In mulling over whom to charge, prosecutors often must decide whether the person being extorted or the person doing the extorting is most victimized, said Chicago-based attorney and former federal prosecutor Phil Turner.So, what do you think got Hastert in hot water? What did he do, that was so heinous, that only 3.5 millions would make it go away.
"In most instances you would view someone being extorted as the victim because they are being shaken down," he said. "But prosecutors have enormous discretion and, in some instance, may see the person doing the extortion as a greater victim. Those are factors that can be weighed."
Investigators questioned Hastert on Dec. 8, 2014, and he lied about why he had been withdrawing so much money at a time, saying he did it because he didn't trust the banking system, the indictment alleges.
"Yeah, ... I kept the cash. That's what I am doing," it quotes Hastert as saying.
Friday, May 29, 2015
Hastert Hush Money Raised Flags
"Legal experts said extortion cases can be tricky."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
113 comments:
So, what do you think got Hastert in hot water?
Who knows? They know. A good confession would clear it up, though.
Then we could focus on the morality of extortion.
I have no idea what he did to get blackmailed, but I strongly suspect that he got indicted for being Dennis hastert, Republican ex-Speaker of the House.
Maybe his foot got a little out of line in the bathroom stall, which proves him gay, which now days should make him the victim. Just leave the gays alone!
I don't much care about Dennis Hastert, but whatever I think about him, he's getting screwed, big time.
His crime: He took withdrew his money out of his account. Hang him! Oh, and he told the FBI that the reason he was taking his money out of his account was none of their business. Build the scaffold!
He was giving the money to someone wh agreed to accept the money in exchange for something or other. It is a private mater agreed to by two people. None of the government's business, but let's destroy Hastert.
No mention of the other person's legal status, right? Did her or she pay federal income tax on the cash he or she received? Not-payment is a pretty big crime, unless you're Al Sharpton. Was Hastert being blackmailed? that's a crime, too, right?
Nah. None of that is interesting. So ol' Denny gets screwed over for taking HIS MONEY out of HIS ACCOUNT. Whether or not you like Hastert is irrelevant here. The bigger issue is how an overly powerful (and maybe vengeful) federal government can screw a citizen for doing something entirely normal and private with that citizen's own assets.
He is an Illinois politician. The state seems like the movie "The Firm" in relation to its elected officials.
Agree with Haz that the real crime is that taking money out of one's own bank account is a crime. Cyprus doesn't seem too far away.
Hastert has an r behind his name.
The Cltinons, whose crimes are magnitudes worse, have the D and the highly paid hack press behind them, so they are above the law.
Kid out of wedlock.
Amazing the DOJ has time to investigate Memendez, big cash transfers and FIFA yet was too busy to get involved in so many other investigations: Fast & Furious, Lois Lerner, Obama's campaign cred card verification control, Hilary's emails, Hillary's unlawful use of personal email server, etc
Why isn't Corzine behind bars?
AJ, I think we are seeing the beginning of a scorched earth activity against political opponents. Previous Presidents have their mass Pardons in their lame duck years. Obama is having mass political driven investigations under the color of law. But I wouldn't put it passed him to open one up on the Clinton's. It is better to wait until after the election and drop it right during the transition to cause chaos and crisis.
Alleged molestation?
My best tweet in a long time... IMHO
#AskHillary... What did #FIFA and #Hastert get wrong?
It didn't get any traction though... the good ones never do.
Alleged molestation?
For 3.5 million got to be something big... like that.
Not as bad as 4 or 5 million... but again, not as ok as 3 or 2.5 million.
Then we could focus on the morality of extortion.
Not before the guverment gets it's pound of flesh though.
Depends on the age of the kid.
Looks like molestation payoff.
If they charge him with this law then his payments are arguably admissible evidence, and not in a good way. For the charge (but also as an admission of guilt). Sneaky, sneaky, sneaky.
Meanwhile, Mr. Clinton could be banging junior high school girls en masse on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial while Mrs. Clinton drinks baby blood by the gallon and nobody cares.
Now the prosecutors are leaking details of the allegation that prompted the extortion.
Bootstrapping around the statute of limitations.
The good news is that now the Bridgegate is in the rear view mirror, this story will give MSDNC something to discuss for the next year. How will the "news" media make this into a GOP duggar sex salad? stay tuned!
No word from "media" on Bill Clintons visits to sex kiddie billionaire island.
This is a vital story that cuts to the core of the problems facing our society.
Meanwhile there 38 murders during the Merry Month of May in Baltimore Maryland. A young mother and her seven year old son were shot in the head. This does not merit wall to wall saturation coverage in the news media. No special editions. No cable news spectaculars.
