New Court Filings Place Matt Gaetz at a Party at the Center of the Sex Trafficking Scandal
www.notus.org
This is the first public filing that cites sworn testimony alleging that Gaetz attended one of the long-rumored parties with a teenage girl.

Yesterday’s crazy keeps on keepin’ on…

  • nkat2112@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    32·
    2 months ago

    A noteworthy paragraph for context:

    The minor, who was a junior in high school at the time, arrived in her mother’s car for a July 15, 2017, party at the Florida home of Chris Dorworth, a lobbyist and friend of Gaetz’s, according to a court filing written by defense attorneys who interviewed witnesses as part of an ongoing civil lawsuit Dorworth brought in 2023.

    And shortly following that, this:

    One eyewitness cited in the court filings, a young woman referred to as K.M., provided a sworn affidavit that claimed the teenage girl was naked, partygoers were there to “engage in sexual activities,” and “alcohol, cocaine, ecstasy … and marijuana” were present. The teenage girl was identified in the filings only as A.B.

    This is all horrible.

    The article then goes into detail about recent developments with testimony. Many dots appear to be connected.

  • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    2 months ago

    Is this more detail on the prior reports of him being a human trafficking pedophile that came out years ago, or something new?

      • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        2 months ago

        Nothing mysterious, no evidence. Everyone figured his buddy would squeal to spare himself jail time. Nada. The 17-yo girl in question wouldn’t testify either. Also, she had since started an OF site and prosecution felt she would get torn up as a witness.

        • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
          3·
          2 months ago

          After educating myself, agree - nothing mysterious.

          However, is this really the same as “no evidence”? -

          The recommendation comes in part because prosecutors have questions over whether the central witnesses in the long-running investigation would be perceived as credible before a jury.

          Sounds like they did have evidence, but it was more about the reaction of the jury to the witness for other reasons.

          • Tyfud@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            No objective evidence. It’s tough to build a case around key witnesses and testimonies that are easily assailable by the defense, especially ones that could play well to a jury.

            It’s not fair, and this all very, very likely happened as the court documents allege. But proving it in a court of law is a whole different thing.

            Prosecutors generally try not to take cases they’re not confident they can win. They’re underpaid and overworked and try and follow the 80/20 rule, which is that they can do more good prosecuting the 80% of cases that are slam dunks, than waste tax payer money chasing 20% of the cases that require just about “everything to go right” for them to come out on top.

            It’s one of the many things flawed within our justice system right now that a DA won’t pursue this because the blowback of losing the case would end their career.