Dennis Hastete indicted

RLENT · May 30, 2015

What I find really amusing is the reaction in this thread from those on the political right.

Normally when there is sexual abuse of minor, some folks are inclined to just scream - with utter moral indignation - about punishment for the perp.

Instead, we see a lot of focus on punishment of the (alleged) victim ...

Of course , one of the differences being, that the perp in this case is one of their own ...

Ragman · May 30, 2015

RLENT said:
What I find really amusing is the reaction in this thread from those on the political right.

Normally when there is sexual abuse of minor, some folks are inclined to just scream - with utter moral indignation - about punishment for the perp.

Instead, we see a lot of focus on punishment of the (alleged) victim ...

Of course , one of the differences being, that the perp in this case is one of their own ...

Yep, the epitomy of hiprocracy. IMO, of course

Turtle · May 30, 2015

Are we really sure that extortion took place?

paulnstef39 · May 30, 2015

Turtle said:
Are we really sure that extortion took place?

lt seems so unless the congressman went to the victim and said, "Man l feel really bad about xxxxx you, when you were younger. How would you like a couple of Mil in cash, my old pal, no hard feelings?" (Pun intended)

Turtle · May 30, 2015

paulnstef39 said:
lt seems so unless the congressman went to the victim and said, "Man l feel really bad about xxxxx you, when you were younger. How would you like a couple of Mil in cash, my old pal, no hard feelings?" (Pun intended)

Well, no, but it could have been...

A: I'm going to go public.
H: Please don't do that. I'll pay you a really, really lot to stay quiet.
A: Cool.

(awesome pun, BTW)

RLENT · May 30, 2015

A little refresher on Hastert's handling of the Foley incident:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/dennis-hastert-mark-foley_n_7465586.html

aristotle · May 30, 2015

We cannot be sure the alleged victim committed extortion without more details. At first blush it seems probable, yet extortion laws vary from state to state and a prosecutor looks for the low-hanging fruit such as structured withdrawals of cash to avoid bank reporting regulations. The Feds expect to be informed about movements of cash meeting certain criteria and thresholds.

Turtle · May 30, 2015

Even when extortion exists, they often look at which is the most egregious, the extortion or something else. In any case, for it to be extortion, Haster would have to at the very least allege that he was the victim of an extortion. But the indictment said Hastert denied to the F.B.I. that he was making payments to the individual, saying he withdrew the cash because he no longer trusted the banking system.

According to the indictment, an unnamed longtime acquaintance of Hastert (who is referred to as Individual A) brought up "past misconduct" by Hastert during a conversation in 2010. Over the course of ensuing conversations, Hastert agreed to give Individual A a total of $3.5 million to "compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct." So it could depend on who brought up the subject of payments. If Hastert did, then Individual A is being paid for a service and would be lawfully entitled to the money, legally speaking.

Pilgrim · May 30, 2015

Keep in mind, Bob Livingston withdrew as Speaker-elect - during the Clinton impeachment mess - for only having an extramarital affair, to which the Democrats could not have objected considering their acceptance of Slick Willie's history of sexual misbehavior. Of all the available qualified candidates,the GOP then turned to a nobody from Chicago named Dennis Hastert. Someone, somewhere had to have known about the skeletons in this guy's closet.

cheri1122 · May 31, 2015

Just playing devil's advocate here, but what if Hastert didn't actually DO anything wrong, but believed the mere allegation would be worth paying someone to keep quiet? [As a powerful legislator, he'd make more than enough to cover the loss]
After all, that's what companies say they're doing when they pay someone off, while insisting they did nothing wrong, and at least once in awhile, they may be telling the truth, lol.
People in powerful public positions have an extra incentive to keep even a hint of scandal from being attached to their names, and they have the money [and the relative assurance of much, much more coming in] to spend on keeping their rep 'clean'.

Turtle · May 31, 2015

That's what makes this whole thing really odd, as it happened well after he left office and the responsibilities of power.

cheri1122 · May 31, 2015

Left office, but still, relied on the name recognition to land the next high income spot. And I don't know if it applies to him, but many make brazillions off the speaker gigs, and maybe he's planning to write a book, too - none of that is worth a hill of beans [income wise] if his name is tarnished.
Unless he writes "50 shades of black & white - a memoir of interracial bondage", lol