Former Speaker Dennis Hastert Sentenced To 15 Months In Prison

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert has been sentenced to fifteen months in Federal prison for his conviction on bank fraud charges related to an effort to cover-up decades old incidents of sexual abuse from the time when Hastert was a High School wrestling coach:

A federal judge on Wednesday sentenced former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert to 15 months in federal prison — a term above what even prosecutors had recommended and one that clearly takes into account the sexual abuse allegations that generated the criminal case against the Illinois Republican.

The sentencing marked an ignominious moment in the life of a man who was once a revered high school teacher and wrestling coach in Illinois and who ascended into the highest ranks of American politics. Even before the hearing, prosecutors had revealed in court filings how Hastert allegedly had molested or inappropriately touched five teenagers affiliated with the wrestling team he coached decades ago. U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin had indicated that he would consider that in handing down an appropriate punishment.

Hastert, reading from a prepared statement, told the judge that he was “deeply ashamed” to be in court. He acknowledged that he “mistreated some of the athletes I coached.”

“The thing I want to do is say I’m sorry to those I’ve hurt and misled,” he said. “They looked at me, and I took advantage of them.”

Durkin pressed him further, asking him if he had sexually abused the students. Hastert was hesitant.

Of Scott Cross, who spoke in court, he said: “I don’t remember doing that, but I accept his statement.”

He acknowledged abusing another victim, but hemmed and hawed about Steven Reinboldt, whose sister has shared his story publicly. “It’s a different situation, sir,” Hastert said, before ultimately acknowledging that he had sexually abused Reinboldt.

Earlier in court, Cross, 53, a married father of two, told a judge how Hastert, who also is married and has two children, had abused him during his senior year of high school. Cross, who wrestled on a team Hastert coached, said he ended up alone in a locker room with Hastert when he stayed late to try to shed weight, and Hastert offered to help with a massage.

Cross said that while he was lying on a training table, Hastert pulled down his shorts and touched him in a sexual way.

“I was stunned by what he was doing,” Cross said.

Cross said he “did not say anything to anyone.”

“As a 17-year-old boy, I was devastated,” he said. “I tried to figure out why Coach Hastert had singled me out.”

Cross, whose brother is a former Illinois legislator and who himself works in financial services, said that he felt “pain, shame and guilt” for years and that he confided in his brother and wife about what happened only after the criminal case against Hastert emerged.

He said he had trouble sleeping and working, but came forward because he wanted the judge to know what happened, and he wanted his children to know that “there’s an alternative to staying silent.”

“I wanted you to know the pain and suffering he caused me then, and still causes me today,” Cross said.

Hastert, 74, who arrived at the federal courthouse Wednesday morning in a wheelchair, did not plead guilty to any sex crimes. Rather, he admitted in October that he had withdrawn money in increments that would allow him to avoid having to report it — itself a crime carrying a maximum five-year sentence. The money, investigators would come to learn, was meant to buy the silence of a man who alleged Hastert had victimized him as a youth.

Prosecutors had recommended Hastert face zero to six months in prison; defense attorneys had advocated for probation. In court filings, Hastert’s attorneys wrote that their client, who is in poor health, was deeply ashamed of what he had done.

Thomas Green, an attorney for Hastert, said in a recent statement: “Mr. Hastert acknowledges that as a young man he committed transgressions for which he is profoundly sorry. He earnestly apologizes to his former students, family, friends, previous constituents and all others affected by the harm his actions have caused.”

The investigation of Hastert started three years ago, when FBI and IRS investigators received a tip that he had been withdrawing money in suspicious amounts and not telling bank officials truthfully why. Prosecutors wrote that investigators initially wondered whether Hastert was being extorted, and Hastert claimed as much after they interviewed him. He pointed the finger at a man he said was making false claims about sex abuse.

All of those alleging Hastert abused or touched them inappropriately were teenagers when the abuse occurred decades ago. The U.S. probation office found “no evidence of any sexual misconduct since approximately 1979,” which is before Hastert entered elective office, court filings show.

