Invite ye felawes and frendes desirous in gold to enter the gates of Shrewd'm, for they will thanke ye later.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 23
There's an article in the New York Times today detailing another pedophile pal of Trumpedo, Matt Gaetz, who paid to have sex with a 17-year-old girl. Gaetz was Trumpedo's first choice to be our nation's attorney general.
That 17-year-old girl was a high school junior in Florida. She was working at McDonald’s. And she was living in and out of a homeless shelter.
She hoped to save up enough money to buy braces to fix her teeth.
On July 15, 2017, Mr. Greenberg asked the girl and others to attend a party at the home of Chris Dorworth, a former Republican member of the Florida state House of Representatives who at the time worked as a lobbyist for Ballard Partners, which is run by a major Trump fund-raiser.
Court documents described the party as involving “alcohol; cocaine; middle-aged men; and young attractive females.”
Mr. Gaetz, then 35, attended the party along with a girlfriend.
At the party, the girl who was 17 later testified, both cocaine and ecstasy were offered to her. She took the ecstasy and drank, according to court papers. She testified that she danced naked in front of Mr. Dorworth and swam naked in his pool.
The ethics committee heard testimony that the girl twice had sex with Mr. Gaetz that evening, and a court document quotes her as having testified that she had sex with him once on a “pool table or … air hockey table.” She testified that Mr. Dorworth saw Mr. Gaetz have sex with her on the game table and “then laughed about it with other partygoers.”Gaetz, a 35-year-old, victimized a 17-year-old girl.
Has there ever been another president who was friends with, put in his cabinet, or sought to promote to a position of the highest authority in government so many pedophiles?
No, of course not.
Today's GOP: the Party of Pedophiles.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/13/us/politics/in-...
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yeah, just think if she had been a Black Woman Democrat, she'd be the odds on choice for President in 2028.
No. of Recommendations: 8
There's an article in the New York Times today detailing another pedophile pal of Trumpedo, Matt Gaetz, who paid to have sex with a 17-year-old girl. Gaetz was Trumpedo's first choice to be our nation's attorney general.
It is all so sickening and cruel. No real justice for the victims.
And you know what is especially disturbing? The MAGA crowd DOES NOT CARE.
Look at the folks on this board who identify as being on the right. They all seem willing to make excuses for Trump, NO MATTER WHAT?
What is wrong with these people...no moral compass AT ALL!
No. of Recommendations: 4
There's an article in the New York Times today detailing another pedophile pal of Trumpedo, Matt Gaetz
Gaetz would be serving time in prison if this he said, she said, they said story was true.
commomone seems to be obsess with the sex lives of former acquaintances of President Trump.
Sounds kinda sick to me.
No. of Recommendations: 2
LOL Matt Gaetz, huh?
I guess that ol' Epstein Email well ran dry a bit faster than you would have liked.
Now, talk about Watergate.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Gaetz would be serving time in prison if this he said, she said, they said story was true.
Nix on that, the House Committee on Ethics thought it was likely true in their report.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Yes, it does seem that an unusually large number of ProGlibs posting here seem rather obsessed with the issues of "pedos" and having sex with children.
They actually sound jealous of what their fevered imaginations wish to believe important people are doing.
That's all projection, of course. They project their own inherent paraphilias onto the "other" which in this case happens to be famous politicians.
It's a form of "splitting."
Only very sick people do this sort of thing.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No, the House Committee did not find that it was "likely true."
They found that there was "substantial evidence" that Gaetz committed the various infractions (including statutory rape) of which they accused him.
"Substantial evidence" is much, much weaker than "likely true" which is more akin to a preponderance of the evidence.
"Substantial evidence" does not mean "likely true"; it does not even mean they found by "a preponderance of the evidence" that the various allegations against Gaetz were true.
As Gaetz correctly pointed out, and as the committee's report itself recited, the DOJ had investigated Gaetz for these accusations and had determined not to bring charges against him.
No. of Recommendations: 5
That's all projection, of course.
Actually, we're just watching you rationalize and legitimize the immoral depths of your leader and his minions. He's still Pres, likely to serve out his term, and we'd like to have as little damage as possible but it looks very bad so far. Can we stop with all of this chaos? Is the entire 3+ years left going to be like this? It's too much. He's going to need an infinite number of distractions.
No. of Recommendations: 4
Yeah, just think if she had been a Black Woman Democrat, she'd be the odds on choi
Intelligence would be required, as well as poise and maturity.
Kimberly lacks all of those.
No. of Recommendations: 25
LurkerMom:
Gaetz would be serving time in prison if this he said, she said, they said story was true.From the House of Representatives Report of the Committee on Ethics:
There is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl. The Committee received credible testimony from Victim A herself, as well as multiple individuals corroborating the allegation. Several of those witnesses have also testified under oath before a federal grand jury and in a civil litigation. Representative Gaetz denied the allegation but refused to testify under oath. He has publicly stated that Victim A “doesn’t exist” and that he has not “had sex with a 17-year-old since I was 17.” The Committee found that to be untrue and determined that there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz had sex with Victim A in July 2017, when she was 17 years old, and he was 35. Representative Gaetz’s actions were in violation of Florida’s statutory rape law.LurkerMom:
commomone seems to be obsess [sic] with the sex lives of former acquaintances of President Trump. Sounds kinda sick to me.What's sick is the republican party of pedophiles constantly excusing rape and pedophilia.
https://ethics.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/1...
