A scummy child-molesting Republican. What a shock.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Euphonious_Polemic

It sure seems there are a LOT of Republicans who have a public persona of being morally pure, and railing against perceived “indecency”, while at the same time being guilty of moral transgressions themselves:

Henry Hyde- Chairman of the house judiciary committee, going after Clinton. Was carrying on his own extra-marital affair for years with a married woman named Cherie Snodgrass.

Newt Gingrich - famously cheated on both his first and second wives, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME leading impeachment proceedings against Clinton.

Bob Livingston - succeeded Gingrich as speaker, but then suddenly regsigned, and admitted he cheated on his wife.

Hastert see the OP

Larry Craig - bathroom antics

Mark Sanford - “hiking the appalacian trail”

And on and on and on. All of them getting elected by being MORE MORAL than those disgusting democrats.

One of these things is not like the others. Can you tell me which one?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bryan_Ekers

I let the tie-breaker be which group is more likely to try to impose their morality, good or bad, on everyone else.

They both do.

Liberals want to impose their morality on society by imposing taxes to pay for programs that provide for the poor. Conservatives want to impose their morality by outlawing homosexuality and abortions.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Broomstick

Well, AFTER the judge went on and on it seems that actually it’s 15 months in jail followed by two years supervised release.

Honestly, 15 months still isn’t enough for the scum but if that’s the best the so-called justice system can do I suppose it’s better than nothing.

And no, I do not advocate jailhouse rape for anyone. I do wonder if he’s going to wind up in the “governor’s wing” of prison, though.

And yeah, he still can’t bring himself to admit he molested those boys.

This might be appealable. There is a concept of only trying and sentencing someone for the crime before the court. But the close association of the banking crime with much more heinous crimes probably makes the sentencing OK.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Damuri_Ajashi

They both do.

Liberals want to impose their morality on society by imposing taxes to pay for programs that provide for the poor.

That’s not a moral imposition, it’s a financial imposition.

Besides, it can be perfectly rational to pay higher taxes for social programs to avoid paying higher taxes for more police, courts, and jails. There is no comparable rational motive to outlawing homosexuality or abortion that I’m aware of.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Would you like some more straw for your man?

I can probably provide multiple cites for each of those things. So what straw are you talking about?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bricker

I hate to continue to be the one to upset your plans, but I’m not as sanguine as the prior commentator that a civil suit is viable.

Now, to be clear, I’m discussing lawsuits that sound in tort from the abuse itself. My understanding is that “Victim A,” is suing Hastert right now for breach of contract, the contract in question being Hastert’s agreement to pay the victim a settlement.

That claim may or may not be viable. I welcome comment from someone more versed in civil law than I am. The factors that I think might come into play there include a failure of consideration: can Victim A’s agreement not to sue be valid consideration if such a suit would itself have been barred by Illinois’ statute of limitations?

Illinois recently removed both the criminal and civil statute of limitations for sexual abuse (Senate Bill 1399 in 2013). But this bill did not operate, at least as I understand it, retroactively.

So for this reason, I don’t believe a victim can sue Hastert now for events that happened then, but since the civil arena is not my cuppa tea, it’s very possible I am missing some nuance. I think the suit by Victim A has a stronger chance of succeeding, since if there was a contract formed, Hastert’s breach is well within the statute time frame. My only thought there is the potential lack of a valid contract to begin with.

I believe this was hush money, not a settlement of damages.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@SteveG1

Other people in other more “normal” jobs would be fired, imprisoned for several years AND lose their pensions.

How do you get fired from a job you no longer have?

How do you go to jail for a crime that is past its statute of limitations?

And how do they take away a pension for something you did not do while you were earning that pension?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Bryan_Ekers

That’s not a moral imposition, it’s a financial imposition.

Based on a moral position.

Besides, it can be perfectly rational to pay higher taxes for social programs to avoid paying higher taxes for more police, courts, and jails. There is no comparable rational motive to outlawing homosexuality or abortion that I’m aware of.

There might be alternative rationales for why you want large social safety nets but it is frequently presented as a moral obligation for a wealthy nation to provide a minimum standard of living for the poorest in the nation. That the wealthy have a moral obligation to pay for the social safety net of the country that provided the conditions for them to become wealthy.

There are clearly some social programs that are not geared towards preventing higher costs elsewhere in the system but to reduce suffering and some of the more crippling effects of poverty.