Given the fact that the statute of limitations had long ago expired on any criminal charges that could have been brought against Hastert related to the actual charges of molestation, this was perhaps the harshest sentence that he could have received under the circumstances. Indeed, had Hastert been charged with these crimes thirty years ago when they happened, he likely would have received a far harsher sentence than what he received today, but given the sentencing guidelines, which the Judge is free to ignore if the factual basis exists for doing so, and the recommendation of the U.S. Attorney it is clear that Judge Durkin used his discretionary authority to enhance the sentence to a point that at least took into account the nature of the underlying charges against Hastert as best he could. The only unfortunate thing is that it took three decades for justice to be done in this case.

FILED UNDER: Crime, Law and the Courts, Quick Takes, US Politics,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020.

Comments

  1. Paul L. says:

    Nice to see one of Political class getting entrapped by the Patriot Act’s BS structuring law that has been used against zero terrorists.

  2. James Pearce says:

    Proposal: We call the transgendered bathroom bills “the Hastert Rule.”

  3. PD Shaw says:

    The odd thing is that Hastert probably didn’t commit any crimes when he abused these kids.

    While he was a teacher, Illinois had decriminalized sodomy. The most applicable crime was indecent liberties, which involves deviate acts (anal or oral sex) with someone under the age of 16. There was no special duties imposed on adults in a position of authority, such as a teacher. From what I’ve read the victims are either too old, and/or only fondling is alleged.

    I’m not sure what insight can be gained from this other than laws change, and sometimes important people get in trouble for things that unimportant people would not.

  4. Electroman says:

    @Paul L.: Structuring has been a crime since the mid-80’s; it wasn’t criminalized by the Patriot Act. I don’t think it should be a crime at all.

  5. James Pearce says:

    @PD Shaw:

    The odd thing is that Hastert probably didn’t commit any crimes when he abused these kids.

    This…

    Is the weaseliest thing I’ve read in a month.

    From what I’ve read the victims are either too old, and/or only fondling is alleged.

    WTF is this?

    Hastert gave these guys a life sentence, to the point where they have to testify in court in their 50s about how their high school coach molested them, and you’re saying it’s “only” fondling?

  6. C. Clavin says:

    Dough boy is going to get a taste of his own medicine in prison.
    Finally a Republican is held accountable for something.

  7. C. Clavin says:

    @PD Shaw:
    He was a serial child molester….I don’t care what the letter of the law says.
    Only thing worse is those fwcking Catholic priests being protected by the Vatican.

  8. PD Shaw says:

    Good reminder of why I don’t comment here hardly ever anymore.

  9. James Pearce says:

    @PD Shaw:

    Good reminder of why I don’t comment here hardly ever anymore.

    I say this with all respect.

    I apologize if I hurt your feelings.

    I wish you would comment here more.

    And I wish you would think about your comments a little more before you type them. (I should do that too.)

  10. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @C. Clavin: And there’s no statute of limitations there, either!

  11. Jenos Idanian says:

    @PD Shaw: That is an interesting point. It might not turn out to be wholly accurate, as there are a lot of details that are still unknown, but there’s a hell of a good chance that Hastert didn’t break any existing laws when he was abusing the boys.

    And what is interesting about that possibility? The first thing that comes to mind is it indicates how our society has improved since then.

    The responses to your observation are equally interesting. The “letter of the law” doesn’t matter here, because True Justice must be served. This is the exact opposite argument used when the accused is a beloved liberal.

    Bill Clinton’s sexual harassment? Fuggedaboutit. Hillary’s secret e-mail server? “Didn’t violate the letter of the law!”

    And the resurgence of the Catholic sex abuse scandal. Funny how that keeps getting dragged up, when there’s a real epidemic going on today of teachers raping students. Stacey McCain has been following this, as well. But apparently teachers are part of the protected class, so their little… peccadilloes… get politely ignored.

    But back to Hastert… he did some very bad things, and deserves to be punished. 15 months seems a little light to me, but that’s what the law says. But his case also brings up the injustice of the “structuring” laws, and also the progress made in our legal system (and society in general) in how the law handles those who sexually abuse children.

  12. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: Three cheers for prison rape! (As long as it’s the right people being raped, of course.)

    Isn’t that what you’re saying?

  13. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jenos Idanian: No, I was talking about assault. And when do you have to go back to your second job? I’m already missing you not being here.

    (But while we’re at it, are you against some child abusers getting raped or beaten in prison? Which ones? Personally, I wish that prisons were nice places full of nice people, but I have no particular objection to the reality that the anarchy that exists in them allows karma to extract penalties that the “justice” system cannot; but I’m a sociopath. What’s your excuse?)

