And all those women gave the man permission to share those photos? If not then that is a crime genius.

Can you post the law?

You don't know it is BS, you are just making assumptions.

No, you're making assumptions. He was never charged with anything smarty.

Can you post the law?

I'll give you Hawaii's for starters.
https://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/2021/07/file_Online_Safety_HI_Law_Nonconsensual1.pdf


Curious why you are pushing back to defend sharing nude photos of someone without their permission as if it is fine as long as it isn't criminal.

No, you're making assumptions. He was never charged with anything smarty.

Not being charged doesn't make it BS, that is your assumption.

You have quite a bit to learn about the justice system.

I'll give you Hawaii's for starters.
https://ag.hawaii.gov/cpja/files/2021/07/file_Online_Safety_HI_Law_Nonconsensual1.pdf


Curious why you are pushing back to defend sharing nude photos of someone without their permission as if it is fine as long as it isn't criminal.

Why would you post HI's one?  He isn't in HI.  Does this mean that you're making a statement based on HI's laws and not any laws that would apply to him?  Since you cannot readily post the law that applies to him and used HI's one instead, I will assume my statement is accurate. Now what you're going to do is try to get lucky and look up a federal law. But again, read my last statement about you choosing HI as your 1st choice.

How do you know that permission wasn't given or revoked or statements changed?  Have you talked to the person?  Were you there at the time when it was taken? That's assuming a lot by your part.

Not being charged doesn't make it BS, that is your assumption.

You have quite a bit to learn about the justice system.

Hahahahaha.

Why would you post HI's one?  He isn't in HI.  Does this mean that you're making a statement based on HI's laws and not any laws that would apply to him?  Since you cannot readily post the law that applies to him and used HI's one instead, I will assume my statement is accurate. Now what you're going to do is try to get lucky and look up a federal law. But again, read my last statement about you choosing HI as your 1st choice.

How do you know that permission wasn't given or revoked or statements changed?  Have you talked to the person?  Were you there at the time when it was taken? That's assuming a lot by your part.

I can play that game, too:

In Iraq, he would have been executed without a trial.

Why would you post HI's one?  He isn't in HI.  Does this mean that you're making a statement based on HI's laws and not any laws that would apply to him?  Since you cannot readily post the law that applies to him and used HI's one instead, I will assume my statement is accurate. Now what you're going to do is try to get lucky and look up a federal law. But again, read my last statement about you choosing HI as your 1st choice.

How do you know that permission wasn't given or revoked or statements changed?  Have you talked to the person?  Were you there at the time when it was taken? That's assuming a lot by your part.

Your reading comprehension is bad. I said "if" it was done without comprehension.
Your cognitive dissonance for Trump is so strong you can't help but defend a turd like Gaetz.

Here is DC law on the topic.
https://koehlerlaw.net/criminal-defense-dc/non-consensual-pornography/

Again, not sure why you are pushing back so hard on this one. You would have a field day if someone alleged a democrat did the same thing. #doublestandard

Your reading comprehension is bad. I said "if" it was done without comprehension.
Your cognitive dissonance for Trump is so strong you can't help but defend a turd like Gaetz.

Here is DC law on the topic.
https://koehlerlaw.net/criminal-defense-dc/non-consensual-pornography/

Again, not sure why you are pushing back so hard on this one. You would have a field day if someone alleged a democrat did the same thing. #doublestandard

1) Thanks for trying to weassle out again using "if".
2) Field day if a DNC did the same. I have blasted Brandon for his sniffing very often. So try again.

Keep trying to play, nice try.  Thanks for posting the DC law AFTER you posted the HI one. My statement is correct.

So, how come Gaetz isn't in handcuffs?

1) Thanks for trying to weassle out again using "if".
2) Field day if a DNC did the same. I have blasted Brandon for his sniffing very often. So try again.

Keep trying to play, nice try.  Thanks for posting the DC law AFTER you posted the HI one. My statement is correct.

So, how come Gaetz isn't in handcuffs?

This is a shakedown that caught fire because Matt kicked Kevin McCarthy out of his job.

The things he was accused of were investigated by the DOJ.  Since the crimes he was accused of were not supported by the evidence, there were no charges.  He may have engaged in unsavory behaviors in some people's moral judgement, but the things he allegedly did are not the kinds of things the FBI charges people for.

The supposed 17 year old testified she never told him her age and he never asked.  Even though it's technically a crime under FL statutory rape law, there's no sex trafficking component, and the event was mutually consensual.  There was no coercion, no violence and no interstate travel involved as would normally be the case in someone charged with trafficking.

I remember when the President of the United States committed sexual harassment and adultery then lied about it to the American people before a blue dress appeared.  He then confessed to everyone.  He was impeached for lying to the special counsel while under oath, but not removed from office.  The public's majority opinion was "It's just sex.  Who wouldn't lie if they are married?"  But somehow Gaetz is made out to be criminally guilty without the benefit of a trial. 

