Federal sources: Denny Hastert was paying someone off to conceal past sexual misconduct

posted at 4:01 pm on May 29, 2015 by Allahpundit

I wonder what evidence the alleged extorter has, so many years later, to scare Hastert enough that he’d have been willing in 2010 to pay $3 million to try to shut him up. The statute of limitations of whatever he’s accused of has surely run; he’s worth millions and had no political career left to lose by the time the alleged payoffs started happening. He could have dismissed the allegations publicly as nonsense, part of some old vendetta against him or whatever, and then retired quietly from lobbying.

Whatever the evidence is, it must have been awfully strong for him to decide to pay up.

The actions date to Hastert’s time as a Yorkville, Ill., high school wrestling coach and teacher, [a federal law enforcement] official said.

“It goes back a long way, back to then,” the source said. “It has nothing to do with public corruption or a corruption scandal. Or to his time in office.”  Thursday’s indictment described the misconduct “against Individual A” as having “occurred years earlier.”

Asked why Hastert was making the payments, the official said it was to conceal Hastert’s past relationship with the male. “It was sex,’’ the source said. The other official confirmed that the misconduct involved sexual abuse.

He’s been indicted for “structuring” his payments, i.e. withdrawing a larger sum in multiple small increments in order to avoid federal reporting requirements, and for lying to the feds about it. Mollie Hemingway has a smart piece out today arguing that those reporting rules are frequently egregiously unfair in how they punish innocent transactions but also noting that Hastert was suspiciously wealthy by the time he left Congress for a guy who’d moved from a high-school teacher’s salary to a congressman’s salary with nothing lucrative in between. Turns out he’d made a killing on real estate over the years, including and especially on some properties that just so happened to grow in value thanks to a $200 million federal earmark for a new highway that conveniently ran right by them. It’s not just the alleged sexual misconduct that’s dubious here. And it’s not just Hastert who’s acted dubiously: Not only does this case involve a multimillion-dollar extortion attempt, but as litigators are pointing out on Twitter, the two feds who leaked the details of Hastert’s misconduct to the LA Times should rightly be held in criminal contempt for violating federal grand-jury secrecy rules. Lots of stink in the air on this one.

But back to Hastert. Why would he be so nervous about someone coming forward years later to accuse him of abuse, likely without much hard evidence to support his claim? An obvious possibility: There was more than one victim, and having one victim come forward might have encouraged others to follow suit a la Bill Cosby and his accusers. And in fact, per BuzzFeed’s sources, that may be exactly what happened:

A source familiar with the investigation told BuzzFeed News that U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon considered but did not pursue additional charges against former Speaker Dennis Hastert, which would have included a reference to an Individual B, one of potentially several alleged victims of “prior misdeeds.”…

The Department of Justice had no comment. A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois didn’t respond to a request for comment. A lawyer for representing Hastert in another pending legal matter didn’t respond to a request for comment.

“Another pending legal matter”? What could that be?

Maybe this explains why Hastert, as Speaker, didn’t make a big show of trying to force out Mark Foley in 2006 when his office first learned that Foley had sent explicit texts to congressional pages. There was oppo out there on him, apparently far more serious than what Foley himself was accused of, that would have ended his career instantly had it come out. Which raises the question: Why didn’t it come out at the time, after Hastert and the GOP finally moved against Foley? Why would the alleged extorter have waited until after Hastert had left office to try to shake him down? He had far more to lose, and therefore presumably would have been willing to pay much more to ensure silence, while he was still serving as Speaker than afterward.

The inevitable exit question: Did anyone in the party know? Hard to believe they would have gambled on making him Speaker if there was even the slightest inkling of this in political circles.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Is that right? $3.5 million? How does that amount simply go unnoticed?!?

JetBoy on May 29, 2015 at 8:42 PM

He did it over a matter of several years making withdrawals of $50 – $150k at a time. Eventually Hastert made withdrawals of under $10k to avoid suspician.

bw222 on May 29, 2015 at 9:33 PM

The real question is how does a career pol have $3M in spare-change.

Tsar of Earth on May 29, 2015 at 9:43 PM

The real question is how does a career pol have $3M in spare-change.

Tsar of Earth on May 29, 2015 at 9:43 PM

Ask Paul Wellstone…or at least his heirs.

Entered senatorial office worth about $150k, 12 years later he’s worth $10 million.

Bishop on May 29, 2015 at 9:46 PM

Entirely aside from the alleged sin of shanking some luscious young high school boys (for which I think one should burn in hell for eternity but only after having a “Congratulations!” cake baked for you by Christians) and the further sin of political corruption which led to Hastert having a spare 3.5 mil…

we have an American citizen being arrested for taking
his own money out of his bank account
and later lying about it when asked why he took
his money out of his bank account.