  14. Gustopher says:

    @PD Shaw: This is why people hate lawyers. The distinction between legality and justice bothers them.

    What is more bothersome is that the structuring laws are so unjust — there is no reason that the Feds should have access to all large financial transactions in the first place, and it speaks to a general lack of privacy and is arguably an unconstitutional search applied broadly to hide the search.

    But, on the plus side, the fondler goes to jail, so there’s that.

    Also, you should post more. You are infuriating and wrong more often than not, but it’s a more principled infuriating and wrong. It’s a better caliber of wrong than the “guns, guns, guns” crowd. I’ve noticed your slowly increasing absence, and the comment sections have been the worse for it. (I also miss Michael Reynolds, but I was pretty much a Michael Reynolds fanboy before his change after the ISIS attacks on Paris)

  15. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: But while we’re at it, are you against some child abusers getting raped or beaten in prison? Which ones? Personally, I wish that prisons were nice places full of nice people, but I have no particular objection to the reality that the anarchy that exists in them allows karma to extract penalties that the “justice” system cannot; but I’m a sociopath. What’s your excuse?

    I don’t like rape. Period. I don’t make exceptions for people I don’t like; I don’t wish rape (or even tacitly condone rape) on anyone.

    I also don’t like “rogue justice.” I don’t like encouraging (or allowing, or endorsing) people to get away with rape as long as they target the “right” victims.

    And don’t you think it odd that I am pretty much alone here in saying that rape is bad, every time? I understand Cliffy would push that, as he’s demonstrated on way too many occasions that he’s an idiotic sociopath, but why the hell are you siding with him?

  16. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Gustopher: Also, you should post more. You are infuriating and wrong more often than not, but it’s a more principled infuriating and wrong.

    Let me speculate why Shaw doesn’t comment more. Look above — Shaw made a good observation, and the response was major down-twinkles and genuinely stupid attacks. And while you say you value Shaw’s contributions and have noted the decline, you didn’t speak up until Shaw pointed it out.

    You didn’t try to “police your own side,” you didn’t defend Shaw’s point, you made some mealy-mouthed platitudes to make yourself look better.

    I won’t speak for Shaw, but were I to do so, I’d say something along the lines of “too little, too late.”

  17. James Pearce says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Shaw made a good observation, and the response was major down-twinkles and genuinely stupid attacks.

    A “good observation?” Look, dude, a “good observation” about child molestation does not include the phrase “only fondling.”

    And besides the point, you don’t even seem to grasp what’s going on. You seem to think Hastert is going to jail for sexual abuse. ERTTT. Bank fraud. The sexual abuse isn’t even being prosecuted, and there are reasons for it, but PD’s reasons aren’t those reasons.

    I regret my tone, but not my criticism. Thank you for jumping in though. You really brought something to the table this time.

  18. Jenos Idanian says:

    @James Pearce: Shaw brought up how there was a good chance that Hastert’s conduct then wouldn’t have been illegal then, which shows how the law (and society) has changed — and for the better.

    I am of an age when I can remember how drunk driving was a source of comedy — and how quickly that changed, also for the better.

    I regret my tone, but not my criticism.

    Fair enough. You should also regret the timing — the way it played out, it looks like you only showed any regrets once Shaw spoke up.

  19. Just 'nutha ig'rant cracker says:

    @Jenos Idanian:

    Let me speculate why Shaw doesn’t comment more. Look above — Shaw made a good observation,

    This from the man who said

    I don’t like rape. Period.

    four minutes earlier.

    Cue up “fondling isn’t rape?”

  20. PD Shaw says:

    @Jenos Idanian: “That is an interesting point. It might not turn out to be wholly accurate.”

    I spent some time looking through old law review articles and practice guides to figure out the state of the law during that period, but without knowing the exact year of the abuse, as well as the age of the victim and the conduct, I cannot be 100% certain. But the one person who testified as to what was done to him was 17 years old, so I’m not sure how that could have been charged other than as non-statutory rape, and at that time rape was a crime of unreasonable force; lack of consent was not a cornerstone.

    You’re right that attitudes and the law have changed significantly in living memory, but in some cases, not so long ago. This is from the introduction to a recent federal court opinion:

    In 1992 the plaintiff, who was then 48 years old, was convicted in a Wisconsin state court of having sexually assaulted a boy repeatedly for five years beginning when the boy was eight years old. . . . Oddly, he was given only a year in jail and probation for these assaults.