No. of Recommendations: 5
Ok then,
Substantial evidence: There is enough evidence for a reasonable person to support a conclusion.
I wasn't trying to use legalese at all. But there's enough evidence for a reasonable person to support a conclusion that it did occur.
So beyond a reasonable doubt is 95% certain. Clear and convincing is around 80% certain. Preponderance of the evidence is 51% certain, or beyond equipoise, which is 50%. So what do you think "likely true" is in percentages? I've never heard it used in any legal sense whatsoever. Anything that falls below 50% isn't really worth talking about in legal terms for me. I wasn't intending "likely true" to be a legal term.
But the evidence is adequate for a reasonable person to support a conclusion that the findings in the report about Matt Gaetz did occur.
No. of Recommendations: 1
So kim is just like Kamala, Ketanji, Jean-Poerre.
That's why I said if she were a DEMOCRAT candidate. No intelligence required.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Democrats obviously don't believe in the Rule of Law. Not only was Matt Gaetz never convicted, he was never even charged.
The Rule of Law tells us that you are just spewing in frustration about Gaetz because you got doodly on Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Well in the same sense that you are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want based on whatever information is available to you.
But that's not how the Rule of Law works.
It's funny how much Democrats actually hate the Rule of Law but like to pretend otherwise. You hate when Trump litigates stuff like food stamps and hate it even more when he uses legal procedures to fend off Democrat attacks successfully. That's the Rule of Law in action.
Same thing with allegations of rape. Or anything else.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Nix on that, the House Committee on Ethics thought it was likely true in their report.
‘Thought it Likely true’? Then why didn’t they persuade it?
Most likely because there was no there there.
No. of Recommendations: 3
What's sick is the republican party of pedophiles constantly excusing rape and pedophilia.
Your whack-a-sex-mole is rotting your brain.
No. of Recommendations: 3
‘Thought it Likely true’? Then why didn’t they persuade it?
Most likely because there was no there there.
The House Ethics Committee doesn't bring charges. And they stated there was a there there, take a look at Wzambons post.
No. of Recommendations: 5
Well in the same sense that you are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want based on whatever information is available to you.
No. You don't seem to understand what substantial evidence means:
Substantial evidence: There is enough evidence for a reasonable person to support a conclusion.
THE COMMITTEE:
There is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl. The Committee received credible testimony from Victim A herself, as well as multiple individuals corroborating the allegation. Several of those witnesses have also testified under oath before a federal grand jury and in a civil litigation. Representative Gaetz denied the allegation but refused to testify under oath. He has publicly stated that Victim A “doesn’t exist” and that he has not “had sex with a 17-year-old since I was 17.” The Committee found that to be untrue and determined that there is substantial evidence that Representative Gaetz had sex with Victim A in July 2017, when she was 17 years old, and he was 35. Representative Gaetz’s actions were in violation of Florida’s statutory rape law.
ME: The committee stated that there is enough adequate evidence for a reasonable person to support a conclusion that Representative Gaetz engaged in sexual activity with a 17-year-old girl.
This is not the same as "you are certainly entitled to believe whatever you want based on whatever information is available to you".
No. of Recommendations: 16
LurkerMom: Your whack-a-sex-mole is rotting your brain.
Well, lotta' sex moles to whack.
Let me ask you a couple of questions, then. Why would Trump — who knew of Jeffrey Epstein’s kiddie pedophile ring — “spend hours” at a pedophile’s house with an underage victim?
Why would Trump — who knew of Jeffrey Epstein’s kiddie pedophile ring — spend Thanksgiving with Jeffrey Epstein in 2017 when he was president, after claiming that he had broken off all ties with Epstein years earlier?
Why wouldn't Gaetz testify under oath?
Why are you protecting pedophiles?
No. of Recommendations: 3
Why would Trump — who knew of Jeffrey Epstein’s kiddie pedophile ring — spend Thanksgiving with Jeffrey Epstein in 2017 when he was president, after claiming that he had broken off all ties with Epstein years earlier?SNIP
“WASHINGTON – Jeffrey Epstein mentioned President Donald Trump in an email exchange about his plans for Thanksgiving in 2017, according to documents released by members of the House Oversight Committee.
In an email exchange on Nov. 23, 2017, Faith Kates, the founder of NEXT Model Management, asked the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender where he was spending Thanksgiving.
Epstein replied, "eva," possibly a reference to his former girlfriend Eva Andersson-Dubin. Kates said that means "glenn" must be there, a likely reference to Glenn Dubin, Andersson-Dubin’s husband.
