Dennis Hastert Pleads Not Guilty

Former House speaker Dennis Hastert pleaded not guilty today in federal court in Chicago.

After days of silence, J. Dennis Hastert, a former speaker of the House of Representatives, on Tuesday pleaded not guilty to federal charges that he illegally structured bank withdrawals and lied to the authorities about millions of dollars he had promised to pay someone for misconduct that occurred decades ago

...Two people briefed on the evidence uncovered in an F.B.I. investigation have said that Mr. Hastert, who once taught and coached wrestling in suburban Yorkville, Ill., was paying a former student not to say publicly that Mr. Hastert had sexually abused him decades ago.

Hastert was released on bond.

< Three Jurors Dismissed From James Holmes Trial | Tuesday Night Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    what puzzles me (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:15:07 PM EST
    is that Hastert could easily have made a perfectly lawful and entirely confidential settlement agreement with this former student, for the young man's long-term injuries, for the same amount of money. The statute of limitations on such claims is very long in most states. Hastert worked with many lawyers; surely he knew how to get confidential legal advice. Why do this on the sly?

    And, what puzzles me (none / 0) (#9)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:46:06 PM EST
    is: what's the difference between a "confidential" settlement agreement, and, doing it "on the sly?"

    Jail time (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:49:32 PM EST
    he could have done it so he didn't violate banking laws.

    Right Peter?


    Haven't others done similar things (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:17:47 PM EST
    cough-Michael Jackson-cough

    Couldn't That Still Be the Case... (none / 0) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:54:10 PM EST
    ...except the receiver neglected to report the income ?

    There is a reason the victim hasn't been charged, so it had to be above the board at some level.

    To think one can get busted for sexual abuse because of banking laws is almost unreal.


    If it was a settlement for injury, (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:18:48 PM EST
    it would not be income.  If it is extortion, Individual A may have been charged in a sealed indictment and is cooperating with the authorities.  Or, on balance, the legal interest shifts away from the abuse victim.

     The best tact for Hastert would be to negotiate a plea agreement on the charges of structuring to evade banking requirements and lying to the FBI.  However, we do not know much about the basis for Hastert's actions at this point beyond the indictment.  Of course, we have the reports that it involved sexual abuse (teacher-coach/male student).  It is illegal for an adult (over 18) to have sex with an individual under 18 in Illinois.  I would expect a federal case against such a powerful politician, such as the former speaker, would be a challenge for Thomas Green, his powerhouse attorney.  


    Okay (none / 0) (#100)
    by Repack Rider on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:43:49 PM EST
    The best tact...

    It's either a tactic, i.e. a short term goal that is usually part of a broader plan, or a tack, i.e. the diagonal route a sailing boat uses to beat upwind, commonly used as a metaphor.  Which did you have in mind?

    Not to be pedantic, but just so we're clear.


    I think I was using (none / 0) (#105)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 10:33:06 AM EST
    ...the best tact...as Hastert's sense of what to do that would least offend or harm himself.  Probably not the best tack or tactic.   Please substitute the best legal course.

    Hastert wasn't busted for (none / 0) (#15)
    by caseyOR on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:02:47 PM EST
    sexual abuse. No sexual abuse charges have been filed against him. He is charged with what I think is an overused and mis-used banking regulation. He is also charged with lieing to the feds.

    What I do not understand is why Hastert did not consult a lawyer when negotiating this payout, and I am stunned that Hastert spoke to FBI agents without his lawyer present.


    By Busted... (none / 0) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:20:34 PM EST
    ...I meant in the court of public opinion.  He is busted, the very thing he was paying a lot of cash to avoid.

    The statute of limitation has long run out, it's the public he didn't want knowing.  He had zero chance of going to jail assuming the payoffs were after 9/11 and the laws that followed.


    Maybe because that is admitting (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:01:36 PM EST
    It to yourself and then doing something responsible about what you are responsible for?

    And paying blackmail (none / 0) (#19)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:06:19 PM EST

    He gets to pretend he's being victimized (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:07:35 PM EST
    I guess (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:08:56 PM EST
    denial ain't just a river in Egypt

    Many abusers of kids tend (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:12:31 PM EST
    To believe they have developed healthy relationships with the kids they have victimized.  Remember Jerry Sandusky ( shudder), and they feel victimized when they discover or admit to themselves that the rest of us disagree with them.

    Those close to him (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:05:30 PM EST
    Say he feels he is the victim.  It appears that was by choice now.

    Poor baby (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:07:46 PM EST
    ill tell you what.   With all the anti gay crap he was pushing as speaker I feel a little like the victim.

    You are (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    I saw Barney F (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:16:28 PM EST
    the other day giving a rundown of it all.

    It's pretty stunning.


    I think it's beyond stunning. (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:42:28 PM EST
    Rather, it's damning.

    Why on the sly? (none / 0) (#75)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:48:41 AM EST
    A guy like Hastert may have had the same personal attorney for a long time.  A lot of people end up being friends with the attorneys that handle their personal matters.

    What Hastert would have had to confide would have been pretty hard to confide in such a friend.  It's hard to imagine a more precipitous loss of face.  


    I have to wonder (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 02:52:12 PM EST
    about the person that was allegedly blackmailing him. Is that person not going to be charged with extortion? From the news reports it would seem not or either he's already done some sort of plea deal. It would seem that none of Hassert's victims have come forward but then maybe they don't want it to be publicly known who they are and I can't say that I would blame them.  