The police have taken a giant step back. Arrests are down 50% This is what the "Black Lives Matter" crew have called for these past few months. Letting the little things go. Don’t provoke the criminals and the mobs who gather to protect them. No police would dare to stop a skell to find out if they have a weapon because they would be brought up on charges. They would be indicted and charged with making an “illegal arrest” by a district attorney who curries favor with the mob. With a media that caters to the criminal element. With a mayor who wants to make sure that there is space for those who want to destroy.
Denny Hastert spending his own money is the issue. Keep your eye on the ball.
Leland:
That is an interesting theory. And since Obama is a mean, hateful little prick, I would not put it past him to create a constitutional crisis as he is walking out the door.
Trooper, Leland & AJ: I was thinking that Obama's policy on Baltimore was part of precipitating a law enforcement crisis--one which only a Federal take over (just as they want to see happen) would have to step in to fix. It looks all but inevitable now.
Glad you all think that molesting kids is funny stuff.
Especially interesting is the extent to which Haz goes in defending Hastert. (Surname similarities? Extensive practice in sympathetically denying away/defending other notorious molestation rackets?)
Anyway, while extortion is illegal, this is the first well publicized case in a while where it involved covering up a crime - which is relevant, especially depending upon the statute of limitations to which his crimes would be held in Illinois.
And finally, can I just say how disappointed in Republicans this makes me feel? Why do their peccadilloes have to be the way more violent/coercive violative stuff, like fucking underage boys? I mean, if they're that into doing something or defending it, why can't they speak up and argue how much better off they would (but their victims would not) be if it were legalized?
Can't they be like Democrats and at least argue for the legalization of things they have so much trouble suppressing or condemning? Do they just feel there's more of a "thrill" to their violations being illegal? Where's the integrity?
Isn't this the guy who presided over the hearing for Clinton having consensual sex with an adult?
Then we could focus on the morality of extortion.
Not before the guverment gets it's pound of flesh though.
Really? That's the appropriate response?
And the conspiracy theories? Really?
What's the deal with not admitting that two things can BOTH be wrong.
Extortion is wrong. Fucking kids is more wrong.
And when the extortion was to prevent publicizing the kid fucking, the latter was way more wrong.
Perspective wouldn't kill people. It might kill blind partisans, though. Who knows.
Good luck getting through this crisis, Noble Republicans.
This is a political prosecution from the get go. Publicized to take the media's eyes off many more important stories. Baltimore. Isis. The Ukraine. The economy. The grand jury indicted him in February but they held it until today. Why?
This is the most corrupt and politicized Justice Department since the days of Woodrow Wilson and A Mitchell Palmer.
In fact I would submit the President that Barack Obama most resembles in fact Woodrow Wilson.
They were both inept in foreign affairs. They were both elected to keep us out of or get us out of foreign wars and failed miserably.
And of course they were both bitter racists.
Who is Dennis Hastert? What power does he have, and how do his alleged crimes affect the country now or in the future.
Is he that ugly guy that played for the Bulls, banged Carmen Electra, among other hot women, and is good buddies with NorKo dictators. Now, THAT'S an over-achiever of a Republican.
Woodrow Wilson could throw a baseball and hit a jump shot better than Obama, then again so could FDR.
What's the deal with not admitting that two things can BOTH be wrong.
One problem is that while extortion is wrong, for all we know the blackmailer will face no charges, so we're left with wondering about the morality of blackmailing.
The blackmailer will no doubt emerge in due time, only to be lauded as some kind of hero by the SJW's.
For all we know the term "blackmail" could have been deemed racist by our DoJ and FBI and thus keeping it out of the news is important. It's also possible that the IRS could show no interest in getting any part of the $3.5M. They might go after Haztert though for failing to report the blackmailer's wages correctly. It's possible to talk out one's ass with this level of Federal incompetency.
Of course child molestation is bad. Horrible. Nothing worse. But we all recognize it's only bad in the media when someone with an R behind the name is caught.
Who is Hastert, indeed? Is he even relevant? I remember him, vaguely, but I thought perhaps he was dead. Why can't all these old timer politicos like Hastert and Hillary just die already.
If the underlying activity was illegal than Hastert should of course be prosecuted. If he had sex with underage students gay or straight he should be prosecuted for that. That is not what is happening here. He is being prosecuted for lying to the FBI. Not under oath. Not in a Court of Law. Not before Congress. Just in general questioning. So is the standard now if you lie to the Cops or the FBI than you can be incarcerated.
Because if it is then we can fill the jails to overflowing with every skell that the cops question. Because they all lie. All the time.
This is a selective political prosecution off of an enemies list.
The answer to this is that the Republican Congress should call Hillary Clinton, Loris Lerner, Eric Holder and Bill Clinton before their committee for questioning. If they lie about anything....any little thing they should be prosecuted. Mutually assured destruction.
