The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Dennis Hastert

    By Flavius on Thu, 05/28/2015 - 11:33pm |

    In 1964 ,John Profumo, UK Secretary of Defense -and husband of the beautiful Valerie Hobson- was having an affair with the equally beautiful , lower class, 16 year old Christine Keeler,. Who was also having sex with a senior  Russian diplomat stationed in London!

    When the Labour party leader ,Harold Wilson, disembarked at Heathrow he was mobbed by screaming reporters asking  for his comment.His entire reply was

    "No comment........in technicolor"

    Which  should be our reply if asked about Hastert  .Though I fear it won't be..

    (Labour won the election a few months later.).

     

    Comments

    Quite a difference - they're not accusing Hastert of security breaches - they're saying Hastert paid off a blackmailer and it's illegal to access his money. Frankly I don't see it as the FBI's business, but good luck with that argument in nosy 2015.

    Anyway, by 2016 will anyone care about a politician who resigned 9 years before? I had to scratch my head to remember when he was in office.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 4:35am

    Hmn . Difference ?: Mutatis mutandi.

    A major figure ( well at least once major) among the other guys  is in trouble. What should we do ?

    1. Stay out of the way.2. Don't seem to be taking advantage of someone's  personal disaster

    One of the many almost certainly  false quotes attributed to Churchill was : " Not kicking a man when he's down? That's the very time to kick him.". Probably false because it's dumb.Fortunately most of us don't agree ,as he would have known.

    As to the charge against Hastert : it's not  "illegal access to his money" , it's lying to the FBI.  But I agree with you. Like Bill Clinton's perjury it seems like contrived grounds for an indictment.Sort of tautological. Like Miss Jean Brodie's student  who was famous for being famous: the  grounds for prosecution is lying in response to a question you were only asked in order to provide grounds for prosecution. Hello. Department of redundancy department. 

     If we don't want the Justice authorities to be allowed to indict on such  grounds (and I don't)  the solution is changing the law - which would restore a lot of Mafia members to their friends and family. A price I'd be willing to pay. Or at the very least stop applauding the gum shoes when they use this device against an unpopular target. What goes around ,comes around.


    by Flavius on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 8:19am

    I though the trigger for the investigation was trying to skirt around banking laws regarding large cash withdrawals.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 8:47am

    I was thinking more of when Heny Cisneros was busted for payments to an ex-mistress - a $21 million taxpayer investigation into a $250K payout.


    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 9:15am

    I understand that we want politicians to be law abiding. And it's worth spending some money-not $21 million or whatever Ken Starr cost - to achieve that.

    Bu  I object to  using the machinery of the government to pursue anyone, including politicians ,for supposed  "violations" that are really deviations from rules on personal conduct  embedded in the laws  of the land  when they should properly be left to the churches. .


    by Flavius on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 9:56am

    Actually this was another runaway independent prosecutor - Barrett?

    by PeraclesPlease on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 1:50pm

    I did learn something about what a CTR is.  I had no idea that they track your money this closely. 

    I am as nosey as everyone else. I wonder what he is being bribed for?  


    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 10:13am

    What could a guy who coached young high school boys for years do that he would pay millions to cover up?


    by NCD on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 12:54pm

    An article in the LA Times supports an allegation of sexual misconduct.

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


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 2:51pm

    Of course it's easy to guess an  answer which would stand a good chance of being correct. I'm not going to. Anyone who wants to pursue it can do so.

    Probably most lynch mobs strung up an accused person who was completely guilty of  some crime . Maybe even the one for which they killed him. But they were still  lynch mobs. And I'm agin em. And while I'm at it ,I can imagine good reasons why the FBI would imagine it was contributing to the public good by investigating withdrawals over $10K. They would certainly find some bad people that way.

    AOBTW I  can think of a lot of other things it could do that would also find some bad people: they could bug every  conference room and find a lot of people doing things they shouldn't.I could tell you about it.

    If we put on the ballot whether we wanted to empower it to carry out such "fishing trips" chances are it would pass. Without my vote. By me checking on each $11,000 withdrawal of a citizen is like listening to every phone call. Gotta get  winner one day. And if you don't then ask him to self incriminate himself. And if he doesn't , convict him of lying.

    Ron Paul where are you when we need you?.