  21. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Just ‘nutha ig’rant cracker: “Good observation,” you worthless git, as in “interesting point, one that could further the discourse.”

    And if you’re done giggling about prison rape to talk about how horrible non-prison rape is, yes, there is a justification for saying “just fondling.” It’s to discourage offenders from escalating.

    Let’s say we have the death penalty for child molesting. Touch a kid, get the chair. So we have a guy (or a woman; that’s happening a lot more lately) who’s just finished molesting a kid. They now realize they’re going to get the death penalty if they’re caught. At that point, the smart thing for them to do is to kill the child. The penalty won’t be any greater, and they’ve eliminated a witness.

    Likewise, a sliding scale for the degree of offense also discourages escalation. So many years for “just fondling” a child. More for actual rape, and even more if pregnancy or an STD results. Bodily injury also adds on to the penalty.

    Now why don’t you and Cliffy go off and giggle some more about prison rape? I’m sure you can think of lots of other conservatives you’d like to see violently violated.

  22. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian: “And don’t you think it odd that I am pretty much alone here in saying that rape is bad, every time? ”

    Yes, Jenos. Only you are advanced enough morally to say that rape is bad.

    There’s simply no chance at all that the other people here who didn’t make this bold declaration failed to do so because it is so blindingly self-evident, just as no commenters bother to post “I just inhaled and exhaled.”

    No, it’s because you are truly the only moral human being on this planet.

  23. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian: And as long as you’re the great moral exemplar, and you’ve been bloviating about Bill Clinton “harassing” women, I wonder if you’d like to comment on the Republicans in congress electing a serial child molester as speaker as they worked to impeach Clinton for an act of consensual sex with an adult woman?

  24. Jenos Idanian says:

    @PD Shaw: It showed that you’d done some homework, but I didn’t realize how much. (That’s probably because I’m a layman. Hell, I wouldn’t know where to start such research.)

    It’s interesting how quickly entrenched public attitudes can be swung. I vividly recall when drunk driving stopped being a joke, and it’s remarkable how quickly gay marriage gained such widespread acceptance.

    My own hunch (I won’t even dignify it as a “theory”) about why child molesting was kept so quiet for so long is a combination of factors. Partly it’s such an icky topic, partly some people thought it was better for the child to just ignore it and pretend it never happened, partly because so many saw it as unthinkable that they couldn’t believe that it could actually happen…

    It also swung a bit too far in the other direction. I recall all too clearly the hysteria about sexual abuse at day cares, including several cases that were gross miscarriages of justice — one of which is still waiting to be corrected.

    It’s like we can’t get it right; it’s either too much or too little.

  25. Jenos Idanian says:

    @wr: God knows I should just ignore you, but you managed to work two stupendous lies into one sentence.

    I wonder if you’d like to comment on the Republicans in congress electing a serial child molester as speaker as they worked to impeach Clinton for an act of consensual sex with an adult woman?

    1) You didn’t include “known serial child molester,” which he wasn’t.

    2) Clinton wasn’t impeached for consensual sex with an adult woman (whose life he and his supporters promptly set about destroying), but for lying under oath about that relationship.

    Now don’t you want to also get in on the “prison rape is awesome” giggle party? Maybe if you imagine that it’s the Koch brothers behind bars…

  26. Jenos Idanian says:

    @PD Shaw: Here’s another case you might find interesting. I’m going to have to give this one some serious thought…

  27. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian: Clinton was impeached for the blow job. Technically it was “about” perjury, but every creature with an IQ larger than that of a slug is and was completely aware of exactly what was going on.

    And Denny Hastert, proudly held up by the Republicans in congress as a moral examplar who would lead the crusade against the profoundly immoral president was a child molester. Let me repeat that: The Republicans in congress chose a serial child molester as their speaker.

    And your response, oh keeper of all things moral — “Hey, maybe they didn’t know.”

    Sure. And maybe they didn’t know Gingrich was screwing his aide while impeaching Clinton for a blowjob. And maybe they didn’t know one of their senators liked to pay women to have sex with him while he was dressed in a diaper. Maybe they didn’t know that one of the leaders of anti-gay legislation liked to pick up anonymous men in airport bathrooms.

