The man – who was not identified in court papers — told the F.B.I. that he had been inappropriately touched by Mr. Hastert when Mr. Hastert was a high school teacher and wrestling coach, the two people said on Friday....
The indictment said that in 2010, the man met with Mr. Hastert several times, and that at one of those meetings Mr. Hastert agreed to pay him $3.5 million “in order to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct against” the man.
२९ मे, २०१५
"J. Dennis Hastert, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, was paying a man to not say publicly that Mr. Hastert had sexually abused him decades ago..."
"... according to two people briefed on the evidence uncovered in an F.B.I. investigation into the payments...."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१६० टिप्पण्या:
Yeah, my gut reaction is that this is another example of lawfare against an "R." Now I could be very well wrong, but the track record lately says my instincts are the way to bet.
Was Hastert wealthy? Where does a former high school teacher and wrestling coach come up with $3.5 million?
Wonder if R's will change the name of the Hastert Rule.
Assuming the story is true, here is a lesson: Never pay blackmail. You can't trust the blackmailer and so you will still face a scandal and be out all that money you payed.
Whatever Dennis Hastert has, or has not, done, this is no way to present the indictment.
Here's another lesson: Don't molest children.
What about the crime of extortion? Isn't that illegal? Why is his identity shielded? I presume he's grown up now.
Althouse, That remains to be proved.
ick
Hagar said...
Whatever Dennis Hastert has, or has not, done, this is no way to present the indictment.
It is if you play for keeps like garage mahal.
I want more back story here.
@Ann:Don't molest children.
Or don't be worth accusing of having molested children, whether or not you actually did, which of course in this case we don;t know yet.
@Will Cate:Where does a former high school teacher and wrestling coach come up with $3.5 million?
From his years in "public service", of course. They don't actually have to take bribes, and it goes surprisingly far down. Someone who's been in government knows who to talk to to get things done, and when they retire from government their contacts are worth millions to businesses that have to navigate red tape.
The "blackmailer" may have never intended to reveal the information. Suspect the FBI followed the money trail to him.
If true, he should have admitted it long ago like Lena Dunham did. The left--especially those of the Titus persuasion--love child molesters.
It is if you play for keeps like garage mahal.
Yes, the real problem with Hastert molesting one of his students is me commenting on this blog.
@CWJ: "For what a man had rather were true he more readily believes." Francis Bacon
It's a gender neutral statement.
@garage: I'm just anticipating where you're going with this along with your fellow travelers.
"Where does a former high school teacher and wrestling coach come up with $3.5 million?"
Great question. I would love to see a table of the income of all Senators and Representatives before they took office and after the first six years. Bet you would find they nearly all got rich and there wouldn't be much distinction between parties.
Interesting.
So some well-connected people are accountable if they break the law. (If he did...)
When can we expect the FBI to finish (start?) its investigation into Hillary Clinton accepting hundreds of millions of dollars from foreign governments while she was Secretary of State. (It's not just a law, it's in the Constitution.)
I had the same reaction as others: Where's he come up with $3.5 M!!
Follow the money. That would be a great story. Too bad it'll never be written.
etbass said...
"Where does a former high school teacher and wrestling coach come up with $3.5 million?"
Great question. I would love to see a table of the income of all Senators and Representatives before they took office and after the first six years. Bet you would find they nearly all got rich and there wouldn't be much distinction between parties.
5/29/15, 4:56 PM
It's definitely not everyone.
See the recent articles on Senator Rubio's "fiscal problems" -- aka, borrowing money from his retirement account to buy a new refrigerator.
I just said "Don't molest children." I didn't say he did it. BUT... don't you think the govt has the evidence that he paid the $3.5 million. Can you picture him paying that if he didn't actually commit the crime? What would be the scenario in which you'd say this is a false accusation, but I'm going to pony up $3.5 million anyway?
Social conservatives need to be barred from serving in positions of government or military. For the purpose of national security. Sadly, time and again, social conservatives have proven themselves too susceptible to extortion and blackmail.
The fact that "Individual A" is also guilty of a crime doesn't cancel out the crime involved in taking out all that cash or lying to the FBI. As for the old molestation crime... I don't think the feds have jurisdiction over that and there's probably a statute of limitations.
This differs from the Roman Polanski case how, exactly? I don't remember "Don't molest children" being a leitmotif in that one.
Blogger Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
This differs from the Roman Polanski case how, exactly? I don't remember "Don't molest children" being a leitmotif in that one.
Not to mention what happens on "Fantasy Islands" in the Caribbean.
Meade:
A conscience disqualifies an individual from public service? The implication is that corruption is selected in a progressive liberal society. This explains why advanced states of civilization eventually collapse with a dysfunctional convergence.
"This differs from the Roman Polanski case how, exactly? I don't remember "Don't molest children" being a leitmotif in that one."
1. Dennis Hastert did not suffer the trauma of having his beautiful wife and unborn child murdered by the Manson family.
2. Roman Polanski did not put himself in a position of trust as a teacher to children.
3. Roman Polanski did not take public office as a member of a political party that purports to champion traditional values.
4. Dennis Hastert did not get caught close in time to when he committed his crime, face the legal process and try to weasel his way through it, and when that didn't work out as hoped, run away to a foreign country and stay away for decades.
5. Roman Polanski doesn't seem to have paid anybody $3.5 million to keep quiet and if he had, we would have understood where he got the money.
6. Dennis Hastert hasn't tried to argue that what he did to a youngster was in fact consistent with the culture of the time and place within which he did what he did.