     

     


    by Flavius on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 3:29pm

    It's not a lynch mob.

    Multiple reports are citing sources from two officials involved in the investigation that Hastert was involved in sexual abuse. With who, what sex , and what age, one can only guess.... but apparently seriously illegal.

    OAOBTW for Hastert and the GOP it's Schadenfreude,

    Hastert was the guy who delivered the impeachment warrant to the Senate for Clinton in '98 for Clinton's relations with an (adult) female.

    Hastert (R) was replacing Bob Livingston (R) as Speaker of the House, as Livingston admitted Hustler's Magazine's Flynt had the goods on him cheating on his wife, and Livingston was replacing Gingrich (R) who had also been cheating on his wife.


    by NCD on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 4:07pm

    I had forgotten that entire revolving door scenario.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 5:11pm

    He also resigned in 2006 because of the Mark Foley scandal. He handled it poorly by trying to keep it quiet.  But Foley just kept pestering young pages.  


    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 6:52pm

    Forgot about that one. Do these GOP guys EVER do anything good for the nation or world?


    by NCD on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 8:13pm

    They seem to have trouble keeping their pants zipped. 


    by trkingmomoe on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 9:43pm

    Okay, here's what makes me smile every time I hear it ... The media keeps mentioning Hastert as being the longest serving Republican Speaker of the House, sometimes adding that he was Speaker for 7 years.  In the 150+ years the Republicans have been around, they have never had a Speaker for more than 7 years? Jeez, Sam Rayburn served for 17 years as Speaker.   Could it be that this is simply further proof that the GOP is no good at governing?  Three two year terms is all people can stand of them.  hahahaha


    by MrSmith1 on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 10:34pm

    If the Govt had evidence against Hastert of course they should have used it to indict him.But the initial news stories alluded to his being indicted for "lying to the FBI   which I consider pretty thin. If that's not the case, good.

    On a separate matter we don't help ourselves electorally  by publicly expressing pleasure in the downfall of a political opponent. Tactically it's a mistake , risks changing the subject prematurely.

    And with respect to our image ,it's  "piling on"

    Certainly doesn't mean  we should condone bad behavior.."No comment.....in technicolor" seems about right. 


    by Flavius on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 10:35pm

    If you remind people of the Gingrich to Livingston to Hastert revolving door, you chip away at the idea that the GOP are the party of the moral values people. You have Huckabee supporting Dugggar. You have Cruz begging for government flood money for Texas after complaint about funds going to anew York and New Jersey for Sandy relief. Democrats need to define the Republicans as hypocrites. The GOP has no problem defining Democrats as weak. 

    Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders don't have to address the subject of Hastert except to say they are saddened.


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 05/29/2015 - 11:31pm

    These (Hastert and GOP) are the guys who spent somewhere near $70 million on an anti-President Clinton witch hunt, while enjoying every day and minute of it until they impeached him.

    And the same GOP bunch under President GWB appropriated $3 (yes t-h-r-e-e, 1,2,3 THREE) million for the 9/11 Commission, desperately seeking to avoid scrutiny and accountability, in fact Bush/Cheney tried to kill the investigation before it started.

    Spare me the pleasure BS, we are talking about criminals and liars who are world class hypocrites as rmrd points out.


    by NCD on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 12:13am

    How many times does the FBI lie gratuitously or as a coverup to the public and not go to jail? During the coverup of eavesdropping and not following congressionally mandated privacy procedures, bunches and bunches.

    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 12:46am

    "Pretty thin" the FBI could be trying to shake down Hastert  for information on something else they thinks he might know about?  I am not sure but I think he was deeply involved Mariana Island scandal that also included sex trafficking. 


    by trkingmomoe on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 10:20am

    What wouldn't a gay guy in those years pay to cover up, especially as a high political figure whose career would be destroyed? Barney Frank managed to survive despite the townhouse-used-for-prostitution rap. I won't get into how old the kid was here and what the lines mean as we've been thru that argument before - my guess is the boy was at least 16 and now is quite wealthy, while Hastert is in for a dark period.

    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 1:19am

    To repeat, I'm uncomfortable with what I think of as the Ken Starr approach under which you question a suspect whose position doesn't permit him to take the fifth and then indict him for lying. Seems  kafka-esque.

