Former GOP House Speaker Hastert Indicted

[Glenn Quagmire]

Did anyone hear about Hastert being indicted?

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Did anyone hear about Hastert being indicted?

 
Haven't hears anything on that yet Glenn.
 
Hey Southwind.
Last time I checked on countries that have a significant amount  of socialism, things there were ' ROSY '.
 
Norway/Sweden/Holland/Finland/Denmark/Germany/Belgium/.
(You probably DON'T know where those countries are, or the fact that they even EXIST).
 
D MF
 
( " D " ......... = DUMB ) !

 

[777 fixer]

 
 
John Wayne Gacy, rapist, murderer, democrat fund raiser

 
And Ted Bundy was a delegate at the Republican National Convention in 1968 so what's your point?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

This is hopeless. Moderators feel free to lock it since the Kenyan socialist murderer libtard demorat communiss southwind and bears, et al., cannot figure out any way to look at the title of the thread and actually discuss it.

 

[Ms Tree]

What were we talking about again? 🙂~

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

C'mon Glenn.
The NIT-WIT made the crack about socialism, not me.  I just responded .(with a bit of emphasis).

 

[777 fixer]

Dunno, it's kinda difficult to be involved in wrestling and not occasionally inappropriately touch someone.
 

 
I don't think inappropriate touching over 35 years ago is what motivated Dennis Hastert to promise someone $3.5 million.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Just ANOTHER Republican.....pee - pee SMOOCHER !

 

[Crash Pad DCA]

http://www.airlineforums.com/topic/58589-former-gop-house-speaker-hastert-indicted/page-4#entry1171040
 

Congressman Who Knew Of Dennis Hastert Abuse Rumor Urged Restraint During '06 Scandal
 
WASHINGTON -- In early October 2006, the floor was crumbling beneath House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.).
 
News broke that he had long known about inappropriate emails Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) sent to a 16-year-old page, and did little to act on it. Republicans, already facing down a blistering midterm election defeat, panicked. The conservative-leaning Washington Times called for Hastert's resignation. Fellow lawmakers cancelled campaign events where he was supposed to appear.
 
But not everyone rushed to pile on. Rep. Mel Watt, a Democratic congressman from North Carolina and an unlikely source of sympathy, urged voters to reserve judgment on Hastert until more facts about the Foley scandal were known.
 
"If it is true that he knew, especially, the depth of what was going on as early as some people are now saying, I think he had some responsibilities that he didn't exercise, he didn't take seriously," Watt said, according to an Oct. 4, 2006, article in the Salisbury Post. However, he added, "I never want to prematurely call for someone to step down. I think you get the facts first and let the action follow the facts, and there's time to get the facts."
 
Watt’s measured reaction stood in contrast to his own Republican challenger at the time, who was calling for Hastert's resignation.
 
But Watt's comments are even odder in light of the fact that while he was cautioning against jumping to conclusions about Hastert, the congressman was aware of sordid rumors about
Hastert's own history with minors.
 
On Tuesday, The Huffington Post reported that Watt was approached early on in Hastert's speakership with accusations that Hastert had molested or abused a child during his time as a teacher and wrestling coach. Watt, who now heads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, acknowledged that he had heard the "unseemly rumor," though his office disputed that it was an intermediary to the abuse victim's family who had come forward with the allegations.
 
Watt did not act on the rumors at the time because, he said, he “had no direct knowledge of any abuse by former Speaker Hastert.” It would take another 15 years for the public to learn of the abuse allegations, which surfaced last week after Hastert was charged with lying to the FBI about the hush money he was withdrawing from banks.

 

[Crash Pad DCA]

http://archive.salisburypost.com/archive_detail.php?archiveFile=2006/October/04/Area/60032.xml&start=1420&numPer=20&keyword=engagement%C2%A7ionSearch=&begindate=1%2F1%2F1983&enddate=12%2F31%2F2009&authorSearch=&IncludeStories=1&pubsection=&page=&IncludePages=1&IncludeImages=1&mode=allwords&archive_pubname=Salisbury+Post%0A%09%09%09
 

Watt says don't jump to conclusions about Hastert

 

Publication

Salisbury Post

Date

October 04, 2006
 
By Scott Jenkins
Salisbury Post
 
Amid calls Tuesday for the resignation of U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert in the wake of revelations about former Rep. Mark Foley's sexually explicit e-mails to congressional pages, U.S. Rep. Mel Watt said he would reserve judgment until the facts are known.
 
Dr. Ada Fisher, a Salisbury Republican challenging Watt in the 12th District, issued a statement saying "any (Republican or Democrat) member of staff who willingly participated in a cover-up of Mr. Foley's actions or who knew of these misadventures should be removed from leadership positions and resign."
 