    You know, maybe every single member of the Republican leadership was as ignorant or stupid as you choose to be, and were completely unaware that those who labelled themselves moral leaders were actually leading the most squalid, depraved lives imaginable and managed to hide every trace of this.

    Or maybe they just didn’t care. Like you don’t care.

  28. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian: “Now don’t you want to also get in on the “prison rape is awesome” giggle party? Maybe if you imagine that it’s the Koch brothers behind bars…”

    So now you’ve decided that this is something too serious to joke about?

    Isn’t this what you normally whine and stamp your little feet about — “political correctness”?

    Isn’t the whole reason you support Trump because he says offensive things gleefully?

    Now you’re decided to become the language scold? You really need to make up your mind which way you want to troll.

  29. Jenos Idanian says:

    @wr: Amazing. You can read the minds of the people behind the Clinton indictment, and the people who supported Hastert for speaker? And you do that without actually having a mind of your own?

    How impressive.

  30. Jenos Idanian says:

    @wr: And when did I say I supported Trump? The one thing I said in that line was that, when I had a chance to vote for Trump, I declined and voted for someone else.

    Do you even realize when you’re making up shit again?

  31. grumpy realist says:

    @PD Shaw: Reminds me of a case I read where Mr. Popular High School Football jock raped a woman, was convicted, and then vamoosed the country for umpteen years (with the help of his parents) before sentencing.

    After many years, he was dug up by Interpol from Switzerland and extradited back to the US, where he was finally sentenced.

    Fact is, over the fifteen or so years the attitudes about rape by high school football jocks definitely moved away from the slap-on-the-fingers-boys-will-be-boys-and-she’s-a-slut-anyway to “this is a CRIME”.

    So when Mr. Skedaddled-our-of-here finally got back in front of a judge, they threw the book at him. Which meant years and years more than he probably would have originally been convicted for.

    Karma, baby. Karma.

  32. Jenos Idanian says:

    @grumpy realist: Your story brings a tear to my eye. Karma, you are a glorious, magnificent bitch, and I love you.

    And it gives me hope for Roman Polanski eventually facing the justice he’s evaded for… hell, most of my life.

  33. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian: “And when did I say I supported Trump”

    It’s not even May sweeps yet, so it’s a little early for reruns. Spare us the “I never said I was in favor of Zimmerman, I just posted six hundred million messages defending him and calling the kid he murdered a thug because of some completely unrelated reasons.”

    You are judged by how you act, not by how you claim you act. Haven’t you even figured this out yet?

  34. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian: “You can read the minds of the people behind the Clinton indictment, and the people who supported Hastert for speaker?”

    Next up from Jenos: It’s not fair to say the Nazis wanted to commit genocide against the Jews just because they rounded them up and sytematically murdered them. How are we supposed to know what was in their minds?

  35. Jenos Idanian says:

    @wr: I can’t deal with your stupid any more.

    Your ethical philosophy boils down to “if I don’t like someone, I can say whatever lie I think might stick best about them. And anyone who points out my lying is obviously in the bag for the person I’m lying about.”

    You lied repeatedly about Zimmerman. And you got pissy about having those lies rubbed in your face.

    You lied repeatedly about Trump. And you got pissy about having those lies rubbed in your face.

    You probably lied repeatedly about Romney, and probably got pissy about having those lied rubbed in your face, too — but I don’t recall any particulars. (You’re just not that memorable to me — I have far higher priorities than your incoherent bullshit.)

    You wanna talk about the topic at hand? Go ahead. You wanna instead try to piss on my leg and show some primitive dominance over me? I care about that about as much as this site’s moderators care about enforcing their own rules.

    Just don’t get your hopes up about me even trying to take you seriously.

  36. Jenos Idanian says:

    Back on topic (with my apologies for my part in wr’s little demands for attention): Hastert more than likely deserves to spend quite a few years as a guest of the state (or the feds). However, it must be acknowledged that his actual conviction was for a BS law that is not only ripe for abuse, but has been abused in way too many cases.

    And he (no more than anyone else) does not deserve to be raped in prison. We have some basic obligations to those we imprison, and “keep them from being raped” is one of them.

  37. Gustopher says:

    @wr:

    Clinton was impeached for the blow job. Technically it was “about” perjury, but every creature with an IQ larger than that of a slug is and was completely aware of exactly what was going on.