    But I neither know whether the FBI did that nor in fact  enough  of any of the allegations  in this case to make any useful comment.If I were so tempted, which I'm not.

    I do continue to think it's almost always bad politics to celebrate the humiliation of a political opponent. And  not really attractive personal behavior. 

    BTW having just finished  Barney Frank's book I continue to be pleased  his career not only survived  but thrived after the townhouse/prostitution  "rap". He was a useful politician. Sorry he's gone.


    by Flavius on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 7:19am

    To be clear, you seem to be close to agreeing with my viewpoint in several aspects - no disagreeing, I'm elaborating. There's also the FBI habit of recruiting/encouraging/entrapping "terrorists" are charging people if they don't flip to become informers. It's a highly perilous immoral assymetric power trip.

    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 8:27am

    PP - (1) forgive me for pointing it out, but Barney Frank has never been accused of child molestation or sexual abuse of underage boys.

    Reality check time: 'Gay' does not mean 'pedophile'.

    Every openly gay person is not a sexual predator of children, even though Rick Santorum would want you to believe it.

    (2) Your guess on how the student was is frankly a joke, run that one by a jury and see if it works (the kid was probably..... and I paid him off so he is rich...).

    Every teacher working in a public school is aware of the law, and the consequences of breaking the law, especially as to exploitation/sex with students.
     


    by NCD on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 3:27pm

    1) Frank's lover ran a bisexual prostitution ring out of his townhouse - perhaps less immoral than pedophilia, perhaps more, perhaps same - my ratings card is broken. And perhaps Frank didn't know vs. didn't care or the moral blame should be on his partner. Anyway, Frank was reprimanded but kept his seat.

    2) I've had discussions here of what it means re: 16- and 17-year-old sex, and while I find it a bit arbitrary - some adolescents seem predisposed & ready to enter the sexual world, others far less daring & mature - many find anything less than 18 as tawdry and criminal. So whereas I'd be less judgmental of Hastert until I had more details - such as was it predatory or a more natural mutual relationship - other folks will simply not buy into such ambiguity.

    So my opinion that not every adult-16/17-year-old encounter is "pedophilia" nor "sexual predator" is probably not shared by everyone. So be it. I think the world of sexual attraction is more complicated and not always easily delineated. I doubt if Francis Bacon worried too much about legal limits anytime during his stellar career, nor William Burroughs, but maybe I'm too in-tune with the beats & punk eras and the Lost Generation and not 2015 America - mea culpa.

    3) I'm not discussing the legal situation. There are lots of laws that seem stupid, abused or partially inadequate and no one's asking my opinion to modify them.

    4) I still think it's questionable the morality of blackmailing that information for $3.5 million some 20 years later or however long - but I don't have enough info on the situation to really judge - if it was a drug-rape situation like with Polanski or other kind of coercion, I'm a lot less sympathetic towards Hastert. Otherwise, I imagine the situation for a gay or bisexual man in that environment wasn't simple. But I guess I should learn to rush to judgment so I can join in the fun.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 3:59pm

    As a gay friend put it ,  Andre Gide was greatly admired  but there wasn't much call for his services as a baby sitter.

    It's a reasonable assumption that  sexual relations between a significantly older  person ( say  10 years)  and a 16-17 year old boy is  predatory. Whether involving  a priest , a wrestling coach or Socrates. The chances it's not  are so slim that the pederast's situation is simple. He or she is behaving illegally.

    That bright line probably protects both parties although  the law's concern is restricted to the younger.  

    The situation of the gay or bisexual  is irrelevant They are entitled to  pursue their sexual interests unless in addition they are pederasts in which case  see above..


    by Flavius on Sun, 05/31/2015 - 8:33am

    Well in Socrates' time it was an honor and the boy had the choice wth full knowledge of his parents. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

    Then again, the gay Alexander the Great after his tutelage by Aristotle assumed the throne at 20, s maybe a bit more mature back then?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/31/2015 - 8:49am

    I doubt it. I'm sure there was quite a bit of cultural and economic coercion that was used to obtain "consent."


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 05/31/2015 - 3:38pm

    It seems to me that if the relationship is not predatory and at least one party is reasonably mature that party would simply say, let us wait one year until you are 18 to consummate our relationship. If that doesn't happen that's enough for me to show the lack of maturity of the couple and it's enough evidence that the relationship is likely predatory.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 05/31/2015 - 3:53pm

    Sounds like a bank - no room for passion?


