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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??
That's why I remain skeptical. Something is amiss
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.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??
That's why I remain skeptical. Something is amiss
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.
Anonymous wrote:Why prosecute Hastert and not the extortionist ??