I'm sure we could add to this list, but what the hell difference does it make? No one is around here ever said what Polanski did was okay!
The age of consent in Illinois is 17. So, what percentage of gay boys reach that age without having had any sexual contact with persons aged 18 or above?
Or is that just one of those questions one does not ask?
He could have touched me, and I would have only asked for $250k.
"I just said "Don't molest children." I didn't say he did it. BUT... don't you think the govt has the evidence that he paid the $3.5 million. Can you picture him paying that if he didn't actually commit the crime? What would be the scenario in which you'd say this is a false accusation, but I'm going to pony up $3.5 million anyway?"
A false accusation can ruin a career just as easily as a true accusation. Assume there are no witnesses and no other evidence than one person's word: The motive to pay is exactly the same whether or not the accusation is true.
In reality, or in the hands of a decent novelist, there might be some room for interpretation when it comes to a coach demonstrating wrestling moves.
@Althouse: I think Michelle was focusing on just the molestation part, not the symbolic importance of the men involved.
How does what Hassert allegedly did differ from what Lena Dunham admitted doing? You may omit the cultural trenchant warfare.
On Hassert's part there was shame; on Dunham's part there was pride and even support from her fans.
chickelit:
Once a "clump of cells", always a "clump of cells", to be aborted, molded, or molested.
That said, exceptional corruption can mimic fundamental corruption and must be confronted with equal vigor to mitigate a progressive condition. That is to say, that people with the right principles may be corrupted through secular incentives, and must face an equal measure of due process and expectation of repentance upon conviction.
Oh and Althouse, if you're so damned curious about politician's peccadilloes, why the lack of curiousity about Bill Clinton's alleged sexploits on fantasy island? Hush money could have exchanged hands that we don't know about yet.
chickelit:
It doesn't, in principle. However, in practice, a position of trust can create different levels of vulnerability.
chickelit,
I'm not certain to whom you're referring. I have no dog in this fight. He may be guilty of something, I don't know. I'm just saying that recent history is replete with anti-R lawfare.
Meade said...
Social conservatives need to be barred from serving in positions of government or military. For the purpose of national security. Sadly, time and again, social conservatives have proven themselves too susceptible to extortion and blackmail.
Remind me what Hillary's position was on DOMA at the time od=f its signing. And what is Hillary's position on adultery? Is it "conservative"? Answer loud and proud, Meade!
Bu Bu but what Clinton?????? Hmmm?
LOL
dbp sez: "A false accusation can ruin a career just as easily as a true accusation. Assume there are no witnesses and no other evidence than one person's word: The motive to pay is exactly the same whether or not the accusation is true. "
That's utterly ridiculous.
No one is going to pony up $3.5 million to protect himself from a false allegation. You wouldn't do that yourself.
He would be better served spending that money on lawyers to clear his name while calling the bluff of the blackmailer.
Althouse, I don't know what he did or didn't do, but don't say you didn't say he molested a child and then turn on a dime and say what you did which was "don't you think the govt has the evidence that he paid the $3.5 million. Can you picture him paying that if he didn't actually commit the crime?" We are all entitled to our opinions but don't insult my intelligence.
@garage: I enjoy playing by your rules! We can stop anytime.
Ann Althouse sez: "Roman Polanski did not take public office as a member of a political party that purports to champion traditional values."
As used by today's GOP, "traditional values" is code language for being against abortion and same-sex marriage.
The Seven Deadly Sins: pride, envy, gluttony, lust, anger, greed, and sloth.
It's been a very long time since I've heard Republicans inveighing against any of these except (sexual) lust and (only in the context of welfare) sloth.
In fact, many of them have Scotch-taped the Bible and Atlas Shrugged together to provide a Christian rationalization for greed.
Conservatives: "If true, this is a heinous crime and must be punished. If not true, that's also a terrible crime and should be punished."
Liberals: "If true, this is a heinous crime and proves all Republicans are like that. If not true, eh, we took a shot. Whatever."
I do think our hostess has convicted Hastert of child molestation and money laundering or something akin to that.
As for myself, I'll wait for more facts or more likely "alleged" facts to be disclosed. As far as I can tell from press reports Hastert had not completed transfer of the full $3.5 million --he was maybe half way through the process.
And when, if ever full details are disclosed, let's compare the relative ages of Polanski's sexual targets to (if indeed their was a sexual target for Hastert) Hastert's targets. There are good odds that Polanski swung a little lower in the age bracket/
Can you picture him paying that if he didn't actually commit the crime? What would be the scenario in which you'd say this is a false accusation, but I'm going to pony up $3.5 million anyway?
I can, if he has that kind of money and he can't prove it didn't do it.
Someone with whom he was alone a lot, perhaps.
Or it could have been something consensual with a student who was of age.
I couldn't be more against the kind of charges files against Hastert, though.
And the FBI has decided they don't need to pursue the blackmailer. We'll see if the IRS does.
I can also imagine the blackmail starting smaller, and then the blackmailer coming back to the well over and over again.
"If he wasn't guilty, they wouldn't have arrested him."
And you, a law professor!
And regardless of Hastert, this is no way for the Justice Dept. to proceed, and I sure hope it backfires badly on the people behind this.
Since it's a Republican that is being accused, I'm taking a wait, [defend, deflect, switch topics, blame liberals, bring up something Clinton], and see approach.
With his background, why did Hastert agree to become Speaker on the heels of the Hustler/Livingston quasi-blackmail, that's what I don't understand. That said, the federal case should be made against Hastert's blackmailer, not the victim of blackmail.
