Can you quote that section? Dorworth says he is a good friend of Gaetz and sued Dorworth
I do know something more.
Declining to prosecute someone can happen for a variety of reasons. Criminal trials involve a high burden of proof, beyond reasonable doubt. Not getting indicted is not the bar we set for Attorney General and it does not mean you passed your ethics investigation with flying colors.
Joel Greenberg, an ex-friend of Gaetz, was convicted in this case. He was indicted on 33 charges and plead to 6 crimes including sex trafficking of a child. We have beyond reasonable doubt on him. We should find out what Gaetz's relationship was with him
The burden of proof in a civil case is preponderance of evidence. There was a civil lawsuit involved in this case. Christopher Dorworth sued Joel Greenberg, his ex-wife, their family business and the woman who was the victim of Greenberg's child sex trafficking (he paid her for sex, we sued to call this prostitution.) for defamation then later dropped the case.
More evidence however emerged after he dropped his suit.
Lawyers for one of the people he sued for defamation are trying to have him pay their legal fees saying he acted in bad faith and they included testimony from multiple witnesses. The testimony said parties involving drugs and escorts took place at Dorworth's home and that Dorworth had sex with the same 17 to as Greenberg. Gaetz was said to be at these parties but did not have sex with the girl.
Here's the filing
https://d.newsweek.com/en/file/473790/matt-gaetz-court-filing.pdf
So there's more to this.
Declining to prosecute is not the same as vetting someone for AG
Ah yes, all of this only comes out now
This was two years ago.
I'm not sure Gaetz will get confirmed
This just came out
My client testified to the House Ethics Committee that she witnessed Matt Gaetz having sex with a minor," Florida attorney Joel Leppard told ABC News
https://search.app?link=https%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go.com%2FUS%2Fwoman-testified-house-ethics-committee-gaetz-sex-17%2Fstory%3Fid%3D115867555&utm_campaign=aga&utm_source=agsadl1%2Cagsadl3%2Csh%2Fx%2Fgs%2Fm2%2F4 The woman who was at the center of a yearslong Justice Department investigation into sex trafficking allegations surrounding Rep. Matt Gaetz testified to the House Ethics Committee that the now-former Florida congressman had sex with her when she was 17 years old, sources familiar with the investigation told ABC News
He has already made a selection. See above
Head of the CIA = John Radcliffe
Nobody on this site gets banned for pushing fake nonsense like this.
That is a fake photo of Chuck Schumer. It doesn't even look like him.
It's supposedly a British guy.
There was zero discussion of misconduct or sanctions at the appeal hearing. I watched it real time.
If you think I'm wrong please provide the specific time in the video.
I think Trump will definitely have one and strong possibility of two judges who side with his lawyer's arguments in terms of impacts.
But I think the most likely outcone is the liability for fraud stands, but the amount of money is reduced. They previously allowed him to reduce the amount of money needed to secure his bond.
It doesn't matter what Trump said about valuation of his property any more than if you told the bank the house you were refinancing was worth 10 million if it was only worth one million.
This is a crime. This is mortgage fraud. Very straightforward crime.
I>T'S s up to the lending institutions to value assets they are lending money on, not the people they were lending money to.
This was not that type of loan. This was a prime aspect of the case
The real estate side of Deutsch Bank wanted 10% interest. Trump got a 2% passed on a high net worth and a minimum $50 million in cash.
The properties were not collateral for these loans. The loans was personally guaranteed based on Trump's wealth Part of the disgorgement is hundreds of millions in the difference in interest.
Also, they didn't lose any money and wanted more business from Trump, so there was essentially no crime or fraud
Once the false numbers were put on the documents fraud has occurred. Just like if I lie on my mortgage application.
There were a couple of witnesses from DB. The saleswoman was happy.
However the bank's risk manger said Trump didn't qualify for the size of the loans or low interest rates.
Trump’s “statements of financial condition” were key to his approval for a $125 million loan in 2011 for his golf resort in Doral, Florida, and a $107 million loan in 2012 for his Chicago hotel and condo skyscraper, former Deutsche Bank risk management officer Nicholas Haigh testified.
Those numbers helped Trump secure bigger loans and lower interest rates, said Haigh,
Deutsche Bank’s private wealth management unit, which handled the loans, wouldn’t have approved them without a “strong financial guarantee” from Trump, Haigh said.
Haigh said he reviewed Trump’s financial statements before approving the loans and, at the time, had no reason to doubt their validity.
Presidents don't control funds.
Congress makes the laws and Presidents see they are faithfully executed.
Did you actually watch what she said? There's literally zero there speaking of an insurrection.
As for the "lawfare" being unconstitutional Trump has contested this over and over.
Alina Habba filed a federal lawsuit to this affect in Dec 2021. He was dismissed in 2022 and Habba filed an appeal. Then withdrew the appeal in Jan 2023.
The Trump Organization tried to settle this suit in 2022.
In November 2022 they filed in Florida for a federal injunction against Trish James. It was dismissed.
At one point they tried to claim there is no Trump Organization.
They successfully appealled and challenged the statue of limitations which got Ivanka Trump dropped from the case as she no longer worked for the Trump Organization at the same time the Appellate Court said the case would contiue
In 2023 after Judge Engoron issues his summary judgement before the trial. Trump filed a misconduct complaint against him. It was rejected and Trump withdrew the complaint.
They asked the judge to withdraw the case and appealled his denial.
Trump is appealing the fraud case now.
IMO, the determination of fraud will stand there's just too much evidence of it. Trump himself admitted under oath the value he gave to his New York apartment was wrong. The Trump CFO perjured himself at this trial. Trump executive Doug Larson had to be reminded by Trump's own lawyer to consult a lawyer because he may have perjured himself. He then changed his testimony.
The money amount may be reduced. The effects of the fraud is way more open to interpretation. But I don't see them overturning the facts of the case.
And the legality of the case will stand.
What's the issue?
You made this claim
So put Dorworth aside. Did Greenberg admit to this? Did this actually happen? I don't think it did
These pages lay out Dorworth's claim again, but then Greenberg immediately attacks his claim
So no Greenberg did not admit anything and Dorworth dropped his claims.
Something is going on here and it could backfire on Trump. You saw what Trey Gowdy said.