Dennis Hastert Allegedly Paid Hush Money to Conceal Past Sexual Misconduct Dating Back More Than 30 Years Ago
DRIP, DRIP, DRIP … HEAD-SHAKINGLY SAD AND SICK.
It is being reported by CBS News that the former Republican U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert allegedly agreed to pay millions of dollars in “hush money” to conceal accusations of sexual misconduct in his past. Most crimes are like an iceberg, what we see initially is only a small fraction of the actual crime. This appears to be the case as well with the accusations against former Speaker Dennis Hastert. Although Hastert is not being indicted for the alleged sexual misconduct, the misconduct mentioned in court documents refers to sexual misconduct dating back more than 30 years. Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach in Yorkville, Illinois from 1965 to 1981. The federal indictment is for tax evasion and lying to the IRS. Put 1 and 1 together and we get Dennis Hastert was paying a former student from Yorkville, IL to conceal his alleged sexual abuse of the youth that took place while Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach at a high school.
Former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert allegedly agreed to pay millions of dollars in “hush money” to conceal accusations of sexual misconduct in his past, two law enforcement officials told CBS News.
Law enforcement sources say the misconduct mentioned in court documents refers to sexual misconduct dating back more than 30 years. From 1965-1981, Hastert was a popular teacher and wrestling coach in Yorkville, Illinois.
Hastert was indicted and charged Thursday with violating federal banking laws and lying to FBI investigators. According to the indictment, Hastert agreed to pay $3.5 million in 2010 to a person identified only as “Individual A,” in an effort to “compensate and conceal” Hastert’s “prior misconduct.”
The indictment did not reveal details of the misconduct, but it did note that Hastert and Individual A have known each other for “most of Individual A’s life” and that the individual is from the same Illinois town where Hastert was a teacher and coach.
Hastert’s former employer, the Yorkville School District, said in a statement Friday that it was “first made aware of any concerns regarding Mr. Hastert when the federal indictment was released on May 28, 2015.”
“It goes back a long way, back to then,” the official 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,” noting that Hastert had known the person “most of Individual A’s life.”
When asked about the nature of Hastert’s alleged misconduct, the law enforcement official said, “It was sex.’’
Hastert has not responded to requests for comment. A representative of the lobbying firm where he had worked, Dickstein Shapiro, declined to comment.
If all this is true, it is truly despicable. The crimes for which the former GOP speaker was indicted for would pale in comparison for the ones that he was trying to keep quiet. But most likely the statue of limitations ran out on those years ago. However, I will ask the following question, isn’t it telling that you don’t see the liberal MSM trying to investigate the Clinton Foundation Scandals and the role that Hillary Clinton took part in it? The media only circles like blood thirty sharks when it is a Republican that has done wrong.
Artist Nelson Shanks Says He Included a Shadow of a Blue Dress in Former Presidents Bill Clinton’s 2006 Portrait … Metaphor that Represents a Shadow on the Office He Held, or on Hiim
Monica Lewinsk’s blue dress strikes again …
Hmm, seems that the official presidential portrait of for President William Jefferson Clinton has a cryptically image in it. According to the artist, Nelson Shanks, the painting has a shadow at the left hand side of it that literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin. OMG, too funny. All these years and no one ever questioned it? The artist stated that the shadow is a metaphor “in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.” If that’s the case, with regards to a shadow of scandal and a metaphor, then Barack Obama’s official portrait, with the shadow of lies and scandals might look like Spinal Tap’s album cover.
I am no art expert, but who finds this official airport somewhat lacking? Maybe Clinton should have been holding the blue dress, or a cigar in his hand? Remember when this portrait first came out, the uproar was that Clinton was not wearing a wedding ring. Looks like the artist compensated with other things.
An artist who painted a portrait of former President Bill Clinton says there’s more to the piece than one might see at first blush.