And it sounds like collateral damage from the war on terror's increase in government surveillance. Did the FBI think Hastert was lying that he wasn't funding Al Quaeda?
Seems like he should have hired Gov. Spitzer's lawyer when the FBI first came knocking.
And it sounds like collateral damage from the war on terror's increase in government surveillance. Did the FBI think Hastert was lying that he wasn't funding Al Quaeda?
Exactly! It sounds a lot like the FBI's deep concern for David Petraeus, that they thought he was being blackmailed by Paula Broadstone and so they just had to read his personal emails and expose his affair to the White House.
When the FBI gets concerned about your well being, watch out.
Doe anybody think it should not be perfectly legal to tell the FBI you are keeping your own money if you are using it for perfectly legal purposes? That you should not be charged with a crime for that?
Why is it their business?
If there was a sex offender case, that should have gone to the State of Illinois, I would think. If there is a statute of limitations barring state action, then the paticipation in a blackmail scheme would be the proper way to go for a Federal action. The "constructive withdrawal" charge is a pretext. They might as well have gone after him with a RICO.
And in any case, for the United States Dept. of Justice to go with anonymous background informers is beyond the pale.
And I guess no one with any sense should talk to the FBI about anything whatever without his lawyer present and a one or more tape recorders going.
Remember Martha Stewart?
Ann,
None of the distinguishing characteristics [!] you mention has squat to do with the crimes, which seem to me identical apart from the SS/OS business.
Hastert was a schoolteacher. We don't know whether the boy in question was under his tutelage, though I imagine we'll soon find out. Is he more or less in a "position of trust" to youth than a world-famous film director who offers a 16-year-old girl champagne and the use of his hot tub? Your call.
Both political parties "claim to champion traditional values." The Democrats mouth the same words as the Republicans. Please don't kid yourself.
What else? Oh, Hastert's wife and unborn child weren't victims of the Manson gang. This makes, well, zero difference to me. Polanski argued that, well, but, everyone did that in Hollywood. Not remotely dispositive; no one should've done it. Hastert was caught long after the fact, not right away; to me, that counts in his favor, since he was earnestly paying off the extortion decades later. &c.
And I reprise chickelit's question about Clinton's "sexploits." Clinton (or both Clintons) could raise $3.5M in ten speeches, and no one would even notice. Hastert, I think, has gotten rich only post-office.
Hell, blackmail is also a state offense unless it touches on the Federal government in some way, is it not?
This whole thing should have been referred to the State of Illinois?
Remember Martha Stewart?
Exactly.
I just realized we've got Comey at the FBI. Martha Stewart was his thing. Scooter Libbey was his thing.
This is his trademark.
(if you ask people, they usually think Martha Stewart was convicted of insider trading. More people need to know about the FBI's tactics in these cases. It should frighten people)
So, he gets a refund from the blackmailer? Also, did he 1099 the blackmailer, for tax purposes? The Blackmailer will def be gay and will proudly come forward by the end of next week.
Here's another lesson: Don't molest children.
But feel free to kill them before they are born (or hell even while they are being born)
Yeah, they should have prosecuted Scott DesJarlais.
Social conservatives need to be barred...
I'm shocked and disappointed, Meade; not as much by the sentiment (although that too) but by the tortured and despicable construction.
A starving person may "need" food. A person awake for 40 hours may "need" sleep. Even, a house may "need" painting.
Perhaps "Society should prevent...," or "The Legislature should pass a law prohibiting...," even "There is a need that social conservatives be..."
But "social conservatives" (subject of sentence) do not "need" (verb) ....
There's no blackmail like underage gay sex blackmail
Oh well. At least he didn't use uncommon terminology in a legal proceeding involving the investigation of his consensual affair with an adult. That would have been unforgivable.
Why is it that Republican sex scandals seem to involve more actual (if "statutory") rape and stuff? Is it incorrect to notice a pattern emerging where some of the much more unconscionable peccadilloes/wrongs seem to be involving Republicans - like Hastert and Foley?
A potentially "out-of-bounds" explanation might draw a connection between violating children and violating a woman's right to keep her sex organs out of the reach of the state, but I prefer to allow conservatives to do their own soul-searching and partisan retrospection on this. After at least a decade of their embrace of some of the most self-righteous politics I've ever seen, God knows they have ample opportunity for it.
I'm wondering if this had to do with hazing incidents within the sports team.
The blackmail appears to have occurred after Hastert retired from Congress, so none of this really is any business of the the DoJ, and should have been referred to the Illinois Attorney General.
And I think that's Lisa Madigan (D), who could surely be trusted to prosecute.
This thing smells.
Why are people motivated to jump to Hastert's defense?
Why is it that Republican sex scandals seem to involve more actual (if "statutory") rape and stuff? Is it incorrect to notice a pattern emerging where some of the much more unconscionable peccadilloes/wrongs seem to be involving Republicans - like Hastert and Foley?
I think you may be suffering from lack of varied reading materials.
Why are people motivated to jump to Hastert's defense?
Is anyone saying, "If he did have sex with an underage teen, that is fine and defendable?"
Why are people motivated to think you should be convicted for withdrawing your own money, spending it in a legal manner, and telling the FBI, basically, not to worry about it?
Is there anyone here who thinks that is the kind of conviction this country needs?
Why are people motivated to jump to Hastert's defense?
Who is defending him?
The most friendly comment I've seen is either:
A) Lets wait and see
or
B) Polanski did it too.
