Dennis Hastert child sex abuse charges.

[PedroDaGr8]

Very very disturbing, four reported victims that he was paying hush money to.



"Mr. Hastert has made mistakes in judgment and committed transgressions for which he is profoundly sorry," Green said. "He fully understands the gravity of his misconduct decades ago and regrets that he resorted to … an effort to prevent the disclosure of that misconduct."



http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/ct-dennis-hastert-investigation-met-20160406-story.html

[CitizenBBN]

As this current election reminds me, our capacity as a nation to elect people who are often the LEAST worthy people we could find never ceases to amaze me. I have no doubt we could find numerous people with life sentences who have more ethical and moral boundaries than many of our elected officials.

Not all, maybe not even most, but many if not most.

[suncat05]

We need to start dealing with these child molesters a lot more harshly. I have been on the job a long time now, and I have seen more than my share of this to suit me.
I hope that these charges against him are not true, I really do, as I hope these kinds of charges against anyone would not be true. But if they are true, shame on him, and I have immense sympathy and prayers for the victims and their families, and for Hastert's family as well.
This garbage is inexcusable and unacceptable in a civilized society. It is even moreso in an uncivilized society.

[MickintheHam]

As this current election reminds me, our capacity as a nation to elect people who are often the LEAST worthy people we could find never ceases to amaze me. I have no doubt we could find numerous people with life sentences who have more ethical and moral boundaries than many of our elected officials.

Not all, maybe not even most, but many if not most.

I would only point out that many with good intentions are elected. It's the money surrounding public office holders that makes them unworthy. I am completely convinced we don't have more than a handful of elected officials in Montgomery, Alabama that are not corrupt to the core. Special interest money flows like water. Let's see we have a house speaker indicted on 20 odd counts of ethics violations and a governor who has seemingly used the 501(c3) provisions to pay his mistress and allowed him to open a lock box with her. The graft and corruption appears to be every bit as bad as what the Mayor of Detroit was sent to prison for.

[CitizenBBN]

I would only point out that many with good intentions are elected. It's the money surrounding public office holders that makes them unworthy. I am completely convinced we don't have more than a handful of elected officials in Montgomery, Alabama that are not corrupt to the core. Special interest money flows like water. Let's see we have a house speaker indicted on 20 odd counts of ethics violations and a governor who has seemingly used the 501(c3) provisions to pay his mistress and allowed him to open a lock box with her. The graft and corruption appears to be every bit as bad as what the Mayor of Detroit was sent to prison for.

I agree completely.

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Why those on the left can't understand that simple maxim and thus why power must at every turn be diluted and decentralized and even outright eliminated is beyond me. Rather they seem intent on more power and more centralization as the answer to everything.

When Congress couldn't pass any law that didn't impact ALL the states, i.e. no earmarks for projects in just one district, no regulation of commerce, there was no need to bribe them so things were better b/c there was less corruption, but as Congress and government in general have become the gatekeepers of economic opportunity and protectionism the corruption has become rife.

With that graft and power comes the ego and the sense of entitlement, and we land in Orwell's very accurately predicted outcome.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I hope Hastert gets the Dahmer treatment, but of course he won't. He'll most likely be spending his time in a federal hospital away from any general population. He committed the worst crime of crimes and deserves to rot in hell.

What is really a shame is that Republicans are defending this guy and refuses to call him a child molester and won't say that he deserves to be in prison. Even as recent as yesterday, Paul Ryan specifically chose not to do either. There is ZERO doubt of his guilt, and people are defending him.

Any Republican that refuses to admit that Hastert is a predator, child molester and a crook has completely lost credibility to say criticize liberals who refuse to say radical Islam. IMO, any person in a leadership position such as Ryan who can't call Hastert what he really is, beyond doubt, is not qualified to be in such a position, and is a complete coward and hypocrite. Is this what is referred to as Republican values?

[CitizenBBN]

I agree. Now will every Democrat agree Hillary is a felon just waiting for a conviction? Even more evidence there of a conscious effort to avoid FOIA information handling requirements and a host of rules about handling of government information that woudl have any of my IT friends in government rotting in jail for years, yet no Democrat wants to call that what it is either.

How about we all demand that BOTH parties stop with the lies and coverups and their unwillingness to call any o their own on the carpet?

I honestly haven't followed the Hastert case much, but for our purposes here I'm fine to grant that he's guilty and that the evidence is sufficient. But we live in an era when people stand up and deny the obvious truth with impunity, and they get away with it b/c those who support their broader agenda are willing to look the other way.

So you get this situation with Hastert, but also outrages like Hillary running for President when she disqualified herself with reckless disregard for national security and the law, and also like UNC and the NCAA simply rewriting their allegations to just eliminate the obvious fraud and cheating of teams they want to protect.

We need to stand up to them all, all of us all the time, and demand better. Many Republicans are ready to do that, they ran from any establishment candidate in this race,but is the left willing to break ranks and do the same? Hillary is the definition of establishment and coverup and denying the obvious, and to people's credit Bernie has had strong support, but she's still going to win.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I agree. Now will every Democrat agree Hillary is a felon just waiting for a conviction? Even more evidence there of a conscious effort to avoid FOIA information handling requirements and a host of rules about handling of government information that woudl have any of my IT friends in government rotting in jail for years, yet no Democrat wants to call that what it is either.

How about we all demand that BOTH parties stop with the lies and coverups and their unwillingness to call any o their own on the carpet?

I honestly haven't followed the Hastert case much, but for our purposes here I'm fine to grant that he's guilty and that the evidence is sufficient. But we live in an era when people stand up and deny the obvious truth with impunity, and they get away with it b/c those who support their broader agenda are willing to look the other way.