Tell me, leftists… why doesn’t this bother you?

Well he was arrested for lying to the FBI…not for taking money out of his bank account.

He is a dummy for not getting a lawyer when interviewed.

Pablo Honey on May 29, 2015 at 9:57 PM

Well he was arrested for lying to the FBI…not for taking money out of his bank account.

He is a dummy for not getting a lawyer when interviewed.

Pablo Honey on May 29, 2015 at 9:57 PM

If that is true, then I’ve never understood one thing. How come people can lie their ass off to local authorities with impunity but not to the effin Fuds?

arnold ziffel on May 29, 2015 at 10:00 PM

Will the person blackmailing Hastert be arrested? Extortion is a crime.

fight like a girl on May 29, 2015 at 10:15 PM

No ones talking about the idiot that was blackmailing him. Isnt he in heap big trouble too???

elvis lives on May 29, 2015 at 10:21 PM

Dang, fights like a girl. U beat me by six minutes. :-D

elvis lives on May 29, 2015 at 10:43 PM

Just curious: Has the extortionist broken any laws that should be prosecuted? Didn’t it take two to tango?

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2015 at 11:33 PM

Ah, I see that several of us are thinking beyond the shocking headlines.

onlineanalyst on May 29, 2015 at 11:34 PM

While not excusing Hastert, more thoughts…

What if money wasn’t the only thing he was being blackmailed for?

Foreign agents could have found out and used it to harm the nation…or domestic Democraps getting the Republican Speaker of the House to advance their agenda (this being somewhat before they merged to become the UniParty…or the NSA blackmailing him, via a bunch of R/D bad ones in DC.

But on the other hand, it seems that they don’t care that he may have been committing various perversions and/or treason/s. All they care is that he took his own money out of the bank in a way that didn’t give them complete oversight.

The WaPo put a team of ten ‘investigative reporters’ and the NYT a team of five on Hastert, who has been out of office for many years, and is not planning to run for office again, but not ONE investigative reporter on Hillary’s multitudinous crimes and corruptions, or on obama’s depredations and terrorist connections.

The real question is how does a career pol have $3M in spare-change.

Tsar of Earth on May 29, 2015 at 9:43 PM

Ask Paul Wellstone…or at least his heirs.

Entered senatorial office worth about $150k, 12 years later he’s worth $10 million.

Bishop on May 29, 2015 at 9:46 PM

Yeah, that too.

Typical, for the bass turds that spend a long time in the Legislature.

They should be investigating how he put that money IN the bank, not how he took it out.

Schadenfreude on May 29, 2015 at 11:44 PM

Regarding charging the blackmailer, I read somewhere this evening (forget where) that they decided not to pursue that avenue at this point because Hastert has not complained of being blackmailed. Remember, his story to the FBI was that he was taking the cash out for his own use because he didn’t trust the banks. Ridiculous, I know, but there you have it.

cam2 on May 29, 2015 at 11:50 PM

I have always wondered if Boehner and McConnell are being blackmailed in following the progressive agenda. Obama must have something on those two. Why else would they let Obama run them like a bunch of sheep. No one could be of the GOP and never standing up to obama. Then again I forget how corrupt the GOP is.

garydt on May 29, 2015 at 11:59 PM

Given the pass that the allies of Obama receive, and the treatment of those he holds in contempt, like Robert Menendez or ‘Conservatives’, is this really surprising in terms of a ‘Look, Squirrel’ moment?

Oh, that doesn’t excuse any and all improprieties of the former Speaker, but it’s interesting that the focus is here, and on Robert Menendez as opposed to allies or insiders within the Obama regime.

Athos on May 30, 2015 at 12:23 AM

Again, regardless of whatever sin he might have committed, why is he being charged with taking his own money out of his own bank account?

K. Hobbit on May 30, 2015 at 2:20 AM

Again, regardless of whatever sin he might have committed, why is he being charged with taking his own money out of his own bank account?

K. Hobbit on May 30, 2015 at 2:20 AM

He’s charged with lying to the FBI, a crime in itself.

Don’t believe me? Ask Martha Stewart.

Adjoran on May 30, 2015 at 4:32 AM

A GOP establishment figure shoown to be corrupt? Shocka

Norwegian on May 30, 2015 at 7:15 AM

vIf that is true, then I’ve never understood one thing. How come people can lie their ass off to local authorities with impunity but not to the effin Fuds?

arnold ziffel on May 29, 2015 at 10:00 PM

Because there’s a federal statute making it a crime to lie to the feds.