Why aren't you interested in the idea that this may be yet another case of Democratic lawfare against a Republican?
Why were people motivated to defend the Duke Lacrosse team, George Zimmerman, Officer Darren Wilson, or the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at UVa?
so that's how a high school wrestling coach makes so much money...
Why are people motivated to jump to Hastert's defense?
It's a reflection of just how horribly politicized and partisan today's Republicans have become.
But they have a point. I don't think the symbolism of this happening to the guy who presided over Clinton's impeachment is lost on any Democrat.
And I think they know that.
Hagar wrote -
"And I guess no one with any sense should talk to the FBI about anything whatever without his lawyer present and a one or more tape recorders going.
Remember Martha Stewart?"
Ain't THAT the truth! That case was a revelation to me. Stewart had not commited insider trading, but was convicted of lying to the FBI about her trades. I don't know how the questioning went but I imagine it implied the government "knew" far more crimes on Stewart's part than they could prove and that they rattled her big time. She commited no crime absent of being interrogated. There was no crime until she was investigated and put under pressure.
So in the end, she was convicted of lying about a not-crime. Lying about criminal behavior sure, but lying about legal behavior? How is that an understandably incarcerating offence? That was when I finally realized that if "they" need a scalp and want to get you, they will. Even (perhaps especially) if you are Martha stewart. Se also Scooter Libby.
Rhythm and Balls-
Are you thinking of Newt Gingrich?
And nice try, but Martha Stewart is a Democrat. Comey- the current head of the FBI, has served under Republicans and Dems. This isn't partisan.
Do you like this prosecution? Do you think it should be illegal to withdraw your own money in certain increments? Do you think you should have to tell the FBI why you are withdrawing your own money?
I'm embarrassed to say that you must be right, MayBee. But Gingrich was so close to being kicked out by then that Hastert must have been waiting in the wings with clasped hands. His wiki page says he played a "lead role" in the impeachment.
Gosh, haven't the nineties become quite the blur now when we look back on it. Oh well.
Althouse wrote -
"Why are people motivated to jump to Hastert's defense?"
I don't know because I'm not seeing him being so much actively defended as commenters expressing skepticism about the circumstances surrounding his indictment. RandB's 7:30 comment provides plenty of grist for that particular mill.
Reading more wiki, my memory has been refreshed. Gingrich was already on his way out due to Republican chagrin over their election results. They designated this guy, Bob Livingston, who didn't last more than a New York minute before Larry Flynt got the dirt on his own history of screwing around. Larry Flynt was out for blood. He threatened to publicize other Republicans' penis "problems" (allegedly including Bob Barr's payment for his own mistress's abortion) before they freaked and settled on a guy who seemed impeccably straight-laced: A slightly husky and gray Midwestern former "wrestling coach". That would be Hastert.
So whatever came of his rise to power, moderation in the treatment of L'Affaire Clinton was not really a part of it.
I am not defending Hastert, since, to start with, I have no idea what to defend him against. There are only "anonymice" darkly hinting to the news media "on background."
It does seem that the United States Department of Justice has decided to publicly prosecute him for sexual misbehavior of some kind, a state crime for which, in this case, the statute of limitations may have run out, under the guise of prosecuting him in Federal court for "structured bank withdrawals," a crime thought up by the feds and made into law by a gullible Congress as a pretext for fighting drug trafficking.
"...a political party that purports to champion traditional values."
sick burn
Which is why you can't rely on Wikipedia. Michael Scott learned this when he used Wikipedia to study negotiating tactics in order to "more effectively" counter Darryl's request for a pay raise- that was in 2007.
Rhythm and Balls said...
I don't think the symbolism of this happening to the guy who presided over Clinton's impeachment is lost on any Democrat.
As a moderate, I had not considered this line of attack but, coming as it does after Gingrich and Livingston, the Clinton impeachment has become a complete farce. Historians are going to enjoy writing up that episode in US history.
I am happy to note nobody is really defending the righteousness of the actual charges.
I agree with Hagar.
...has become a complete farce…
It's a predictable farce given the persistence of American puritanism.
The last vestiges of American puritanism can be seen in its confused devolution into the parochial anti-gay right. They're pissed about gay marriage, everyone else is pissed about proper outrages such as molestation and busybodying. Sooner or later the confusion should sort itself out and admit to sex as something as a consent issue and leave it at that.
I am happy to note nobody is really defending the righteousness of the actual charges.
Interesting construction. Can charges themselves really be "righteous" or not? I thought we reserved those terms for people.
In any event, some illegality on his part is clear, and in blessed contrast to the totally unclear "high crime and misdemeanor" with which he saw fit to happily charge Mr. Clinton.
I guess I was apt to mention Mark Foley. Wiki mentions some obstruction of his own when it came to Hastert's response to party complaints over Foley's actions. What the hell were these Republicans doing? Turning Congress into a chapter of NAMBLA? Da fuck.
They settled out of court. Why's this a crime?
I'm imagining a new Republican campaign slogan that refers to their pedophilia in terms that convey the effects of their policies on the next few generations.
R&B and ARM,
Clinton paid $860,000 in damages to Paula Jones and her lawyers and lost his license to practice law for perjuring himself before a U.S. judge.
That is what the impeachment was about.
i.e. William Jefferson Clinton is a convicted felon.
Oh FFS Hagar you realize you just admitted to the entire interwebz that you don't even know the difference between civil and criminal law, let alone a felony.
