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
    29·
    3 hours 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.

  • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    55 minutes ago

    Why fucking bother? They’re just going to do what they did last time and let him go.

    • shalafi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      14 minutes ago

      No, he wasn’t “let go”. The feds didn’t have the evidence and the witnesses wouldn’t talk. Now it’s different.

  • snooggums@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    2 hours 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
        2·
        12 minutes 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
          1·
          6 minutes 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.