Lance Corvette on May 30, 2015 at 8:08 AM

Has anyone else noticed a pattern here? You know, like a politician and self service going hand in hand. Imagine that, ruining young boys lives and the statute has expired but taking your own money out of the bank and the feds are all over it. The young men could sue the school district and Hastert for damages just like Penn St. Since there’s so much hacking and leaking going on in DC, do we have any govt secrets left? This could also explain Mitch and Boners change in attitude.

Kissmygrits on May 30, 2015 at 8:42 AM

I guess the extortionist will be getting a visit from the IRS, for the unreported millions?

woodhull on May 30, 2015 at 8:47 AM

So have any of our Mrs. Bill Clinton voters had a lightbulb moment yet?

rogerb on May 30, 2015 at 8:54 AM

I guess the extortionist will be getting a visit from the IRS, for the unreported millions?

woodhull on May 30, 2015 at 8:47 AM

The extortionist should be getting a visit from the FBI and the IRS. My roommate’s father in college had an affair with some woman. He was a very wealthly man. He inherited his father’s business after WWII and grew it into a huge business. The woman and an accomplice tried to extort money from him. He called in the authorities and they both went to a federal jail. He and his wife reconciled.

SC.Charlie on May 30, 2015 at 9:19 AM

A GOP establishment figure shoown to be corrupt? Shocka

Norwegian on May 30, 2015 at 7:15 AM

Gee, and of course Bill and Hillary are as pure as vestal virgins. Both sides of the aisle are corrupt in my humble opinion.

SC.Charlie on May 30, 2015 at 9:23 AM

Look, what’s the big deal here?

First, this is old news. And, as we all know from listening to Team Clinton, old news is not discussable.

Second, this story involves gay sex. And as our betters keep telling us, there is nothing bad — nothing at all — about gay sex, in whatever form it might take.

A male teacher had sex with an underage boy? Excellent! Because gay.

A Republican politician had gay sex? Awesome! Because gay.

A Republican politician engaged in a financial crime? You go, boyfriend! Because gays AND Clintons.

FlameWarrior on May 30, 2015 at 9:40 AM

He lied about sex. Weren’t we told that was a private matter and no big deal?

If he had any sort of non-consensual sex, sex with a minor, or sex with someone under his authority, I’m all for publicly shaming him, tarring and feathering him, and prosecuting him (if possible).

However, busting him for lying or trying to hide the withdrawal and spending of his own money … well, that’s just ridiculous.

Of course, as others have mentioned, how he acquired so much money as a “public servant” is a legitimate question that deserves extreme scrutiny.

Daryl on May 30, 2015 at 9:46 AM

A GOP establishment figure shoown to be corrupt? Shocka

Norwegian on May 30, 2015 at 7:15 AM

I was shocked too, had to reread the story, simply couldn’t believe it.

Redstone on May 30, 2015 at 9:57 AM

Based on the ferocity of the saturation media attention this Hastert story is receiving, I surmise that the only way the press/Democrats will back off is if Hastert immediately steps down as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

FlameWarrior on May 30, 2015 at 10:22 AM

There’s gotta be so much we’ll never know about.

JetBoy on May 29, 2015 at 8:47 PM

They are counting on it. We might finally get mad enough to kick their slimy hindquarters out of there.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 10:38 AM

FlameWarrior on May 30, 2015 at 10:22 AM

Someone on another site said Hastert was going to be “taken down”. I asked from what. If no one is talking about the Clintons, mission accomplished.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 10:39 AM

My local fishwrap had the Hastert story on the front page. The article was written by Richard Serrano and Timothy Phelps of the Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS).

Eleven paragraphs with NO mention of Hastert being a Republican – NONE. Oversight? Unbiased journalism? Something we don’t know yet? I just found that interesting, as the party affiliation seems to be always mentioned when it is a Republican or Conservative.

fortcoins on May 30, 2015 at 10:43 AM

I have always wondered if Boehner and McConnell are being blackmailed in following the progressive agenda. Obama must have something on those two. Why else would they let Obama run them like a bunch of sheep. No one could be of the GOP and never standing up to obama. Then again I forget how corrupt the GOP is.

garydt on May 29, 2015 at 11:59 PM

This could be a reminder to the aforementioned politicians, that the hammer can drop on any of them at any time… Aaron Schock (and possibly Hastert, too) is just the warm-up act.

Oh, and a good squirrel to take the heat off of Hildabeast.