I'm no kid, but for a million bucks, I can outperform one.
Dennis, call me. I'm legal. Ignore those calls from that Montana Urban Legend. He never changes his thong. Ain't nobody got time fo dat.
I'm Half-price on FRIDAY! WooHoo!!!!
bagoh20 said...
Woodrow Wilson could throw a baseball and hit a jump shot better than Obama, then again so could FDR
I gained some respect for Wilson binge-watching Robert Ryan's "World War I" recently. But he did screw-up the aftermath. He went out badly too.
To repeat if he was a child molester he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Prosecute for that if that is what it is.
Who is Dennis Hastert? What power does he have, and how do his alleged crimes affect the country now or in the future.
"For the good of the country, let all the child molesters free!!!"
I see you're inspired by the approach Saddam Hussein took when he released all those murders from Iraq's jails in 2002.
As for the first part of your question, you need to ask someone who was alive and conscious and living in America at any time between 1996 and 2000.
Again, all sorts of speculation before the facts are sifted thru. But I'll go ahead and speculate that the hush money either stopped flowing, or there was bigger money on the other side of that agenda. Someone truly victimized by molestation should seek justice in other ways - not extortion. Pathetic. We can all pile on Hastert... but you are right Chickl - the person receiving the hush money all these years will be made a hero by our sick press.
Placing words in peoples mouths isn't very convincing, balls.
..for all we know the blackmailer will face no charges..
"For all you know?"
As usual, you know nothing about what will happen. You're guessing about everything with the same hasty conclusions as always.
Hastert wasn't even relevant when he was part of that sick club in D.C.
I expect them all to have ghosts in the closet. I thought that was the point of going there. What? Do you think they go there to serve us? No, really, you think that? Oh come on. You're just playing dumb now.
To repeat if he was a child molester he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Prosecute for that if that is what it is.
Yeah, but there was (at least) a third or fourth crime committed. He lied to the FBI and was trying to cover up his payouts of greater than $10,000 in total.
The Evil Professor's summarizing this decently, actually.
R&B wrote: Extortion is wrong.
You say that as if there should be some sort of consequence in this case. Who knows, maybe the blackmailer cut some sort of immunity deal. Maybe he'll get a Presidental pardon? Who knows?
Hastert wasn't even relevant when he was part of that sick club in D.C.
You argue about the good of the country or whatever and have no regard for the seriousness of tying up the presidency with an impeachment proceeding that couldn't go anywhere, for something most Americans thought was a waste of time.
So as usual, you're not being serious.
The problem though, is that you ally yourself politically with social conservatives - who are people for whom things like integrity are said to matter. So while you might traipse around and flounder both sides of this and every argument, the people you rely on for political support, don't.
Pretend they're like a shareholder or something. GIve them the respect of a position where the creditability of their opinions actually might matter to you.
The Evil Professor's summarizing this decently, actually.
She's laughably off-base over there. Even her moderate commenters are taking her to task. I do enjoy seeing that.
Not conclusions. I said I don't know. Do you? Has anything been released by an official source?
I say lets wait until more facts come out. What is official is that he was indicted for using his own money and for lying to the FBI. Anything else is of course as you say speculation.
But I shouldn't encourage people to go over there. Hell, she never returns the favor.
I forgot to mention though that the Evil Professor believes that the statute of limitations might have expired, though.
Maybe it's relevant… I'm not sure. If it isn't then you have a stronger case for framing this as a political strike.
See, I don't think you guys are always crazy. ;-)
Well, who the hell is going to molest a kid, and then tell the FBI how he kept it a secret? It's kind of like additionally charging Jeffrey Dahmer with unlicensed taxidermy.
It's ok, Troop. I was taking issue with Chick's conclusions. As usual you're being mature about this and understand that the process will play out regardless of wherever the politics wants to take it.
I won't read that evil twat but isn't she in favor of gay sex? Shouldn't she force a baker to bake a cake for Denny or something?
Maybe she can force that pizza store to send him some free pies because he likes that gay stuff. I thought that is the new rules. The new normal.
He should get the Barney Frank Medal with with the Titus four turd cluster.
It's kind of like additionally charging Jeffrey Dahmer with unlicensed taxidermy.
Lol. That's actually kind of funny. ;-)
Bag does have a sense of humor that I don't always credit him enough for.
Are you unfamiliar with the idiomatic use of "For all you know" R&B? It's the equivalent of saying we know nothing.
I do believe, however, that based on previous example, the blackmailer will be lauded and fawned over, especially if he turns out to be gay.
Also note that in the case of Lena Dunham, it was the perp who got the pass.
" the seriousness of tying up the presidency with an impeachment proceeding that couldn't go anywhere, for something most Americans thought was a waste of time."