So you get this situation with Hastert, but also outrages like Hillary running for President when she disqualified herself with reckless disregard for national security and the law, and also like UNC and the NCAA simply rewriting their allegations to just eliminate the obvious fraud and cheating of teams they want to protect.

We need to stand up to them all, all of us all the time, and demand better. Many Republicans are ready to do that, they ran from any establishment candidate in this race,but is the left willing to break ranks and do the same? Hillary is the definition of establishment and coverup and denying the obvious, and to people's credit Bernie has had strong support, but she's still going to win.

Hillary hasn't been charged with a single crime. She's innocent until proven guilty. If she is(which she won't be), then that's a different story.

Hastert is a convicted, admitted child predator and barely apologetic, the lowest of the lowest.

HUGE difference.

[CitizenBBN]

Hillary hasn't been charged with a single crime. She's innocent until proven guilty. If she is(which she won't be), then that's a different story.

Hastert is a convicted, admitted child predator and barely apologetic, the lowest of the lowest.

HUGE difference.


Not really. The fact that she won't be charged is purely due to politics. Just this administration alone has sent people to jail for far less significant breaches of information handling.

You failed the test, you're no different than the people you just criticized in your OP. Defend your side as good and right no matter what they do, attack the others as evil and corrupt no matter what they do.

[badrose]

Yeah, just like UNCHEAT. There weren't charged either.

[suncat05]

Yeah, just like UNCHEAT. There weren't charged either.

Oh, they were CHARGED, but the prosecutors failed to do their job correctly.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Not really. The fact that she won't be charged is purely due to politics. Just this administration alone has sent people to jail for far less significant breaches of information handling.

You failed the test, you're no different than the people you just criticized in your OP. Defend your side as good and right no matter what they do, attack the others as evil and corrupt no matter what they do.

I'm completely different, but you're just blinded by partisan witch hunts. Until the investigation is over and charges are filed, Hillary is guilty of nothing.

Hastert is an admitted child molester. The courts recognize it, HE recognizes it, his victims recognize it. His ex-colleagues and our current speaker of the House won't recognize it.

The clear line of distinction here is that Hillary doesn't admit guilt, no investigative body has proven anything and no courts want to hear it. Clearly I can see a distinction.

Accusations against Hillary are on no different level than accusations against the current joke of Ky governor, who is clearly in over his head. Again, though, he deserves the standard of innocence for now, just like Hillary.

[CitizenBBN]

I'm completely different, but you're just blinded by partisan witch hunts. Until the investigation is over and charges are filed, Hillary is guilty of nothing.

I'm far smarter than that. I'm not even a big fan of the GOP, and I certainly know propaganda and politics from reality.

Hillary set up a private server and diverted tens of thousands of government emails to it. We know 30,000 emails SHE deemed exempt from FOIA were deleted, we know thousands more were diverted from secure government systems to her private chain. Any of that is enough to land some career bureaucrat or private contractor in jail for years. The only reason she's not is she's too powerful.

Badrose is right, UNC won't be charged with anything for men's basketball, but any fool knows they cheated and committed mass fraud. Any fool can see what Hillary did and that it was illegal,other than those with an agenda.

Just like any fool knows that when these politicians get $600,000 for a "speech" by some industry group or big corporation it's not b/c of their flowery prose. Both Democrats and Republicans do this all the time as a way to get paid but they do it with a speech b/c just taking a big ass check is illegal.But it's a sham, they are all being massively influenced by those checks, and it's just a technicality that guts the intent of the 1970s campaign reform effort and really guts the intent of the entire American system.

So yes, these defenses of Hastert are nothing more than political posturing. So is the defense of Hillary's email activities, the speeches, the lobbying and all the rest of the corruption.

[Catonahottinroof]

Joel Mattson, Governer convicted for corruption.
Lennington Small, Governor was indicted but never convicted.
William Stratton, Governor indicted but not convicted.
Otto Kerner, Governor convicted on bribery .
Dan Walker Governor convicted for bank fraud.
George Ryan, Governor convicted for racketeering.
Rod Blagejevich, Governor convicted of corruption.
US Representative, Dan Rostenkowski convicted for corruption.
US Representative, Mel Reynolds Inappropriate relationship with 16 year old and bank fraud.
Orville Hodge, Auditor for state of Illinois embezzled 1.5 million dollars from the state treasury.
Former Attorney General William Scott convicted of tax fraud, After his death they found $800,000 stuffed in shoe boxes in William Powell's home who was the Secretary of State of Illinois. Never charged after his death.
I would imagine that if one looked further there could be more found. Does this surprise anyone?
The same Chicago political machine that produced most of the above also gave us President Obama. I'm from Illinois and ashamed of this. Thank goodness I no longer reside there.

[CitizenBBN]

Good list.

That's my point, and I didn't mean to hijack. But the truth is that corruption exists throughout politics, and always has, and the only way to fight it is to never give into the party excuses made by "your side" when it happens. We should call everyone out and demand better whether they otherwise support our political views or not.

Re Hillary if you think she's guilty of any of this and is basicaly dishonest, you shouldn't vote for her whether she mouths support for things you support or not. Same for a GOP candidate.

That's the only way to get better candidates.