Fallon on May 30, 2015 at 10:46 AM

I have always wondered if Boehner and McConnell are being blackmailed in following the progressive agenda. Obama must have something on those two. Why else would they let Obama run them like a bunch of sheep. No one could be of the GOP and never standing up to obama. Then again I forget how corrupt the GOP is.

garydt on May 29, 2015 at 11:59 PM

Yes, the GOP is corrupt. Boehner wouldn’t smack Pelosi on the cheek as he did, if he were being blackmailed. These Republicans are bought and paid for by special interests, as much as these Democrats. They are in thick with Democrats, because they agree with them on policy and politics.

rickv404 on May 30, 2015 at 10:55 AM

Who squealed on him? That’s what I can’t figure out. If the victim was getting his money, it wasn’t him.

And I still don’t think the government has any right to know what you are doing with your own money.

PattyJ on May 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM

PattyJ on May 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM

I still think it’s the Clintons to redirect attention.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 11:24 AM

It’s only a crime when a Republican is involved. What is the definition of “is”?

Krupnikas on May 30, 2015 at 11:29 AM

The millions of dollars paid still boggles my mind. If a generous fee for murder is $30,000, then for $3,000,000 he could have had 100 people killed.

I only thought this kind of blackmail went on in Perry Mason reruns, though that was usually less salacious, like finding out a woman had an affair in her youth, were convicted of some misdemeanor, or that you were born illegitimate. In “The Portrait of Dorian Gray”, Dorian had a homosexual liaison with some guy, forcing him to dispose of a body for him. Later the shame was so great he committed suicide.

That such blackmail goes on today, for this amount of money, it just shocks me. Especially involving a Speaker of the House. It’s shocking.

LashRambo on May 30, 2015 at 11:44 AM

Well he was arrested for lying to the FBI…not for taking money out of his bank account.

He is a dummy for not getting a lawyer when interviewed.

Pablo Honey on May 29, 2015 at 9:57 PM

That misses the point that was trying to be made.
Why was the FBI able to interview a citizen for taking his own money out of his bank to spend on whatever he wants or feels he needs??

Mimzey on May 30, 2015 at 12:06 PM

The story as it is being reported seems to be that Hastert is being indicted for a) paying hush money or b) sexual impropriety with a minor or minors c) corruption.

Demonstrably, none of these things is the actual crime he is being indicted for (which is fibbing to the Fibbies) but here we see well before the trial, the Feds have (anonymously) released every bit of mud available.

Why?

Dolce Far Niente on May 30, 2015 at 12:08 PM

Can someone explain why the person who is being blackmailed is the wrongdoer and the blackmailer is not mentioned? At the very least, unless he declared the income, the IRS should have him in prison in short order, right?…riiiight?

Mimzey on May 30, 2015 at 12:10 PM

Why was the FBI able to interview a citizen for taking his own money out of his bank to spend on whatever he wants or feels he needs??

Mimzey on May 30, 2015 at 12:06 PM

See the Patriot Act, which, coincidentally, Hastert pushed through Congress.

Fallon on May 30, 2015 at 12:14 PM

Why?

Dolce Far Niente on May 30, 2015 at 12:08 PM

To shift the focus away from the leftist scandals and agenda?
Macaca!, you say??…weeell, just wiggle that foot under the bathroom stall and everyone will know you didn’t pay any taxes for the last 10 years and were a member of Skull and Bones in college, where you gave a guy a haircut and planned 911 because you’re a racist.

Mimzey on May 30, 2015 at 12:16 PM

See the Patriot Act, which, coincidentally, Hastert pushed through Congress.

Fallon on May 30, 2015 at 12:14 PM

I realize it’s a regulation..my point was why does the government have such power over a persons finances?

Mimzey on May 30, 2015 at 12:18 PM

Who squealed on him? That’s what I can’t figure out. If the victim was getting his money, it wasn’t him.

PattyJ on May 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM

It was probably the bank who had to report it as “suspicious”.

Mimzey on May 30, 2015 at 12:21 PM

A certain amount of GOP voters are hopelessly loyal and committed to the red team, even though they get nothing in return, ever.

Why defend a sleazy DC insider like Hastert, at all?

Bringing up the Clintons doesn’t do anything, two wrongs don’t make a right.

The GOP establishment doesn’t care about its voters, at all, Boehner and McConnell are far more concerned with implementing Obama’s agenda.

No need to defend GOP establishment members like Hastert.

Redstone on May 30, 2015 at 12:23 PM

So have any of our Mrs. Bill Clinton voters had a lightbulb moment yet?

rogerb on May 30, 2015 at 8:54 AM

That assumes an intact filament.

