Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A second victim has just come forward. This victim never asked Hastert for money. I'm sure more will come forward now that they won't fear retribution.

Three 'victims' came forward regarding Herman Cain. When the first didn't work, a second came forward. When the second didn't work, a third came forward. My hinky meter went off when it was discovered the she and Axelrod lived in the same Chicago apartment building. What are the odds?

I don't trust anything coming from the DoJ. There's always more than meets the eye.

I don't know where you are going with your post, but Cain had confidential settlements with two of his victims to dismiss their EEO lawsuits. M

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the DOJ leaking little details piecemeal?
Is this their regular method of operating? Or only when the alleged perp is their political enemy?

For instance, how old were the high school teens? Eighteen or thirteen? Huge difference. One reported incident of abuse? Or four years worth? Did the victims tell anyone before now? The school says it received no reports of misconduct. Why was that? (Contrast that to the repeated countless reports of teacher sexual abuse of children, and the current Montgomery County, MD public school system chooses to allow the abuse to continue for years and years, without any "required" reporting to the police.)

Why did the victims wait 40 years to report? Did they both happen to suddenly remember something? Who exactly "helped" them remember?

The one that already got over one million dollars, does he still have that money, or was he in some sort of desperate financial crisis, that helped him figure out a solution?

Again, why is the DOJ withholding the full story, but instead dropping bits and pieces, and innuendo?
What's their real motive here?

Uh, their job is to prosecute crimes, not satisfy your curiosity. Obviously the court has decided that the individual involved should remain anonymous. And they aren't going to give any information on the abuse because they are not prosecuting the abuse.

One more time: the DOJ's job is to prosecute, not to satisfy your curiosity.

Perhaps they should also continue investigating police corruption across the country. They've barely scratched the surface with that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is the DOJ leaking little details piecemeal?
Is this their regular method of operating? Or only when the alleged perp is their political enemy?

For instance, how old were the high school teens? Eighteen or thirteen? Huge difference. One reported incident of abuse? Or four years worth? Did the victims tell anyone before now? The school says it received no reports of misconduct. Why was that? (Contrast that to the repeated countless reports of teacher sexual abuse of children, and the current Montgomery County, MD public school system chooses to allow the abuse to continue for years and years, without any "required" reporting to the police.)

Why did the victims wait 40 years to report? Did they both happen to suddenly remember something? Who exactly "helped" them remember?

The one that already got over one million dollars, does he still have that money, or was he in some sort of desperate financial crisis, that helped him figure out a solution?

Again, why is the DOJ withholding the full story, but instead dropping bits and pieces, and innuendo?
What's their real motive here?

Uh, their job is to prosecute crimes, not satisfy your curiosity. Obviously the court has decided that the individual involved should remain anonymous. And they aren't going to give any information on the abuse because they are not prosecuting the abuse.

One more time: the DOJ's job is to prosecute, not to satisfy your curiosity.

Anonymous wrote:Why is the DOJ leaking little details piecemeal?
Is this their regular method of operating? Or only when the alleged perp is their political enemy?

For instance, how old were the high school teens? Eighteen or thirteen? Huge difference. One reported incident of abuse? Or four years worth? Did the victims tell anyone before now? The school says it received no reports of misconduct. Why was that? (Contrast that to the repeated countless reports of teacher sexual abuse of children, and the current Montgomery County, MD public school system chooses to allow the abuse to continue for years and years, without any "required" reporting to the police.)

Why did the victims wait 40 years to report? Did they both happen to suddenly remember something? Who exactly "helped" them remember?

The one that already got over one million dollars, does he still have that money, or was he in some sort of desperate financial crisis, that helped him figure out a solution?

Again, why is the DOJ withholding the full story, but instead dropping bits and pieces, and innuendo?
What's their real motive here?

Why did so many women wait to come forward about Bill Cosby? Because we now live in an improved society where the victim may actually get believed. Thirty years ago people looked away more often. Sexual abuse of any kind was more tolerated or even considered a "rite of passage." I look forward when all hazing in fraternities and the military is banned and considered a crime. That is where this shit comes from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A second victim has just come forward. This victim never asked Hastert for money. I'm sure more will come forward now that they won't fear retribution.

Three 'victims' came forward regarding Herman Cain. When the first didn't work, a second came forward. When the second didn't work, a third came forward. My hinky meter went off when it was discovered the she and Axelrod lived in the same Chicago apartment building. What are the odds?

I don't trust anything coming from the DoJ. There's always more than meets the eye.

Anonymous wrote:Why did Hastert pay anything? This is the type of thing that most republicans and all conservatives would support. He should be proud of his conservative heritage.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A second victim has just come forward. This victim never asked Hastert for money. I'm sure more will come forward now that they won't fear retribution.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I just came across this which sort of supports the suggestion I was making:

"Individual A is not likely to face extortion charges, according to sources familiar with the case. One reason, sources said, is that it may not be entirely clear Individual A committed any criminal act. And even if that legal hurdle was resolved, sources added, in order to make an extortion case, prosecutors would need a victim willing to cooperate.

"That victim, in theory, would be Hastert. But for Hastert to make the extortion claim, he would have to take the misconduct claim head-on."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/dennis-hastert-case-alleged-case-sexual-misconduct-involving/story?id=31416385

That story also mentions a second victim.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.