Adultery, perjury, sexual harassment of a subordinate, openly lying to the American people on TV. The sitting President did this in the White House. Who is Dennis Hastert, and who here is unserious?
Thanks Ritmo but what is getting me pissed is the fact that this is what is consuming the oxygen instead of what is going on in cities across America. You are 45% more likely to be murdered in Manhattan under De Blasio. Baltimore had 38 murders in May. ISIS is rampaging though the Middle East. Lem noted that Russia is poised to invade Ukraine. The North Koreans have bought a submarine that can launch nuclear missiles. Bethenny Frankel is back on the Real Housewives. American Idol is canceled.
Don't we have more important things to worry about than some old homo.
It's the equivalent of saying we know nothing.
So noted. Sorry for misinterpreting what you said, then.
I do believe, however, that based on previous example, the blackmailer will be lauded and fawned over, especially if he turns out to be gay.
Maybe for the last part, but I think you're right about the first part. Without a doubt.
Also note that in the case of Lena Dunham, it was the perp who got the pass.
Well, I share your discomfort with how easily she was let of the "hook", but then, she was also underage when she did what she was less circumspect than she should been when she wrote about it. And when she squawked to her own defense over the backlash for it.
She lost a great deal of respect in my book for that. But you're right; the public amnesia is real and not in any way noble.
Don't we have more important things to worry about than some old homo.
Totally. You'll get no argument from me against that.
Not a single person in the world cares about this story unless they were a party to it or are looking for political points, and man, this is like shooting a full-court shot to get them. Being that desperate is very telling about where the Democrats are right now. This is what your candidates leave you to talk about? Just get better ones.
Ah well… just for shits and giggles:
Adultery,: Not a crime and not something that Americans think should matter if the "adulteree" doesn't care.
perjury,: Potentially very serious but depends politically on what. Using an uncommonly restrictive definition of "sexual relations" didn't seem to count, in that regard.
sexual harassment of a subordinate,: Also potentially very serious but Americans are very split on whether consensual relations should count. There have been many "flings" between the honchos of America's richest brew of capitalism, Silicon Valley, and that seems to reflect a maturity they've developed and a reckoning that executive (if subordinate) women are more common and are going to get involved with more senior execs.
If you're talking about Katherine Wiley and (maybe) Paula Jones, that's different and might have been way more serious. But that wasn't what they wanted to impeach him over.
openly lying to the American people on TV.: Happens all the time by every politician known to man, ever.
Any other questions, or burning inconsistencies to sort out? ;-)
If child molestation accusations are bad (for Hastert, it is a rumor, the investigation is only about structured withdrawals and the rest is speculation); lets recall that Bill Clinton travelled to Jeffrey Epstein's private island many times. That's use of a private jet, a private island, provided by a pedophile, who kept may of his abused underage girls on the island visited by the former President; and oh yeah, one of the abused girls talks about meeting Bill on the island when she was 15.
Ritmo's moral high horse is looking a lot like a rat.
Well, Leland, if they get a single substantiated fact on of any of that then we can start throwing the book at Clinton too.
Does the Media Hold Anyone to a Lower Ethical Standard than the Clintons?
Repeat after me "No smoking gun..."
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
Lol. And you thought the American press was bad. There's more wobbly innuendo and circumstantial guesswork in that first Daily Mail story than a piece of silly putty. Remember, British law makes it nearly impossible to say anything accusatory directly. Consequently, their love of innuendo knows no bounds.
In all, governments and corporations involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton’s State Department have delivered between $54 million and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records.
No smoking gun! just keep repeating it like a good stephanoplops brown noser.
Freedom of association is still legal in America. Go First Amendment!
By Britain's addled Daily Mail standards, they'd have had something to nail Donald Trump on, also - given his comment to Epstein.
No Daily mail links. eeeek don't educate yourself on the truth about the clitnons.
Make excuses! Just like the hack press. Lies. Excuses. Excuses. Lies.
"Any other questions, or burning inconsistencies to sort out? ;-)"
Hastert was blackmailed out of his own money. Sitting President Clinton could have been blackmailed out of or into who knows what if the wrong people got the blue dress? You really don't get the huge difference in seriousness of that compared to Hastert's issue? You wouldn't be blinded by partisanship, would you? That would really surprise and disappoint me.
What excuses? The British tabloid press doesn't deal in "facts". These people are more scandal-hungry than Republicans. A model for America's right-wing press, maybe - but unnecessary for all the Americans happy to accept that their 1st amendment rights make it easy, should they need to, to levy accusations that actually have merit
I did not link to "Daily Mail". I trust the British press over our hack press in any case.
AprilApple wrote: "clitnons" LOL
Earlier, I saw you write "her thighness." I respect that talent. R&B has it too, he just flings it from the other side.
I type too fast and sometimes it comes out clitnon. Go with it.