Schadenfreude on May 30, 2015 at 12:27 PM

No need to defend GOP establishment members like Hastert.

Redstone on May 30, 2015 at 12:23 PM

Who is defending him and what is the nature of the points of defense?
Can you provide some of the examples that you’ve read that led you to that conclusion?
Thanks.

Mimzey on May 30, 2015 at 12:39 PM

Who squealed on him? That’s what I can’t figure out. If the victim was getting his money, it wasn’t him.

PattyJ on May 30, 2015 at 11:05 AM

The bank and the NSA.

Schadenfreude on May 30, 2015 at 1:01 PM

I realize it’s a regulation..my point was why does the government have such power over a persons finances?

Mimzey on May 30, 2015 at 12:18 PM

Congress gave themselves (the government) the power with bills like the Patriot Act. The same Congress that exempts itself from having to follow the myriad of rules and regulations that are contained in The Affordable Care Act, but you know this.

Fallon on May 30, 2015 at 1:03 PM

Who is defending him and what is the nature of the points of defense?
Can you provide some of the examples that you’ve read that led you to that conclusion?
Thanks.

Mimzey on May 30, 2015 at 12:39 PM

Maybe defending is too strong of a word, it seems like a few posts have the tone of, “it’s not a big deal”, and the like as if there is a need to rationalize because he is on the GOP team.

Just the way I was reading it, over the last few months I have become completely disgusted w/ the GOP and this was a man of a very high position.

Redstone on May 30, 2015 at 1:09 PM

The reported “facts” make no sense. This cover story is not even fit for a dime store novel or B movie. I suspect the true story involves high level corruption with others in power. As embarrassing as it may be for Hastert, this cover-up is seen as preferable to potential exposure of the truth.

Daryl on May 30, 2015 at 1:13 PM

Just the way I was reading it, over the last few months I have become completely disgusted w/ the GOP and this was a man of a very high position.

Redstone on May 30, 2015 at 1:09 PM

I am also disgusted with the GOP.
What I find odd is the timing. If this has been going on for as long as it seems it has, why now? Why give the msm propaganda machine a new chew toy, just when the Clintons and the Dems in general, need a distraction?
That seems to be using high levels of government for a particular party’s advantage. Just like the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the rewarding of people who have been “good operatives” to “the cause” with higher level positions.

“We will reward our friends and punish our enemies”

Barry O.

Mimzey on May 30, 2015 at 1:25 PM

Just the way I was reading it, over the last few months I have become completely disgusted w/ the GOP and this was a man of a very high position.

Redstone on May 30, 2015 at 1:09 PM

Wouldn’t this only be applicable if the people knew of whatever crimes were committed and put him into office?

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 1:27 PM

Bank Secrecy Act covers withdrawals and deposits in excess 10,000 aggregate per day and suspicious activity.

“Treasury Department Form 90-22.47 and OCC Form 8010-9, 8010-1 Suspicious Activity Report (SAR): Banks must file a SAR for any suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation”.

“A financial institution is not allowed to inform a business or consumer that a SAR is being filed, and all the reports mandated by the BSA are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act”.

“There are heavy penalties for individuals and institutions that fail to file CTRs, MILs, or SARs. There are also penalties for a bank which discloses to its client that it has filed a SAR about the client. Penalties include heavy fines and prison sentences”.

BSA passed in 1970.

FBI uses the BSA all the time.

HonestLib on May 30, 2015 at 2:06 PM

Maybe defending is too strong of a word, it seems like a few posts have the tone of, “it’s not a big deal”, and the like as if there is a need to rationalize because he is on the GOP team.

Just the way I was reading it, over the last few months I have become completely disgusted w/ the GOP and this was a man of a very high position.

Redstone on May 30, 2015 at 1:09 PM

Your feelings about the tone are really off the mark, seems to me. Reading through the comments, even the GOPe fluffers aren’t defending or diminishing or minimizing.

I think you are misreading posters who are able to separate Hastert and what he has done (which, technically and legally is virtually UNKNOWN at this point- all we have is a mass of anonymous allegations and this lying-to-the-FBI indictment) from the circumstances which are… bizarre.

This entire thing stinks, but what may be the most rotten may very well be something other than Hastert.

Which, considering what a creepy human being the guy is, is saying something.

