not possible under your auspices.... a 17 year old is a minor and not an Adult therefore the very decision to reproduce cannot be considered to be a legally binding or permissive decision....therefore reproductive maturity cannot be projected......a sexually orientated physical interaction may happen within a dynamic containing a Perpetrator and a Victim.

What a pretzel!!! There are states in which the legal age of consent is 17. There are also states in which the legal age of consent is 16. In those states, it is not only possible but legal for a 17-year-old to have a relationship with anyone and everyone they so choose. Nor is anyone speaking about reproducing, much less the choice to reproduce. We're just talking about the deed, not the result. But both sexual and reproductive maturity is determined by biology, not legislation.

a reply to: knoxie

Let me know when there is a single shred of evidence presented..

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

well, he paid for it maybe they taped it, too. wouldn't that be something? crime is so much more fun when you can tape it and show it around.

a reply to: one4all

.stop using the word "mature" you are attempting to weaponize it and use it permissively.

No, exactly the opposite. The word mature simply means that something his reached its maturity. It will not develop further. It is the end of the process. In this case, sexual maturity means that the body is physically and biologically capable of reproducing. The efforts to weaponize it would be those that add or substract from that definition, particularly in subjective ways.

You cannot by proxy be Reproductively Mature until you can make the legally vetted adult decision to reproduce.

And this is where you veer off into ludicrousness.

I dare you to go tell any girl who has been raped and impregnated that she's not "Reproductively Mature" until she can make the legally vetted adult decision to reproduce. I double dog dare you.

I already clearly outlined why you have failed to consider respect or meet Societally parsed legal definitions and requirements within your context and syntax.

Which society? The society that says underage girls should have access to birth control and abortion without parental consent? Or the society that says 16-year-olds are legally able to consent? Or would that be the society that doesn't even know the difference between male and female, much less sexually mature men and women?

originally posted by: knoxie
a reply to: Boadicea

Considering matty is a close confidant of Trump. Do you think Barr informed Trump of the investigation?

I'm not even sure there is an investigation.

And if there is, I have no idea if the Fixer informed Trump, and I don't care.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: rnaa

However, in some states, a 17-year-old cannot LEGALLY engage in a "consensual" relationship. THAT is called statutory rape. In other words, it is "rape" by statute... by law... not by the strict definition of rape, which is forced intercourse. In statutory rape, it is the state that is saying "no," not the 17-year-old, who is saying "yes".

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.

Where did I say anything about pimping her out?

By invoking "trafficking."

No, I did not.

"Child Sex Trafficking" does not necessarily involve 'pimping' the child.

Department of Justice: Citizen's Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Child Sex Trafficking

...it is illegal both to offer and to obtain a child, and cause that child to engage in any kind of sexual activity in exchange for anything of value, whether it be money, goods, personal benefit, in-kind favors, or some other kind of benefit.

Taking a child on expense paid holidays while engaged in a sexual relationship with that child fits that definition exactly.

Section 2421 and 2423(a) make it a crime to transport an individual or a minor across state lines for the purpose of prostitution or any other illegal sexual activity.

If he transported the child to Georgia and had sex with her in a motel room he violated this provision - and it has nothing to do with pimping her out.

No, it is not. The legal definition of "trafficking" -- the legal definitions YOU provided, and I already excerpted for you -- involves commercial interests. In other words, trafficking requires an element of monetary gain for the trafficker.

And the definition of "commercial interests" - which I also provided - is:

(3) The term “commercial sex act” means any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.

Note the phrases "anything of value" and "given to or received by any person".

An all expense paid holiday is "anything of value" that is "given to or received by" the child who is "any person".

Or am I misunderstanding you, and you think the girl is a literal whore who was charging him, and she was receiving the monetary gain? In which case the girl isn't a victim, but an accomplice who "trafficked" herself?

Will you STOP this line of attack on the victim. At no point have I even hinted at 'blaming' anyone but the so-called 'responsible adult' in this affair. I will not play that game, go ahead and let it play out in your diseased head, but don't involve me.

a reply to: Boadicea

What a pretzel!!! There are states in which the legal age of consent is 17. There are also states in which the legal age of consent is 16. In those states, it is not only possible but legal for a 17-year-old to have a relationship with anyone and everyone they so choose.

Please keep up. We are talking FLORIDA - not 'some' states.

The age of consent in FLORIDA is 18.

The age of consent in GEORGIA is 16.

Georgia doesn't matter - Florida matters. Florida is where the alleged statutory rape took place.

Also Federal Law matters.

Federal Law defines anyone under the age of 18 a minor and that is what counts for the alleged child trafficking.

originally posted by: knoxie

well, he paid for it maybe they taped it, too. wouldn't that be something? crime is so much more fun when you can tape it and show it around.

No evidence he ever paid for sex.

a reply to: rnaa

No evidence anything was ever exchanged for sex.. unless you want to call any gifts between partners "payment for sex."

