Dennis Hastert indicted for paying blackmail to cover up affair

I don't know why, but this story, unlike most Republican-caught-with-their-pants-down stories, just strikes me as sad.

To me, it's a reminder of just how scared too many guys used to be to be associated with anything gay, and it's also my fervent hope that this kind of thing will become more and more rare as time goes by.

Anyway, Hastert, the speaker of the House before Nancy Pelosi, was once a high school wrestling coach and had a sexual relationship with one of his male students. Hastert is in his 70s now, so this was a long time ago.

What really surprised me on this story is that the guy didn't start blackmailing Hastert until 2010. After Hastert was already out of Congress! The guy was so scared even after all this time that he agreed to pay the blackmailer $3.5 million even after his political career was already over!

Personally, I think Hastert is being victimized here. Why aren't the feds going after the blackmailer instead of Hastert? It seems to me that blackmail is by far the greater crime here. Hastert was indicted for lying to the feds about where his money was going. C'mon. This is kind of like the Clinton-Lewinsky episode. Of course he was going to lie about it. What guy wouldn't?

Anyway I hope they let him off easy. The guy has been punished enough.

I guess another reason I'm sympathetic is also that Hastert always seemed like a decent enough guy. He wasn't one of the hard-core rabid partisan politicians but was an old-school politician who actually believed in trying to get things done.

It's too bad that his fear of a gay episode many decades ago has led him to this really sad finale in the public eye.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/politics/dennis-has … index.html


Comments are disabled for this blog post.
  • As an accountant, my take on it is that the violation of banking laws is the easiest to prove. The large withdrawals and lies attached to the paperwork is basically black & white whereas going after the blackmail, etc will still need to motive, which can be subjective?
    OCalig 06/15/2015 04:30 AM
  • Maybe the Feds dont consider the blackmail a federal offense and are leaving it to the state? Or maybe he cooperated with Feds? Time will tell i guess.
    And hey guys. Attitudes about male teachers fraternizing with students have changed a lot since 1975. Its taken much more seriously now. It used to not be that rare for a teacher to date a female student. And female teachers being prosecuted never happened.
    Of course a male teacher with a male student would have been another matter entirely.
    BearinFW 05/30/2015 09:25 PM
  • BearinFW Here's a link to an article in the Christian Science Monitor. Its a concise article, that explains the basic provisions of the banking law the ensnared Hastert.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2015/0529/H … tert-video
    jacker 05/30/2015 09:19 PM
  • Before anyone assumes he took advantage of some "kid" can we please know what his age was? It was in highschool so I assume the kid was 16-18 years of age? Probably already sexually active or at least knew that he wanted it. That leaves it open to the possibility of the "kid" pursuing the adult. And adult men are human and gonna make mistakes if it was just this "kid" then I'd bet it was just a bad choice he got caught up in.

    Also they should both be charged for breaking the law justice is equal and fair or at least should be
    doankyl 05/30/2015 04:25 PM
  • @Bear'nFW, I was curious too why the man who Hastert was giving the money was not charged for blackmail. Preceding the payments by Hastert, the man and Hastert met multiple times and came to an agreement for a series of payments to total $3.5 million dollars. Since this was a "willing agreement between the parties", the FBI did not charge the man for extortion. At this point I'm reading between the lines, but I'll speculate that the man was giving Hastert a heads-up that he was going to go public and Hastert then arranged the meetings and came up with a plan to give him money for his silence.

    Hastert's criminal charges are for making monetary withdrawals in sums to avoid penalties and then subsequently lying to the authorities about the purpose of the withdrawals. The sexual abuse is not part of Hastert's criminal indictment but now is the main story.

    The irony is that if Hastert had paid the man in one sum none of this would have happened. Ironically, again, Hastert did have the resources to write a check for that sum.

    Regardless whether it was a one time instance or multiple instances, or 1975 or 2015, any person in a position of authority who exploits a minor for their sexual gratification should suffer the consequences of his/her actions. Being a nice guy does not exclude you from suffering the consequences of doing an extremely shitty thing. Like Barney, I don't want to jump to conclusions about the man or Hastert, but concerning Hastert I'll assume that where there's smoke there's fire and it would not surprise me to see more allegations.

    @Marc--thanks for the video. A couple things come to mind after watching are 1) the hypocrisy of Hastert to frame the then impending marriage constitutional amendment as "a way to protect our children" is incredible--what an asshole. And, 2) although the laws concerning same-sex marriage have made a dramatic turnaround since Hastert's speech in 2004, the current Republicans running for president sound like they are reading straight from Hastert's text from 2004. You would think that somebody in the Republican party would come up with a new playbook.

    Link to Hastert's indictment: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/05/28/ha … .final.pdf
    furball 05/30/2015 03:03 PM
  • Hey Barney, you're right that if it's more than one, it would definitely change my opinion on the matter, as that would make him a predator on underage boys, and that's a different critter entirely.

    If it's just the one, well, not good but things can happen. But more than one is habitual. In fact, that's the kind of habit predators generally don't break.

    Regardless, the blackmailer should be prosecuted. There's nothing innocent about extorting almost $2 million. And the blackmailer was an adult long before he decided to cash in.
    BearinFW 05/30/2015 01:22 PM
  • Let's not jump to conclusions and assume he is a victim until all of the evidence is out. There is more than one young man involved and possibly more. I don't care how long ago it was, if an older responsible adult uses his power and position to engage in sex with a minor he is a criminal and I don't care about statue of limitations.
    This is no different than the Catholic Priests. So let the investigation finish and see where the chips lay.
    barney290 05/30/2015 08:15 AM
  • Nah, I don't feel bad. He fought hard against same sex marriage and against protection for glbt people at work.
    Watch Hastert assure Christian Coalition allies he would represent their sexual morality policy agenda in Congress:

    Marc 05/30/2015 02:13 AM