Attorney General nominee Matt Gaetz Under Investigation for Alleged Underage Sex

You notice that Mr. Oh-No-I'm-A-Libertarian-Who-Hates-Both-Parties-Equally-But-Only-Ever-Seem-To-Defend-Republicans has suddenly gotten the spine to attack anything negative about Republicans? Just mentioning this because this behavior is similar to those who later go on to do a mass shooting. I'm not saying that Billy's going to be a mass shooter, just that if he turns into one, I'm not going to be surprised.

Based on what evidence?

Based on "who gives a fuck"?
What are you looking for, a "gotcha" moment? Not gonna happen. I dint care what point you're trying to make. Bottom line is, you're stumping for a pervert. You'd think, with your new nickname, you'd maybe want to back off rushing in to defend people like Gaetz.

I'm not defending anyone, I'm asking a question.

It's worth remembering that Federal Groomer took the exact same approach when he was personally accused of inappropriate contact with minors just a few weeks ago. "Prove it! Where's your evidence? Prove it!"

What an odd coincidence.

Just a small point, you cannot legally hire a prostitute nor can you have sex with someone under the age of consent.

Yeah it's really weird for someone to ask for proof when they are accused of something. What a weird concept.

Oh, for fuck's sake.

C'mon, you know that's not gonna be enough, right? Federal Groomer won't be satisfied until he sees the kind of evidence he can jack off to.

Are you saying he wants... hard evidence?

Billy and UA right now:

Of course FF is trying to defend a guy who paid women for sex when that's how he married his ex-wife.

Oh, so they wanted to see the dick pics to check it wasn't making them look inadequate?

Too late, fellas.

Where's @Steal Your Face? That post was 48 hours ago and he's been online since.

I guess he's been busy paying for sex with that 16-year-old he calls his "ex-wife".

(Relax, everyone. It's not statutory rape, since he's 17.)

Okay, then why hasn't he been charged of anything?

Imagine defending a guy like Gaetz. Or, imagine hating liberals so much you defend a guy like Gaetz. Pathetic.

Because Merrick Garland's a spineless twunt.

UA/FF: FEMINAZIS, COMMUNIST PLOTS, WOKE AGENDAS, THEY'RE ALL TRYING TO TAKE OUR FREEDOMS. LOOK AT THESE GROOMERS

Members of Gaetz own party: We have evidence he paid an underage girl for sex.

UA/FF: Whoa there hold the fuck up you better not be making any accusations unless this allegation has gone through a court of law.

Drag queens in libraries? No. Pedos in politics? Well...

Because Florida is a corrupt shithole? It sounds like most, if not all, of the crimes he allegedly committed are state crimes.

Would you be shocked to learn that @Billy’s idol isn’t just a fellow nepobaby but a 3rd generation one?

His grandfather was a railroad tycoon and state senator, his father is a state senator and formerly President of the Senate and Gaetz himself is a former state rep and current Congressman.

So yeah. We are all wondering why DeSantis’ Florida hasn’t done anything.

You are as much a lying fuckstain as Diacanu and Crosis. Asking about convictions isn't defending anyone.

So why were you asking about convictions in this particular case when you don't ask about them in others?

So you think it's possible he's innocent. I mean, even though he was basically indicted by his own party and run out of congress, you want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
And that's fine. But what I, and others, are pointing out is that you're verrrrrrry particular about who gets that level of the benefit of the doubt from you.
You have no problem assuming that the guy who got choked to death on the subway was justified, for instance. I guess he doesn't deserve that same level of deference from you. I wonder why....

I have. You just don't pay attention.

The question was about a conviction.

Nope. You're attributing your bullshit to me again.

You choose to believe I am, and I guarantee whatever "evidence" you imagine you have relies heavily on your own supposition.

The facts of that case are not in dispute. When you call someone a rapist, you are asserting another fact.

I was bored enough to look it up. You're very selective about when you start demanding to see convictions before you'll treat an allegation as credible. Almost like it's a rhetorical trick to support a particular agenda and not you being fair and balanced.

In this specific case it might be more personal than agenda.

IIRC UA has some very particular reasons for not believing having sex with underaged girls is a crime.