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/31/2015 - 5:33pm

    That question has as it's premise that "true" passion is uncontrollable. Uncontrollable passion consequences be damned is part of immaturity. My girlfriend and I were totally in love and we went on to get married when we were 20. We were also pretty immature when we were teens and it is only luck that she didn't get pregnant while we were still in high school. When I became older I still fell in love passionately but i was more capable of making adult decisions about how to deal with that passion.


    by ocean-kat on Sun, 05/31/2015 - 6:53pm

    Even mature people can get overtaken by passion, some even in their 80's. Thank Buddha for diversity.

    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/01/2015 - 1:43am

    "I fall in love too easily

    I fall in love too fast

    I fall in love too terribly hard

    For love to ever last"

     


    by Flavius on Mon, 06/01/2015 - 6:47am

    I thought of Peracles, my favorite blogger when he decides to pay me....hahhahaahah

    Hypocrisy is everywhere for chrissakes.

    hhahahha


    by Richard Day on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 4:53pm

    Baby, you're a rich man. One of the beautiful people...


    by PeraclesPlease on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 5:50pm

    That is all fine and dandy. hahahahah

    WHERE THE HELL IS MY CHECK?

    HAHHAHAHAH


    by Richard Day on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 7:23pm

    Bitcoin, dude, and since the got the drop on Silk Road's head, hope you're protected or moght go the way of Hastert and Kim Dotcom. Underground economies don't run  cheap.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/31/2015 - 2:03am

    At the very least it seems the Speaker is guilty of tax evasion. Those are some mighty big cash gifts. I'm not any kind of expert, but I'm pretty sure declaring those gifts s the burden of the giver.


    by kyle flynn on Sat, 05/30/2015 - 7:33pm

    It wasnt a gift, it was pay for a service, in this case silence. The contractor is required  report it. Whether the payor os also required, dunno, but obviously got him on the transa tion limits anyway so it's moot.


    by PeraclesPlease on Sun, 05/31/2015 - 2:29am

    I'd like to see that invoice. At any rate, as a reluctant American I still wanna see our 35%.


    by kyle flynn on Sun, 05/31/2015 - 7:03pm

    Yeah, if there's extortion at work, we should be part. U-S-A!!!

    by PeraclesPlease on Mon, 06/01/2015 - 1:41am

    Extortion? Nah. I like your first try--payment for service. And considering how many nickels had been exchanged, and the fact old Denny boy was willing to the lie to the feds about it, I'd say the deal was going swimmingly. I'm not saying the ol' speaker was thrilled with handing over that kinda cheddar. I mean whoever is, even when it's something you really, really need? I'm just saying I think maybe I can come around to your point of view. It's a glowing example of the free enterprise system at work. And it's nobody's business but theirs. But go ahead and call me a tax and spend liberal. I want my cut.


    by kyle flynn on Mon, 06/01/2015 - 11:33am

    Just to answer the technical question, for questions of who reports contractual payments to the government, in general both sides are responsible. Here's what the IRS has to say about the entity paying for the services:

    If the following four conditions are met, you must generally report a payment as nonemployee compensation.

    1. You made the payment to someone who is not your employee;
    2. You made the payment for services in the course of your trade or business (including government agencies and nonprofit organizations);
    3. You made the payment to an individual, partnership, estate, or in some cases, a corporation; and
    4. You made payments to the payee of at least $600 during the year.

    The second one is arguable. If it doesn't hold, then I suppose one could argue that it falls into the same category as hiring a contractor to install a fence. (Note that hiring a nanny or similar falls into the category of having a household employee.)

    None of this constitutes legal advice, yada yada…


    by Verified Atheist on Mon, 06/01/2015 - 10:21am

    The only reason this is of any interest to me whatsoever is that I am sick of these people who try to legislate morality, and want to be all up in MY business, can't seem to manage their own. If they were not interested in what "we the people" are doing with our bodies, I wouldn't be interested in what they do with theirs. But then there's whole lying to the FBI, and was a crime committed, even though the statute of limitations is past stuff... What a mess. 

    Wouldn't it be nice if politicians could just go to work, do their jobs, and keep their pants zipped? 