    Clinton was impeached for being a Democrat. The Republicans didn’t care about the blowjob, they didn’t care about the alleged perjury (the definition of “sex” used in the deposition was much stricter than people assume, to the point where the statements may not have been perjury), they didn’t care about any of that.

    They cared that he was a Democrat, and that he was basically sleazy enough that things might be plausible. The impeachment had everything to do with destroying his Presidency, not defending any great noble truths or their delicate sensibilities.

  38. Gustopher says:

    @Jenos Idanian: Unlike some people, I do not immediately go for tearing someone down for writing something stupid — particularly when they realize it was stupid.

    I am sorry that I have failed to live up to your expectations of me.

    I am sure that I will fail you further. For instance, when you are arrested for disturbing the peace and brandishing a weapon while yelling at kids to get off your lawn, if you are then raped in prison, I might not protest very loudly. To be clear, I personally would not rape you either in prison or outside of prison, and I think that sentencing people to 2-5 years of forced sodomy is cruel and unusual punishment, and I think that our prison system has a responsibility to protect inmates, and I am even generally opposed to rape (I confess to being indifferent to ducks raping other ducks, etc), but I do not feel that I have an obligation to vocally protest each and every injustice in the world.

    Again, I am sorry that I have failed you.

  39. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Gustopher: I neither need, want, nor care about your passive-aggressive BS tarted up as an “apology.” So cram it. (But in a consensual way, of course.)

    I spoke up because I took pity on you. You had a very simple cause and effect series of events unfolding before your eyes, and you totally missed it, so I thought it might be considerate of me to point out what you were missing. To wit:

    1) Shaw makes a thoughtful point.

    2) Shaw is attacked by one of the Regular Attack Morons (RAMs).

    3) Shaw’s comment gets down-twinkled, and RAM gets up-twinkled.

    4) Shaw wryly observes that this is why Shaw doesn’t comment much.

    5) You express regret for Shaw’s sentiment.

    My speculation is that Shaw’s reticence is because of the RAMs — who are, at best, tolerated by the majority of the commentariat, and at worst, are encouraged. Even when they blatantly flout the alleged “rules” of the site, they are never called to task.

    None of which has anything to do with the topic, but it’s been a while since that’s been important around here.

  40. Jenos Idanian says:

    @Gustopher: Clinton was impeached for being a Democrat.

    True enough. The Republicans let themselves forget that laws aren’t for Democrats. Only Republicans are to be held accountable when it comes to breaking laws. Democrats get a free pass (unless they embarrass the party too much, or their offenses are sufficiently egregious.)

    Charlie Rangel, one-time head of the Ways and Means Committee, committing tax fraud? No big deal.

    Bill Clinton lying under oath? Fugeddaboudit.

    Hillary Clinton having highly classified material on her private e-mail server, set up so she can evade Congressional oversight and the Freedom of Information Act? Nothing to see here.

    Obama rewriting the laws on the fly for his political expedience? Shut up, racists.

    But back to Clinton: why don’t you make up a list of circumstances where it’s legally permissible to lie under oath, then get your Senator or Representative to introduce legislation formally recognizing it. That’d level the playing field a little, instead of this retroactive, make-it-up-as-you-go-along when it’s politically convenient game that’s gotten way, way too tiresome.

  41. wr says:

    @Gustopher: Agree with you entirely. They wanted him out the same way they wanted Obama destroyed. The blowjob was the pretext and the perjury charge the legal figleaf.

  42. wr says:

    @Jenos Idanian: Little Jenos is busy here today. I guess the weather must be bad so he’s got time off from his second job at the car wash.

  43. al-Ameda says:

    former Speaker Hastert:

    “It is important to have a national notification system to help safely recover children kidnapped by child predators,” he said in a statement reported by the Tribune. “But it is equally important to stop those predators before they strike, to put repeat child molesters into jail for the rest of their lives and to help law enforcement with the tools they need to get the job done.”

    He was also one of those excessive moralists who thought that Bill Clinton should be impeached:

    Tomorrow, I shall cast a difficult vote. The president’s inability to abide by the law, the Constitution and my conscience have all led me to the solemn conclusion that impeachment articles must be passed.

    His ‘conscience’ must have been a conflicted and tortured place to be.