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: knoxie

Just that pedophilia has a definition.. its a sexual attraction to pre pubescent kids.. and claiming that sexually torturing pre pubescent kids is "pretty much the same" as a 17 year old and 20 something.. is absurd.

That is only HALF TRUE.

The MEDICAL DEFINITION, for the purposes of defining MENTAL ILLNESS, uses "pre-pubescent" as a criteria.

However, the LEGAL DEFINITION, for the purposes of defining a CRIME, uses "minor" as a criteria - and defines "minor" as anyone under 18.

18 U.S. Code § 2251 - Sexual exploitation of children

(a) Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, or who has a minor assist any other person to engage in, or who transports any minor in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e), if such person knows or has reason to know that such visual depiction will be transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed, if that visual depiction was produced or transmitted using materials that have been mailed, shipped, or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce by any means, including by computer, or if such visual depiction has actually been transported or transmitted using any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce or in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or mailed.

etc, etc, etc.

minor
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;

So it is a FEDERAL CRIME to engage in any kind of sexual activity with minors which are ANYONE under the age of 18.

Because of the Medical Definition, the offender MAY have a Mental Illness defense if the minor is pre-pubescent.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

The left argues that kids can reasonably choose to mutilate their sex organs etc. If that is the case its idiotic to also argue that 17 yearn olds cant reasonably decide whether to have sex/with who.

Exactly. Both sides love the "whataboutism," and for the most part, it's just a way to poke the bear.

But the left has already lost all credibility in terms of condemning one man for doing that which they advocate and promote and encourage. Not all, but many Feminists are all about "sex positivity" and "bodily autonomy" and shaming anyone who thinks some safeguarding and precautions for known risks and dangers are in order. When the same folks who are demanding birth control and abortions without parental consent for underage girls cries foul when an underage girl has a consensual relationship with an adult, their faux outrage is pathetic.

If the charges are true, if he broke laws, then let the chips fall where they may. In both the court of law and the court of public opinion. It won't be pretty.

But this faux outrage is just as ugly.

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777

originally posted by: knoxie

well, he paid for it maybe they taped it, too. wouldn't that be something? crime is so much more fun when you can tape it and show it around.

No evidence he ever paid for sex.

He has said he has done so.

originally posted by: rnaa

He has said he has done so.

STOP LYING.

He specifically said he has never paid for sex.

originally posted by: Ringsofsaturn777
a reply to: rnaa

No evidence anything was ever exchanged for sex.. unless you want to call any gifts between partners "payment for sex."

We haven't actually seen any evidence for anything yet, that is true.

Giving gifts to 'romantic' partners is not, of course, "payment for sex" - but if the 'romantic' partner is a minor, then it is a crime - sex trafficking.

But do not confuse that with the allegations that he had sex and drug parties with professional sex workers. Giving them 'gifts' is certainly "payment for sex".

The drug parties are still allegations, and even if proven true, they are not related to the problems he has with his alleged 17 year old traveling companion.

a reply to: Ringsofsaturn777

STOP LYING

He specifically said he has given gifts to partners.

It is alleged that 'some' of those partners were pros and that he actively recruited minors.

And Matt Gaetz couldn't lie straight in bed.

a reply to: rnaa

Will you STOP this line of attack on the victim. At no point have I even hinted at 'blaming' anyone but the so-called 'responsible adult' in this affair. I will not play that game, go ahead and let it play out in your diseased head, but don't involve me.

I am not and have not and will not attack the girl.

I asked you a simple question, in direct response to YOUR words, for clarification purposes. You obviously don't want to answer it, and I understand why, but unless and until you clarify how Gaetz benefitted, YOU are the one implicating the girl by simple process of elimination. Two parties involved... one benefitted... Gaetz did not benefit... ergo, the girl benefitted. YOU are the one suggesting that SHE benefitted -- monetarily or otherwise.

You invoked "trafficking." You set the standard. In order for there to be trafficking, either Gaetz or the girl benefitted from the interaction. According to YOUR logic, if Gaetz didn't benefit, then the girl did. If you didn't think all the implications through when you threw out your accusations, that's on you. Not me.

To wit:

(3) The term “commercial sex act” means any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person.

This requires that Gaetz made a specific offer to the girl in exchange for sex which she knowingly and willingly accepted. In other words, all the "gifts" and "holidays" were explicitly and expressly stated to be given ONLY in exchange for sex. And the girl agreed to give sex in exchange for those things.

Is this what you are saying or not? If not, please clarify. Don't sputter and point your finger at me if you can't back up your own words.

originally posted by: rnaa

We haven't actually seen any evidence for anything yet, that is true.

Giving gifts to 'romantic' partners is not, of course, "payment for sex" - but if the 'romantic' partner is a minor, then it is a crime - sex trafficking.

Nope. Depending on where, it might be statutory rape but it isnt sex trafficking.

a reply to: Boadicea

"I only know it has to do with women" Gaetz said. "I have a suspicion that someone is trying to recategorize my generosity to ex-girlfriends as something more untoward."

sounds like he knows there's an investigation ongoing.