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 1:16pm

    Hastert was a wrestling coach back then, not a politician, and tights don't have zippers.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 2:23pm

    Hastert served in Congress after being a wrestling coach. He was aware of his actions. During his tenure in Congress, he voted against legislation that tried to combat workplace discrimination targeting Gays. Hastert was involved in covering up Foley's misdeeds. His actions as a wrestling coach are extremely relevant to his actions in Congress.

    http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/dennis-hasterts-secret-gay-misconduct-is...


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 2:51pm

    You have a great way of plowing some irrelevant detail in just to keep an argument going.

    Hastert's sex with wrestlers was not as a politician, so can have no reflection on a politician keeping his pants zipped, got it?

    If you come up with anything related to his sexual proclivities while a politician, post them. Otherwise quit correcting me with non-corrections. Danke.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 3:48pm

    I am agreeing with stillidealistic. In Congress, Hastert was a hypocrite who used legislation to bash Gays. This can be pointed out. We can point out that Gingrich was an adulterer who wanted to see another man destroyed because of adultery. True, true and related. 

    Edit to add:

    The guy who reached back and noted that pedophilia was the norm in ancient Greece, thinks that I'm stretching when I connect Hastert's abuse of power as a wrestling coach with abuse as a legislator. Too funny for words


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 4:33pm

    If you're responding to Stilli, please click the "Reply" under Stilli's name, thanks.


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 5:04pm

    Too funny, yes. But while he may have implied or claimed it was the norm I don't think he noted it. I'm not a scholar of ancient Greece but my understanding is that the pedophilia was mainly a prerogative of the aristocracy and not the norm.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 5:05pm

    Before parsing my words, *ALL* I know on this subject is contained in the link I provided,

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

    so if that article is even true, and says it's a "norm" or "socially acknowledged" or "characteristic" or "the principal cultural model for free relationships between citizens", you'll have to take it up with the authors.

    While pederasty seems to have developed in the 7th Century BC, "Greek myths provide more than fifty examples of young men who were the lovers of [male] gods."

    Via the article, the Greek moral code looked down on sex-for-pay in prostitution or a "kept boy", and anal sex was also held in contempt (vs their typical "intercrural" or between the thighs). Some regions considered monogamy important; others did not.

    Ages on vases is *estimated* at 12-18, but they don't list any evidence as to what acceptable ages would be, though "there were conventions of age pertaining to sexual activity, and if a man violated these by seducing a boy who was too young to consent to becoming an eromenos, the predator might be subject to prosecution", as "Athenian law, for instance, recognized consent but not age as a factor in regulating sexual behavior".

    There you have it - different strokes for different folks.

     


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 11:50pm

    Hastert does not live in Ancient Greece, therefore the supplied information is not relevant. Additionally, Greek attitudes on pedophilia/ pederasty was not uniform. Even Plato went from accepting the practice to considering it unholy.

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2007/nov/10/history.society

    Perhaps we can keep the discussion in the present. Hastert seems to have abused the power he had as a wrestling coach and used his power as a legislator to suppress legislation aimed at protecting Gays.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/03/2015 - 8:29am

    "Perhaps we can keep the discussion in the present." - the guy who wrote this diary brought up Socrates so I gave a brief note on pedophilia & Socrates' time. I would have left it as a URL, but you & Oceankat had to dig in. Perhaps you can go piss up a rope rather than tell me what to do. It's not like a discussion about an ex-politician over his ex-wrestling coach days means a damn thing anyway.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/03/2015 - 8:55am

    Hastert doesn't mean a thing, but here you are commenting. More humor.


    by rmrd0000 on Wed, 06/03/2015 - 9:09am

    Yes, you're irrelevant and delirious, and I keep talking to you as well. Go figger - I do know how to waste my time.


    by PeraclesPlease on Wed, 06/03/2015 - 9:47am

    It's just a figure of speech, but don't most coaches wear street clothes? 


    by stillidealistic on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 10:26pm

    Sure - I was thinking of strap-ons as well, but aside from sounding funny, doesn't make much sense ;-)


    by PeraclesPlease on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 11:53pm

    Yes, as I said also up thread. They have trouble keeping their pants zipped.  He was a hypocrite like so many in the Republican party.  Just out to make money and they will say anything to get it.  