    As far as I can tell, ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:32:18 PM EST
    ... there are at least two alleged victims here, and potentially three. There is Individual A, as named in the indictment, and there is also an Individual B, who may or may not be a man who died of AIDS in 1995, and whose sister recently went public on ABC News with her late brother's allegations against Mr. Hastert. If Individual B and this woman's brother are not one and the same, then there are three victims thus far.

    Unless there's more to the story (2.00 / 1) (#8)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:42:38 PM EST
    The sister of the alleged 2nd victim doesn't really mean much, except from a PR angle.  Her words are complete hearsay and would probably never get into court. And since her brother died 20 years ago, he can't verify or deny.

    She could be telling the truth or she could have another agenda.


    I believe (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:52:38 PM EST
    she's the one that was trying for years to get the press to investigate Hassert's behavior. So if she has another agenda it's certainly been stewing for a very long time.

    If desiring justice on behalf ... (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:26:11 PM EST
    ... of your late sibling constitutes an "agenda," then so be it. It's been my experience that most people who personally disclose past incidents of sexual abuse within the family tend to be telling the truth. Anyway, what would Jolene Burdge have to gain by lying about Dennis Hastert, at this point in his post-congressional career?

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:01:38 PM EST
    As you note, "Individual B" may or may not be Steve Reinboldt.  However, his sister, Jolene Burdge, stated to ABC News that she had been contacted by the FBI  just days before the indictment.  Since her brother is deceased, the investigators did not talk with him and there does not seem as if there would be enough information and time to consider inclusion of Reinboldt in the indictment as Individual B.

    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:36:19 PM EST
    We can now say with reasonable certainty that there are at present three alleged victims. At this point, we're no longer dealing with an isolated incident, and so I would expect that there might also be some more out there, who've yet to decide whether or not to go public with their stories.

    But since the federal indictment and investigation is focused on Hastert's alleged violations of federal banking law and not on allegations of sexual abuse and / or assault, for which the statute of limitations has since expired, there seems to be no compelling reason for others to step forward, except to resolve some outstanding and long-simmering personal grievances with Mr. Hastert.



    IMO (none / 0) (#53)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:41:55 PM EST
    not a bad reason

    Of course (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:08:08 AM EST
    Mordighian gave me a "2" because he doesn't have higher critical thinking skills. I didn't say "I THINK she has an agenda," I said "She could have another agenda.". It makes a big difference, but I understand that some people dont understand nuance.

    That being said, my point stands.  Even if she has been saying this for years, if all she has is, "My brother told me so," then it won't get anywhere, except in the press.  Investigators could use it to see if there are more claims, but her statements, without any other backup, are proof of nothing and are complete hearsay (unless her brother told her this as he died).

    That's all I was saying, and for those who aren't always on the fainting couch when presented with facts, it's easy to see.


    And (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:04:56 PM EST
    theres the guy who made the call to CSPAN who they were saying last night semester to be none of the above.

    My guess is there are several.


    Well, the sister of (none / 0) (#2)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:13:19 PM EST
    an alleged victim has come forward.



    Ouch (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:50:53 PM EST
    there's video of George W. Bush defending Hassert in the Mark Foley case.

    Many people saying they can't believe what Hassert did but honestly he was paying the guy and if there was nothing I don't think he'd be shelling out 3.5 million.


    Political... (none / 0) (#18)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:05:31 PM EST
    ...has a pretty interesting article about how this scandal is shedding light on his speakership.  And how many scandals happened during his reign.  Delay, Foley, Cunningham, & Abramoff.
    In fact, Hastert oversaw one of the most unedifying legislative spectacles in modern congressional history, keeping the vote on the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit bill open for almost three hours in 2003 (when, under the rules, it should have lasted 15 minutes), while Republican leaders like DeLay twisted the arms of reluctant GOP colleagues in what some of them later complained came close to attempted bribery . The leadership team went so far as to freeze the C-SPAN cameras trained on the House floor, so no one outside the chamber could watch what was happening in real time.


    It amusing to see R's turn on him, which I would imagine would not happen had this been a woman.  The again, he probably would not have her $ 3.5M


    And, all the while ... (none / 0) (#45)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 05:49:05 PM EST
    the motley crew of Repub presupposed moral-vigilantes in Congress shouted to the skies about the evil Clinton.  Heck, we all have witnessed hypocrisy at some level in our lives and on the national scene.  Gingrich, Livingston, Foley, Sen. Craig, and diaper-famed Sen. Vitter ... the would-be watchdogs have given a new, more dank meaning to the term "hypocrisy."

    Bring back the stocks! But, oh no, I don't believe in torture (but, I'm guessing they did when it was elsewhere.)


    Ethics does not seem (none / 0) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 05:51:18 PM EST
    to be a long-suit of Hastert, including using his office for personal enrichment.  Hastert reaped $millions by selling his farmland near the site of a proposed highway financed by funds he earmarked.  

    Yup, being elected to Congress, (none / 0) (#58)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 07:28:37 PM EST
    (Committee Chairman even better) every grifter's dream-come-true.

    My personal favorite fantasy: for just one day, give me tomorrow's newspaper today.

    And just think, all those Congressional Criminals get to live my fantasy every single day.

    At least it helps explain why those psychopaths would sell their children, their parents, and the Country, down the river to get (re)elected.


    Maybe it wasn't blackmail or extortion (none / 0) (#4)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    by the former student, as much as it was Hastert offering to pay in order to guarantee the former student's silence.  If someone doesn't solicit payment in exchange for silence, is the money received just a gift?

    Guess we'll learn more in time.