Foley, a Republican from Florida who has served 12 years in Congress and was seeking re-election, resigned last week after it became public that he sent explicit e-mails and engaged in lurid online conversations with teenage boys serving as House pages.
 
Critics charge that Hastert, a Republican from Illinois, had evidence that the exchanges were going on for several years and failed to act on that knowledge. Many have called for him to resign, among them Democrats in congressional races. But Watt said he needs to learn "what he knew and when he knew it."
 
"If it is true that he knew, especially, the depth of what was going on as early as some people are now saying, I think he had some responsibilities that he didn't exercise, he didn't take seriously, reporting to police officials, taking more aggressive steps to protect the pages," Watt said. However, he added, "I never want to prematurely call for someone to step down. I think you get the facts first and let the action follow the facts, and there's time to get the facts."
 
Watt, the Democratic incumbent, called the scandal "unfortunate primarily for the young people he was interacting with" and for Foley, who "probably has a serious problem of some kind. He said it is "yet another negative reflection on an institution that really can't afford those kinds of negative reflections."
 
But he took issue with Fisher's charge that the Foley scandal is "a prime example of how Congress doesn't apply to itself the laws that it implements for others" and with her connecting it to his opposition of Megan's Law, which notifies communities of convicted sex offenders living among them, and a national database to track and identify sex offenders.
 
"If we are unwilling to protect our children, we are writing off the future of this nation," Fisher said.
 
"There is no cure or effective treatment for people so predisposed, and monitoring their behavior may prevent others from being hurt even if they served their time," she said. "It is not a question of civil liberties, but one of child protection."
 
Watt said he opposed Megan's Law because "I thought forcing people to pre-register in anticipation that they might do something in the future was unconstitutional," he said. After the Supreme Court ruled that sex offenders could be forced to register, Watt said, he voted to fund the registration mechanism.
 
Members of Congress are not exempt from the law, he said. Still, "You certainly wouldn't have Congressman Foley register on a sexual predator list before he was ever convicted of anything. So Megan's Law wouldn't have prevented this from happening."
 
"It's just one of those situations where she's mixing two issues and probably not understanding fully either one of them, which is not unusual for my opponent," he said.
 
The scandal is a topic in other local races, as well.
 
Republican Rep. Robin Hayes, who received money from political committees run by former Foley, was under particular pressure, both from state Democrats and re-election challenger Larry Kissell, a high school teacher running a grass-roots campaign against the well-funded incumbent from Concord.
 
"It's becoming clear that a lot of folks in Washington knew about Foley's problems long before the public did," Kissell spokesman Steve Hudson said in a statement. "Our question is who knew what and when?"
 
Hayes' spokeswoman, Carolyn Hern, said the congressman from Concord had no knowledge of Foley's communications with pages.
 
"The first time that Robin was aware of any problems with Foley and this e-mail issue was when he heard it on the news like everybody else," Hern said. "I wouldn't say that he and Rep. Foley hung out. They had a working relationship, but not a friendship outside of work."
 
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
 
Contact Scott Jenkins at 704-797-4248 or sjenkins@salisburypost.com.
 
 
 
 



Salisbury Post - © 2013 - Evening Post Publishing Co. All rights reserved.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Just saw pictures on ABC news of BIG DENNYS boy toy (a young man who died early of aids). The Victims sister confronted BIG DENNY (during a funeral) (not sure who's funeral) and told BIG DENNY..." I Know what you did to my Kid brother " !  The family ALSO contacted a few small media outlets, yet none of them would " run with the story " !
 
As wrestling COACH............BIG DENNY favorite wrestling move was to teach the young men the mechanics of a good....' HEAD LOCK ' !   BIG DENNY also took 'his team' on a trip to the Bahamas for a 'little FUN in the Sun'  !!
 
 
The REPUBLICAN PARTY.
(Another page from they're famous FAMILY VALUES  book)
 
" GENEROSITY "
The GOP.
The GIFT that always Keeps on GIVING !
 
(Forword by NEWT GINGRICH)
 
ISBN: 192837465
$ 29.95  @ Barnes and Noble.

 

[SparrowHawk]

RE: Inappropriate Touching. NO ONE has been indicted ala Jerry Sandusky in this case. The question we have before us is totally different. Does the Federal Government have the moral & ethical right to monitor your financial transactions?
 
They have the legal right through a series of laws designed to track/monitor/prosecute drug dealers by creating a transaction paper trail.
 
The Hasteart indictment to me at least has a familiar aroma. It's the foul stench of politics inside the beltway and the abuse of individual rights by a Federal Government drunk with power.

 

[Crash Pad DCA]

RE: Inappropriate Touching. NO ONE has been indicted ala Jerry Sandusky in this case. The question we have before us is totally different. Does the Federal Government have the moral & ethical right to monitor your financial transactions?
 