    Don't stay away so long.  I like your way of thinking.. 


    by trkingmomoe on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 5:44pm

    Apparently, if he'd just told the FBI that he withdrew the money to make extortion payments he'd be fine - providing that the extortion was strictly personal in nature. It seems that blackmail is legal as long as the parties involved reach an amicable agreement.

    I don't see this as having any particularly political relevance. Whatever "misconduct" transpired happened before his political career and the actions for which he's indicted occurred after it ended. It's odd that the victim/blackmailer hasn't made any public accusations and waited to make private demands until Hastert was out of office.


    by barefooted on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 3:06pm

    Given Hastert's actions in suppressing efforts to enact legislation supporting Gays, I think his actions as a wrestling coach do call into question his actions as a legislator. It is part of a continuum.


    by rmrd0000 on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 4:09pm

    It's not quite that simple. There are taxes to be paid on that money. If it were legal to shift vast quantities of money around every old wealthy person would simply gift the vast majority of their wealth to their children before they died and circumvent the inheritance taxes. We can argue about whether inheritance taxes should exist or whether they are too high or too low. But they do exist and there are laws governing the transfer of large amounts of money.

    Payment for services, large gifts, gambling winnings, even merchandise won on game shows must all be declared as income. These payments constitute tax fraud since likely neither Hastert nor the recipient declared them.  I'm sure virtually every employer would love to pay all his employees under the table and circumvent employer contributions to unemployment insurance, workers comp, medicare, SS etc. But it's illegal to do so. Are we really going to carve out an exception for extortion, i.e. paying someone for the service of remaining silent?

    I also agree with rmrd. The hypocrisy between his public and private life is politically relevant.


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 4:56pm

    Tax issues aren't included in the indictment, and withdrawing cash from an account isn't illegal - the IRS will, I'm sure, determine the tax liabilities.

    He's being roundly considered a child molester for sexual improprieties with an underage male student, although there have been no charges filed in that regard. What does that have to do with his legislative record on gay rights? Who says he's gay? One does not equal the other.


    by barefooted on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 5:37pm

    Too often people are discussing this story from the middle not the beginning. The FBI was not looking for people paying off blackmailers. They were monitoring large transfers of money since it quite often reveals illegal behavior like tax fraud, money laundering, funding of criminal enterprises etc. Do you think this is an appropriate activity for the FBI? I do, though I also think there has been some abuse of power. I would like there to be greater oversight and an end to confiscation of property with out charges and a conviction. But I would not like to see the program ended.

    We as a society have decided that a person dealing with governmental officials has the right to remain silent but not the right to lie. Do you think that's a good system or would you like to see a right to lie added to the fifth amendment? I think the fifth amendment is sufficient and have no interest is adding the right to lie to it. Hastert decided not to remain silent, he decided to lie.

    I have no problem with either the investigation or the charges.

    People gossip. People believe the gossip without sufficient evidence. What's your point? People have the right to gossip and you have the right to defend him against the gossip. What more do you want than that? There seems to be some information from credible sources to merit an accusation of hypocrisy. I'll wait for more information before I say more than that.

    Charges are about criminal liability and punishment. It doesn't mean a thing happened or not. I can think of a dozen instances where there were no charges yet imo the person was guilty and the discussion relevant. I paid a lot of attention to Thomas' confirmation and I read Anita Hill's book as well as watched her speak. I believe she was sexually harassed even though no charges were filed.

     


    by ocean-kat on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 6:42pm

    Not sure where you got the impression that I'm defending anything.

    I'm also not clear why a man who allegedly sexually abused a minor male student is a hypocrite for not supporting pro-gay legislation in Congress.


    by barefooted on Tue, 06/02/2015 - 7:51pm

    However inappropriate and criminal his actions with minors was, Hastert clearly feels desire for males. Hastert didn't just not support pro-gay legislation. He was vehemently antigay and very outspoken about it. That seems hypocritical to me.


    by ocean-kat on Thu, 06/04/2015 - 4:16am

    God forgives Republicans for failings in their personal lives.

    God commands Republicans to wield His sharp sword of righteousness in governance, legislation and politics.

    Hastert's past did not restrain him from meting out retribution onto liberals.

    That is not hypocrisy Daggers, that is virtue, GOP style.


    by NCD on Wed, 06/03/2015 - 10:31am