    Not necessarily. (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:25:10 PM EST
    The statute of limitations is an "affirmative defense" which has to be raised by the defendant and only in the context of a lawsuit.  It does not kick in of its own accord.  It's very analogous to those companies that go around buying up old debts for pennies on the dollar and then try to collect on them.  They know the statute of limitations will bar them, but count on a certain percentage of people being either too embarrassed, too ignorant or feeling honor-bound to pay off an old debt, to raise the statute of limitations.  Telling the collector, pre-suit, to pound sand b/c the SoL has run or, better, demanding that they sue to enforce their alleged debt and telling them they'll get hit for sanctions for bringing it is an entertaining way to deal with that problem.

    But, more to the point, a lot of "personal" torts (like improper sexual conduct) get resolved without ever going to suit, regardless of the defenses available.  I've seen any number of sexual harassment-type cases where all the plaintiff's lawyer has done is take a good statement from the plaintiff and then, in a polite and professional manner, write a letter to the defendant advising of the representation and the general nature of the claim.  The defendant (most times some flavor of professional) will often pick up the phone and ask whether this can't all be resolved without the need to go to court or, possibly, even involve their insurance.  Such defendants are usually married and in a situation where they'd lose half or more of their pile in the divorce, and maybe their standing in the community, were they to have to defend a lawsuit.

    Even if the defendant's insurance gets involved (for cases within the statute of limitations), many of them are settled without resort to the court system - merely between plaintiff's lawyer and adjuster.  I'd guesstimate about half, maybe more, of tort cases where insurance pays, get settled that way - without ever going to court.

    The plaintiff's lawyer has to be exceedingly careful in how to couch the letter advising of representation so as to not cross the line into extortion - saying "pay or we'll go to court", "I might have to go to the Ethics Board" or any number of similar statements can, and often will, bring an extortion complaint - which will at a minimum get the lawyer disqualified from a plum case.  I've seen that happen, and it destroyed a great malpractice case.  Similarly, the plaintiff's lawyer has to be careful not to cover up a "live" crime - if it's an out-and-out rape, or the victim is a minor, or there's even the suggestion that the victim will not testify in exchange for payment, you're looking at an obstruction of justice charge and/or another flavor of extortion.

    Keep in mind that this is pretty normal.  Until about 1991 in New York state Supreme Court (the trial court), a plaintiff could sue someone and progress the suit for months or years all with the court system knowing nothing about it.  It was only once one side or the other decided they needed a judge to make a decision or render an order (usually to make the other side proceed with discovery) that they would have to go to the court and have them open a file.  This was called "buying an index number" - you paid the fee and only then did the court open a file and get a judge involved.  "Don't bother us until you absolutely need us" was the leitmotif and it had been that way for over 300 years - since the English took over from the Dutch.  It only changed to a "modern" "filing" system when the state needed the filing fee money to balance the budget.

    As to Hastert, I think he was from that generation where getting caught in something gay was deeply embarrassing, shameful and therefore to be avoided.  I suspect he may have felt some debt of honor - looking back at the lives he affected and that they didn't turn out well.

    As to the recipient of the money, it could be considered tort damages.  Most tort damages are not taxable income.


    That was very informative (none / 0) (#32)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:34:00 PM EST
    But personally I don't believe for a second a "debt of honor" had anything to do with it.  I think it was 100% about keeping mouths shut.

    I'm giving him the benefit of a doubt (none / 0) (#39)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:57:14 PM EST
    he probably doesn't deserve.

    Given Mr. Hastert's homophobic agenda ... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:39:05 PM EST
    ... as House Speaker, I'd think that in this particular case, he was likely motivated by something other than "honor" and a desire to make his victim whole to the extent possible. More likely, it was fear and a guilty conscience.

    We need to remember that these are not consenting adults we're talking about here. The alleged victims were high school boys, and Hastert was both their teacher and their coach! The very idea that he now considers himself some sort of victim makes my blood boil.



    Maybe you should stay the boiling blood (none / 0) (#77)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:08:08 AM EST
    until we know the facts.  What I've seen so far is little more than innuendo and journalists' rewrites of each other's reports.

    What's been disclosed by the feds is enough. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:05:52 AM EST
    That said, I agree with you that the media has been basically responding to its own echo chamber on this matter, given the paucity of further information.

    I tend to not pay too much attention to punditry any more, instead preferring my own opinions, which I'm not afraid to amend as I learn more. Opinion should not be sacrosanct.

    And if facts and events prove me wrong about ex-Speaker Hastert, and it turns out that he's instead been keeping a secret hideaway full of willing Playboy bunnies who have a Grandpa fetish, I'll gladly admit my error.



    One more thing about the statute of limitations (none / 0) (#40)
    by scribe on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:59:41 PM EST
    If the statute has run, and then a defendant does something that could even remotely be considered a waiver, then the statute is waived.
    What can constitute a waiver of the statute of limitations?  Paying money.  

    Ouch! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:43:14 PM EST
    So therefore, by paying off Individual A, Hastert may have inadvertently allowed the clock to continue ticking, leaving him open to a potential indictment for sexual abuse of minors? Wow.

    The former Speaker's apparent failure to consult with an attorney prior to embarking upon this particular financial misadventure is looking more and more foolish by the day.



    No, I don't think Scribe was referring (none / 0) (#61)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 08:37:23 PM EST
    to the criminal statute of limitations. Paying money, I believe she was suggesting, could have the legal effect of reviving a stale civil claim.

