politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Saw != Watched, could have been for example seeing them going into a bedroom at a party. You don't see the act, but you kind of know b what is happening.
She was 17, not 7, if you were in that situation would you call, especially that you don't know the age?
Also the witnesses is pointing that she saw those two having sex, not that she knew her bio at the time.
If all she saw was them two going into a bedroom, she would not have been able to testify that she saw them have sex. They could have stepped into the bedroom for any number of reasons. Yes, we can infer what happened in that bedroom, but that inference carries no legal weight without other evidence to support it. If she saw a sexual act take place before they went into the bedroom, then she still saw a 35 year old man sexually assault a minor.
If I had reason to believe she was 18 and of sound mind, I'd have forgotten that I saw them walk into the bedroom together by the time I was done with my next drink.
Even if she found out the girl was 17 later, she still didn't call the police and say "Hey, I saw a member of the United States House of Representatives sexually assault a 17 year old!". At some point, she knew who Gaetz was, knew the girl was 17 at the time, knew what happened and did nothing.
I'm not going to go into the age of consent issue, or the "Hey she's 17, she knew what she was doing" argument, or the fact that she got into porn afterwards. A Representative in Congress trafficked a girl under the age of 18 across state lines for the purposes of sexual activity. If that were you or me, we'd be in jail right now with our names permanently etched into the sex offender registry. If a jury of his peers wants to look at the whole picture and say "meh", then so be it. But he needed to be put in front of that jury.
Yeah, many people don't want to put themselves in a position where they're publicly accusing very powerful people of crimes.
I would argue that the vast majority of people aren't going to put themselves in that situation.