Dolce Far Niente on May 30, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Dolce Far Niente on May 30, 2015 at 2:08 PM

Based on my visits to other sites, this would appear to the talking points of the Left. If you aren’t calling for his execution than you’re defending him. If they can throw family values into the comment they must get points.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 2:21 PM

HonestLib on May 30, 2015 at 2:06 PM

Rather injudiciously I might add. There are a lot of small businesses who are suffering because of their lack of desire to investigate rather than confiscate. I doubt Mr. Hastert didn’t pay taxes on any of this money and I hope the “victim” is happy with losing his privacy for the team.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 2:26 PM

That wasn’t fair, I shouldn’t have put victim in quotes. I am sure where there is $3 million smokes, there is fire. I wish the media was willing to delve into all of the finances and lives of all the politicians since this makes me wonder what else we don’t know.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 2:30 PM

If that is true, then I’ve never understood one thing. How come people can lie their ass off to local authorities with impunity but not to the effin Fuds?

arnold ziffel on May 29, 2015 at 10:00 PM

My understanding is that the penalties for Obstruction in the federal system are rather severe…

JohnGalt23 on May 30, 2015 at 2:53 PM

My understanding is that the penalties for Obstruction in the federal system are rather severe…

JohnGalt23 on May 30, 2015 at 2:53 PM

Ҥ 1001. Statements or entries generally

Release date: 2004-08-06

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate”.

HonestLib on May 30, 2015 at 3:02 PM

So the Clinton Foundation has been paying punk/hatchet man Sid Blumenthal $10K per month since 2009,($700,000.00), for sending “unsolicited” emails on foreign policy/Libya.

I smell a payoff. What does Sid have on Bill or Killary? We need an investigation . . .

BigAlSouth on May 30, 2015 at 3:09 PM

What i don’t understand is why withdraw it in amounts under 10,000. it was his money. i just withdrew 90,000 dollars from my account. did not think twice about it.

if he wanted to withdraw a million that’s his business. the only reason he got into trouble was the multiple just under 10,000.

gerrym51 on May 30, 2015 at 3:32 PM

The reported “facts” make no sense. This cover story is not even fit for a dime store novel or B movie. I suspect the true story involves high level corruption with others in power. As embarrassing as it may be for Hastert, this cover-up is seen as preferable to potential exposure of the truth.

Daryl on May 30, 2015 at 1:13 PM

This story reeks of two things: limited hang out, and warning.

Hastert resigned amidst the Mark Foley scandal, which touched a lot of the leadership, including people who are still around, like Boehner. There were subterranean reports back in 2006 about Hastert’s problems from his coaching days, and his homosexuality. My guess is Hastert paid “Individual A” off because any investigation into his past would lead to other, more important people, who have a lot more to lose than he at this point.

Of course, Hastert is a nobody now, a forgotten sleazeball with a rolodex and a sordid past. He’s being exposed now as a warning to others. I suspect the Clinton camp is behind this, as Bill’s sexual peccadillos and the Foundation’s corruption are now in the news, and it’s threatening her Presidential ambitions. It’s a warning to back off this stuff or bigger fish than Hastert are suddenly going to be “in the news”.

Joseph K on May 30, 2015 at 3:40 PM

It’s a warning to back off this stuff or bigger fish than Hastert are suddenly going to be “in the news”.

Joseph K on May 30, 2015 at 3:40 PM

If it’s true, then I don’t care. I’m sick of D.C..

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 3:48 PM

So, I am guessing the extortioner will be getting a visit from the IRS, no? I am serious.

wsucoug on May 30, 2015 at 4:07 PM

wsucoug on May 30, 2015 at 4:07 PM

You might be serious but I think I read that they referred to that person as the victim so my guess would be know. I wonder if the recipient paid taxes?

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 4:37 PM

90,000 dollars from my account. did not think twice about it.

if he wanted to withdraw a million that’s his business. the only reason he got into trouble was the multiple just under 10,000.

gerrym51 on May 30, 2015 at 3:32 PM

Cash?

HonestLib on May 30, 2015 at 4:53 PM

This story reeks of two things: limited hang out, and warning…

Joseph K on May 30, 2015 at 3:40 PM

Your theory sounds much more plausible than the limited story being reported.

If it’s true, then I don’t care. I’m sick of D.C..

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 3:48 PM

Absolutely. Let the chips fall.

Daryl on May 30, 2015 at 5:04 PM

Guilty of Withdrawing Money While Republican.

K. Hobbit on May 30, 2015 at 5:36 PM

No telling how much ole Denny boy made from insider-trading when he was in office. Peter Schweizer nails him and other professional pols in his book “Throw Them All Out”. Corruptocrats all.

Jackson on May 30, 2015 at 7:52 PM

Dolce Far Niente on May 30, 2015 at 2:08 PM
Based on my visits to other sites, this would appear to the talking points of the Left. If you aren’t calling for his execution than you’re defending him. If they can throw family values into the comment they must get points.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 2:21 PM

Not coming from the left, I simply don’t like this guy or what he represents.