    That's correct (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:21:22 AM EST
    While both the civil and criminal statutes of limitation can be waived, revivifying a stale claim, there is a considerable difference in how much is enough to make for an effective waiver.
    It's quite easy to waive a civil statute of limitations, as I pointed out.  It takes something a little more affirmative to waive the criminal statute - but what and how much is a creature of the law of the jurisdiction involved.

    Thank you, Peter, for that clarification. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:44:25 AM EST
    A "debt of honor" (none / 0) (#42)
    by Repack Rider on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 05:26:20 PM EST
    ...would require a modicum of honor.

    There goes THAT theory.


    And if that's indeed the case, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:28:46 PM EST
    It's just another example of why you don't answer any questions when the Feds come asking.  No answers, nada, zip.  Refer them to your lawyer.
    Jeez, who hasn't figured this out, especially after the Martha Stewart case?  She went down for lying to the Feds.

    It seem like (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:35:05 PM EST
    he wasn't comfortable with even discussing it with a lawyer?

    Well, that seems pretty stupid (none / 0) (#43)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 05:33:25 PM EST
    It's not like your lawyer is going to be shouting these revelations from the rooftop.  And I'm sure most lawyers have heard much worse.

    More stupid (none / 0) (#44)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 05:40:00 PM EST
    than making repeated $9999 withdrawals?

    Just sayin


    While not giving Hastert (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 05:55:56 PM EST
    any kind of a pass, I have to say that I have never liked the requirements that banks report to the Feds deposits/withdrawals of $10,000 +, or repeated transactions just under that limit.
    Why is it the Federal Governments business what the he!! I do with my own money, as long as it was legally acquired?  (And if the Feds have some other proof that your money was not legally acquired, then let them go to a judge with their proof and request a subpoena for your banking records.)
    If I want to go to the bank and withdraw a whole bunch of money, whether in one lump sum or structured in smaller amounts, and I want to take this cash and stuff it in my mattress, bury it in the back yard, sew a dress out of it, or burn the d@mned money in a bonfire in my back yard, what business is it of the Feds, absent any proof that it was illegal money?
    Ah, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I hardly knew you.  

    I don't disagree (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:15:14 PM EST
    still, it's the law and surely he had to know it.

    The guy reall seems a bit disconnected from reality.  They have been showing This video of him arriving at the courthouse.
    He's hunching down and hiding.  For what?  You think if they don't take your picture no one will know you are there.

    Just weird.


    Hastert sure did know it ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by christinep on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:31:22 PM EST
    the law that passed under his direction and coordination as Speaker.  

    Remember the stories of various IRS violations pursued and charged federally in those instances--reportedly involving the hard-to-crack organized crime killings--where murder charges might be tough or impossible to prove.  Kind of rings a bell here....


    Hoist (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Zorba on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:42:37 PM EST
    by his own petard, so to speak.
    Yes, he was supremely stupid.
    I still hate the reporting requirements, but if Hastert was involved in pushing this through, well, there is a certain amount of divine justice here.
    Supreme hubris to go along with stupidity.

    If it had been his own petard he'd been hoisting (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Mr Natural on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 04:12:02 PM EST
    he wouldn't be in this mess.

    You're bad Natch (none / 0) (#96)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 04:50:05 PM EST
    LOL! (none / 0) (#122)
    by Zorba on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 07:20:20 PM EST
    Very true.

    A lot (none / 0) (#56)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 06:51:16 PM EST
    of what goes around coming around in this story.

    my 2 cents (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 07:22:44 PM EST
    is that he knew the law but decided that the story coming out would be worse than the possibility of getting caught breaking banking laws.

    You may be on to something (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:31:03 PM EST

    Lawyers are debating puzzling aspects of the case, including why there's no indication in the indictment that the still-unnamed accuser was investigated for blackmail or extortion.
    Some attorneys, speaking about the reports of alleged sexual abuse, said that as long as Hastert's acquaintance had a valid legal claim against the former speaker, the associate could demand a settlement without that being viewed as extortion.

    "If it's a compensable legal injury, then the payments could be a settlement, not blackmail or extortion," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers. "If a lawyer can [ask for such a settlement,] why can't a victim do that on his own?"

    However, other legal experts said they believe the statute of limitations for such a civil lawsuit almost certainly ran out long ago.


    The indictment alleges that Hastert and the acquaintance met "multiple times" in 2010, eventually striking an agreement for the former speaker to fork over $3.5 million.

    Hamilton said the lack of a valid legal claim wouldn't have barred an alleged victim from asking Hastert for financial help. The legal risk for extortion or blackmail would come only if the acquaintance threatened to embarrass the former speaker.

    While the indictment describes the agreement between Hastert and the acquaintance as intended in part to "conceal" prior misconduct, Hamilton said it's possible Hastert was the one who raised the issue of silence as part of the deal. "It may well have been that Hastert decided to keep it secret," she said.

    That would (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 03:40:22 PM EST
    make sense from what we know so far.

    A Theory (none / 0) (#31)
    by RickyJim on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:31:04 PM EST
    The hush money was Hastert's idea.  At some point the recipient of the money went to the police/FBI and worked with them to get airtight evidence on Hastert.  This might explain why Victim A was not charged.

    I like this (none / 0) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:35:48 PM EST
    Good piece (none / 0) (#36)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:40:07 PM EST
    My mamma used to say (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 04:42:22 PM EST
    the trouble with a high horse is its a long way to fall

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    I sure hope your mama is spending time with my grandmother in the heavens because they could both try to one up each other on sayings.

    what about the other party? (none / 0) (#59)
    by thomas rogan on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 07:35:02 PM EST
    So the "high horse" women's lib party, the Democrats, would have thrown Bill Clinton under the bus for inappropriate use of power dynamics in pursuing a relationship with an intern?  
    Or will he be dubbed co-president in Clinton terms three and four and his enabling wife, who let the intern twist in the wind facing accusations of being "emotionally unstable", gets a free pass?