How many times has Bill been in a headlock between those thighs?
Best not to think about it.
I did not link to "Daily Mail". I trust the British press over our hack press in any case.
Oh boy. The lack of distinction between tabloid and media comes to American shores.
Do you trust the National Enquirer, too?
It's easier for me to understand April's political views when I consider that she formulates them while staring at the reading material in supermarket check-out lanes.
Sitting President Clinton could have been blackmailed out of or into who knows what if the wrong people got the blue dress?
Lucky for him and whomever that he didn't. I mean, come on. He liked floozies. These were not James Bond "femme fatales"… if there even is such a thing IRL. Seriously, he found the only Jewish girl dumb enough to give him a blow job AND worsen her career prospects over it. Someone who trusted a woman with a real life rat-face: Linda Tripp. That girl was as naive as all the trailers full of Arkansas finest had to offer. Clinton must have known that. He can't even get Hillary to get one over on him, and you guys think she personifies clever evil incarnate. Think about that. ;-)
You really don't get the huge difference in seriousness of that compared to Hastert's issue? You wouldn't be blinded by partisanship, would you? That would really surprise and disappoint me.
Ok. Settle down there, Big Dog.
Balls - Obvious you must create your own reality in order to swallow Clinton corruption.
I never read tabloids at the checkout. American tabloids are called: "Time, Newsweek and People" and we are forced to stare at Kardashian, the latest octomom and Chelsea Clinton draped in jewels on the cover. Can't escape the cover.
Imagine the extremely bad deal or action that Clinton could have been forced into. It's not about how illegal it was, although he lost his law license. He never faced the point of the whole thing which was his serial abuse of women. The danger to the country and utter stupidity and weakness of it was astounding, but not as astounding as comparing it to this Hastert thing, for which Hastert will actually pay the price. He won't be getting $500,000 speech fees. You know why? Because Hastert doesn't matter, and so neither does his failings. So ask yourself: why are we talking about it? Who does that serve, and why do they need that so bad?
"Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department"
By David Sirota &
Andrew Perez
You should look up David Sirota. HE'S A LEFTWINGER.
eeeeeek - how dare he fall off the Cltinon money plantation.
please explain to the class how International Business Times isn't legit.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department
By David Sirota
Andrew Perez
I don't think libidinous men do half as much danger to this country as a stupidly repressive puritan backlash against it does. Listen to all your conservative friends complaining about a culture encouraging men to have no balls. They're right. Libido is part of the creative force, and drive is drive. Try "creative destruction" without it. OTOH, molesting underage kids is abominable and represents actual abuses of individuals when they are tons more vulnerable than any immature or awkward adult. If Clinton "violated" anyone, that's different, but the society has still got it right when they excoriate child molestation in terms that surpass what they think of even violating adults, let alone being a part of a questionably or awkwardly "inappropriate" moment with another adult. To be sexually attracted to kids is perverted and wrong. To act on it the height of selfishness, and violation at its worst. If you can't agree that abusing a kid is wrong then good luck getting anyone to foam at the mouth with you over some mixed signal (or worse) acted upon with an adult. I find it ridiculous that I even have to tell you this.
Totally different topic, April. I was responding to Leland's links.
lol riiiiiiight.
We can all easily say shame on Hastert... if he really is guilty of child molestation ... decades ago. No one is arguing in favor of child molesters. Get off your high horse. All this is so MSNBC has something to obsess over.
If the left had any integrity at all, they would force the Clintons off the stage, once and for all. Clean house. Instead we get excuses and obfuscations.
The level of corruption should call for an indictment and instead we have a corrupt media licking boots while paid 100 million dollars to do so without curiosity. "no smoking gun" my ass.
Oh April. You got me again.
I'll check back on you kids probably around 4 AM.
I'll leave it to Bag's imagination whether my absence will involve being, er, disadvantaged by a femme fatale.
Or more likely a siren with a sleeve tattoo.
Which one of us will end up more "compromised," I wonder?
Let me know if the ensuing congressional investigation into it determines the meaning of all this, because I sure won't!
Bag: Form your committee.
Hastert's problem is he failed to set up multiple charitable foundations in his name and shell companies to funnel money money money money money, sorry got stuck on the word money there for a second, and shift it around as top Democrats do. Goodness. They paved the way. Showed everyone how it this is done. What a dummkopf, que un cerebro de las aves, what a brain of the birds.
I bet as coach he found one particular young wrestler sparked an interest that cannot be spoken stirring feelings he did not understand and troubled him but nonetheless activated his behavior in a manner that became coercive such to satisfy his own dark and faintly understood desires.
Instead of just saying, "Hey, do you want a blow job?"
I had to look the guy up. What a pig. This whole thing is bullshit though. If you simply do not object on the basis of seizure of "structured withdrawals" then just shut up.