If he was a democrat, people wouldn’t be saying “he can do what he wants with his money”, etc., they would be piling on.

He was in the leadership of the GOP, both parties are terrible.

Redstone on May 30, 2015 at 7:58 PM

What I find odd is the timing. If this has been going on for as long as it seems it has, why now? Why give the msm propaganda machine a new chew toy, just when the Clintons and the Dems in general, need a distraction?

The timing is bizarre, as is the fact that it was leaked in general.

How stupid is this guy that he can’t pay bribes without getting caught?

A weird story all around.

Redstone on May 30, 2015 at 8:00 PM

I think you are misreading posters who are able to separate Hastert and what he has done (which, technically and legally is virtually UNKNOWN at this point- all we have is a mass of anonymous allegations and this lying-to-the-FBI indictment) from the circumstances which are… bizarre.

Dolce Far Niente on May 30, 2015 at 2:08 PM

The allegations are probably true, why else would he pay millions? Also, he resigned from several positions.

This is why it is bad to have obvious blackmail targets in positions of power.

Who knows how many other politicians are compromised like this?

And why did it get leaked in the first place?

A sordid tale that shows really everything wrong with politics, a sleazy guy who is compromised profiting off his position w/ real estate deals, cushy lobbyist jobs, etc.

Redstone on May 30, 2015 at 8:08 PM

What I find odd is the timing. If this has been going on for as long as it seems it has, why now? Why give the msm propaganda machine a new chew toy, just when the Clintons and the Dems in general, need a distraction?
That seems to be using high levels of government for a particular party’s advantage. Just like the IRS targeting of conservative groups and the rewarding of people who have been “good operatives” to “the cause” with higher level positions.

Mimzey on May 30, 2015 at 1:25 PM

While I wouldn’t be surprised if the Obama Justice Department wanted to time the indictment of a Republican for political advantage, there’s no particular reason I can think of that May of a non-election year would be a particularly advantageous time for the Democrats to see a Republican former Speaker of the House indicted. (The last week of October of an election year would be better for that, or perhaps the week of the Republican National Convention instead.)

Yes, Hillary benefits from having a distraction from her scandals, but it seems like new evidence of Clinton corruption is likely to pop up every couple of weeks nowadays anyway. If the Justice Department had to wait for Hillary to get past her corruption problems before indicting Hastert, they would probably be in for a long wait.

J.S.K. on May 30, 2015 at 8:17 PM

Redstone on May 30, 2015 at 7:58 PM

No, the Left would be saying that no one could prove anything while knowing that all evidence had been admittedly destroyed by the person in question. There isn’t a person on the face of this earth who would condone any of the speculation about Mr. Hastert’s behavior but I’m getting a bit tired of the insinuations by the Left that people (constituents and members of Congress) were aware of this and promoted Hastert to a very important political position in spite of this knowledge. This is the same party that forced men out based on creepy notes, toe tapping in a mens room and extra martial affairs. As to the money, sorry, but I do question the timing.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 9:23 PM

I seem to remember Barney Frank was busted for shacking up with a male prostitute and got a standing O from the dems on the house floor. Dems blow and republicans suck.

Jackson on May 30, 2015 at 10:23 PM

Come’on, why is HOTAIR playing along with this game? Who cares, Why should anyone care? Its Denny Hastert, a guy from 3 generations ago. What difference does it make to me now! He he planning on running for president? What about the Clinton stuff, too HOT to handle ?

steveracer on May 30, 2015 at 10:55 PM

The real question is how does a career pol have $3M in spare-change.

Tsar of Earth on May 29, 2015 at 9:43 PM

Ask Paul Wellstone…or at least his heirs.

Entered senatorial office worth about $150k, 12 years later he’s worth $10 million.

Bishop on May 29, 2015 at 9:46 PM

And ask Harry Reid.

petefrt on May 31, 2015 at 6:41 AM

If no one is talking about the Clintons, mission accomplished.

Cindy Munford on May 30, 2015 at 10:39

Yup. Political stink in the air. As AP put it…

…the two feds who leaked the details of Hastert’s misconduct to the LA Times should rightly be held in criminal contempt for violating federal grand-jury secrecy rules. Lots of stink in the air on this one.

petefrt on May 31, 2015 at 6:55 AM

Jon Corzine steals millions, and walks free today.
Sharpton owes millions, and walks free today.