    I'm not sure I even know (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 08:06:27 PM EST
    what the hell you are talking about but I will take a stab at it.

    You are, typically, missing the point.  Democrats do things that are less than stellar.  It's true. The difference my mother was pointing out is that we do not preach chastity, probity and righteousness 24/7.
    We look less silly when we do not walk the walk because we do not talk the talk.
    Denny Hastert led a crusade against gay people as speaker of the house. While banging his teenaged male students. And then tried to pay them to keep quiet.
    If you don't see the difference between that and a famously womanizing president making woopee with a woman younger, yes, but legal I think you are not trying very hard.

    But we knew that.


    Shorter thomas rogan: (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 04:12:56 AM EST
    "But Bill Clinton's penis! Oh, the humanity!"

    The irony that President Clinton's impeachment was being hypocritically championed at the time by several serial adulterers and a deeply closeted gay homophobe, who's now alleged to have molested teenaged boys, is quite obviously over your head and thus lost to you.

    But, hey, thanks for the laugh.


    Courtesy Bill Maher (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:31:24 AM EST
    yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 08:41:09 PM EST
    what Howdy says. We don't say we're perfect. We don't play the Jesus card and say we're God's Own Party like the GOP does. We don't claim to be holy and righteous. We just claim to have better policies not perfect politicians.

    Why is the DOJ wasting so much time (none / 0) (#63)
    by Green26 on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 11:27:18 PM EST
    money, and energy on something like this? Two felonies? Oh come on. Lying to the FBI by saying "yeah" once, allegedly. No transcript included with the indictment. If not taped, or heard by other credible people, all he has to do is say no didn't say that or didn't understand the question. Prosecuting for bank withdrawal regulations by taking out cash for something that was legal and not in furtherance of a crime. No way he ends up with two felonies.

    Abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

    Please... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    ...they are only doing what Hastert himself wanted them to do.  I agree the law is ridiculous, but that is on Denny, not the DA.

    You are basically saying some people should be prosecuted and some shouldn't even though they did the exact same thing.  

    That is a very republican position to take and not a very American one in which everyone is suppose to be equal under the law, even the ones that make the laws.

    This argument that he said one wrong word is absurd, lying is lying no matter how many words, and you have no link for anyone to validate your claims.


    They got Al Capone on tax evasion (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Tue Jun 09, 2015 at 11:38:36 PM EST
    Perhaps the same principle in play.

    But Capone was participating (none / 0) (#73)
    by Green26 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:44:32 AM EST
    in many other criminal activities on an ongoing basis. While I have no problem with prosecuting Capone, generally I don't like convicting people for offenses unrelated to the main criminal activity. My view is that prosecutors should have to convict on the main crime(s).

    Structuring cash transactions (none / 0) (#76)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:51:23 AM EST
    To avoid the 10K$ reporting limit is a crime, the last time I checked.

    Actually, I've withdrawn $10k (none / 0) (#80)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:11:26 AM EST
    a few times, and they, the bank, don't fill out the form until you're even one penny over the $10k.  So Mordi, the last time you checked, was it a felony or a misdemeanor, to withdraw more than $10k?

    You're a smart cookie (none / 0) (#82)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:21:40 AM EST
    Not reporting a 10K$ transaction is illegal, which is what set the dogs on Hastert in the first place, if you happened to be paying attention.

    As for your question, you tell me:

    Failure to File

    Failing to file form 8300 is a violation of both Bank Secrecy Act compliance and the Internal Revenue Code.

    The current penalty is $100 per incident of failure to file.  For businesses that exceed $5 million in gross revenue the aggregate annual limit is $1.5 million in fines!  For businesses that do not exceed 5 million in gross revenue the annual ceiling is $500,000.

    If the failure is corrected on or before 30 days after the required filing date, the penalty is reduced to $30 with an annul ceiling of $250,000 (over $5 million) and $75,000 (under $5 million).

    If the IRS determines the failure to file was intentional the penalties are very stiff.  For each incident of intentional failure to file the penalty is the greater of $25,000 or the amount of the transaction (up to $100,000) which ever is greater.

    It is important to note that a failure to furnish a written statement to the Payer in January of the subsequent year carries penalties similar to that of a failure to file with the exception that an intentional failure to furnish carries a $250 dollar penalty or an amount equal to 10% of the aggregate total amount, whichever is greater (with no limit).

    Bank Secrecy Act compliance is a necessary part of doing business in the United States today.  While not particularly difficult, complying with the $10,000 Rule requires a commitment to a process that will insure regular and frequent reporting so as not to find your organization subject to significant fines and penalties.  Bank Secrecy Act Compliance, in this instance, is as simple as filing the correct form with the IRS.

    I'm assuming you filled out the form 8300 when you did take out 10K$ from the bank.


    Wasn't Eliot Spitzer charged (none / 0) (#83)
    by Green26 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:25:37 AM EST
    with currency structuring, and didn't the US drop that charge or those charges? I assume some of you were clamoring for those structuring charges to stick with Spitzer.

    Speeding on a straight open road with no traffic is against the law too, but it's not a high priority crime to me.


    He wan't charged with anything (none / 0) (#84)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:32:27 AM EST
    even paying for the porostitutes, the payments for which he structured the transactions to avoid the 10K rule.