They have the legal right through a series of laws designed to track/monitor/prosecute drug dealers by creating a transaction paper trail.
 
The Hasteart indictment to me at least has a familiar aroma. It's the foul stench of politics inside the beltway and the abuse of individual rights by a Federal Government drunk with power.

You Can Be Prosecuted for Clearing Your Browser History
http://www.thenation.com/article/208593/you-can-be-prosecuted-clearing-your-browser-history#
 
...
Federal prosecutors charged Matanov for destroying records under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a law enacted by Congress in the wake of the Enron scandal. The law was, in part, intended to prohibit corporations under federal investigation from shredding incriminating documents. But since Sarbanes-Oxley was passed in 2002  federal prosecutors have applied the law to a wider range of activities. A police officer in Colorado who falsified a report to cover up a brutality case was convicted under the act, as was a woman in Illinois who destroyed her boyfriend’s child pornography.
 
Prosecutors are able to apply the law broadly because they do not have to show that the person deleting evidence knew there was an investigation underway. In other words, a person could theoretically be charged under Sarbanes-Oxley for deleting her dealer’s number from her phone even if she were unaware that the feds were getting a search warrant to find her marijuana. The application of the law to digital data has been particularly far-reaching because this type of information is so easy to delete. Deleting digital data can inadvertently occur in normal computer use, and often does.
 
In 2010 David Kernell, a University of Tennessee student, was convicted under Sarbanes-Oxley after he deleted digital records that showed he had obtained access to Sarah Palin’s Yahoo e-mail account. Using publicly available information, Kernell answered security questions that allowed him to reset Palin’s Yahoo password to “popcorn.” He downloaded information from Palin’s account, including photographs, and posted the new password online. He then deleted digital information that may have made it easier for federal investigators to find him. Like Matanov, he cleared the cache on his Internet browser. He also uninstalled Firefox, ran a disk defragmentation program to reorganize and clean up his hard drive, and deleted a series of images that he had downloaded from the account. For entering Palin’s e-mail, he was eventually convicted of misdemeanor unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and felony destruction of records under Sarbanes-Oxley. In January 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that Kernell’s awareness of a potential investigation into his conduct was enough to uphold the felony charge.
 
At the time Kernell took steps to clean his computer, he does not appear to have known that there was any investigation into his conduct. Regardless, the government felt that they were entitled to that data, and the court agreed that Kernell was legally required to have preserved it.
 
Hanni Fakhoury, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, says the feds’ broad interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley in the digital age is part of a wider trend: federal agents’ feeling “entitled” to digital data.
 
Fakhoury compares the broad application of Sarbanes-Oxley in the digital realm to the federal government’s resistance to cellphone companies that want to sell encrypted phones that would prevent law enforcement from being able to access users’ data. When the new encrypted iPhone came out, FBI Director James Comey told reporters that he didn’t understand why companies would “market something expressly to allow people to place themselves beyond the law.”
 
“At its core,” Fakhoury says, “what the government is saying is, ‘We have to create a mechanism that allows everybody’s [cellphone] data to be open for inspection on the off-chance that one day in the future, for whatever random circumstance, we need to see that data.’”
 
Similarly, Fakhoury says the government’s underlying theory in cases like Kernell’s is, “Don’t even think about deleting anything that may be harmful to you, because we may come after you at some point in the future for some unforeseen reason and we want to be able to have access to that data. And if we don’t have access to that data, we’re going to slap an obstruction charge that has as 20-year maximum on you.”
 
As more and more data are stored online, the government wants and believes it deserves access to that data for policing purposes. But Fakhoury disagrees.
 
“The idea that you have to create a record of where you’ve gone or open all your cupboards all the time and leave your front door unlocked and available for law enforcement inspection at any time is not the country we have established for ourselves more than 200 years ago.”
 
This past February the Supreme Court somewhat narrowed the scope of Sarbanes-Oxley in the case of Yates v. United States. The feds had charged a commercial fishing captain under the same record-destruction law for throwing a batch of undersized fish overboard after a federal agent had instructed him not to. The Court ruled that applying Sarbanes-Oxley to the dumping of fish was too far afield from the law’s original corporate-crime purpose.

 

[SparrowHawk]

Nice long, somewhat on point argument. However, the question remains unanswered. Is monitoring your personal private financial transactions an appropriate role for the Federal Government? I'm not sure it is in this context or any other context.
 
I am not certain in my own mind, however I prefer to side with the rights of the individual to live as they choose if the call is close.

 

[eolesen]

The LGBT community didn't want the government in their bedroom, so I'd say the government has no business seeing what's on my phone, PC, or bank statement.

Next thing you know, cash will be outlawed in the name of national security...