Silk Pony Edwards is correct: “There are two Americas”

BigAlSouth on May 31, 2015 at 9:07 AM

Yes, Hillary benefits from having a distraction from her scandals, but it seems like new evidence of Clinton corruption is likely to pop up every couple of weeks nowadays anyway. If the Justice Department had to wait for Hillary to get past her corruption problems before indicting Hastert, they would probably be in for a long wait.

J.S.K. on May 30, 2015 at 8:17 PM

You agree. Hillary benefits. The “new evidence” that may come out will have the same impact as all the other evidence in her many scandals as long as the msm is handed distractive topics. The tactic seems to work.
Remember Fast and Furious?..Whitewater..Benghazi..IRS targeting..etc, etc, etc and how important they are? Didn’t think so.

As to the implication that the Obama DOJ is “waiting to get at her corruption problems”, there is no reason to believe that is the goal of the DOJ. They may be waiting for something, but not how to effectively prosecute Clinton..or get at the bottom of the IRS targeting..or how to defuse the ginned up “racist” police. They’re waiting for enough time to pass so they can effectively ignore anything that questions the leftist agenda.

Mimzey on May 31, 2015 at 9:31 AM

D.C. is a cesspool that is long overdue for a cleaning.

Don’t let anyone equate the Left and Conservatives.
Each side has their share, but there are far more scumbags on the Left than on the Right.
In addition, the Left celebrates their scum, advocates their scum behaviors and does everything possible to keep them in office or even advance them.

justltl on May 31, 2015 at 9:33 AM

Well he was arrested for lying to the FBI…not for taking money out of his bank account.
He is a dummy for not getting a lawyer when interviewed.
Pablo Honey on May 29, 2015 at 9:57 PM
If that is true, then I’ve never understood one thing. How come people can lie their ass off to local authorities with impunity but not to the effin Fuds?
arnold ziffel on May 29, 2015 at 10:00 PM

The thing about lying to “federal agents” or regulators is that it’s usually a matter of them not asking the right questions and then finding out something totally obvious later. In order to not look like idiots, they clIm you “lied”.

Do you own a horse? Yes.
Is it an American breed? Yes.
Is it kept on a farm? Yes.
*2 months later*
You didn’t tell us it was an American Quarter-horse that has its own paddock!! You lied!!!!!!

Nutstuyu on May 31, 2015 at 3:10 PM

Of course, Hastert is a nobody now, a forgotten sleazeball with a rolodex and a sordid past. He’s being exposed now as a warning to others. I suspect the Clinton camp is behind this, as Bill’s sexual peccadillos and the Foundation’s corruption are now in the news, and it’s threatening her Presidential ambitions. It’s a warning to back off this stuff or bigger fish than Hastert are suddenly going to be “in the news”.
Joseph K on May 30, 2015 at 3:40 PM

Except there is a center for government and economics named for him at Wheaton College, his alma mater and a very conservative school.

Nutstuyu on May 31, 2015 at 3:56 PM

Politicians = scum. Pretty simple rule of thumb.

rickyricardo on May 31, 2015 at 5:53 PM

The real question is how does a career pol have $3M in spare-change.
Tsar of Earth on May 29, 2015 at 9:43 PM
Ask Paul Wellstone…or at least his heirs.
Entered senatorial office worth about $150k, 12 years later he’s worth $10 million.
Bishop on May 29, 2015 at 9:46 PM

I can do that in Monopoly.

Nutstuyu on May 31, 2015 at 7:17 PM

As to the implication that the Obama DOJ is “waiting to get at her corruption problems”, there is no reason to believe that is the goal of the DOJ. They may be waiting for something, but not how to effectively prosecute Clinton..or get at the bottom of the IRS targeting..or how to defuse the ginned up “racist” police. They’re waiting for enough time to pass so they can effectively ignore anything that questions the leftist agenda.

Mimzey on May 31, 2015 at 9:31 AM

Sorry, no, that’s not what I was trying to imply. I don’t think the DOJ has any interest in prosecuting Hillary at all. They won’t make any attempt to do so during the Obama administration.

My point was that Hillary has had multiple accusations of corruption against her and the Clinton Foundation in the last couple of months, and she is probably going to have more evidence of that come out in the next few months. So any time that Hastert could be indicted — whether last month, this month, next month, or the month after that — could wind up distracting from Hillary’s corruption.

But, in reality, I don’t think that the DOJ was timing Hastert’s indictment in relation to anything that had to do with Hillary, or with any other politician, as far as I can tell.

J.S.K. on May 31, 2015 at 7:58 PM

Buggery of high school boys. RINO all the way. Backstabber in the house of representatives.

jake49 on June 1, 2015 at 11:56 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3