The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: justice department
Matt Gaetz

'Matt Showed This To Me': Gaetz Allegedly Displayed Nude Pics Of Young Women

Even though the US Department of Justice declined to pursue criminal charges against Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) last year, the House Ethics Committee is still investigating him. And a new profile suggests that investigation may soon intensify.

Earlier this week, The Atlantic's Elaine Godfrey reported that, according to several of her sources, the Florida Republican sent explicit photos and videos of women to some of his colleagues in Congress. One video was allegedly of a young woman hula hooping while naked.

"Matt sent this to me, and you’re missing out," one unnamed Gaetz aide said, telling Godfrey that he watched the video from the back of a fan along with another member of Congress.

According to Godfrey, Gaetz has a longtime habit of "bragging about his sexual conquests" that supposedly includes showing nude photos of women to his friends. One of Gaetz's longtime friends, Erin Scot, recalled a time when she met up with Gaetz at a wedding in 2009 — prior to him launching his political career — and wanted to show him a photo of her girlfriend (Scot came out as lesbian to Gaetz when they were young, and she noted that she felt comfortable with him when he appeared unfazed at the news).

"[Scot] says that later, at the bar, Gaetz passed around an image of his own: a cellphone photo of a recent hookup, staring up topless from his bed," Godfrey wrote.

The far-right congressman allegedly took his public boasting about his hookups to a higher level after being elected to the Florida legislature in 2010. Godfrey wrote that Gaetz and several Republican lawmakers are reported to have devised a "points" system in which participants scored one point for sleeping with a lobbyist, three points for hooking up with a lawmaker and six points for a married legislator. The Washington Post reported in 2021 that Gaetz voted against a Florida bill to criminalize "revenge porn," which involves the sharing of explicit photos without the consent of the subject.

"Gaetz and his friends all played the game, at least three people confirmed to me, although none could tell me exactly where Gaetz stood on the scoreboard. (Gaetz has denied creating, having knowledge of, or participating in the game.)," Godfrey reported.

A source Godfrey described as a "former Republican lawmaker" corroborated other claims about Gaetz's propensity to share unsolicited details about his sex life. That source said Gaetz "used to walk around the cloakroom showing people porno of him and his latest girlfriend.

"He’d show me a video, and I’d say, 'That’s great, Matt.’ Like, what kind of a reaction do you want?" The source said.

And while Gaetz was once a close adviser to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, reportedly being the reason former President Donald Trump endorsed DeSantis' candidacy for his first term in 2018, he has since fallen out of favor with the Sunshine State's governor. Political consultant Peter Schorch told Godfrey that Florida First Lady Casey DeSantis "hated all the sex stories that came out" about Gaetz and that the congressman was to be considered "persona non grata."

The House Ethics Committee's probe into Gaetz is ongoing, and will ultimately product a report that could recommend an official censure motion or even expulsion, as it did with former Rep. George Santos (R-NY). Gaetz continues to deny all of the allegations the committee is investigating.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Former President Donald Trump

These Are The Ways Trump Will Destroy Liberty In A Second Term

Apparently interpreting the Supreme Court's decision on the 14th Amendment as a personal vote of confidence, Donald Trump pushed his luck, urging the justices to rule swiftly that he has absolute immunity as well.

That is not likely. Most observers thought the court would reject Colorado's action because permitting it would have invited chaos in the middle of an ongoing election and because the court husbands its legitimacy. Had it upheld Colorado's disqualification, the court would instantly have become a hate object for 70% of Republicans, who would have perceived its ruling as baldly political, denying to voters their free choice of candidate.

The presidential immunity claim is another matter. A ruling that completely adopted Trump's position in that case would essentially gut the Constitution, permitting a president to accept bribes, use taxpayer money to build a series of palaces for himself all over the world, or arrest and torture his critics. As the D.C. Circuit Court put it: "At bottom, former President Trump's stance would collapse our system of separated powers by placing the president beyond the reach of all three branches."

Here's the rub: If Trump is reelected in November, he will essentially have total immunity, regardless of what the court says.

A reelected Trump would have the voters' imprimatur for lawlessness. If he wins in November, the message from voters will be: Yes, we know he mishandled the most sensitive classified documents and obstructed justice rather than return them. And we know he caused the deaths of millions of COVID patients by lying about the threat of the virus and discouraging precautions. And we know he invited his followers to threaten and harass innocent election workers, secretaries of state and governors. And we know that he called for shoplifters to be shot on sight and said the Constitution should be terminated. We know he said he'd be a dictator for a day. Above all, we know that he attempted to subvert the peaceful transfer of power and remain in office despite the will of the people. And we chose him anyway. Reelection would grant absolution for all of it.

The supposed guardrails of democracy are already creaking and groaning at the prospect of another Trump term. Just look at the state of the GOP. As a "might be" president, he is already able to dictate the composition of the Republican National Committee, rig a primary in Nevada, kill a border bill that would have given Republicans 90% of what they've been demanding for years and undermine Republican support for Ukraine.

Now imagine that Trump is president again and instructs the Justice Department to bring treason charges against Jack Smith. Who will stop him? The carefully vetted MAGA lawyers he has hired precisely for their loyalty?

What if he instructs the IRS to audit and fine Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, George Conway, and hundreds of other prominent critics? This violates IRS rules. But will IRS employees, again hired for loyalty to Trump, demur? After all, he did run on the promise, "I am your retribution," and his voters agreed.

What if he directs the SEC to investigate banks that refuse to loan the Trump Organization money? Would any whistleblower risk his job or worse?

