This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at here. You make a few points, however, that I need to address:
What exactly do you charge them with? To be clear, while Gaetz threw the word "extortion" around, there is no extortion in this case. Extortion is when someone threatens to inflict harm unless they are paid. When the threat is to inform the authorities of criminal activity or otherwise make sensitive information public we call it blackmail, but it's still extortion, and the underlying principle is the same. There is nothing in the record suggesting that either Alford, Kent, or McGee ever threatened to do anything to either Gaetz if Don didn't come up with the money.
Alford was convicted of wire fraud. The essence of the charge is that he made false statements in order to get Don Gaetz's money. To wit, he claimed that he had contacts in the Biden administration who could secure a pardon for Matt when, in fact, he had no such contacts. Kent never made any such claims; he claimed to know someone who did, namely Alford, but unless you can prove that he had specific knowledge that Alford was lying there's no case against him for fraud. McGee's participation was minimal; when Don Gaetz brought up the pardon scheme he said that he didn't know anything about it. Alford, meanwhile, repeatedly told elaborate stories about how people owed him favors and he could get anything he wanted if they were able to bring Levinson back.
Here's the thing, though: The Feds only had jurisdiction over Alford because he made fraudulent statements via text message. If he had simply texted Don Gaetz that he wanted to meet and made the statements in person, there wouldn't be anything here other than a state level fraud charge. The Gaetz case was ultimately dropped due to evidentiary issues involving the credibility of witnesses, but there is still strong evidence of two things. First, Gaetz had surrounded himself with people who had no apparent moral compass, and, second, he was buying prostitutes off of a known sex trafficker. Whatever else has been said about him may or may not be true, but the probability of it being true is higher than it is for almost anyone else who would be considered for his position. The allegations are at least plausible enough that, in the eyes of the public, it disqualifies him from being the nation's top law enforcement officer.
Getting back to your contention that this was some kind of setup, I don't know how deep you think this goes or what it was supposed to accomplish. Gaetz's actions date to several years prior to the investigation, including those supported by documentary evidence. Are you suggesting that they were setting him up in 2017? Furthermore, if you have that evidence (or fake that evidence), then what was their goal? If the goal is to destroy Matt Gaetz's public career, just charge him and move on. What's the purpose of the hare-brained fraud scheme? Or is it your contention that the Federal Government was in such dire need of somewhere between 5 and 25 million dollars that they resorted to phonying up an investigation into a congressman so they could use a twice-convicted con man and two confederates to bilk the money out of him? Neither scenario makes sense.
This isn't a disagreement about possible charges because it's not hard to think of any number of about a dozen federal charges if a connection between Alford and Kent and McGee is made. It's about your belief there are no facts to support such a connection, except there are some small ones: Alford told the Gaetz to direct the money towards a trust account in care of David McGee, Alford claimed he was working with Kent, McGee, and others to rescue Bob Levinson, Alford's company to handle this exchange was incorporated by... David McGee. Kent is the one who handed Don Gaetz the "Project Homecoming" document which implies a promised presidential pardon or the investigation/indictment would be ceased. Could this all be innocent connections? sure!
It's entirely possible a former DOJ prosecutor currently working at a large, prestigious law firm continues to involve himself in various schemes of a long-term client who has been convicted multiple times of fraud and blackmail. Perhaps McGee just takes his bar oath to heart. Of course if McGee did want to put together a blackmail scheme, a person like Alford would be the perfect bridge because his word is shit, he's a repeated felon, and he already has a history of taking the blame if the scheme falls apart.
The scheme would be David McGee would accept the money to fund the rescue effort. Kent is the one who handed Don Gaetz the "Project Homecoming" document which implies a promised presidential pardon or the investigation/indictment would be ceased. Alford was the person who connected the payment with the reward. In the middle of this investigation by a local FBI office right as it's about to get to the McGee stage, the Gaetz charges get released to the NYT and then everything stops. As soon as the scheme falls apart, Alford falls on his sword and takes all the blame.
I wonder when the FBI is going to release the full tapes or transcripts of the meetings between Don and the trio. Matt Gaetz claims there is far more on those tapes and in other documents which substantiate his accusations about McGee and Kent. I have seen nothing to convince me these allegations were seriously investigated and instead the FBI was happy to charge Alford and move on.
In the particular charge the picked, sure. That doesn't mean this was the only way they could have established jurisdiction over Alford or possible co-conspirators. This isn't some strong limitation or even much of a hurdle in the modern day and how and what communication devices are typically used. I'm not implying there is strong evidence to currently available to prove McGee or Kent knew Alford was going to send fraudulent text messages to Don Gaetz or fill out the conspiracy.
On a side note, I'm disappointed no one has made an "Alford plea" pun. It's too bad he didn't even attempt to obtain one.
Who is "they"? Our three muskateers currently being discussed? The government at large? No, I doubt it. As far as I know, there is no connection between Joel Greenberg and the trio. I'm speculating about some facts I find interesting and thought others would find them interesting as well. Other than my characterization of Joel Greenberg as looking like a honeypot operation, I'm not arguing anything in particular.
To have leverage over Matt Gaetz in order to control him in some way in the the future. I find it hard to believe you cannot fathom some other purpose of having blackmail material on someone other than to burn your blackmail material to harm that person.
The federal government wasn't in dire need of $20,000,000 in 2010 when David McGee was attempting to sell favors to a Russian Oligarch, but they did and the contention was the operation needed to be kept off of official books because the government had not admitted Bob Levinson was a likely CIA contractor or they couldn't get official approval and were attempting to save their buddy.
I don't think the entire scheme was hatched to bilk money out of Gaetz family starting from back in 2017. A plausible narrative is Greenberg was attempting to get leverage on him. Later on as that leverage was falling apart because our naughty boy Greenberg couldn't help but be a sloppy criminal who couldn't help himself to not commit a laundry list of crimes, a group of people who clearly had non-public knowledge saw an opportunity to get money out of the Gaetz family. Whether that group was large or confined to one, two, or a few is unknown.
More options
Context Copy link
I believe what OP is alleging/implying is that Greenberg may have made a false allegation against Gaetz in order to save his own skin (offer to point the finger at a juicy target of a Congressman to lessen his own sentence). The implication is that tbe FBI knows that this is a weak or bogus allegation, but proceed with the investigation anyway, or at least conclude as a result of the investigation that it is bogus.
McGee, who is contected to both the Federal Prosecutor's Office and the CIA, attempts to use this knowledge to blackmail the senior Gaetz (through Alford) to get money to rescue Levinson in exchange for using his connections to get the case dropped against the junior Gaetz.
I think most people would agree that "we will drop a bogus/weak case against you in exchange for money" amounts to extortion. Rephrased, it can be "give me money and I'll won't charge you". Even with a legitimate crime being prosecuted it can still amount to extortion, as it's clearly an attempt to violate the defendant's due process rights.
Especially in the case of a high profile figure like a Congressman, there doesn't even have to be a a charge or conviction, the mere reporting that a Congressman js being investigated can be extremely damaging, which is what happened here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link