It will not take fifteen fucking posts to get any sane person to understand this is a political prosecution and has nothing whatsoever with what that D.A. guy said. I can just hear that asshole crowing at a cocktail party how he nailed Hastert, if that's how his name is spelled. No. Anything beyond one post is too many. It's wrong. The law or regulation is not used in the manner intended to combat terrorism, rather, clearly here, if you don't see this then just please shut up, you'll be too stupid to tolerate, you must see this is not aimed at combating terrorism rather used to attach political opponents.
While you get yourself twisted in who is victim and who is not you overlook YOU are victim to government that pulls this seriously political shit in the name of fighting terrorism. Obviously, we blame Bush. We wouldn't have this terrorism law were it not for that douchebag. Stop politicizing justice!
Here, let me have this editor 'learn spelling' for "douchbag" so it stops underlining it in red. There.
Had he a shell company, then they could still attack, as they can still attack the Clintons, but they'd had to use different measures than the objectionable measure they used.
Be sure to miss that crucial point. It's what sis arrested at her toxic teenage worst would do so be sure to skip right over that and argue about something partisan, something tribal, something girlish instead. Don't disappoint.
Write comment upon comment upon comment here and there and everywhere. I don't read your silly shit anyway.
Think like a Democrat:
Everybody wants a piece of you. They do. Everybody wants you to come talk to their group. They just love you so. You have so much to offer. So much to say. So much that you did. So perspective. Knowledgeable. Really. It's real.
Nag, nag nag. Nice at first, but come on. This HAS to be sorted. There are a lot of expenses involved with all that. Couldn't we do good for our chief interests in life besides? Cannot this demand on my time be put to good use?
It's simple. Here's the deal: If you want Bill Clinton to come fly down there and talk to your group then we really don't discuss things like that for anything less than $250,000 otherwise there is such demand on his time there is really no point in him bothering.
For $500,000 he'll say whatever you want him to say.
For $750,000 he'll wear a pink tutu and dye his hair green and dance like a ballerina.
See Hastert's problem? He's Republican. And he doesn't handle blowing high school wrestlers very well. See our problem? This "structured withdrawal" or your own goddamn money that is being used to seize private property and that clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, it's reason for being. You must agree with me on these two crucial points or you're more ugly and retarded than Sloth Fratelli.
if they get a single substantiated fact
Ok, so a couple of woman have testified that Jeff Epstein had sex with them when they were underage, and while with Jeff Epstein and underage, they met Clinton at Epstein's private island. There are other physical facts that pin the woman at the island.
Now what facts do you have on Hastert molesting a person underage? I'm aware of alleged structured withdrawals. There's a claim this was done to hide something. And with those two allegations, you now claim facts? Ok, what's the fact you got?
And to be clear, I'm more than willing to believe Hastert could have done almost anything. But to claim there are facts, such to be overwhelmingly sure an event occurred; while completely dismissing the facts related to Jeff Epstein and his relation with Bill Clinton requires cognitive dissonance. I'm willing to believe Ritmo has cognitive dissonance, but I'm fine with him continuing to prove that he does. Rolling Stones Magazine went down that road too.
"He is being prosecuted for lying to the FBI. Not under oath. Not in a Court of Law. Not before Congress. Just in general questioning."
I thought the Clinton's had made lying not just legal but expected.
I'm always confused by these political "scandals". One moment the MSM is yawning and saying "no big whoop" the next they're full of moral "outrage".
It seems to depend solely on who's broken the law and who has a "R" after their name.
Maybe Hastert can claim the withdrawals were done for the benefit of an illegal alien and to support Amnesty.
Then it'd be OK.
How do we know that Dennis Hastert molested anyone? Where's the proof, the person who raises his/her hand and says "It was me, and here's how it happened"? Or is it just a pile-on because, shoot, he is a Republican, and that's what liberals do.
There sure have been a lot of stories lately to draw the focus away from the Clinton's criminal behavior. Elizabeth Warren flipping homes, Bernie Sanders saying something stupid about rape 40 years ago, Dennis Hastert being blackmailed. You are being manipulated by the media. Keep your eyes focused on what they don't want you to see.
Until I see the proof about Hastert's alleged molestations, I am very skeptical. And if they are true, they and better be far worse that Bill Clinton's sexual escapades. Hey...maybe we aren't supposed to think about those escapades, because election.
R&B actually said Do you trust the National Enquirer, too?
The National Inquirer caught John Edwards and told us about it while the MSM ("legacy" media -- WHAT legacy??} put cotton in their ears, blindfolds on their eyes, gags in their mouths, and duct taped their fingers together when it came to Edwards.
Was it Newsweek -- some of those "journolist" guys -- that sat on the blue dress story until Drudge blew it open?