[Doc]

I would only point out that many with good intentions are elected. It's the money surrounding public office holders that makes them unworthy. I am completely convinced we don't have more than a handful of elected officials in Montgomery, Alabama that are not corrupt to the core. Special interest money flows like water. Let's see we have a house speaker indicted on 20 odd counts of ethics violations and a governor who has seemingly used the 501(c3) provisions to pay his mistress and allowed him to open a lock box with her. The graft and corruption appears to be every bit as bad as what the Mayor of Detroit was sent to prison for.

its as simple as if you don't become corrupt you can't get re-elected because without the money that brings corruption you dont have the means. Of course the general electorate is no different as they all want their share. How is it any different than buying votes with entitlements, or "pork projects" for your district?

[Doc]

Hillary hasn't been charged with a single crime. She's innocent until proven guilty. If she is(which she won't be), then that's a different story.

Hastert is a convicted, admitted child predator and barely apologetic, the lowest of the lowest.

HUGE difference.

Was Hastert convicted of child molestation? I didn't see that anywhere. Only accused and that he paid hush money.


Hastert has not been charged with harming a child. Such charges, according to legal experts, would be barred by statutes of limitation. Instead, Hastert pleaded guilty last year to illegally structuring cash withdrawals to evade bank currency-reporting requirements as he pooled his money to give to Individual A as part of an agreement to keep him quiet

Semantics? ABSOLUTELY, just like Hillary hasn't been charged with a single crime. What she did was 100% ILLEGAL. I know because my wife had a top secret clearance and this is VERY CLEAR as we have been through what is and isn't allowed. The fact the democratic led DOJ has dragged it out is a joke and were she anybody else she would already be in jail.

[CitizenBBN]

I know because my wife had a top secret clearance and this is VERY CLEAR as we have been through what is and isn't allowed. The fact the democratic led DOJ has dragged it out is a joke and were she anybody else she would already be in jail.

Everyone I know who has had to have a government clearance is appalled.

She's guilty just by diverting the emails to a private server, doesn't matter one bit what was in them. of course she's also guilty b/c of what was in them, but there is ZERO chance she is "innocent". It's beyond clear to anyone who understands the agreements she signed that she's guilty.

Not to mention that she did this avoid the requirements of FOIA, which is another felony.

If she were your wife or one of my friends this would have been long over,and we'd be visiting them across a glass shield in a federal prison.

[CitizenBBN]

Good point on Hastert Doc. Technically he was never convicted of child molestation, just of paying people to not accuse him of it publicly.

Is he guilty? he's probably as guilty as Hillary, but there's more questions about him than there are about her. We KNOW she violated the law, we're only pretty sure he did b/c of his efforts to keep it from becoming public and being investigated.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

[QUOTE=Doc;349594]Was Hastert convicted of child molestation? I didn't see that anywhere. Only accused and that he paid hush money.

Statute of limitations.

The hush money was all that was able to convict. I know. It's a travesty that a heinous, admitted child molester only gets 15 months.

Still can't figure out why his GOP supporters don't have the courage to at least do what he has done himself.

Also still can't figure out why people want to compare child molestation and using federal funds to cover that up to "illegal use of emails". I'm scratching my head too, why a crime like attempting to sell a Senate seat, which is WAY more severe than "illegal use of emails" gets a 15 year sentence and a child molestation charge gets 15 months in a hospital.

When we're making comparisons, and yes, we must when talking crimes or any investigation into crimes, there must be different standards of judgements, the political accusations, investigations against Hillary are more comparable to the FBI investigating Matt Bevin. I'm rationale enough to say let the process play out and each deserve their freedoms of innocent until proven guilty.

Hastert DOES NOT.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Good point on Hastert Doc. Technically he was never convicted of child molestation, just of paying people to not accuse him of it publicly.

Is he guilty? he's probably as guilty as Hillary, but there's more questions about him than there are about her. We KNOW she violated the law, we're only pretty sure he did b/c of his efforts to keep it from becoming public and being investigated.

How does probably as guilty as Hillary a reality when one admits guilt and the other steadfastly denies it?

Guys, we disagree on many things, but I know that you're smart enough to realize there's such a thing of statute of limitations and that the justice system worked the best that it could in this situation.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Everyone I know who has had to have a government clearance is appalled.

She's guilty just by diverting the emails to a private server, doesn't matter one bit what was in them. of course she's also guilty b/c of what was in them, but there is ZERO chance she is "innocent". It's beyond clear to anyone who understands the agreements she signed that she's guilty.

Not to mention that she did this avoid the requirements of FOIA, which is another felony.

If she were your wife or one of my friends this would have been long over,and we'd be visiting them across a glass shield in a federal prison.

Do you have an example of where people have been imprisoned for email violations? How can you be so certain that this event warrants a prison sentence?

You can say that she's "zero % chance innocent", that's fine. Just like we used to say that Dick Cheney was the one that exposed a CIA agent and he just set up his fall guy, Scooter Libby, to do his time and was eventually commuted by Bush, which IMO is at least comparable to the email "scandal", but really I think is much worse. So, if Hillary is guilty, she'll take a similar path and have somebody take the fall. You guys were fine with it when it was Cheney, should be fine now too.

The ultimate vote will be in November if the American people think that she's suited to be President, and who she chooses as her running mate is suitable to accept the duties of the Presidency if she were unable to handle her duties. Why can't we wait for processes to play out before I have to treat her like an admitted convicted felon?

I still think the American people have some similar sense as I do and can draw a distinction between Hillary and Hastert. It's a shame you can't.

[Catonahottinroof]

She has a history of non truthfulness that goes back to Watergate, The Rose Law Firm, Whitewater, Vince Foster...and now Benghazi and the email fiasco. So in a way, I agree. Let it play out. It sinks her ship if the DOJ would get out of the way. The blue states are not energized by her candidacy anyway and the party is assuring her winning with super delegates.