The ABA does not need felony convictions to do what it wants with licenses. It's a disgrace he brought upon himself professionally, but he does way more good now anyways, in ways that lawyers can't. It's a molehill in the grand scheme of things. Scandalous when you think about it. Until you realize that no one does think about it. They think about him and Bill Gates ending starvation and AIDS in Africa. But yeah, the ABA. I hear you.
But you missed Judge Wright?
Planet Fitness' no judgment clause negates this.
Lisa Madigan would have given her eyeteeth for a chance to lead a prosecution against Dennis Hastert, so I am guessing this is about the FBI carrying water for someone in Washington with a grudge against Hastert.
Open the Clinton impeachment records because there's no reason to wait 30 years.
Why are people motivated to jump to Hastert's defense?"
Not so much a defense but a deep resentment for politically motivated prosecutions against republicans.
Stupid Repubes can't even rape children properly: you pimp them out of your home whilst growing marijuana then claim victimhood because hate.
I thought IL was as shitty as MA, and this confirms it.
Hagar,
It's my understanding that Dennis Hastert has been indicted for multiple counts of illegal structuring of currency withdrawals and a count of making "false, fictitious and fraudulent statements" to federal investigators -- apparently he told the investigators that he "kept the money" when they already knew that he hadn't.
I don't think anyone is going to defend Hastert for allegedly lying to the investigators- he should have said "talk my lawyer" or "it's none of your damn business," but he didn't. Like Scooter Libby and Alger Hiss before him, Hastert might be learning what happens when you don't exercise your constitutional right to counsel always and immediately when law enforcement come by and say they just want to ask you a few questions.
It's nice to see the hard lefties confirming our impression of thoughtless partisanship.
I think Hastert was another member of the Illinois "Combine" and I have no sympathy.
On the other hand, the shameless: "I'm imagining a new Republican campaign slogan that refers to their pedophilia in terms that convey the effects of their policies on the next few generations."
I'm not quite sure how to describe that other than despicable. I 'd consider the source.
These are the people who just love Bill Clinton and excuse his rapes and lying under oath,
Bobby,
Actually yes. I'd mount a qualified defence if this all comes down to lying to investigators. If there's been a crime, charge the crime. If there's been no crime, why should they get a scalp for fishing?
Not saying you're wrong on engaging counsel. You're obviously correct. Nonetheless, if simply answering questions in ways deemed insufficiently forthright can land you in jail, it seems that's as worthy of Mirandizing as actually being arrested.
Structuring bank withdrawals is a serious crime. The FBI wants to know what you are spending your money on as if it were your own money. That must be a criminal activity. And if not we will nail you for non confessing to nothing.
The jury is still out on the issue of blackmail. You never know if the alleged victim didn't just send a demand letter and Hastert agreed to cough up the dough. Which would be no crime. Even if that were the case, the alleged victim mentioned in the indictment (Individual A) would still have been required to report as income the payments made by Hastert, and I'm guessing, just guessing, that he didn't, but agreed to be a cooperative witness in the case against Hastert, in return for no charges on the tax issue (as he quickly refiled for the years in question.)
I think of the parallels to the David Letterman thing back in 2009. Except Letterman just called the authorities and then went public when the estranged spouse of one of his staff love kittens tried to extort $2M from him.
But it is not clear right now how or when the victim approached Hastert for the big payoff. If it was right as he left Congress, he wouldn't have had the cash. If it was lately, Hastert would have known exactly how lucrative his influence peddling as a K Street lobbyist was, and how $3.5M would be affordable, if not chump change.
My general thought with this is: How often can the media cover a story involving pederasty without at least questioning the relationship between homosexuality and male-on-male sexual abuse of children. These are not disjoint sets. To listen to CNN or other major media cover it, you'd think that had invented a new form of child abuse, devoid of sexual motivation, when it comes to this kind of act. Maybe their animus to Republicans will allow them to mine out these issues a little further, but I will not hold my breath.
At least he didn't start a war with Afghanistan, launching cruise missiles against their sovereign soil and attempting an assassination within their borders to distract from a blow job and set the world on a path to war, then when Afghanistan responded to this unprovoked attack, blame it on somebody else!
Actually, he wasn't distracting from a blow-job, it was serial sexual harassment and credible accusations of rape.
"Structuring bank withdrawals is a serious crime."
Indeed, I know Tradman was not being serious, but if THIS is to what it comes down then it's a crock. If this is not a politically motivated indictment, then why is Hastert (pervert or not) being investigated on the basis of a law designed to catch drug trafficing. Unless you wish to make the argument that Hastert is public enemy #1and this is the only to bring him to justice (ala Al Capone) then why are the feds examining his bank accounts at all.
Are any of you making that argument?
AIDS was/is Bush's fault, we can all agree that is what people think. Lots of people. More people than just you. Hell, more people than you and I combined!
So that is it, fact. Thank God for Bill Clinton though, he saved those people because he cares about more than just greedy oil money.
I am so relieved to lean that starvation and AIDS in Africa are just a nightmare from the past due to the efforts of Bill Clinton and Bill Gates.
That fucking delusional Bono who gave George W. Bush so much credit for what he thought Bush did there must have come from some sort of fever dream, or drug induced psychosis.
We all know that bringing up pedophilia is pure bonus for Hillary and Bill.
http://gawker.com/flight-logs-put-clinton-dershowitz-on-pedophile-billio-1681039971
CWJ: Not only does it (child molestation) remain to be proved, I believe that it remains to be charged. Assuming that it even can be at this late date.