The National Inquirer and Drudge have served America far far better than all the snotty "We are journolists!!" fawning crowd.
Why don't they do their jobs. For example, how many time was former president Clinton on Epstein's island. Why? Who else was there? Why are the Clintons friends with Ghislaine Mawell? Who? This (below) is who. She was at Chelsea's wedding.
"Clinton was friends with Ghislaine Maxwell who was Epstein’s longtime companion and helped to run Epstein’s companies, kept images of naked underage children on her computer, helped to recruit underage children for Epstein, engaged in lesbian sex with underage females that she procured for Epstein, and photographed underage females in sexually explicit poses and kept child pornography on her computer;"
So we have to wait till NE comes out with the truth about politicians the Dems adore. Because the "real journolistas" will not do their jobs.
I never said anything about Hastert was proven. Everyone's entitled to their day in court.
Every lawyer also has a right to say to a very suspicious client, "Gee there. That's a hell of a lot of evidence they've got. I want you to give me every reason I'd need to know about how they could be mistaken - and I need you to come up with that as if your life and freedom depended upon it."
Epstein's a known pedophile. (Or so I assume based on him being described that way in reports). Clinton being associated with him and "meeting" minors proves nothing. (Newsflash: Politicians are known for and supposed to be friendly with everyone they meet. Kissing babies isn't pedophilia, either). All you can say is that it could be a bit odd or at least compromising. This guy is an insanely rich donor though, so let's not pretend that Clinton doesn't have a huge number of uses for him and/or friendship with him that go way beyond an alleged interest in pedophilia. A lot of non-pedophiles would also love to have grounds to roam on a private island - although when it comes to Angelina Jolie, who knows? /sarc.
I think if B.C. was into kids, something would have come to light by now, given how notoriously well known his libido for perfectly legal women is. Pedophiles seem to have a habit of getting caught and/or shunning notoriety, or seeking specific positions of responsibility that grant them access to a lot of kids. None of that applies to Clinton, either. I think it's safe to say that his peccadilloes are well known by now, and perfectly ordinary. Even his like of an occasional big woman now and then is not that unusual, and perhaps a necessity for someone who grew up in Arkansas.
Don't be so slow on the uptake. When you have the option of either a complicated explanation or a simple explanation, the simple one is usually right.
I never said anything about Hastert was proven.
If you don't know what the definition of fact is, then your argument is nothing but ignorant nonsense. I'm glad you lead with that point first this time.
Our press is 100% in the tank for one political party. Our press covers for criminals.
Once again - the left's collective response: "you can't prove it"... "no smoking gun"
Just a thread of coincidences that stretch to the sun and back. No investigation needed.
word travels fast.
The leftists who wrote this already changed the title:
http://www.ibtimes.com/colombian-oil-money-flowed-clintons-state-department-took-no-action-prevent-labor-1874464
oops - that is actually a separate link/story.
In 2008 Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution and served 18 months in prison for this.[2] He is a registered sex offender.[1][3]
The original 2009 federal lawsuit was settled with the plaintiff getting an "undisclosed" sum. Epstein had already pled guilty for soliciting a minor and served a minimal time (13 months).
Ghislaine Maxwell was/is Epstein's procurer. (Does that make her a madam?) She was at Chelsea Clinton's wedding. "Pedophile" is not an apt description for WJC based on history on record, especially as 15-17 year olds are not exactly in that category.
So maybe this doesn't really mean anything. at least in (d) eyes it's all a yawn. Nice company WJC (and HRC) keep. C'mon ... Maxwell was AT Chelsea's wedding. Sheeesh.
"... meeting minors ..." on an island without their parents present? A private island a convicted sexual predator owns?
As you said. Occam's Razor, simplest explanation.
Who knows? Maybe it is more complicated and the Clinton Family Foundation is also making payments? Who knows?
A pedophile pimp at Chelsea's wedding?!?!.... the pro-democrat hack media yawn. Let us grace cosmo with the woman who has accomplished nothing from actual hard work, yet lives in a 10 million dollar mansion.
Balls doesn't like any media outlet that points out democrat corruption. Stop it. You can't prove it! *whine*
Glad you all think that molesting kids is funny stuff R&B at 7:47 PM
I never said anything about Hastert was proven. R&B at 4:11 AM
Oh I know, Haz. The first thing I think when I hear of molestation charges is, "Not yet proven! How funny! Hahahahahahaha!!!!"