Pennsylvania artist Nelson Shanks told the Philadelphia Daily News that he included a shadow of a blue dress in the 2006 portrait, which hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. It’s an apparent reference to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, with Shanks adding that the 42nd president is “probably the most famous liar of all time.”
“If you look at the left-hand side of it,” there’s a mantel in the Oval Office and “I put a shadow coming into the painting and it does two things,” the painter said.
“It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.”
MORE FROM THE MOST TRANSPARANT WHITE HOUSE EVER: What a shock, The Obama White House knew … Let’s add one more scandal to the Obama presidency.
Courtesy of the WAPO, the White House told us prior to the 2012 election that there was no one involved with the WH advance team involved in the prostitution scandal in Colombia in 2012. we were told it was just Secret Service and military individuals involved. White House aides were given information at the time suggesting that a prostitute was an overnight guest in the hotel room of a presidential advance-team member. It gets even better, the lead investigator into the Secret Service prostitution scandal told Senate staffers that he was directed to delay the release of the report until after the 2012 election.
Jay the Carney states to media that there was no evidence of misconduct by White House advance team, hmm … really?
As nearly two dozen Secret Service agents and members of the military were punished or fired following a 2012 prostitution scandal in Colombia, Obama administration officials repeatedly denied that anyone from the White House was involved.
The information that the Secret Service shared with the White House included hotel records and firsthand accounts — the same types of evidence the agency and military relied on to determine who in their ranks was involved.
The Secret Service shared its findings twice in the weeks after the scandal with top White House officials, including then-White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler. Each time, she and other presidential aides conducted an interview with the advance-team member and concluded that he had done nothing wrong.
Meanwhile, the new details also show that a separate set of investigators in the inspector general’s office of the Department of Homeland Security — tasked by a Senate committee with digging more deeply into misconduct on the trip — found additional evidence from records and eyewitnesses who had accompanied the team member in Colombia.
The lead investigator later told Senate staffers that he felt pressure from his superiors in the office of Charles K. Edwards, who was then the acting inspector general, to withhold evidence — and that, in the heat of an election year, decisions were being made with political considerations in mind.
“We were directed at the time .?.?. to delay the report of the investigation until after the 2012 election,” David Nieland, the lead investigator on the Colombia case for the DHS inspector general’s office, told Senate staffers, according to three people with knowledge of his statement.
Nieland added that his superiors told him “to withhold and alter certain information in the report of investigation because it was potentially embarrassing to the administration.”
Just Disgusting … Pope Francis Says 1 in 50 Roman Catholic Priests Are Pedophiles … Abuse of Children was Like “Leprosy” Infecting the Church
WHEN WILL THE CATHOLIC CHURCH PURGE ITSELF OF THIS SCOURGE?
Pope Francis was quoted in an Italian newspaper, La Repubblica, that 1 in 50 or 2% of Roman Catholic priests are pedophiles. The Pope said that the abuse of children was like “leprosy” infecting the Church. However, the Vatican was quick to backtrack on the comments and say that the Pope was misquoted. What, did the Pontiff quote a higher number? At some point the Vatican is going to have to come clean and rid itself of this terrible blight. If they think its an “infection” then they best find a cure pretty damn soon.
Pope Francis on Sunday was quoted by an Italian newspaper saying that about two percent — or 1 in 50 — of Roman Catholic priests are pedophiles, but the Vatican quickly released a statement saying the pontiff had been misquoted. Church officials also said that the journalist who did the story for La Repubblica had a history of having long conversations with public figures without taking notes or taping them, and then reconstructing them from memory.
“Many of my collaborators who fight with me (against pedophilia) reassure me with reliable statistics that say that the level of pedophilia in the Church is at about two percent,” Francis was quoted as saying.
The Pope reportedly told Italian newspaper la Repubblica that abuse of children was like “leprosy” infecting the Church.
Francis said the “corruption of a child is the terrible and unclean thing imaginable” and vowed to “confront it with the seriousness it demands”.
He said that paedophilia was unfortunately common and widespread.