Ann? What say you? Do you know what the statute of limitations might be on something like this? Sounds like it happened more than 30 years ago, whatever it was.
Politicians are slimy creatures in general and most deserve to be shunned by polite society.
The only charges I have seen so far is that he took his own money out of the bank. Granted, he did it in amounts of less than $10,000 to avoid reporting it. BUT IT IS HIS OWN MONEY!!!!
Why in the world should anyone have to report taking their own money out of the bank, be it $100 or $100,000 to anyone.
As Speaker, he might have been able to do something about this asinine law. He did not even try as far as I know.
Karma coming back to bite him. Good.
Now maybe we will elect someone like Paul or Cruz to the White House who will do away with this.
John Henry
Just to be clear, I do know why he has to report taking his own money out of the bank. Because the law requires it.
I am asking what moral right the state has to impose that kind of law on us.
John Henry
Isn't wrestling basically just soft-core gay porn?
Young, scantily clad boys, writhing around on a mat, grabbing each other in all sorts of intimate ways?
I don't think I would have wanted to leave my son alone with any wrestling coach when he was a teen.
Ban all amateur wrestling, seems like the solution.
John Henry
This is a link showing justice as most people in the existence of people would appreciate and applaud.
Dead.
Now, sure sure, anarchy unleashed by the dolts figuring just saying "stop resisting, STOP RESISTING!!!" or "if you see it kill em dead asap" is problematic: such is life.
Controlling those able (willing) to be controlled while the evil rampantly wildly runs results in mo' kill in'.
By historical accounts, including Foley and now Hastert, Dems lead in the sex scandal games 13-10.
Note: not defending Hastert, who seems like a loathsome jackass.
coming as it does after Gingrich and Livingston, the Clinton impeachment has become a complete farce
Not about sex, but you knew that already ... right?
It does seem that Hastert has done something beneath and below the ordinary range of sleazy behavior. Pederastry is not one of those crimes that you can talk your way out of. Even the effort to do so makes you look sick.........I don't think party affiliation has anything to do with pederastry or adultery of sexting. I suppose you can say that Republicans with their family values campaign slogans look more hypocritical, but the Dems don't look much better when caught in a scandal. I think it's fair to say that the Dems have control of the megaphones, and the Republicans are subjected to broader and far more relentless mocking than the Dems,......I'd like to know more about this story before condemning either Hastert or the prosecutor out of hand.
Its the second defense of a Republican pedophile this week.
Perhaps they should have kept Todd Akin around to distract by talking about the ladies.
"Ann Althouse said...
I just said "Don't molest children." I didn't say he did it. BUT... don't you think the govt has the evidence that he paid the $3.5 million. Can you picture him paying that if he didn't actually commit the crime? What would be the scenario in which you'd say this is a false accusation, but I'm going to pony up $3.5 million anyway?
5/29/15, 5:03 PM"
Since I'm constitutionally incapable of reading a make-up-hypotheticals challenge without diving in...
Note: I am not asserting any of these points as true. They are all hypotheticals, describing a "scenario in which you'd say this is a false accusation, but I'm going to pony up $3.5 million anyway".
1) Dennis Hastert is a closeted gay man. Growing up gay in the '50s in a rural farm community was a very different thing than doing so today. As a teenager, he became a born-again Christian, in a poorly-thought-out attempt to repress his homosexual urges.
2) During his days as a star high school wrestling coach (Illinois Coach of the Year), he had at least an affair with a former student, well after the student was a consenting adult. Also during this time, he married a fellow teacher and had two children, again in a poorly-thought-out attempt to repress his sexuality.
3) During the Mark Foley (soliciting sex with a 16-year-old Congressional page), the former student contacted then-Speaker Hastert and asked for money to keep quiet. In context, just the implication that he'd been a closeted gay wrestling coach and had a homosexual affair with an (adult) former student would have destroyed his marriage and career.
Then:
4) It's easy to imagine Hastert paying significant amounts of money at the time to keep his sexuality from being made public, destroying his marriage and tying him (unfairly, perhaps) to the ongoing Foley scandal.
5) And then, when he retires to the lucrative post-Congressional money train, the blackmailer returns for incrementally larger payouts.
Of course, there's no evidence of any of this. But it's all perfectly plausible, and involves only moral failings, not legal ones.
And here's another:
1) Hastert isn't gay.
2) Hastert has never had an affair.
3) During the Foley scandal, a former student threatened to throw completely unsubstantiated mud, which would have tarnished Hastert's reputation, and endangered his marriage and career, if only a little bit.
4) Hastert agreed to some very small payoff to make a nuisance go away.
5) The blackmailer recorded the transaction somehow, and then threatened to reveal *that* if he wasn't paid more.
6) Matters spiraled out of control.
Again, it's perfectly possible that Dennis Hastert is guilty as Hell.
Certainly, public school teachers appear to be far more likely to have sex with minors than, say, Roman Catholic priests.
But it's way too early to conclude that he must be a pedophile because he paid off a blackmailer.
Heck, here are a few more:
1) Dennis Hastert was involved in a convoluted scandal involving earmarks for a business in his district and organized crime and paybacks to his relatives.
2) Someone criminally involved in the scandal threatened to go to the cops.
3) Hastert paid him off.
4) The FBI traced the payments.
5) The blackmailer made up the sexual improprieties, rather than admit to his criminal involvement in a bribery scandal.
or
5) The blackmailer made up the sexual improprieties, rather than talk to cops about organized crime.
or
5) The newspaper sources got the information wrong (via the game of Telephone) or lied to sex up the story.