The ultimate vote will be in November if the American people think that she's suited to be President, and who she chooses as her running mate is suitable to accept the duties of the Presidency if she were unable to handle her duties. Why can't we wait for processes to play out before I have to treat her like an admitted convicted felon?

[CitizenBBN]

"illegal use of emails". .

That's how I know you're just a party line guy.

Her illegal use of emails was in fact felony negligence in protecting American national security at the highest levels. People in the old days were hung for less.

As for your other questions like the "100% guilty", that's b/c we already have established factually that she violated multiple aspects of federal law covering the handling of information. It's black letter illegal to divert emails, ANY emails, from secure federal systems to private systems. it's in the agreement signed by everyone with security clearance that they are responsible for protecting those secrets REGARDLESS of their formal classification at the time.

as for others convicted for your absurdly euphemistic "illegal use of emails", I'll have to google later, but I've seen a list of numerous lesser people with convictions for negligence.

See, legally it doesn't matter if any of this info got out, the standard is negligence. She was IMO wantonly negligent in the handling of information. She knew it was a risk, was told it was a risk, and did it anyway without regard for the risks.

That's it, case over. Doesn't matter what was there, if it ever got hacked, nada. That's how I know she's guilty, we already have confirmed more than one felony violation of her office.

Not to mention the absurd idea that she is the person who should be deciding what is personal and what is government business and then deleting 30,000 emails that could have been subject to FOIA. That's the ultimate fox guarding the chicken coop, about the same as UK making Bassett, the recruiting coordinator, the guy in charge of compliance.

The fact that you think outing a single CIA operative is "much worse" than exposing years of the highest level of US intelligence to our enemies tells me all I need to know. I'm not condoning the former, but what Hillary did put the nation at more overall risk.

last thought on the subject, re selling of Senate seats. If you think they aren't all for sale, and that Hillary's speaking fees and the Clinton Foundation aren't a Tammany Hall sized "for sale" sign for the offices, you're just too naive to be believed. it's ALL for sale, on both sides, but I will say I've never seen anyone get as much for their office as the Clintons. Even the longstanding "speaking fee" system hasn't seen the kind of payments Hillary and Bill have amassed. Senator Byrd never even did it that well, and he's the biggest pork barrel Senator of the modern era.

[CitizenBBN]

The ultimate vote will be in November if the American people think that she's suited to be President, and who she chooses as her running mate is suitable to accept the duties of the Presidency if she were unable to handle her duties. Why can't we wait for processes to play out before I have to treat her like an admitted convicted felon?

I still think the American people have some similar sense as I do and can draw a distinction between Hillary and Hastert. It's a shame you can't.

I think the American people are largely idiots, so that's not really persuading me. Only about 36% of Americans can even name the three branches of government, so I imagine their ability to understand non-disclosure agreements and the standards for negligence and wantonness are probably pretty limited.

We aren't a pure democracy, we are a nation ruled by laws, not by men and their whims. We have laws and we have agencies that are there to enforce those laws. It doesn't matter if every single American wanted the charges to be waived and make her King for life, she should be prosecuted according to the law. Otherwise we've lost it all.

As another sobering stat, only 15% of Americans know Roberts is Chief Justice, but double that knew that Randy Jackson was a judge on American Idol. We're a nation chocked full of people who don't have a clue how their government works or what their officials have done or do currently.

[Doc]

[QUOTE=Doc;349594]Was Hastert convicted of child molestation? I didn't see that anywhere. Only accused and that he paid hush money.

Statute of limitations.

The hush money was all that was able to convict. I know. It's a travesty that a heinous, admitted child molester only gets 15 months.

Still can't figure out why his GOP supporters don't have the courage to at least do what he has done himself.

Also still can't figure out why people want to compare child molestation and using federal funds to cover that up to "illegal use of emails". I'm scratching my head too, why a crime like attempting to sell a Senate seat, which is WAY more severe than "illegal use of emails" gets a 15 year sentence and a child molestation charge gets 15 months in a hospital.

When we're making comparisons, and yes, we must when talking crimes or any investigation into crimes, there must be different standards of judgements, the political accusations, investigations against Hillary are more comparable to the FBI investigating Matt Bevin. I'm rationale enough to say let the process play out and each deserve their freedoms of innocent until proven guilty.

Hastert DOES NOT.

Im all for looking the other way when the person running for the Presidency of the United States takes national security so lightly. [/sarcasm] To some the security of the Nation is a pretty important thing.

Still, Hastert wasn't convicted of child molestation. You used semantics to defend Hilary with the "Hillary hasn't been charged with a single crime. She's innocent until proven guilty" but in typical PARTISAN fashion, that ONLY pertains to your side. I not going to defend Hastert as I suspect he is guilty and as such is a piece of ####, no better than the likes of Jerry Sandusky or any other child molester. But unlike you, I won't defend a member of my side simple because of their party affiliation, then turn around and lecture others on "partisan witch hunts"

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I think the American people are largely idiots, so that's not really persuading me. Only about 36% of Americans can even name the three branches of government, so I imagine their ability to understand non-disclosure agreements and the standards for negligence and wantonness are probably pretty limited.

We aren't a pure democracy, we are a nation ruled by laws, not by men and their whims. We have laws and we have agencies that are there to enforce those laws. It doesn't matter if every single American wanted the charges to be waived and make her King for life, she should be prosecuted according to the law. Otherwise we've lost it all.

