Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think such agreements are legal, but it would have to be initiated by Hastert and Individual A would have to refrain from making coercive threats. Otherwise, it's extortion.
It seems that Hastert has maintained that he did just that, and that Individual A was not, in fact, extorting money from him. However, I suspect that Hastert only made this claim to federal investigators in an attempt to preserve this individual's anonymity - as long as he did not claim that Individual A was not committing a crime, the feds would not have a reason to investigate that person (had Hastert claimed extortion then, that would have been investigated, too), and that person's identity might not have been revealed, and the nature of the 'prior misconduct' might not have come to light.
Obviously, that ship has sailed. I predict that Hastert will plea this out, and as part of that plea he'll allocute and in so doing will reveal precisely how this 'deal' went down.
Anyone else see this?
Its going to be interesting. hard to tell what the Law will come up with to deal with this situation, which in fact is illegal but riddled with technical issues. The person getting the money may even be guilty of not reporting a crime. we will have to wait and see how the script plays out.
Its going to be interesting. hard to tell what the Law will come up with to deal with this situation, which in fact is illegal but riddled with technical issues. The person getting the money may even be guilty of not reporting a crime. we will have to wait and see how the script plays out.
Most likely guilty of blackmail. It will be interesting to see if person A is charged with that crime.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
Hastert and his sanctimonious GOP colleagues all sat there while Clinton was President during his impeachment proceedings and couldn't stop talking about stains on a blue dress or Clinton's sex life. Whatever Clinton did, he was never indicted for a crime.
I remember Bob Livingstone had to resign as Speaker because of revelations about his own personal life. There was some rightwing nut Congresswomen from Idaho--I believe her name was Chenoweth whose affair with a married man was exposed. It came out that Republican majority leader Dan Burton (?) had fathered a kid out of wedlock while he was married.
I don't wish people ill, but justice would be for Hastert to get some of his own medicine.
Hastert and his sanctimonious GOP colleagues all sat there while Clinton was President during his impeachment proceedings and couldn't stop talking about stains on a blue dress or Clinton's sex life. Whatever Clinton did, he was never indicted for a crime.
I remember Bob Livingstone had to resign as Speaker because of revelations about his own personal life. There was some rightwing nut Congresswomen from Idaho--I believe her name was Chenoweth whose affair with a married man was exposed. It came out that Republican majority leader Dan Burton (?) had fathered a kid out of wedlock while he was married.
I don't wish people ill, but justice would be for Hastert to get some of his own medicine.
Not excusing Hastert's conduct if the allegations are true, but Bill Clinton was indicted for "high crimes and misdemeanors" (specifically, perjury, obstruction, and abuse of power) by the House of Representatives. The indictment was the impeachment vote by the House. The Senate, however, chose not to convict. No, its not an indictment that most people are used to seeing that is brought by elected/appointed prosecutors/secured via grand jury (then again, how frequently are presidents, other officials impeached?), but that's besides the point. It was an indictment sanctioned and guided by the Constitution itself.
More on impeachments as indictments:
Quote:
The Impeachment Process
A common misconception is that impeachment of an official means his or her removal from office. In fact, impeachment functions as an indictment of a public official; it allows the legislature to bring formal charges against a civil officer of government. After an official has been impeached, or formally charged, a trial is held to determine whether or not the official will be removed from office.
Not excusing Hastert's conduct if the allegations are true, but Bill Clinton was indicted for "high crimes and misdemeanors" (specifically, perjury, obstruction, and abuse of power) by the House of Representatives. The indictment was the impeachment vote by the House. The Senate, however, chose not to convict. No, its not an indictment that most people are used to seeing that is brought by elected/appointed prosecutors/secured via grand jury, but that's besides the point. It was an indictment sanctioned and guided by the Constitution itself.
Not excusing Hastert's conduct if the allegations are true, but Bill Clinton was indicted for "high crimes and misdemeanors" (perjury, obstruction, and abuse of power) by Congress. The indictment was the impeachment vote by the House. The Senate, however, chose not to convict. No, its not an indictment that most people are used to seeing that is brought by elected/appointed prosecutors/secured via grand jury, but that's besides the point. It was an indictment sanctioned and guided by the Constitution itself.
Oddly hypocritical, it was Gingrich who orchestrated the House impeachment, at the same time he was dirty-dogging with a woman other than his wife. Family values Republicans should be given Oscars.
Quote:
Setting the stage for his entry into the presidential race, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., gave a radio interview to be broadcast today with Focus on the Family's James Dobson, in which Gingrich for the first time publicly acknowledged cheating on his first and second wives.
"There were times when I was praying and when I felt I was doing things that were wrong. But I was still doing them," Gingrich said during the interview. "I look back on those as periods of weakness and periods that I'm not only not proud of, but I would deeply urge my children and grandchildren not to follow in my footsteps."
You can listen to the full interview here.
"I was married very young and had my first daughter when I was very young, in fact at the end of my freshman year in college," he said of his first marriage to Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher. "And after a period of time, about 18 years, things just didn't work out."
Gingrich married his second wife, Marianne Ginther, months after he divorced Battley in 1981. According to Battley, Gingrich discussed divorce terms with her while she was in the hospital recovering from cancer surgery.
You wouldn't bring this up unless you were trying to excuse Hastert's conduct
if writing that makes you feel better, continue to push a lie. My post was entirely within context. I merely corrected a false statement made by another poster
Oh, yes, it was something. And that episode turned me off from Gingrich, in addition to other incidents. Of course, I have no problem expressing my distaste for bad behavior for politicians, regardless of political party affiliation. That is, as opposed to you; you (based on your edited post) seem to be concerned only with Republicans acting out (newsflash, Democrats also run on family values).
Oh, yes, it was something. And that episode turned me off from Gingrich, in addition to other incidents. Of course, I have no problem expressing my distaste for bad behavior for politicians, regardless of political party affiliation. That is, as opposed to you; you (based on your edited post) seem to be concerned only with Republicans acting out (newsflash, Democrats also run on family values).
Source? Name a Dem that ran on "family values."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if writing that makes you feel better, continue to push a lie. My post was entirely within context. I merely corrected a false statement made by another poster 