Kates then asked, "who else is down there?"
"David fizel. hanson. trump," Epstein replied.
"Have fun!!!" Kates wrote back.
Records show that Trump spent his first Thanksgiving as president at his properties in Florida, including his private club Mar-a-Lago and a few hours at Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach.
In response to questions about the email exchange, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said, "These emails prove literally nothing."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/... President Trump spent Thanksgiving at Mar-a-Lago. Trump was not “at Eva”.
If Epstein was at Mar-a-Lago the world would have known it before anyone had their first bite of turkey.
Another miss....He said, she said, they said wack-a-sex-mole.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The only recent "chaos" in the government has been caused by the unnecessary and counter-productive Schumer Shutdown.
Next.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Yeah the ProGlibs have definitely been whacking the mole a little too much lately.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Right. The House Ethics Committee doesn't bring charges.
Next.
No. of Recommendations: 1
No, what's "sick" is all the hypocritical ProGlibs who don't believe in the Rule of Law.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Well I'm a reasonable person and I think you're a deluded hack on the internet.
Doesn't make it true, it's just my opinion.
No. of Recommendations: 3
The only recent "chaos" in the government has been caused by the unnecessary and counter-productive Schumer Shutdown.
Ohh? Really? SNAP chaos is due to TRUMP. I marvelled at it because I thought it would hurt Trump while Albaby underscored Trump was lame and therefor didn't care. Epstein? - caused by Trump. Bombing boats in the Caribe? Trump.
No. of Recommendations: 2
No, SNAP chaos is not due to Trump, at all.
Not that is, if you believe in the Rule of Law.
Trump's emergency petition to the Supreme Court of the U.S. to stay the lower court orders re: SNAP during the shutdown was GRANTED.
In the interim, the Schumer Shutdown was defeated. As a result, the Trump administration withdrew its SNAP appeal as moot.
The Trump administration acted in total accordance with the Rule of Law.
SNAP was blocked due to the Schumer Shutdown.
Now it's not blocked, because the Schumer Shutdown is over.
No. of Recommendations: 0
No, what's "sick" is all the hypocritical ProGlibs who don't believe in the Rule of Law.
ProGlibs keeps coming up as Progressive Libertarians by Google. But there's nothing specific about it. Progressives are about 12% of Dems, and I would think far fewer would be both progressive and libertarian. Would you mind telling us what you think it is? And what percentage of Democrats you think are ProGlibs?
No. of Recommendations: 7
No, SNAP chaos is not due to Trump, at all.
Horseshit
No. of Recommendations: 16
"Not that is, if you believe in the Rule of Law." - Marco100
That you keep trying to imply that you understand what Rule of Law means has to be the funniest thing I have read all week.
here is a clue because you clearly need it.
The Trump administration deciding not to pay SNAP benefits out of the emergency fund has absolutely nothing to do with Rule of Law. It has to do with the fact that the Trump administration decided to make the conscious choice to hurt poor Americans in order to make the government shutdown more painful to everyone. This is easily seen by the fact that in previous government shutdowns, SNAP benefits were not withheld by the administration in power. Only the current administration has done that.
Please educate yourself, your ignorance is helping destroy America.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Ummm....
The Trump administration acted within its lawful discretion in full accordance with the Rule of Law.
The fact that you do not agree with what the Rule of Law says indicates that you do not believe in the Rule of Law.
No. of Recommendations: 12
"The Trump administration acted within its lawful discretion - Marco
1. I am glad that by your use of the word "discretion" you agree that the decision not to pay out SNAP benefits was the Trump administrations and no one else's decision. As such, his administration bears complete responsibility for SNAP benefits not getting paid. Maybe now you will stop playing the idiot and blaming others for SNAP benefits not getting paid.
2. As for the lawfulness of the act, that was never determined. The court cases never got to run their course before the government was reopened. Since you are a Trump supporter you may not realize this, but the courts decide the lawfulness of an action, not you or Trump.
But please, keep entertaining us pretending you have a clue what the Rule of Law means. We will keep laughing.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Trump's emergency petition to the Supreme Court of the U.S. to stay the lower court orders re: SNAP during the shutdown was GRANTED.
This is a lie by omission. You are leaving out part of the story - a part that completely changes the what happened. You left out the rest of the story.
Yes, Justice Jackson granted the emergency stay on a temporary basis, allowing the Trump administration to continue to withhold SNAP benefits while the merits of the case were heard in a lower court. Just a day later, that lower court decided that the administration MUST use emergency funds to pay the benefits, and the emergency stay ended.
In short, the Trump administration lost their case even though they did have an interim win on a procedural issue. The courts ordered the administration to pay the benefits before the shutdown ended.
—Peter
No. of Recommendations: 1
Peter, the Supreme Court extended Ketanjis stay.
No. of Recommendations: 22
commomone seems to be obsess with the sex lives of former acquaintances of President Trump.
What's interesting is the MAGAs are now equating rape with a normal sex life.