As another sobering stat, only 15% of Americans know Roberts is Chief Justice, but double that knew that Randy Jackson was a judge on American Idol. We're a nation chocked full of people who don't have a clue how their government works or what their officials have done or do currently.

Most of those people don't vote.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

[QUOTE=StuBleedsBlue2;349638]

Im all for looking the other way when the person running for the Presidency of the United States takes national security so lightly. [/sarcasm] To some the security of the Nation is a pretty important thing.

Still, Hastert wasn't convicted of child molestation. You used semantics to defend Hilary with the "Hillary hasn't been charged with a single crime. She's innocent until proven guilty" but in typical PARTISAN fashion, that ONLY pertains to your side. I not going to defend Hastert as I suspect he is guilty and as such is a piece of ####, no better than the likes of Jerry Sandusky or any other child molester. But unlike you, I won't defend a member of my side simple because of their party affiliation, then turn around and lecture others on "partisan witch hunts"

I'm completely supportive that IF Hillary is found to have committed a crime to the degree that warrants an indictment, that process must play out and if she's found guilty than I'm supportive of letting the process of punishment. You see, I'm not partisan. I believe in the justice system, but it must be played and not rushed. Sometimes the system gets it wrong, like they did with Cheney, but it's the best system in the world.

Hastert would have been convicted on child molestation charges if the statute of limitations didn't expire. He was convicted on the only charges(and bad ones at that) that were eligible. His admission and recognition of the court, to me, equates to 100% guilty. Yet, Republicans, like Paul Ryan can't bring themselves to call him a child molester and says that he deserves prison. That is a disqualifier for the office that he holds.

[Doc]

OK, I got it

The justice system failed and got it wrong with Cheney and Hasert because they are guilty even though it wasn't proven in a court of law but Hilary isn't until its proven. Typical liberal double standard. Let me guess, Lois Lerner (or Bill Clinton) isn't guilty of Perjury. Glad you're not partisan (LOL). You believe enough in the justice system to ignore the part about statute of limitation, enough to ignore the part about innocent until proven guilty (which neither Hasert or Cheney was in relation to the crimes you accuse them of) but you sure want those standards to apply to Hilary. Well that's mighty American of you.

You claimed Hasert was convicted of child abuse. He wasn't. Its a simple fact for whatever reason. He has not admitted to child molestion however I'm fairly sure he did but I'm MORE SURE that Hilary violate the law AND the statutes of limitation has not expired on her crimes. Now if the justice system worked like is was suppose to and does with "normal" citizens, her fat ass would have been arrested a long time ago and put in a cell next to Chelsea / Bradley Manning, and she would likely be seen in the same light as Edward Snowden.... because what she did has exactly the same potential to result in exactly what they did.

[KeithKSR]

Hillary is a criminal, period.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

OK, I got it

The justice system failed and got it wrong with Cheney and Hasert because they are guilty even though it wasn't proven in a court of law but Hilary isn't until its proven. Typical liberal double standard. Let me guess, Lois Lerner (or Bill Clinton) isn't guilty of Perjury. Glad you're not partisan (LOL). You believe enough in the justice system to ignore the part about statute of limitation, enough to ignore the part about innocent until proven guilty (which neither Hasert or Cheney was in relation to the crimes you accuse them of) but you sure want those standards to apply to Hilary. Well that's mighty American of you.

You claimed Hasert was convicted of child abuse. He wasn't. Its a simple fact for whatever reason. He has not admitted to child molestion however I'm fairly sure he did but I'm MORE SURE that Hilary violate the law AND the statutes of limitation has not expired on her crimes. Now if the justice system worked like is was suppose to and does with "normal" citizens, her fat ass would have been arrested a long time ago and put in a cell next to Chelsea / Bradley Manning, and she would likely be seen in the same light as Edward Snowden.... because what she did has exactly the same potential to result in exactly what they did.

Actually, you don't "got it".

I didn't say the justice system failed with Hastert. He was convicted. I said it's a shame that statute of limitations ran out to punish the lowest of criminals in Hastert with the harshest penalty, but at least he was able to be brought to some justice. I NEVER said he was convicted of child molestation. I said he was convicted AND an admitted child molester and is recognized by the court as one and that satisfies my standard of guilt. Unproven accusations do not satisfy my standard for guilt, as where it stands with Hillary today.

I totally support all investigations into any supposed criminal activities she may have done. I totally support any charges that may be brought upon her. The problem is that even though she may be the most investigated person in the history of the US, nothing ever sticks, and I personally feel that this will go down the same path. I have yet to see how these investigations aren't politically motivated, but I say let them happen.

I also didn't say that the justice system failed with Cheney, I said that it got it wrong, which it sometimes does. Justice served wrong isn't necessarily a failure, IMO. If someone is wrongly imprisoned, that's when it fails. Maybe you could make a case that Scooter Libby was failed by the justice system, but that's a whole other debate. The fact that I do support all of this, I'm not sure how that makes me partisan on these issues.

I'm not sure why you're taking such a privilege of speaking my words for me, basically dodging the subject. I hear nothing of your commentary on the inability of Republican leadership to call Hastert what he is. No thoughts on that?

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Good list.

That's my point, and I didn't mean to hijack. But the truth is that corruption exists throughout politics, and always has, and the only way to fight it is to never give into the party excuses made by "your side" when it happens. We should call everyone out and demand better whether they otherwise support our political views or not.

Re Hillary if you think she's guilty of any of this and is basicaly dishonest, you shouldn't vote for her whether she mouths support for things you support or not. Same for a GOP candidate.

That's the only way to get better candidates.