There are a lot of things about the Clinton impeachment that were a farce. Feminists abandoning their beliefs to defend a serial sexual harasser and accused rapist. You know, he could easily have shown that he was nowhere near that hotel room in Arkansas, meeting a *supporter* in a hotel room. Governors have logs of where they were at all times. Instead they chose to attack her as a liar without providing any evidence, and to accuse her of being politically motivated.
Every one of Clinton's accusers, to my knowledge anyway, were campaign workers, political supporters, or employees. Jennifer Flowers wasn't an accuser, that was just an affair, and none of our business, honestly.
My son plays soccer. I have coached off and on for a few years. The league just sent me an email telling me that every coach must acquire an FBI check and a whole lot of other clearances. This is a thankless job. I have told the league that I will never coach again because this is bullshit . The social Justice Warriors are driving men away from taking part in any activity that involves children.
In LA, a nearby school had a scandal with a boys sports team doing hazing in the locker room. Because it involved nudity, it was considered sexual assault. I'm wondering if something like that happened with Hastert's team, or if he was present for something that happened.
I'm sure we'll find out, as the investigators seem happy to leak.
CWJ said...
"Structuring bank withdrawals is a serious crime."
Indeed, I know Tradman was not being serious, but if THIS is to what it comes down then it's a crock. If this is not a politically motivated indictment, then why is Hastert (pervert or not) being investigated on the basis of a law designed to catch drug trafficing. Unless you wish to make the argument that Hastert is public enemy #1and this is the only to bring him to justice (ala Al Capone) then why are the feds examining his bank accounts at all.
Are any of you making that argument?
Because the new head of the justice Department needed a republican head to hang on her wall. This is going to backfire on her for just the reason you mentioned.
Even liberals are doing a WTF?
"The social Justice Warriors are driving men away from taking part in any activity that involves children."
My daughter's favorite teacher in 8th grade (private school) was a man whose wife was a teacher at the same school. I would not teach at that level for anything.
This $10k reporting requirement has me scratching head.
If a transaction is over $10k, the bank reports it, if it's under they don't.
So if a person makes 5 $9.9K transactions the bank still reports it? The feds want it both ways. Change the the stupid reg.
And never answer questions from the authorities without legal representation.
To answer May Bee's question, under federal law (Title 31, the Bank Secrecy Act) cash transactions exceeding $10,000 per day are monitored to detect and prevent money laundering.
Banks, casinos and any place that handles a lot of cash are subject to certain reporting requirements. Hastert probably knew this and made several $9K or $9500 or $9900 transactions to evade the law. However, activity such as this is also subject to monitoring; it is viewed as suspicious. This is probably how the issue came to the feds' attention. I believe it is also the laws under which he is indicted b/c he intentionally structured his transactions to avoid the reporting requirements. (E.g., several $9K withdrawals in one day from several banks.)
The character of this attack on Dennis Hastert also says a lot about the Left's actual tolerance of sexual deviation.
He should have just created a shell corporation, maybe call it IwannabeelikeWJC and passed the payments that way as some kind of consulting fees.
Or, as has been suggested, he could have created a charitable foundation and given this guy a job and solicited donations so that others could pay the hush money.
Or he could have come out as a Democrat and the whole thing never would have come to the attention of the Department of "Justice" in the first place.
It is nice to know that Obama and the Democrats think the IRS and the DoJ and all government agencies are basically arms of The Party. What other political/economic systems take that view?
If it is correct, as some claim, that prosecution for paying blackmail is iffy, the DoJ could perhaps decide to drop the case at this point, "so as not to waste public money," and their objectives will have been achieved without ever having to prove anything in court.
Ann, reading all the paranoid kooky comments on a post like this makes me wonder if the garden metaphor is still apt?
I'm sure you've gotten used to it over the years, and mostly ignore them, but how do you reflect on this: your words into the world result in these responses.
Do you just chalk it all up to "that's blogging"?
"Ann, reading all the paranoid kooky comments on a post like this makes me wonder if the garden metaphor is still apt?
I'm sure you've gotten used to it over the years, and mostly ignore them, but how do you reflect on this: your words into the world result in these responses.
Do you just chalk it all up to "that's blogging"?"
Translation: "All is well in the republic".
I assume that there is soomething at the bottom of this, but if you were the prosecutor and had a good case, is this the way you would go about announcing it?
On the other hand, if your case was not all that good, but you wanted to extract all you could out of it for political purposes?
In the public mind Hastert is already convicted, and the Republican party along with him.
According to The Christian Science Monitor, the feds had been informed and subsequently questioned him in April 2014 about two $50k withdrawals- this is when he is believed to have lied to the invesitgators. Apparently now aware that he'd been in violation of the $10k reporting limit, that July or August is when he began making a series of $9k withdrawals, and they now had him for illegal structuring.
Although he worked for a high powered law firm and could have brought in one of their many skilled lawyers to structure his payouts so as to best avoid detection and/or prosecution, he didn't. And I think we're in the midst of finding out why.
Squirrel!
I have a strong suspicion that the news about a former Speaker who wasn't really beloved even when he was in office is going to get a lot more press than the Clinton's manifold corruption in sexual and financial dealings.
Even if the way he was charged raises some questions, the reason he is being thrown into the spotlight now is so everyone talks about him. Bill and Hillary maximize their corruption by making sure everyone talks about the mud on other people.
Hastert isn't running for anything. He never was that effective. He was in charge during a season of Republican influence that emphasized pay for play politics.