“The church is fighting for the eradication of the habit and for education that rehabilitates. But this leprosy is also present in our house,” he was reported to have said.
“Many of my colleagues who are working against it tell me that paedophilia inside the church is at the level of two per cent. Among the two per cent who are paedophiles are priests and even bishops and cardinals.”
After All These Years Monica Lewinsky Writes About Her Affair with President Bill Clinton, “Sure, My Boss Took Advantage of Me, …” (Update: Lynne Cheney Ponders Hillary Clinton’s Involvement in Realease of Article)
Just curious, if some one is taken advantage of, can it really be consensual?
In an interview with Vanity Fair, Monica Lewinsky writes for the first time about her affair with President Bill Clinton … “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” Lewinsky says that she regrets what happened between herself and President Clinton, but insists it was consensual. However, she also pens that Bill Clinton also took advantage of her … ““Sure, my boss took advantage of me.” Which begs the question, how can something really be consensual when there is a position of authority and that individual takes advantage of it?
It’s rather comical to read responses from the MSM like CNN, Stop judging Monica Lewinsky, stating “they could learn a few things from Monica Lewinsky,” when they were at the top of the list who Lewinsky references when her abuse came in the aftermath that were able to brand her.
Monica Lewinsky writes in Vanity Fair for the first time about her affair with President Clinton: “It’s time to burn the beret and bury the blue dress.” She also says: “I, myself, deeply regret what happened between me and President Clinton. Let me say it again: I. Myself. Deeply. Regret. What. Happened.”
After 10 years of virtual silence (“So silent, in fact,” she writes, “that the buzz in some circles has been that the Clintons must have paid me off; why else would I have refrained from speaking out? I can assure you that nothing could be further from the truth”), Lewinsky, 40, says it is time to stop “tiptoeing around my past—and other people’s futures. I am determined to have a different ending to my story. I’ve decided, finally, to stick my head above the parapet so that I can take back my narrative and give a purpose to my past. (What this will cost me, I will soon find out.)”
Maintaining that her affair with Clinton was one between two consenting adults, Lewinsky writes that it was the public humiliation she suffered in the wake of the scandal that permanently altered the direction of her life: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position. . . . The Clinton administration, the special prosecutor’s minions, the political operatives on both sides of the aisle, and the media were able to brand me. And that brand stuck, in part because it was imbued with power.”
Karl in particular cited Lewinsky’s reaction to the Diane Blair papers, first reported by The Washington Free Beacon. Hillary Clinton, according to Blair’s documents, referred to the former White House intern as a “narcissistic loony tune” and partially blamed herself for the affair. Lewinsky wrote she found Hillary Clinton’s impulse to blame the “woman” for President Clinton’s transgressions “troubling”
Of course we all remember Bubba and his infamous statement of I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky, not a single time. So in the end, Monica Lewinsky was branded and Bill Clinton is looked upon as the elder statesman of the Democrat party.
EXIT QUESTION: Who finds this a bit too convenient coming out this far away from a potential 2016 Hillary Clinton presidential run in of all magazines, Vanity Fair? Why do I think this article got Hillary’s blessing before it was released to print?
With Hillary Clinton almost assuredly running for president in 2016, Monica Lewinsky‘s Vanity Fair piece today set off a lot of people’s conspiratorial alarm bells, with some suspicion anti-Clinton forces might have been behind it. But on The O’Reilly Factor tonight, Lynne Cheney suggested it might have actually been pushed by Clinton’s team themselves.
“I really wonder if this isn’t an effort on the Clintons’ part to get that story out of the way,” Lynne Cheney said during an interview on “The O’Reilly Factor” Tuesday night. Would Vanity Fair publish anything of Monica Lewinsky that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t want in Vanity Fair?”
Guest host Laura Ingraham responded that the theory “makes perfect sense, and I’m really mad I didn’t think of it first.”
Cheney said that releasing the story in 2014 would allow Clinton to run for president and say the story is “old news” once the 2016 presidential campaign kicks into full gear.