Former US Speaker Dennis Hastert indicted

I hope the blackmailer was also indicted.

No no. Those were returned campaign contributions...

Interesting little development.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...hush-money-coverup-got-mystery-call-c-n366631

Ooh! Now it's a mystery!

5 questions from the Hastert indictment

I haven't yet read the indictment, but from media coverage, those were my questions.

Dribble, dribble, the facts begin to come out.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html

SO, if you make an agreement to pay someone to keep quiet on something, and you pay them the money "in good faith", if they then fail to keep quiet, can you sue to get your money back?

Lyv said:

5 questions from the Hastert indictment

I haven't yet read the indictment, but from media coverage, those were my questions.

Click to expand...

That link doesn't work for me.

Nymtoc said:

Dribble, dribble, the facts begin to come out.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html

Click to expand...

Those aren't really facts, just unconfirmed claims. Though I have to say, it's pretty much what I expected. Didn't know if A would be a male or a female, though.

Regardless, blackmail is still blackmail. It's illegal and a confessed blackmailer shouldn't get a pass here, imo.

Williebee said:

SO, if you make an agreement to pay someone to keep quiet on something, and you pay them the money "in good faith", if they then fail to keep quiet, can you sue to get your money back?

- - - Updated - - -

SO, if you make an agreement to pay someone to keep quiet on something, and you pay them the money "in good faith", if they then fail to keep quiet, can you sue to get your money back?

Click to expand...

You can say that again.

More dribble...

http://gawker.com/why-did-dennis-hastert-pay-all-that-hush-money-feds-1707767061

But if the allegations are true, shouldn't we try to forgive his sins? I feel sure Jim Bob and Michelle would want us to...oops, wrong thread.

Blackmailing isn't illegal, don't know why you're so insistent on that person being charged with a crime.

Bufkus said:

Blackmailing isn't illegal, don't know why you're so insistent on that person being charged with a crime.

Click to expand...

Um, yes it is.

Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal embarrassing, disgraceful or damaging information about a person to the public, family, spouse or associates unless money is paid to purchase silence. It is a form of extortion. Because the information is usually substantially true, it is not revealing the information that is criminal, but demanding money to withhold it.

Click to expand...

robeiae said:

That link doesn't work for me.
.

Click to expand...

Weird. It worked when I posted it.

Here is the same article on a different site. I tested this one, too. so it should work.

Vince524 said:

Um, yes it is.

Click to expand...

Federal code on the matter:

Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Click to expand...

It's hard to get good links on Hastert right now with page after page on Google swamped with his current woes, but these little nuggets are fairly indisputable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert

As speaker, Hastert shepherded the

Click to expand...

USA Patriot Act in October 2001 to passage in the House on a 357-66 vote.[SUP][32][/SUP] In a 2011 interview, Hastert claimed credit for its passage over the misgivings of many members.[SUP][32][/SUP]Fourteen years later, federal prosecutors used the Patriot Act's expansion of currency transaction reportingrequirements to indict Hastert on federal charges.[SUP][32][/SUP]

Click to expand...

[SUP]

[/SUP]Heh.

Hastert was known as a frequent critic of Bill Clinton, and immediately upon taking speakership "played a lead role" in the

Click to expand...

impeachment of the president.[SUP][40][/SUP]

Click to expand...

[SUP]

[/SUP]Seems a bit hypocritical in light of what we now know. But what's much, much worse in light of the possibility that Hastert raped young boys:

In a December 2006, the House Ethics Committee determined that Hastert and other congressional leaders were "willfully ignorant" in responding to early warnings of the Mark Foley congressional page scandal, but did not violate any House rules.[SUP][46][/SUP][SUP][47][/SUP] In a committee statement, Kirk Fordham, who was Foley's chief of staff until 2005, said that he had alerted Scott Palmer, Hastert's chief of staff, to Foley's inappropriate advances toward congressional pages in 2002 or 2003, asking congressional leadership to intervene.[SUP][47][/SUP] Then-House Majority Leader John Boehner and National Republican Congressional Committee chair Thomas M. Reynolds stated that they told Hastert about Foley's conduct in spring 2005.[SUP][47][/SUP] A Hastert spokesman stated that "what Kirk Fordham said did not happen."[SUP][47][/SUP]

Click to expand...

Turning a blind eye, and all.

ETA: I don't know why, but I've had issues with the quote function since the site's makeover. I didn't insert end quotes in the middle of the copied text, and each time I delete them, they come right back.

grrr

Monkey said:

ETA: I don't know why, but I've had issues with the quote function since the site's makeover. I didn't insert end quotes in the middle of the copied text, and each time I delete them, they come right back.

Click to expand...

They're so well placed you could pass them off as dramatic pauses.

This whole thing has me completely nauseous. And the icing on the cake is that I'm a Devil-worshipping Commie* and can't even enjoy the hypocrisy of this "conservative" being exposed. Cos I'm also a gay man and all I can think is how this just reinforces every twisted stereotype all the people who hate me already believe.

Monkey said:

the possibility that Hastert raped young boys

Click to expand...

I feel compelled to state your phraseology disturbs me. It strikes me as unnecessarily inflammatory--designed to elicit the most emotional of responses. I can not, however, dispute the facts (with the caveat of the "possibility" included, that is). In that same vein:


*I may have overstated my political/religious beliefs for effect.

The phrase is certainly disturbing. The act, more so.

robeiae said:

Regardless, blackmail is still blackmail. It's illegal and a confessed blackmailer shouldn't get a pass here, imo.

Click to expand...

It occurs to me that we don't know that it WAS blackmail, at least not from the information presented thus far. We have it alleged that he was paying someone off. It is not alleged that the payoffs were due to blackmail. A payoff doesn't always equal blackmail.

ETA: The OP is where the assertion of "blackmailer" comes from. But the link doesn't quite support that--

"in order to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct against Individual A."

Click to expand...

Doesn't say whether it was extortion or payoff.

Williebee said:

It occurs to me that we don't know that it WAS blackmail, at least not from the information presented thus far. We have it alleged that he was paying someone off. It is not alleged that the payoffs were due to blackmail. A payoff doesn't always equal blackmail.

ETA: The OP is where the assertion of "blackmailer" comes from. But the link doesn't quite support that-- Doesn't say whether it was extortion or payoff.

Click to expand...

As in he may have entered into a contractual agreement of silence with his victim? That's certainly a possibility.

Monkey said:

The phrase is certainly disturbing. The act, more so.

Click to expand...

And when it comes to light I say label it so. But there are a wide range of possible indiscretions/acts of horribleness that could be behind this, none of which could challenge the resonance of a phrase like "raped young boys". Those three words seem more appropriate just before we pull the offender from his home, douse him in oil and set him on fire. But maybe because I've had people scream similar things in my face while, y'know, I was speaking in support of a gay/straight alliance at my high school, YMMV.

Monkey said:

The phrase is certainly disturbing. The act, more so.

Click to expand...

We don't know the particulars of the case.

If a teacher has a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old, it's certainly inappropriate and quite possibly criminal. However, to describe it as "raping young boys" is, I think, emotionally charged and is an assumption that so far we have no facts to support.

There have been many cases of male (and female) high school teachers having sexual relationships with 17-year-old girls. Seldom if ever have I seen that referred to as "raping young girls." I believe that is what is upsetting that Johnny, and I believe rightly so.

Let's wait until we find out exactly what happened before we see if that's really an appropriate description.

I say "possibility" because, at this point, all we have is allegations. Those allegations, however, is that he committed - quote - "sexual abuse" against a younger male during his time as a wrestling coach at a high school.

Sexual abuse does not, to me, sound like a consensual relationship. And he was in a position of power over these children - as a wrestling coach, likely physical as well as in other ways.

But yes, I will concede that we should wait and see.

Drip, drip, drip...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html