That's one way to look at it, the other way is that if you think she may be guilty of a crime, but was it intentional, or does it impact her ability to lead. You have a different standard. Whether or not she is guilty, I feel that you don't think she has the ability to lead our nation. I disagree. So, then it falls down to the question whether she was knowingly and intending to commit a crime. So far, the investigation has proven that NOT to be the case.

I don't see her doing anything any different from her predecessors today. If the investigation says otherwise, then I'll reconsider then.

We have plenty of good candidates, that offer a distinct choice for people, that run for President. That's not an issue.

[CitizenBBN]

That's one way to look at it, the other way is that if you think she may be guilty of a crime, but was it intentional, or does it impact her ability to lead. You have a different standard. Whether or not she is guilty, I feel that you don't think she has the ability to lead our nation. I disagree.

she intentionally set up a separate server and repeatedly worked to skirt the established rules for information security. That's documented, from her request to use her Blackberry in wirelessly secure facilities where NO ONE is allowed to use such devices to several other such incidents that are known.

She also was briefed and signed an agreement saying she understood that she has an AFFIRMATIVE obligation to protect sensitive information regardless of how it is labelled.

If she just doesn't know that recordings of a Yemeni informant that reveals identities or information on foreign troop movements or nuclear programs etc. is sensitive, then yes she's disqualified to lead the country b/c she's apparently a moron.

But we both know she's not which means she just didn't think it was a big deal to put those things on an unsecure server in her basement, and was and is so full of herself she thinks she's above the law and even the threat of foreign intelligence gathering.

her hubris in these actions is beyond shocking, and that level of irresponsibility and lack of understanding is utterly disqualifying for holding high office.

BTW that's not just my opinion, it's actually the law. What she did was legally wanton, which is an even higher level of breach than that which makes her a felon (which only requires negligence), and legally that disqualifies her.

Will the system work? I don't know, i seriously doubt it, but you can claim Cheney's outcome was "wrong" with certainty when there isn't 1/100th the evidence we have against Hillary, yet she's innocent if the system is just too corrupt to take proper action.

Yeah, no partisanship there.

[Doc]

Actually, you don't "got it".

I didn't say the justice system failed with Hastert. He was convicted. I said it's a shame that statute of limitations ran out to punish the lowest of criminals in Hastert with the harshest penalty, but at least he was able to be brought to some justice. I NEVER said he was convicted of child molestation. I said he was convicted AND an admitted child molester and is recognized by the court as one and that satisfies my standard of guilt. Unproven accusations do not satisfy my standard for guilt, as where it stands with Hillary today.

I totally support all investigations into any supposed criminal activities she may have done. I totally support any charges that may be brought upon her. The problem is that even though she may be the most investigated person in the history of the US, nothing ever sticks, and I personally feel that this will go down the same path. I have yet to see how these investigations aren't politically motivated, but I say let them happen.

I also didn't say that the justice system failed with Cheney, I said that it got it wrong, which it sometimes does. Justice served wrong isn't necessarily a failure, IMO. If someone is wrongly imprisoned, that's when it fails. Maybe you could make a case that Scooter Libby was failed by the justice system, but that's a whole other debate. The fact that I do support all of this, I'm not sure how that makes me partisan on these issues.

I'm not sure why you're taking such a privilege of speaking my words for me, basically dodging the subject. I hear nothing of your commentary on the inability of Republican leadership to call Hastert what he is. No thoughts on that?

TO QUOTE YOU "Hastert is a convicted, admitted child predator and barely apologetic, the lowest of the lowest." He is not a convicted or admitted child predator. He might be in YOUR mind but that and $3.50 will buy you a grande latte at Starbucks.

Personally I don't think Chaney violated the law, or at least any more than any other politician. I'd say anything against him was politically motivated by the left. See how that works? Its interesting that the Obama led administration with an Eric Holder led justice department that was hell bent on bringing charges against him couldn't find anything on him. When GOP folks are not even charged its a failure of the system.

As for Hillary, you claim she may be the most investigated person in the history of the US. Likely a reason for that. Might be because she is one of the most corrupt!

As for Hasert, why would the GOP speak out on him? The guy is out of politics and ready to die. He is a non-issue politically speaking and the GOP would want to distance themselves for him. Its like asking how come Hilary and the democrats aren't talking about Rod Blagojevich.

[Doc]

That's one way to look at it, the other way is that if you think she may be guilty of a crime, but was it intentional, or does it impact her ability to lead. You have a different standard. Whether or not she is guilty, I feel that you don't think she has the ability to lead our nation. I disagree. So, then it falls down to the question whether she was knowingly and intending to commit a crime. So far, the investigation has proven that NOT to be the case.

I don't see her doing anything any different from her predecessors today. If the investigation says otherwise, then I'll reconsider then.

We have plenty of good candidates, that offer a distinct choice for people, that run for President. That's not an issue.

She set up the server and that act in and of itself is one of two things. Its either illegal and/or incredibly dumb. IMO dumb enough to tell the nation she is too stupid to lead the nation. Its a MAJOR breach of secrurity. Even the lowest level of government employee knows not to do what she did yet in her mind apparently she believes she is above the laws. Can't say I'm shocked though.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

she intentionally set up a separate server and repeatedly worked to skirt the established rules for information security. That's documented, from her request to use her Blackberry in wirelessly secure facilities where NO ONE is allowed to use such devices to several other such incidents that are known.

She also was briefed and signed an agreement saying she understood that she has an AFFIRMATIVE obligation to protect sensitive information regardless of how it is labelled.

