As more details about Dennis Hastert's troubles are reported, I find myself wondering about the meetings in which, according to the indictment, the former Speaker of the House agreed to pay "Individual A" $3.5 million in compensation for "prior misconduct." Did Individual A say something, to which Hastert made reply, and then, after some back-and-forth, offers and counteroffers, Hastert said, "OK, $3.5 million cash. Seventy payments of $50,000, one payment every six weeks."
It seems crazy that Hastert would sign up for that. As an ordinarily sophisticated person would know, just the logistics of delivering that much dough beneath the radar are quite challenging. The only logic to the figure is that it represented something close to the most that Hastert could pay. And now, having paid out well over a million dollars, the whole world knows anyway. It's a ton of hush money for not much hush. It seems that someone who was Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives for eight years might be a more effective negotiator.
John Hinderaker's take on these things is always interesting:
Hastert is the victim in this scenario, yet he, not the blackmailer, is under indictment. The indictment stems from Hastert’s withdrawal of cash to pay the blackmailer. The indictment, in my view, represents overreaching by the U.S. Attorney and likely is politically motivated.
Some Democrats tried to make political hay out of Hastert’s indictment. This is the height of hypocrisy. If any of your Democrat friends try to make something out of Hastert’s relationship with a high school student 40 years ago, all you need to do is say: Gerry Studds.
Studds was a Congressman from Massachusetts. He admittedly did exactly what Hastert allegedly did: Studds had a homosexual relationship with a page, a 17-year-old boy, who worked for the House of Representatives. Studds described his liaison as a “consensual relationship with a young adult.” Hastert could say the same. Was the Democratic Party horrified by Studds’ conduct? Not a bit. He was censured by the House, but greeted with standing ovations when he returned to Massachusetts. Studds’ heavily Democratic constituents returned him to the House for six more terms after his affair with the page was exposed. And, of course, Studds’ misconduct occurred while he was a member of the House, not decades earlier, and was directly related to his work as a Congressman. So Republicans should take no grief with respect to Mr. Hastert.
Shorter version: When a Democrat runs afoul of the law, it proves that they are all moral reprobates. And when a Republican runs afoul of the law, it proves that all the U.S. attorneys are Democrats and, therefore, moral reprobates. Poor Dennis Hastert!
Comments