If it wasn't for double standards, politics would have no standards at all.

1) Thanks for trying to weassle out again using "if".
2) Field day if a DNC did the same. I have blasted Brandon for his sniffing very often. So try again.

Keep trying to play, nice try.  Thanks for posting the DC law AFTER you posted the HI one. My statement is correct.

So, how come Gaetz isn't in handcuffs?

Of course I have to use the word if because I have no idea whether the women in the photographs gave consent or not. Again, you seem to not understand criminal law very well.

I have no idea why Gaetz isn't in handcuffs, I have no inside knowledge of the investigation. You act as if him not being charged with a crime is somehow evidence of innocence, again shwoing you don't understand how the criminal system works.

.....But somehow Gaetz is made out to be criminally guilty without the benefit of a trial. 

Just so I am clear, I am not making the case Gaetz is guilty of a serious crime, just that he is a dirtbag who shouldn't be in such positions of power. You are free to disagree, that is just my opinion of him.

"Why ask for a pardon if you didn't do anything wrong?"
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=55432.msg493003#msg493003

Just so I am clear, I am not making the case Gaetz is guilty of a serious crime, just that he is a dirtbag who shouldn't be in such positions of power. You are free to disagree, that is just my opinion of him.

Of course I have to use the word if because I have no idea whether the women in the photographs gave consent or not. Again, you seem to not understand criminal law very well.

I have no idea why Gaetz isn't in handcuffs, I have no inside knowledge of the investigation. You act as if him not being charged with a crime is somehow evidence of innocence, again shwoing you don't understand how the criminal system works.

It doesn't take much thinking as to why he's not in handcuffs...no evidence of a crime committed. You seem to not understand criminal law or it's process very well.

Thanks for playing and again thinking that I'm the one who doesn't know how the system works.

Just so I am clear, I am not making the case Gaetz is guilty of a serious crime, just that he is a dirtbag who shouldn't be in such positions of power. You are free to disagree, that is just my opinion of him.

So besides this non-crime you think he committed since you did post the federal law after a 2nd try at it, why is he a dirtbag ad shouldn't be in power?

Me and EEF are just stating the obvious.  You don't need convictions to deny someone a job.  Allegations and some evidence is all it needs.

If a person is looking for a babysitter and you find someone with good reviews.  However you also see a few allegations of child abuse in the newspaper by named persons with no relations to each other, stories of the abuse, and photos of minor injuries on children but no arrests or convictions.  Would you hire them or find someone else?

Me and EEF are just stating the obvious.  You don't need convictions to deny someone a job.  Allegations and some evidence is all it needs.

If a person is looking for a babysitter and you find someone with good reviews.  However you also see a few allegations of child abuse in the newspaper by named persons with no relations to each other, stories of the abuse, and photos of minor injuries on children but no arrests or convictions.  Would you hire them or find someone else?

I'm waiting for Casey Anthony to start OF since her babysitting career is over.

Me and EEF are just stating the obvious.  You don't need convictions to deny someone a job.  Allegations and some evidence is all it needs.

If a person is looking for a babysitter and you find someone with good reviews.  However you also see a few allegations of child abuse in the newspaper by named persons with no relations to each other, stories of the abuse, and photos of minor injuries on children but no arrests or convictions.  Would you hire them or find someone else?

That depends on whether the accusations are genuine or part of a smear campaign. 

Also, you're basically arguing that babysitting is the same as being the USAG.  A babysitter is a potential risk to your family.  I don't see the correlation with a USAG.  Gaetz is a direct threat to the swamp on both sides of the aisle, as demonstrated when he opposed McCarthy for Speaker.

I'd rather have a bulldog in the USAG's office trying to drain the swamp -- someone who may have allegedly done some things he shouldn't as opposed to someone who's never been accused of bad behavior and toes the party line when told to.

The hard work of fixing these DC problems cannot wait for perfect men.  We need men who are PERFECT FOR THE JOB AT HAND.  Nothing in the ethics report makes him objectively ineligible to assume the role.  If he is the best man to clean up an out of control weaponized DOJ, I'm happy to have him do it.

But, since he withdrew his name from consideration, this is totally moot.

That depends on whether the accusations are genuine or part of a smear campaign. 

Also, you're basically arguing that babysitting is the same as being the USAG.  A babysitter is a potential risk to your family.

The USAG is the top law enforcement officer in the US and one of the most powerful positions in the US.  I would say that's way above a babysitter for scrutiny in hiring and safety of the people.

The USAG is the top law enforcement officer in the US and one of the most powerful positions in the US.  I would say that's way above a babysitter for scrutiny in hiring and safety of the people.

We have seen multiple AG"s in Hawaii disregard the 2nd amendment.  They too have no smear campaign against them.