    And, yes, he should've been arrested and prosecuted after he resigned the governorship of N.Y if there was enough evidence to warrant a reasonable chance of convicting him under those laws.

    I'm sorry, but I don't take law-breaking by anybody lightly, Democrat, Republican, or Independent.  YMMV.


    No (none / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:43:41 AM EST
    here's the full story:


    Spitzer apparently did not lie to the Feds and it seems that patrons of prostitution services are rarely charged.


    Thanks Mordi, (none / 0) (#86)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:50:35 AM EST
    that was an excellant answer.  No, I did not have to fill out that form since I was not over the $10k limit that your link stated.  The bank did file that form once when I withdrew $15k for a new outboard motor.  The bank filled out the form, from their computer and I never saw nor signed anything. BTW, down here in the land of pirates, the bank has another form they fill out if you withdraw more than $3k.  Not sure where that form goes, but I do know Homeland Security has way too many rules.  And yes, I was paying attention.

    Hastert began by (none / 0) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:00:42 AM EST
    taking $50,000 withdrawals from several of his bank accounts every six weeks for 15 such withdrawals.  After he was questioned about these withdrawals by his bank, a few months later he began making smaller withdrawals under $10,000.  He made 106 such payments for a total of $952,000.  (about $1.7 million).    

    He might as well have shot a flare (none / 0) (#89)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:03:53 AM EST
    gun into the air on the bank steps after each 50K$ withdrawal.

    They (none / 0) (#78)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:09:14 AM EST
    are charging him for the crime he did commit. He's not being charged with pedophilia though he probably should have been but I guess it's too late for that and frankly if he hadn't been messing around with the money or even if he had admitted he was paying someone money then he wouldn't be charged with what he is charged with.

    He made a calculated decision that lying to the FBI etc. was something he would take his chances on rather than admit he was a pedophile. And this is the result.


    So Hastert (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:10:46 AM EST
    should just walk?

    If it was a drug dealer or (none / 0) (#69)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 07:46:01 AM EST
    Agent of a foreign powers, I doubt you'd be inclined to let him/her off the hook.  

    He enhanced the law he`s been arrested under, so he can hardly plead ignorance of the law as an excuse.

    Or does the law only apply to the little people, as Leona Hemsly once stated in her own case?


    I would charge H with a misdemeanor (none / 0) (#74)
    by Green26 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:48:18 AM EST
    so that the story would come out and he would get all the bad publicity. The impact on the rest of his life would be similar. In my view, charging with these 2 felonies makes the prosecutors look bad and is a waste of resources. The DOJ should get back to pursuing things that have a huge impact on the US and its people, like FIFA. Ha.

    The irony (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 09:10:45 AM EST
    is that he was instrumental in getting this kind of banking law passed.

    Frankly I think it's a stupid law but it's what Bush Jr. wanted and he got it. Now I guess the GOP is reaping what they sowed.


    Martha Steward was convicted (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:00:43 AM EST
    on felony charges for lying to the Feds on a 45K transaction.

    Leaving aside the merits of whether it was a fair cop or not, I don't see why something two orders of magnitude greater as far as the amount of money involved should be treated as anything less than what she was prosecuted for.


    Yes, I agree (none / 0) (#90)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 11:14:16 AM EST
    if Martha had to suffer the consequences of what she did so should Hassert.

    How Do You Know So Much? (none / 0) (#71)
    by RickyJim on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:32:58 AM EST
    In a case still steeped in mystery, where did you get all this information about it that you trust, especially what happened in the FBI interview?  There is no obligation for the prosecution to release everything they have in the indictment.   What is your opinion of the prosecutorial discretion used to send Kadyrbatev, Tazhayakov and Phillipos to prison for lying to the FBI?

    I am already on record saying (none / 0) (#72)
    by Green26 on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 08:40:40 AM EST
    the 3 kids should not have been prosecuted so hard, and should have been sentenced to time already served (at least in the case of the ones who have been in jail). Totally unnecessarily to have continued to go after them so hard.

    Various articles have noted that the indictment says H said "yeah" to a question only once, and that no transcript of the conversation was attached. How do you know so much to question what I said? Ha.


    Here's where it is about Hastert (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 01:35:43 PM EST
    Personally, I don't give a flying fig about the specific charges.  I do think the Martha Stewart comparison, tho, is useful in looking at "fairness" all the way around.

    What we have in the Hastert matter--as a number of us wrote about up-thread as well as earlier--is the classic "what goes around, comes around." (If I recall correctly, Howdy used that reference here.)  Given his history in one of the more powerful governmental positions in the country, as Speaker of the US House of Representatives, he waste/squandered time and tax dollars as he aggressively touted morality while arrogantly pursuing political vendetta against an American President for an admitted sexual dalliance with an adult woman.  What we have here is societal comeuppance reminding us of the hypocritical depths to which the Repubs sank as they sung "family values" etc in fairly recent years. And, remember Green, that Hastert wasn't some back-bencher at the time; he led and, today, epitomizes the Political Hypocrite.

    I look at the public aspect of Dennis Hastert now--and, for some reason--hear some phrasing from Dylan's "Like a Rolling Stone."  Denny ... "How does it feel...."  


    Cry me a river Denny (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 01:56:35 PM EST
    antigay ballot measures basically got Bush reelected in 2004

    Huffington Post: "During the 2004 elections, George W. Bush's campaign, managed by a closeted gay man, pushed a series of anti-gay ballot initiatives across the country. The House of Representatives, led by a male speaker who allegedly sexually assaulted a male minor, moved a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage after beating back attempts to strengthen hate crimes legislation. And the White House, led in part by a vice president with a lesbian daughter, eagerly encouraged a conservative evangelical base hostile to gay rights."