If she just doesn't know that recordings of a Yemeni informant that reveals identities or information on foreign troop movements or nuclear programs etc. is sensitive, then yes she's disqualified to lead the country b/c she's apparently a moron.

But we both know she's not which means she just didn't think it was a big deal to put those things on an unsecure server in her basement, and was and is so full of herself she thinks she's above the law and even the threat of foreign intelligence gathering.

her hubris in these actions is beyond shocking, and that level of irresponsibility and lack of understanding is utterly disqualifying for holding high office.

BTW that's not just my opinion, it's actually the law. What she did was legally wanton, which is an even higher level of breach than that which makes her a felon (which only requires negligence), and legally that disqualifies her.

Will the system work? I don't know, i seriously doubt it, but you can claim Cheney's outcome was "wrong" with certainty when there isn't 1/100th the evidence we have against Hillary, yet she's innocent if the system is just too corrupt to take proper action.

Yeah, no partisanship there.

That's exactly your partisanship, biased opinion. So far, the FBI has not found the evidence to even submit to the DOJ, and the tricky thing here is that there really is no precedent. I'm certainly willing to let the process play out, but I'm not going to simply "convict" someone on speculation(which is all anything is right now).

Let's just say for a minute, before I try once again to stay on topic, let's just assume that Hillary is guilty, part of the problem that the FBI is having is proving intent(all completely speculative). If the FBI can't do it, YOU can't do it either, without bias. That intent is key, because it really comes down to this being the speeding violation equivalent of national security laws and to me is much less severe than the consequences of outing a CIA agent out of political spite.

Back to the real topic here is it seems to me that your response to my claim as to trying to figure out why GOP leaders in the highest positions have trouble calling Hastert what he is, a convicted felon, admitted child molester that deserves to be imprisoned. Why is that so hard? I can't even get a flimsy on topic response. All that I get is that Hillary is a criminal.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

She set up the server and that act in and of itself is one of two things. Its either illegal and/or incredibly dumb. IMO dumb enough to tell the nation she is too stupid to lead the nation. Its a MAJOR breach of secrurity. Even the lowest level of government employee knows not to do what she did yet in her mind apparently she believes she is above the laws. Can't say I'm shocked though.

OK, well at least we can find some common ground. Politicians at the highest levels do INCREDIBLY DUMB things. That we can agree. EVERY President has done dumb things. Most politicians also act like they believe they are above certain laws. That's not going to change either, although that's not an admission by me as to that's how she approached this.

Does doing something dumb, without an intent to do harm warrant prosecution? I don't know that answer. Does doing something incredibly dumb deserve to be scrutinized? Of course. That's why I support the investigation, because we deserve to know.

We don't agree, but I respect your opinion and your vote for who you want to lead our nation and that this is one thing of many that disqualifies Hillary in your opinion. I also have my opinion where one act of stupidity doesn't trump the years of quality service that she has given to our nation, and I don't want to turn this into a "what good has she done" debate.

If you're looking for a candidate that does NOT or has NOT done something incredibly dumb or thinks they're a little above the law, then that's going to be a very long search. Those seem to be almost two requirements to run for the highest offices. Trump, being the other choice, embodies those two qualities like no other.

To stay on topic, though, GOP leaders failing to acknowledge Hastert is a convicted felon, a child molester and deserves prison time is an INCREDIBLY DUMB stance. IMO, when combined with the full array of positions validates their lack of qualifications to be in the positions that they are in.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why people think this denial position is not a dumb one.

[Doc]

That's exactly your partisanship, biased opinion. So far, the FBI has not found the evidence to even submit to the DOJ, and the tricky thing here is that there really is no precedent. I'm certainly willing to let the process play out, but I'm not going to simply "convict" someone on speculation(which is all anything is right now).

Let's just say for a minute, before I try once again to stay on topic, let's just assume that Hillary is guilty, part of the problem that the FBI is having is proving intent(all completely speculative). If the FBI can't do it, YOU can't do it either, without bias. That intent is key, because it really comes down to this being the speeding violation equivalent of national security laws and to me is much less severe than the consequences of outing a CIA agent out of political spite.

Back to the real topic here is it seems to me that your response to my claim as to trying to figure out why GOP leaders in the highest positions have trouble calling Hastert what he is, a convicted felon, admitted child molester that deserves to be imprisoned. Why is that so hard? I can't even get a flimsy on topic response. All that I get is that Hillary is a criminal.

Intent has nothing to do with it. Try pleading not guilty to a speeding ticket because you didn't intend to speed and see where that gets you. Lets ask Suncat or Darrell if that works.

You're willing to let the process play out with Hillary but not the GOP. Sorry but that pretty much is the definition of partisanship in my book. You keep referring to Hasert as a convicted or admitted child molester, which while it is likely he is, he is neither admitted to or convicted of. You have given Hilary the benefit of the doubt concerning her legal transgressions but when it comes to Chaney, you have summarily convicted him despite there being no charges ever brought forth. You were certainly willing to convicted him on speculation but with Hilary you wan't the process to play out and not convict on speculation despite her admission that she had a private server upon which she did government business..... but you're not partisan (LOL).

For me, I freely admit a partisan bias. I'm partisan simply because I disagree with the very principles upon which the liberal idealolgy is based and thus find the hypocrisy so unpalatable that I can't find a trait in any of them that I can defend. And I can also understand why a republican would want to distance themselves from and not want to discuss another republican who is likely a child molestor. I guess it no different than wondering why Democrats are not attacking Hilary for the server? Why did they circle the wagons round her? Or why did they do it around Lois Lerner? Or why did they do it around Eric Holder? Why are the Democrats not talking about the tax cheat Charlie Rangle? Are those questions really that hard to answer?

