Any bets on who was blackmailing Hastert?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??

That's why I remain skeptical. Something is amiss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What baffles me is that so far there's only one victim. I think of pedophiles as constant victimizers once they start.

Just wait.

How long? A few more days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??

That's why I remain skeptical. Something is amiss

I have to agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??

That's why I remain skeptical. Something is amiss

I have to agree.

Such as . . . . What's your theory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??

That's why I remain skeptical. Something is amiss

the extortionist is probably nancy pelosi.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??

How do we know that there is an extortionist, at least in the technical sense? I could imagine a scenario in which the victim of a past wrongdoing approached Hastert and said, "I'm just letting you know that I plan to launch legal proceedings against you" or "I want to give you a heads up that I am about to publish a 'tell all' book" and Hastert said, "let me make you an offer not to do that". Is that legally extortion?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??

How do we know that there is an extortionist, at least in the technical sense? I could imagine a scenario in which the victim of a past wrongdoing approached Hastert and said, "I'm just letting you know that I plan to launch legal proceedings against you" or "I want to give you a heads up that I am about to publish a 'tell all' book" and Hastert said, "let me make you an offer not to do that". Is that legally extortion?

You think Hastert suggested 3.5 million? Mighty generous guy.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??

How do we know that there is an extortionist, at least in the technical sense? I could imagine a scenario in which the victim of a past wrongdoing approached Hastert and said, "I'm just letting you know that I plan to launch legal proceedings against you" or "I want to give you a heads up that I am about to publish a 'tell all' book" and Hastert said, "let me make you an offer not to do that". Is that legally extortion?

You think Hastert suggested 3.5 million? Mighty generous guy.

I have no idea how they arrived at the number. I'm just suggesting that the arrangement could have been arrived at by a means that was not legally extortion.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??

How do we know that there is an extortionist, at least in the technical sense? I could imagine a scenario in which the victim of a past wrongdoing approached Hastert and said, "I'm just letting you know that I plan to launch legal proceedings against you" or "I want to give you a heads up that I am about to publish a 'tell all' book" and Hastert said, "let me make you an offer not to do that". Is that legally extortion?

You think Hastert suggested 3.5 million? Mighty generous guy.

I have no idea how they arrived at the number. I'm just suggesting that the arrangement could have been arrived at by a means that was not legally extortion.

Perhaps if the dollar amount was a tad more reasonable, your theory might seem more plausible. Maybe the victim demanded more than the original 3.5 mil, and Hastert said he didn't have more than that. So the guy threatened to tip off the FBI. I don't know.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??

How do we know that there is an extortionist, at least in the technical sense? I could imagine a scenario in which the victim of a past wrongdoing approached Hastert and said, "I'm just letting you know that I plan to launch legal proceedings against you" or "I want to give you a heads up that I am about to publish a 'tell all' book" and Hastert said, "let me make you an offer not to do that". Is that legally extortion?

He took the money right? It's more blackmail

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??

How do we know that there is an extortionist, at least in the technical sense? I could imagine a scenario in which the victim of a past wrongdoing approached Hastert and said, "I'm just letting you know that I plan to launch legal proceedings against you" or "I want to give you a heads up that I am about to publish a 'tell all' book" and Hastert said, "let me make you an offer not to do that". Is that legally extortion?

You think Hastert suggested 3.5 million? Mighty generous guy.

I have no idea how they arrived at the number. I'm just suggesting that the arrangement could have been arrived at by a means that was not legally extortion.

I guess that means the guy had a price.

[Anonymous]

My guess: DOJ made a deal with the guy. They may not have had enough evidence unless he helps.......just a guess, but that is the only thing that makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My guess: DOJ made a deal with the guy. They may not have had enough evidence unless he helps.......just a guess, but that is the only thing that makes sense.

Amazing what they thought should be a high priority. Nail the enemies while you can. I wonder which cases they turned down, to make time for this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What baffles me is that so far there's only one victim. I think of pedophiles as constant victimizers once they start.

Just wait.

Some article I read today referenced more than one victim. Can't remember where I read it, I read so many. Something about rumors from back before he was in Congress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What baffles me is that so far there's only one victim. I think of pedophiles as constant victimizers once they start.

Just wait.

Some article I read today referenced more than one victim. Can't remember where I read it, I read so many. Something about rumors from back before he was in Congress.

How many years ago was that? Thirty?? So a bunch of guys are now going to 'just remember' this coach?

Let me guess... All the victims will be coming from the other side of the aisle.
You think?