Was the island under U.S. jurisdiction, JAL? Personally I'd stay away from 15 to 17 year-olds regardless of jurisdiction but FFS the laws of age of consent vary widely in civilized first-world Western countries. And no, I don't think Clinton "meeting" anyone is suggestive of anything, in the context of his being a politician. How many people do you know with pictures of themselves and a politician or celebrity whom they met for a grand total of three or four minutes? At any given social evening out you might "meet" a half-dozen or more people with whom you exchange names, less than a minute of information on what you do or what brought you there, or some other relatable anecdotes. It's called "introductions" and being polite. Or do you just bark, grunt or howl and proceed to the snack and martini bar? Have you been at any social gathering, ever? Maybe it's possible that Bill Clinton impregnates every hand he shakes in 180 seconds or less. Seriously.
Lol. I love these opportunities for "research" you guys are constantly providing me with. The youngest ages for consent even in the U.S. are in the Midwest and so-called "bible belt" from Arkansas to North Carolina, at 16. Yup. That Clinton should never shake a 15-year old's hand again. Two hands shaking. It's as sexual and exploitive as it gets.
Now go ahead and get evidence of him offering millions in hush money for those meetings and you've got yourself, well, about 70% of the case that stands against Hastert.
But there's always hope.
Someday.
Hey, you can always make a voodoo doll out of him, if it makes you feel better.
We've gone from "Glad you all think that molesting kids is funny stuff." to "Was the island under U.S. jurisdiction". I'm not finding the discussion serious.
When Hillary is all you got to look forward to for protecting some of your pet political issues, it's no wonder we see "balls to walls" gonzo-style "reasoning."
It will be interesting whether people take this McMaryland guy seriously. He should start by addressing what he'd do in Baltimore before moving to the rest of the nation.
No Leland. What you didn't find serious were the charges. With extreme bias.
This is America. You can't anonymously extort $3.5 million from a House speaker over something unserious. Disagree with your country as much as you want, and retreat into the moral relativism of guessing that American teens should be as mature as European teens, even though they aren't. (And neither are their parents, for that matter). And entirely never minding the fact that there's absolutely no shred of any evidence linking Clinton sexually to anyone underage ever. Same time same place is not evidence of sexual impropriety.
It doesn't matter anyway as most of those laws make exceptions in how permissive they might seem for teachers or other authority figures. So as usual, you're simply refusing to read or think, and surrendering to the temptation to demand an easy loophole for Republicans because living up to American standards is so hard for them!
You are showing how desperate you are, and it's very ugly.
Ritmo, what are the charges? Write them down and read them.
I understand there's no formal sex crime charge, and probably won't be one. But I don't demand they can't be discussed, just like I don't demand that people can't complain about Willie Clinton's dealings with Paula Jones, Katherine Willey, etc.
I understand there's no formal sex crime charge
I don't demand they can't be discussed
Well if that's how you think...
So how many unicorns do you see daily? I know there's none in existence, but lets go ahead and talk about your unicorns. What color are these unicorns? Do you sleep with them at night? Does their large horn get you excited?
To be honest, I don't really care what you do with unicorns, but do know in some jurisdictions, bestiality is a crime.
Whatever it takes for you to feel better about your nasty Republican leaders, Leland.
Why do you think I need to feel better about them? I supported Porkbusters and was happy to see Hastert gone. But while there are legitimate reasons to dislike Hastert. I'm just not going to be illogical and accuse others of laughing off child molestation charges, when such charges do not exist in the case of Hastert.
If we are going to discuss rumors, then ok let's go; what do you think about Bill Clinton taking money and hanging out with accused pedophile Jeffery Epstein? Ritmo: Was the island under U.S. jurisdiction? Me: My moral concern about child sexual assault isn't based on where the sexual assault occurs, but if you think the jurisdiction makes a difference on your ability to laugh off child sexual assault; well it does quite a bit about your moral consistency. Tell me, does your stiff prick not having a conscious bother you when you are around unicorns?
Hillary is a nasty republican leader, Balls. You've hitched your wagon to her. Nasty corrupt and a huge republican. Don't believe me? Ask the huge republican who lets her and Bill rent his Hampton home.
Leland, if you still think there is more evidence or even anywhere near as much evidence tying Clinton to charges of pedophilia than there is for Hastert, then that's a special kind of stupid that I can't even touch. I hope you enjoy how it feels, though.
...but if you think the jurisdiction makes a difference on your ability to laugh off child sexual assault; well it does quite a bit about your moral consistency.
If you hate the idea of differing consent ages, go tell that to the founders who allowed the states in the union to have different laws in the first place. Make sure to start your war on moral relativism against the supposed abomination of federalism itself, which allows Mississippi to have different laws from Maine in the first place.
Of course, you won't do that, because you're something worse: A moral opportunist, which is another way of saying a hypocritical asshole with zero credibility.
That foolish consistency you harbor, the hobgoblin of small minds, must make for a nice pet. Keep it well fed and well-loved. Leave it some water under the porch and console it with fantasies about you can separate morals from their societies.
Post a Comment