The best response to Hastert: "That's bad what he did. Let's talk about what matters now."
"Although he worked for a high powered law firm and could have brought in one of their many skilled lawyers to structure his payouts so as to best avoid detection and/or prosecution, "
Hillary Clinton's people might have been available. Hastert should have hired the guy like the Clintons hired Sid Blumenthal. I wonder what he has on them ? Vince Foster ?
Mark said...
Its the second defense of a Republican pedophile this week.
Missing the point by a rather large margin.
That might explain this bizarre phone call on C-SPAN.
Will Cate said...
Was Hastert wealthy? Where does a former high school teacher and wrestling coach come up with $3.5 million?
He hasn't been a teacher/coach for decades. After his time as speaker Hastert became a lobbyist. I don't know specifics about Hastert but Tome Daschle, who was in a similar circumstance, is reported to have earned 2.5 million as a lobbyist his first year out of congress.
I don't understand this. The article says the FBI is charging him for attempting to evade detection for making big cash withdrawals and then for lying to the FBI about them withdrawals. Are those big crimes? Are they going after him for paying off a blackmailer and if so, why? Is paying off a blackmailer a crime? If he did abuse an underage kid why don't they charge him for it? Why isn't the blackmailer being charged for blackmail?
I don't like Hastert, never did, and I'm not defending him.
A high school senior may not qualify as a "kid"?
"In fact, many of them have Scotch-taped the Bible and Atlas Shrugged together to provide a Christian rationalization for greed."
???
Meade said...
Social conservatives need to be barred from serving in positions of government or military
How many social conservatives do you think there actually are in important gov roles in DOJ, IRS, etc? It's like saying "social conservatives should be barred from the newsroom." I'd bet they effectively are now, even without a formal rule.
As for the military, sure, good luck replacing them all--I'm sure you and yours will be happy to volunteer.
Meade was kidding.
Phil 3:14- don't you know Republicans are the main believers in prosperity theology? It's definitely conservative Repubs filling the pews in Creflo Dollar's megachurches and buying him new Gulfstreams.
There are a lot of things about the Clinton impeachment that were a farce. Feminists abandoning their beliefs to defend a serial sexual harasser and accused rapist.
So what? Connies defend accused rapists all the time. On college campuses, for instance. You know, sometimes circumstances and the amount of evidence vs. innuendo and the presumption of innocence actually matters. Did we just change legal systems or something?
In LA, a nearby school had a scandal with a boys sports team doing hazing in the locker room. Because it involved nudity, it was considered sexual assault. I'm wondering if something like that happened with Hastert's team, or if he was present for something that happened.
For $3.5 million? Gawd are you guys naive!
What is it about money that prevents you from believing how it influences and changes things?
We all believe strongly in the free market. Except when it comes to bribes. Then, money has no influence. It's as ephemeral as speech.
Re A high school senior may not qualify as a "kid"?
At my age, anyone under 35 is a kid.
Relatedly: A few years back I wrote a book, based on interviews I did with veterans, on the 2nd Marine Division in World War II (Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Tinian, Okinawa). The veterans who were officers (captains and lieutenants) all called the Marines serving under them "kids." Most of those "kids" ranged in age from 16 to 19. There were even a few 15-year-olds. The ones who were 15 and 16 had enlisted by lying about their ages. Interestingly, those officers were, without exception, no older than 23 years old. Their "kids" called them "old man," as in "the old man told us to attack that Jap machine-gun nest." The oldest men in their units were the sergeants, guys in their 30s and 40s and even an old gunny in his 50s who had fought in Nicaragua, Haiti, and France against the Germans in World War I. They were known as Old Salts, although by the end of the war even the "kids," those who had fought in the island battles of the Pacific War, had earned the right to be called (and to call themselves) Old Salts regardless of their age.
Contrary to what the Prof writes, I don't think there's a concerted effort to defend Hastert. If he did what we suspect him of doing, then he is a scumbag, period, end of sentence.
But the chortling on the left to seize on this to score political points and tar Republicans and/or social conservatives with the broad, icky brush is something to resist.
No. My "kid" comment is about legal age for consensual sex in Illinois. I do not know, but I suspect that there just is no prosecutable crime to charge against Hastert other than this "structural withdrawal" crap and "lying to the FBI."
And I do not think the people pressing these charges give a flying fig about whether or not Hastert had sex with a student 40+ years ago, or if so, under what circumstances.
Rhythm and Balls said...
We all believe strongly in the free market. Except when it comes to bribes. Then, money has no influence. It's as ephemeral as speech.
Your understanding of what constitutes a free market leaves a lot to desired. But do carry on.
Hagar,
Agreed.
Will a prominent entertainer with a plum gig on network television come out in Hastert's defense saying "It wasn't "RAPE" rape."?
Would this person who did this lose his or her job as a result?
Didn't libtards try to defenestrate the Duck Dynasty guy for much less?
Hastert is an ass. However the earlier comment that "...he began making a series of $9k withdrawals, and they now had him for illegal structuring. should freak everyone out. The fact that the government forces banks to tattle on their customers is insane.
If Hastert waddled up to the teller and withdrew $3.5 million in cash in one transaction, what then? Why must hectwll anyone anything and what exactly, and why?
BTW why are you getting on Hastert's case for being a faggot, Ann? I thought you liked faggots.
Unknown said...
BTW why are you getting on Hastert's case for being a faggot, Ann? I thought you liked faggots.
You're an awful person.
I'm talking to an awful person. I wasn't talking to you.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा