All I know is my gut says maybe.
Indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was paying an individual from his past to conceal sexual misconduct, two federal law enforcement officials said Friday.
One of the officials, who would not speak publicly about the federal charges in Chicago, said “Individual A,” as the person is described in Thursday’s federal indictment, was a man and that the alleged misconduct was unrelated to Hastert’s tenure in Congress. The actions date to Hastert’s time as a Yorkville, Ill., high school wrestling coach and teacher, the official said.
Sidebar: Sometimes, when I would bring up Gerry Studds in the comments and how Democrats re-elected him 9 times after it was revealed he sexually abused a 17 year old congressional page, a leftist would defend him on the basis that, “Well, at least he faced the voters, and they re-elected him.” Which pretty much is everything you need to know about the morals of progressive leftists.
And whatever Denny Hastert did (cough… Jerry Sandusky… cough) it’s still complete boolsheet that the Government can arrest you for taking your own money out of the bank.
What is it with Republicans and “loss of zipper control”? The Democrats more sensibly go for the money…
The GOP really needs to get out of the “sexual morality” business with so many hypocrites amongst the Leadership.
The GOP really needs to get out of the “sexual morality” business with so many hypocrites amongst the Leadership.
They pretty much have. When was the last time a Republican leader discussed sexual morality in public (outside of, you know, being asked 50,000 times if they oppose abortion-rape).
Not that it has helped them at all.
Please don’t start with that base canard. Anybody who pays attention knows that Democrats politicians have as much trouble “keeping it in their pants” as Republicans. It’s just the dinosaur media trumpets Republician peccadillos from the rooftops while hiding Democratic shame. Unless it becomes way too public some other way.
Guys, he was a wrestling coach. A WRESTLING COACH. Why is this a surprise? But the sheer dollar amount and he’s been out of power for how long? Something something really bad. I mean, probably worse than Jerry Sandusky sort of bad.
I’ll thank you not to impune the sport of wrestling. Impune creeps like Denny Hastert instead.
No, V, we defended Studds on the basis of the fact that the age of consent in DC is 16, meaning that the relationships were legal. Therefore, he did not “sexually abuse” anyone; he had an unethical relationship due to the power imbalance, for which he was reprimanded by the House panel.
The fact that this blog still hasn’t learned this fact and continues to lie about it despite having had it pointed out multiple times over the years tells you everything you need to know about the morals of regressive conservatives.
And Hastert wasn’t arrested for taking his own money out of the bank. He was indicted for the crime of structuring, which is consistently making withdrawals (or deposits or whatever) in such a way as to avoid reporting requirements. You know, like drug dealers do, and this law (and the one which forbids lying to FBI agents) trapped our GOP stalwart.
Bro, do you even research?
So, hmm_contrib is saying it’s totes okay for a man in his thirties to have sex with a 16 year old. Regardless of what the law says, that’s still creepy, in my book.
But, go ahead and defend it; it just makes my case for me.
And I don’t think the Government has any business monitoring the private financial transactions of citizens because I believe in liberty. That they have granted themselves this power through law is an abomination.
There is a certain amount of just desserts in Hastert getting hanged by an unjust law that he supported in Congress.
Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary took in millions from peddling influence to foreign governments and corporations and no one bats an eye.
I “defended” it? What part of “he had an unethical relationship” confused you?
(And the page was 17, not 16. Details, V, details. The gods are in the details.)
And it’s nice you didn’t contest being caught on your lie about Studds. Baby steps.
Because I didn’t lie. Gerry Studds was a creep. He had sex with an underage boy. Democrats re-elected him. They continue to defend him. Just as they defend Roman Polansky, Woody Allen, Victor Salva, Harry Hay, and Allen Ginsburg.
These are facts.
The secret to liberal morality. Have no moral standards. That way you can never be accused of not living up the them. Conservatives make the mistake of having moral standards to be judged by.
Can I take this to mean that there will be an equally attentive investigation into the Clinton lies?
Anyway guess how will be paying for Latrina’s high speed internet
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2015/05/29/subsidized-broadband-the-obama-phone-program-applied-to-internet-access/
I just don’t understand paying $3.5-MILLION, just to protect a reputation?, if the statute of limitations had run-out. You’re retired, made millions as a lobbyist, and you pay? The FBI went out of it’s way to give Hastert an “out” by asking if he was being extorted, and he says “no”? Why not say “yes”, lets the Feds take down the little extorter and play the victim-card?
…It must really be bad.
Has we reached the “lets let our imaginations run away with us” time?
Suppose Hastert had “sexual relations” with a minor boy and he has long since straightened out his life. Then the “beyond the statute of limitations” boy of the distant past taps into Hastert for hush money.
Suppose Hastert would rather pay him off than wash it all out in public. Suppose the $3.5 million was not any particular hardship on Hastert. Granted, two wrongs never make it right, but who knows what pressure Hastert felt himself under?
Now, however, we will all get a full dose of the speculation and a modicum of facts.
I make no case for cutting Hastert a break. The “victim” chose to go the extortion route rather than the disclosure route. That does not cancel any of Hastert’s culpability in presumed wrongs, but neither does it make Hastert the only villain in the scenario.
hmm_contrib makes a dreadfully typical liberal defense for Studds. He allows that a minor near his majority is not exactly the same as child. True that. But tell it to the judge. If a guy celebrates his 18th birthday by beating up a gay, I am sure that hmm_contrib will be right back here begging that he be excused as he is only hours old from graduating into being an adult. Or not.
The sleazy truth about liberals is that they can countenance nearly anything that requires their defense if the miscreant is part of the liberal package of ideology. The Gentle Giant, Hamas, Trayvon, Studds, whatever.
Also, as per the Gerry Studds story, many progressives and certainly many progressive gays made great hay out of Mark Foley chatting online with 17-20 year old pages, yet there is no evidence he did anything physically inappropriate. (In fact, it could be said he did something that many gay men do every day.) Somehow, he was supposed to be held to a higher standard, because, you know, evil Republican and all that.
Isn’t it amazing how that works?
Hmmm_contrib and liberals were shrieking last week that sex with anyone under the age of 18 was child molestation and that teenagers shouldn’t be having sex.
Now hmm_contrib is screaming that teenagers should have sex and that Democrats can have sex with children regardless of age and it won’t be molestation.
This is why hmm_contrib is a pervert. Literally, the pervert supports and endorses what he previously shrieked was child molestation. Therefore, by the liberal standards he espouses, he is a child molester and supports molesting children.
People need to realize this. Liberals LIE. Everything they say, everything they stand for is nothing but a lie they are using to manipulate others and gain power. They are perverted control freaks for whom there is no such thing as right and wrong. They are completely and totally immoral.
Actually, Progressives see things in two different ways depending on the ideology involved.
This is called Diplopia. (Double vision.) When the eye specialist examines a dip for diplopia, he asks the following standard questions:
•When did the double vision start?
•Have you hit your head, fallen, or been knocked unconscious?
•Were you in a car accident?
•Are you a liberal?