Comments by "Killed The Cat" (@killedthecat1034) on "Matt Gaetz denies relationship with 17-year-old and claims extortion attempt" video.

@moneysuckle 👈 "I'm going to set up an unprovable mass assumption scenario, based on my clearly bias opinion about millions of total strangers and their emotional state, just so I have something to teardown." "Good" plan! 😁✌💙🇺🇸
3
It can be different. The "Target" of an investigation is the person that they are originally looking into. The "Subject" would be someone like Matt Gates, in this investigation. They where not originally going after him but in the process of investigating the target they found potential illegal acts that he was doing. Little, the terminology and the difference between the two is often mostly only used in Supreme Court or grand juries. Almost everywhere else, you would be completely right.
2
Facts First You know, you guys would be so much more credible if you didn't constantly feels the need to do plaque from your side actions.. All the time.
2
@jeffstrongman7889 👈 When you can't defend, you deflect.
2
@brianchoo298 👈 When you can't defend, you deflect.
2
@moneysuckle Go attempt another failed coup on the US capital because your a Salty loser. Seeing you arrested will make all of us feel better! 😁✌
2
Stuffstuffington Stuff First... I want to thank you for actually acknowledging the subject at hand and being reasonable about it before moving on.... instead of the standard deflection.... I wish that was all I had a response to... because I really do appreciate that but... You holding gates to that standard doesn't in any way mean that the general public of conservatives or Republicans do the same thing. They tend to either go silent, make excuses, deflector or obfuscate from holding ANY of their people responsible.... For anything. Democrats don't have a spotless record of not doing so, either, but they certainly have a better track record than the Republicans do. For instance, many of the democratic party have come out against Governor Cuomo and said that he should step down and the investigation should continue. Point being, you can't hold one side to one standard and the other one not because that happens to be the one you're on.
1
@Dan-zt7uj So you agree the election wasn't rigged then?
1
@brianchoo298 Well... 1. If there was no evidence, they wouldn't be looking at him right now, considering he was not the original subject of the investigation. In the course of investigating someone else, they found enough evidence to start looking at a completely different person. When that happens in an investigation, you can't go around saying there isn't any evidence. Or at least you can't do that while also being honest about situation. 2. You guys want to constantly deflect to Hunter Biden, for some reason.... all because you don't want people looking at your side. I'm not offering an opinion one way or another on Hunter Biden, but what I will say is, if you want any kind of credibility, start holding your side accountable for their actions before you come poking at ours all the time.
1
@brianchoo298 👈 When you can't defend, you deflect.
1
@Mr. Roboto so, then don't go round assuming they have nothing and saying so while trying to blow up stuff on the other side.
1
@Mr. Roboto Sure! You can make as many inaccurate statements, that point out your clear bios, as you like. It's a great way to discredit anything you might say in the future.
1
@Mr. Roboto Also... the general public not being privy to evidence, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. They found enough to start seriously investigating him. That much we know.
1
@Mr. Roboto Except... Again... That statement is untrue. The original investigation was not about him. In the course of the investigating another person, they came across some sort of evidence that pointed towards Gates. So that is something. Which means your insistence that there could be no evidence, is patently untrue. Unless you're suggesting that they randomly started investigating him for absolutely no reason?
1
@Mr. Roboto You've already assumed they don't. That would be how this exchange began. It's why it is continuing. It's become about your ego now. That's why you keep trying to argue the same nonsense point, that leads to the same dead end for you. You keep assuming they do or could have 👉nothing👈. When that can't be possible, due to the Origins of the investigation into him and your own suggestions... Ironically.... "information" 🤔 Hmmm 🤔 information about what, I wonder... And what would that "information" be called, in a court of law, next to other info....? That is right! Evidence! "testimony"... well... We don't even have to look up the legal term for it there. You used it, yourself. "Testimony".... And what would "testimony" be? That's right! A form of evidence, given in a court of law. What you are describing is 👉enough👈 evidence, put together, to present in a court of law. 👉Not evidence👈, itself. It's funny how that turned out. Cuz, it turns out that the one who doesn't know what evidence is, is... Well... You. No one needs to know what the evidence is, in this case, in order to know there is some. You can see the effect of it. The investigation. So what you are really saying is, your not willing to admit that they have to have something on Gate's, but your willing to assume that they "have" something on Hunter Biden, who holds no public office. It's funny how that works out... Isn't it....
1
@Mr. Roboto Lord... Man... Your drowning. Just stop. So now you're claiming that they just randomly decided to start investigating him... for no reason. Just... out of nowhere... "Hey! Let's go investigate this guy over here... for this thing we're investigating this other person's for!" Why? "No reason! It's Tuesday and I'm bored! So why not." 🤦 Your just getting worse and worse. A "lead" or "information". Tell me? What do they call that in a court of law? What is that lead or information filed under? Evidence? Right? And actually you have. You gave said several times, including right at the beginning and all the way through that there could be no evidence. You've said that several times. And you just said it again right after you said, "I'm not saying there isn't some good evidence so far but...". "You and I don't know what 👉if any👈 actual evidence as been found... ". You literally said it in the same sentence this time. We do know there is some piece of evidence because he was not the focus of the investigation at the beginning. They found some evidence that he is involved during the investigation into someone else. You trying to insist words don't mean what they mean... Will not change that. Not knowing what the evidence is does not mean we don't know there is some.
1
@Mr. Roboto and ... Yep... You are right about Hunter Biden. You had a similar pic. That was my bad.
1
@jeffstrongman7889 "you think you're somehow better than him". 2 seconds later It's wrong to make baseless assumptions! How dare you... Irony.
1