What if, in response to street demonstrations, Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and federalizes the national guard, allowing the military to shut down protests and arrest (or worse) demonstrators without cause?

In Trump's first term, he was partially thwarted by strong institutions, yes — but above all by a deep commitment to the rule of law among the citizens of this country. A mid-level NSC staffer found the courage to defy the president's illegal and immoral acts because of his deep faith in the people's values. As Alexander Vindman said to his father, who, having grown up in the totalitarian USSR, worried about what might happen to his son for opposing the president, "Do not worry, I will be fine for telling the truth."

Except he wasn't. Not quite. He and (for spite) his twin brother were fired from the NSC. His military promotion was put on hold. He was harassed. It would be far, far worse in a second Trump term. Would there even be Alexander Vindmans in a second Trump presidency?

Doubtful. The mob justice that Trump has practiced and been rewarded for would intimidate nearly all. And they would not be enough to preserve constitutional democracy.

As Judge Learned Hand said in his 1944 "Spirit of Liberty" speech:

"I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it."

On April 22, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on presidential immunity and will perhaps issue a ruling full of pious talk about the rule of law. But the words will be empty if Trump is elected.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Trump Faces Huge Potential Damages In January 6 Civil Lawsuits

Trump Faces Huge Potential Damages In January 6 Civil Lawsuits

Before Justice Arthur Engoron released his verdict in New York Attorney General Letitia James' civil fraud case, many legal experts predicted that Trump would get clobbered financially. And that's exactly what happened.

On Friday afternoon, February 16, Engoron ordered Trump to pay almost $355 million. But when interest in factored in, that figure increases to $450 million.

Engoron's decision comes after two separate civil defamation lawsuits by former Elle Magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll.

Trump was ordered to pay Carroll $5 million in damages in her first lawsuit against him and $83.3 million in the second one. Between James' case (including the interest) and the damages in Carroll's lawsuits, Trump owes over $535 million.

According to Forbes' Alison Durkee, those aren't the only civil cases that Trump needs to be worried about.

In an article published on February 19, Durkee explains, "Former President Donald Trump now owes more than $440 million before interest in civil court fines after being ordered to pay more than $354 million Friday in the civil fraud case against him and his company — and it's possible more damages awards could be coming as the ex-president faces more civil cases seeking to hold him liable for the January 6 riot. Trump still faces multiple civil lawsuits — which have largely been consolidated in court — brought by Democratic lawmakers and Capitol police officers, which seek to hold Trump personally liable for the January 6 riot."

Durkee adds, "Those cases are now moving forward after federal district and appeals courts refused to throw them out, rejecting Trump's argument that he has 'immunity' because the allegations stem from actions he took as president."

Durkee notes that the "January 6 civil cases" are "moving forward again in federal district court after appeals courts refused to throw them out." A hearing, according to Durkee, has been scheduled for this Friday, February 23.

"Trump has denied the allegations against him in the civil January 6 lawsuits, accusing Democratic lawmakers in his motion to dismiss of 'attempting to undermine the First Amendment by bringing this lawsuit, based on their longstanding and public grudges against President Trump,'" Durkee reports. "The lawmakers 'fail to plausibly plead any viable conspiracy theory against President Trump,' Trump's attorneys wrote…. The ex-president has continued to insist ex-presidents have 'absolute immunity' even as courts have rejected his arguments, claiming such immunity is necessary even when their actions 'cross the line.'"

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

E. Jean Carroll

Facing 'Untenable Scenario,' Three Trump Lawyers Abandon His Defense

Former President Donald Trump's rout of his GOP rivals in the Iowa Caucus appears to not have worked to soothe the moods of three of his top lawyers who, until this week, were defending him in two separate high-profile trials.

The New Republic reports Trump attorneys Joe Tacopina, Chad D. Siegel, and Matthew G. DeOreo, of the law firm Tacopina, Siegel and DeOreo, all filed a motion to withdraw as counsel in two of the former president's upcoming cases. The three lawyers had been representing Trump in his currently ongoing defamation trial in which plaintiff E. Jean Carroll is suing for $10 million in damages, and in Trump's upcoming March trial in Manhattan District Court over alleged hush money payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels.

Former federal prosecutor Michael McAuliffe told Newsweek that while there are "a number of reasons" why an attorney might want to stop representing a client, Tacopina, Siegel, and DeOreo may have dropped the ex-president out of frustration that their client wasn't properly following their advice.

"The attorney-client relationship might have suffered a fundamental breach of confidence, running in either or both directions," McAuliffe said. "A strong-willed client who thinks he or she is more of a lawyer than the actual lawyer can create an untenable scenario for that lawyer to continue representing the client’s interests."

In a statement to the New York Times, Trump spokesperson Steven Cheung didn't acknowledge the attorneys' withdrawal motion, but said the former president "has the most experienced, qualified, disciplined, and overall strongest legal team ever assembled."

The E. Jean Carroll defamation trial began with a rocky start for Trump, whose Truth Social account posted more than 30 attacks in less than two hours on the writer whom a jury found last year was sexually abused by Trump. This week's proceedings are simply to determine how much Trump will be ordered to pay, as prior court rulings found him liable for both sexual abuse and defamation.

Trump is scheduled to stand trial in Manhattan on March 25, where District Attorney Alvin Bragg has accused Trump of falsifying business records in relation to alleged payoffs involving Daniels' allegations of an affair prior to the 2016 presidential election. A guilty verdict on all counts could theoretically result in more than 600 years in prison. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.