    Ohio (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by christinep on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 02:34:41 PM EST
    The anti-gay vote, orchestrated by Rove and other Repubs, was pronounced in the Ohio 2004 election turnout ... Bush won Ohio and the electoral votes to nail down the White House again.

    It disturbs me that the sex scandal around (none / 0) (#97)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:04:00 PM EST
    Hastert is being spun as a gay thing. No spinners, having sex with your high school students is a molestation thing, not a gay thing.

    Yes but (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 05:51:50 PM EST
    i saw Barney Frank pushback against this pushback the other day.  And I agree with hm.  You are absolutely correct to point out that it's not about being gay it's about abuse.
    But at the same time at bottom that is exactly what it's about.  
    The sad irony of the fact that he led a crusade against gay people while engaging in essentially gay behavior can't be over looked.  To do so would be to miss a rare teaching moment about republicans and homophobes in general.

    I understand the pushback by some, like yourself, on this but I really think we are at a point in this country where the vast majority of the public understand the nuances.


    Agreed. (none / 0) (#99)
    by KeysDan on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:40:09 PM EST
    A teaching moment.  My feelings are that what we know now is just the tip of an iceberg--if there is any deeper commitment to investigate not only more about his days at Yorkville High but since.

    Agree (none / 0) (#101)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jun 10, 2015 at 06:51:43 PM EST
    It is a same sex scandal also.  I am disgusted though with the Christian Right  equating same sex preference with practicing pedophila.  They are different.

    Molestation has intense overtones of power, as does rape.  Sex between fully consenting adults is different even if those involved add a power and control dimension.


    Hastert's issue is hardly pedophilia, MT. (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:55:30 AM EST
    His alleged victims were high school students ages 14 and up, whereas pedophilia is marked by an individual's deviant sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

    That said, I do agree with you that the matter should not be mischaracterized as illicit gay encounter per se, which attaches an unwarranted stigma to homosexuality that really has no place in contemporary American society.

    Rather, the actual issue here as I see it is two-fold. First, as you correctly noted, there was a power dynamic allegedly at play here. Hastert was occupying a position of authority relative to his alleged victims as both a teacher and a coach, so the alleged encounters were clearly inappropriate in that regard. But more importantly, the alleged victims were under the legal age of consent at the time of the alleged sexual encounter(s).

    And in that regard, Hastert's alleged behavior three-plus decades ago is not unlike the issue that dogged Mary Kay Letourneau, the 6th grade teacher in Washington state who was charged with and convicted of statutory rape 20 years ago, after being impregnated at age 35 by one of her own male students.

    It's certainly not about homosexuality. Rather, our concerns should properly be focused upon: (1) an inappropriate personal relationship between a teacher and a student; and (2) an underaged partner being legally precluded from consenting to a sexual encounter with an adult.



    Plus... (none / 0) (#104)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 09:34:54 AM EST
    ...there are 18 year old students and until we know what really happened and something about the victims, we are only making educated guesses.

    There is something obviously wrong with the man, but it's not pedophilia.  If this were another country, say most European countries, where the age of consent is 14-16, there would be no crime.

    But in my mind, to get the dollars he got I have to think it was more than a 'consensual' encounter between a grown man and a high school kid.  Especially if he is going to pass it off as some sort of payment for care.

    In Illinois the age of consent is 17 unless on person is over 18 and in a position of authority, then it is 18.


    So when your 14 year old daughter (none / 0) (#106)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:05:17 AM EST
    Has repeated sexual contact with her HS teacher that isn't molestation?  This is a molestation issue as well as a same sex issue.

    An inappropriate personal relationship ... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 12:37:12 PM EST
    ... between teacher and student can involve sexual molestation, yes. But adults can be sexually molested, too. Anyway, I was addressing the issue of pedophilia in this case, of which there's apparently none -- unless one of the alleged victims turns out to have been a prepubescent child at the time of the alleged contact.

    Prepubescent is also different (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 12:44:23 PM EST
    For everyone.  People in my family mature slower sexually than others the same age.  Without knowing when this took place and specifically whom....what makes you not a prebuscent male?  A mustache?  A chest full of hair?

    His victims as far as we know were his HS students whom he had extreme authority over....molestation!


    MT, the term "prepubescent" refers ... (none / 0) (#118)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 04:36:49 PM EST
    ... specifically to that period in a child's life preceding puberty, the onset of which generally occurs between 12 and 14 years of age in boys. Although puberty in male children can commence as early as age 9 and as late as age 16, those cases are considered exceptions and not the rule.

    (Without getting too graphic, and granting that this is purely anecdotal, out of the 25 boys in my 9th grade P.E. class, all of whom were ages 14 and 15, only one was still prepubescent. And I know it was 25 students because our teacher was a former military noncom, and the very first thing he had us do every day was line up in alphabetical order and sound off in roll call. A full year of that forever embedded every single one of our names into my memory.)

    I'm really not getting where you're coming from here, because I'm not at all disagreeing with you about Hastert having allegedly engaged in sexual molestation of minor children. I only took issue with your earlier suggestion that he is a pedophile, because most high school boys between the ages of 14 and 18 -- with the aforementioned few exceptions -- are considered to be in adolescence.