[CitizenBBN]

That's exactly your partisanship, biased opinion. So far, the FBI has not found the evidence to even submit to the DOJ, and the tricky thing here is that there really is no precedent. I'm certainly willing to let the process play out, but I'm not going to simply "convict" someone on speculation(which is all anything is right now).

Let's just say for a minute, before I try once again to stay on topic, let's just assume that Hillary is guilty, part of the problem that the FBI is having is proving intent(all completely speculative). If the FBI can't do it, YOU can't do it either, without bias. That intent is key, because it really comes down to this being the speeding violation equivalent of national security laws and to me is much less severe than the consequences of outing a CIA agent out of political spite.

Back to the real topic here is it seems to me that your response to my claim as to trying to figure out why GOP leaders in the highest positions have trouble calling Hastert what he is, a convicted felon, admitted child molester that deserves to be imprisoned. Why is that so hard? I can't even get a flimsy on topic response. All that I get is that Hillary is a criminal.

Hate to break it to you, but negligence doesn't require intent. Intent has nothing to do with this case at all.

As for the FBI, they have yet to conclude anything one way or the other, but no doubt when they are shot down by the DOJ you'll claim it's all on the up and up. Yet you'll call anyone dismissing the Halliburton stuff as naive. It's OK, that level of hypocrisy doesn't upset me, I just find it funny.

And dismissing this as a speeding ticket is the height of partisanship. 30,000 emails deleted from FOIA review without any third party review, we're just supposed to trust Hillary none of it was government business, thousands of emails with classified information or higher on a private server run in a residential basement serving as the information clearinghouse for the #2 person in american foreign policy, yeah, that's a speeding ticket.

It's a straight up violation of the law to remove and store any sensitive information outside of approved government run systems, period. No question of intent or knowledge of wrongdoing. Though that's not a problem here b/c she was briefed that this was a crime when she took the office and signed off that she was briefed.

As to the last part you answer your own question by showing your blindness and subjectivity. Cheney is guilty despite no conviction, Hastert is guilty of more than he was convicted of being, and you know those things, but we're biased for seeing clear evidence with Hillary, indisputable facts that would land any lesser person in jail for sure, and we're the biased ones. lol.

[CitizenBBN]

Not that I recommend using wiki as a source for legal understanding, but it's quick:

Negligence (Lat. negligentia, from neglegere, to neglect, literally "not to pick up something") is a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligence#cite_note-1) The area of tort (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort) law known as negligence involves harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

See, by definition negligence does not require intent. In fact if you have intent you aren't negligent, b/c you didn't do it from carelessness but you meant to do it. Hillary was negligent, she didn't intend to give our enemies our secrets, but she was negligent in her handling of said information and that's a crime b/c it risks giving that information to enemies.

If I fire a gun over a hill and I don't check to see what's on the other side, and we find out it was a school playground, then I am guilty of endangerment even if no one was hurt. I was negligent.

If I KNEW there was a playground there but I didn't intend to hurt anyone but I fired anyway, then I'm guilty of at least wanton endangerment. My actions were wanton, which is higher than negligence in that I wasn't just careless but had reason to know I was risking harm and did it anyway.

If I INTENDED to hurt someone on that playground then that's a whole other class of crimes.

So you can be guilty without intent to have done harm, or in this case intent to give information to our enemies, and a bunch of people have been convicted of exactly that negligence regarding national security.

Of course every lawyer, officer, businessman and really about everyone else on this entire board knows this is the case. We all see legal cases in the news regularly that distinguish between negligence and intentional harm all the time.

Only people who so desperately want to believe she did nothing wrong actually believe intent has anything to do with this case. it's utterly irrelevant to whether she violated the law. The only thing intent would establish is that she should be shot for treason versus just imprisoned for negligent handling of US national security.

[CitizenBBN]

Does doing something dumb, without an intent to do harm warrant prosecution? I don't know that answer. Does doing something incredibly dumb deserve to be scrutinized? Of course. That's why I support the investigation, because we deserve to know.

Yes, it very well can. Not always, but there is a bevy of laws both criminal in civil where negligence is actionable in a court of law.

People are convicted and fined and lose lawsuits every day simply for being dumb in their decisions, and this is a classic example with Hillary. People in the government with a security clearance have an AFFIRMATIVE requirement to safeguard that information. They have signed agreements that they will take positive steps to avoid being careless. it's an even higher standard than general negligence, and she was briefed to that effect as is every single government employee or contractor with that clearance.

FWIW, Obama himself just said she was guilty last week when he said she was 'careless' but didn't intend to do wrong. Carelessness is all that is required by the statute. I think he was trying to do just what Hillary has done and and just what you are doing, which is to get away from the actual law and talk about intent, b/c "i didn't mean to do anything wrong" sells better in sound bytes, but it has nothing to do with the law.

[CitizenBBN]

Re Hastert btw I agree I see no reason for anyone in the GOP to defend him in any way. I imagine he is guilty of molestation, but likewise I see no reason for them to call him one. I see no reason for them to comment on him at all. He's gone, and certainly doesn't deserve a defense on their part, but legally they're in a touchy area to call him a molester when he wasn't convicted of it and didn't admit it. They could be liable for that kind of claim.

So their best option is to say nothing and move on, which is always wise politically anyway.

But then again I see no reason for Obama to defend Hillary. She exposed his administration to possible release of secrets, if I were her boss I'd want her head on a spit.

Not to mention how the Clinton Foundation has called into question numerous decisions made under his administration.