Any bets on who was blackmailing Hastert?

[Anonymous]

Ugh. What the hell is it with child-molester republicans?! How is it that gay marriage and trannies in public restrooms that are the problem -- not the "family values" child molesters.

This is disgusting.

[jsteele]

The indictment says that Hastert was approached in 2010 and agreed to pay $3.5 million. If, as now looks to be the case, the other party was an under-aged male, he may have been influenced by this case:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/local-news/troubled-traveler-abusive-priest-reassigned-than

In which a "John Doe" was awarded $2 million in a case of a Catholic Priest abusing the then 14-year-old John Doe. He may have felt Hastert could pay a premium to keep things quiet.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:The indictment says that Hastert was approached in 2010 and agreed to pay $3.5 million. If, as now looks to be the case, the other party was an under-aged male, he may have been influenced by this case:

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/local-news/troubled-traveler-abusive-priest-reassigned-than

In which a "John Doe" was awarded $2 million in a case of a Catholic Priest abusing the then 14-year-old John Doe. He may have felt Hastert could pay a premium to keep things quiet.

Of course, if Hastert is outed, then his victim will almost certainly face criminal charges for extortion. And rightfully so.

[Anonymous]

I am confused.

Is paying a blackmailer against the law? or the indictment for lying to the FBI only?

Why not indict person A for blackmailing?

Why not indict Hastert for the past misconduct (I am assuming child abuse of some kind)?

[Anonymous]

There is so much irony here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sandusky-esque can be the only explanation as I posted before.

Almost nothing else would warrant such a payoff.

Agreed. Most of the time you are better off telling people what happened instead of letting them speculate the worst. In this case, the speculation of the worst seems to be what actually happened.

Yuck. And Hastert was a very high rated "family values" guy. Sheesh.

The family values crowd is overflowing with hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am confused.

Is paying a blackmailer against the law? or the indictment for lying to the FBI only?

Why not indict person A for blackmailing?

I imagine Person A will testify against Hastert (and out himself as a victim of sexual abuse) as part of a plea deal.

Why not indict Hastert for the past misconduct (I am assuming child abuse of some kind)?

Statute of limitations, I imagine. They're going after him for structuring and lying to the FBI, which suggests they can't get him for being a pedophile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the way, the trend on the GOP house leadership is not looking good. Hastert was the third choice to replace Gingrich, because DeLay and Livingston had their own ethics issues.

At least Boehner has some integrity.

How much integrity can a drunk have?

Don't talk about a person of color that way!

[Anonymous]

It's a Boyghazi!

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/politics/hastert-indictment.html?referrer=

[Anonymous]

Sorry about a dumb question, but was it common knowledge that he was gay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry about a dumb question, but was it common knowledge that he was gay?

Not at all.

[Anonymous]

Where does it say that he is gay?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry about a dumb question, but was it common knowledge that he was gay?

No. He has been married (to a woman) since 1973.

[Anonymous]

WSJ says this:

Yet another question: why federal prosecutors are bringing charges against Mr. Hastert in the first place. Bringing charges related to any allegedly illegal sexual misconduct, especially if it happened decades ago, would likely be banned entirely by statutes-of-limitations. The charges against Mr. Hastert—lying and attempting to avoid money-laundering laws—are relatively minor, legal experts say.

That's a good question, actually. I'd like to hear the answer to this.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:WSJ says this:

Yet another question: why federal prosecutors are bringing charges against Mr. Hastert in the first place. Bringing charges related to any allegedly illegal sexual misconduct, especially if it happened decades ago, would likely be banned entirely by statutes-of-limitations. The charges against Mr. Hastert—lying and attempting to avoid money-laundering laws—are relatively minor, legal experts say.

That's a good question, actually. I'd like to hear the answer to this.

Are you suggesting that "minor" illegality should be ignored? Why? The guy lied to the FBI and illegally structured withdrawals. Why should he get pass?