    Molesting an adult is also very different (none / 0) (#111)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 12:54:24 PM EST
    I will grant that it can happen, but an adult must be very naive, unaware of their rights.  We raise our children to obey their coaches.  The choice to disobey a coach is huge and usually has mom and dad involved and the school superintendent and the school board......if you aren't willing to go that route you obey your coach...end of discussion.  And coaches get to bestow painful punishments for a lack of adherence to their orders.  I'm sorry Donald, all the earmarks on this scandal aren't just gay...they are abuse power with sex.  We trusted this guy with our kids.  We gave him special authorities and access that English teachers don't get, and he acted out his repressed sexuality in that arena.

    OMG... (none / 0) (#112)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 01:18:20 PM EST
    ...everything with you is so fricken extreme.

    And coaches get to bestow painful punishments for a lack of adherence to their orders.
    Not true in any sense.  Granted I only have about 20 different coaches growing up, but the idea that just because someone is a coach means kids will listen to them without thought is absurd on so many levels.  Not saying he didn't use his influence, but he was no army boot-camp Sargent.

    IMO coaches are closer viewed by students as gym teachers than authority figures.  Painful punishments ?  What, running laps ?  The horror.

    Beyond having no idea what actually happened you are acting like these kids were prisoners and the coach was the warden.  Before going off the deep end even further, how about waiting for some actual information instead of insisting there is no way in hell this was anything but what you think it was.


    The band director here was just fired (none / 0) (#113)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    For extreme punishments.  It was leading to hazing, which has killed some college marching band participants.

    I'm not used to music teachers acting that way but I'm from out West, they do act that way in the South because they are very competitive.  My band won zero awards.  My instructor was just happy if we all breathed in the right places :) This band will likely march in an Epcot parade next year though.

    Come on Scott, I ran so many laps life sucked and I almost vomited, and I was a reliable participant, those less reliable received much worse punishments.


    You Think I Didn't Run Laps... (none / 0) (#114)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 02:51:03 PM EST
    ...with my smart mouth and total dislike of authority, but it was always a choice, run laps or keep walking and go home.  But it wasn't like the coaches were Nazis, he was the guy I saw for a couple hours a day, M-Th for 10 weeks.  And a couple of them taught classes, so I would see them in school.

    I don't understand your argument here, that Denny said run laps or let me fondle you.  Or that because a band directer in your area dished out harsh punishments, so harsh he was fired, Denny did the same thing ?

    My point was that what he what he did was $3.5M bad, that is a lot of bad, but until we find out I think we should settle for the bad and not try to paint it like he was the Napoleon of high school coaches, because what he did was worse.

    For all anyone knows this wasn't even related to his coaching.  Maybe he just romanced(raped) young students who were enamored by his BS.


    Actually (none / 0) (#115)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:07:20 PM EST
    from what we know it seems like he was a pretty good coach.  He was, I guess until recently, known in the town as "coach".

    In a way if true it sort of makes what he did even more insidious.  Everyone looked up to him.  


    Um (none / 0) (#116)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:08:36 PM EST
    not very eloquently stated that.

    It's awfully funny that when I look at (none / 0) (#117)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 03:34:10 PM EST
    The current headlines, I'm reading molestation all over the place.  It isn't just me.  And when the day arrives when teachers and coaches having sex with their high school students isn't molestation...well we have traveled backwards in healthy functioning society.

    Most likely, the band leader acted that way (none / 0) (#123)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Jun 12, 2015 at 11:15:42 AM EST
    because a group of parents demanded it.

    Punishment in school band.  What has the world coming to?


    Again, MT, I'm not disagreeing with you. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 04:47:15 PM EST
    You've either misread or misconstrued what I actually wrote. I suggest that you go back and re-read my earlier posts. I only took exception to your suggestion that what Hastert allegedly did was symptomatic of pedophilia. There's no need to get emotional about it.

    And FYI, I've written here a couple of times in the past about my own encounter with one of my junior high baseball coaches when I was in 7th grade. So, I lived through it personally, and I really don't need the lecture from you on the subject of sexual abuse by authority figures.



    It Appears That Tracy is Equating... (none / 0) (#120)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 04:59:13 PM EST
    ...molestation to pedophilia, or that is how I am reading it.  Clearly Donald is making a distinction to which I agree with.

    Didn't mean to lecture you (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 05:05:17 PM EST
    I am sorry Donald.  I was not aware you were a victim.  

    We had an issue here with a Jr High principal and our daughter. Just always very suggestive.  Another family having similar problems we later discovered had moved their daughter to a different Jr High.  He enjoyed spanking them, for the smallest infringement.

    And you had to sign a document for your child to excluded from corporal punishment here and our daughter refused to be excluded because she said in the eyes of her peers down here she would be considered a big baby.  I don't understand that dynamic around here either, but there was something very broken about that man.  We didn't even know how much he had hit our daughter until the tornado.  I knew she had been swatted a couple of times. School records were thrown all over during the tornado though, we had to verify our child's school records, and there were things in there we had never seen before.  That was when we found out he had privately punished her without ever notifying us 23 times.

    Everything was about how she dressed though.  He had a ruler and he would run around measuring skirts and short lengths. A bra strap showing could get you whipped too.There was something very wrong with that man. And my daughter would lip off and.... I assume some law suits came about, now you must sign a document to be included in corporal punishment.  And he was " let go", but he principals on...in Mobile for now.


    And a coach (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:06:25 AM EST
    Who defies their coach?

    Wanna explain that one to mom and dad? (none / 0) (#108)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jun 11, 2015 at 11:07:23 AM EST
    About the heroic hometown coach?