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/w...406-story.html
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
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.
MOLON LABE!
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.Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
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?
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
Yeah, just like UNCHEAT. There weren't charged either.
Cool as a rule, but sometimes bad is bad.
Oh, they were CHARGED, but the prosecutors failed to do their job correctly.
MOLON LABE!
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.
Last edited by StuBleedsBlue2; 04-29-2016 at 05:24 PM.
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
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.
Last edited by Catonahottinroof; 04-30-2016 at 03:12 PM.
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
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?
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Was Hastert convicted of child molestation? I didn't see that anywhere. Only accused and that he paid hush money.
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.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
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
[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.
Last edited by StuBleedsBlue2; 04-30-2016 at 11:03 PM.
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.
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.
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.
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
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.
People keep asking if I'm back and I haven't really had an answer. But now, yeah, I'm thinkin' I'm back.
[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"
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Most of those people don't vote.
Last edited by StuBleedsBlue2; 05-06-2016 at 02:20 PM.
[QUOTE=Doc;349706]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.
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.
Last edited by Doc; 05-06-2016 at 03:16 PM.
Aging is an extraordinary process where you become the person you always should have been.--David Bowie.
Hillary is a criminal, period.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks