• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hastert asks court to spare him prison; cites shame, health

Don't forget Vitter the diapher boy or Gingrich and others that were chastising Bill Clinton when they were sleazebags too.

Thank you. I forgot about those high moral standard individuals of the conservative persuasion.
 
Thank you. I forgot about those high moral standard individuals of the conservative persuasion.

With all due respect, there are some Conservatives who don't practice what they preach. By the same token, there are some Liberal sleazebags out there too. Human nature being what it is, it was bound to happen.
 
Why do we have statue of limitations on crime such as these? It isn't like the victims of these crimes have all forgotten about being abused by a sick pervert.

Hell, bring back barbed wire enemas for scum like this.

We have a statute of limitations because it is not in the public interest to prosecute individuals for crimes committed long ago if they have led law-abiding lives in the meantime.

I disagree. Paying out hush money to cover up a crime is a felony, and the statute of limitations did not expire on that one. Let the pervert do his time. Considering the pattern of Hastert's behavior, I am sure that sentencing guidelines call for prison. He should get the maximum sentence for the crime he was convicted of.

Compounding is only applicable if criminal sanctions could still be at issue.

I'm not sure what pattern you are referring to. Aside from the structuring, has he committed any crimes in the last few decades?

What reason is that? Does the time that passed make the crime less egregious?

Human justice is not perfect, it does not exist to redress every evil, but rather to effectively suppress grievous vices and to correct the wicked.

Prosecuting a person for something done many decades ago does not provide the same deterrent that prompt prosecution does. Moreover, if a person has gone several decades without reoffending, it is probable that they have repented, and so the corrective purpose of punishment may be superfluous.

It is not a question of the gravity of the crime, but of the benefit which prosecution could have on the common good.
 
I disagree.
Paying out hush money to cover up a crime is a felony,
and the statute of limitations did not expire on that one. Let the pervert do his time. Considering the pattern of Hastert's behavior, I am sure that sentencing guidelines call for prison. He should get the maximum sentence for the crime he was convicted of.



"It ain't the crime, it's the cover-up."

The man did the nasty things that he did and now he's going to have to pay a price. I doubt that he'll get off easy.
 
We have a statute of limitations because it is not in the public interest to prosecute individuals for crimes committed long ago if they have led law-abiding lives in the meantime.



Compounding is only applicable if criminal sanctions could still be at issue.


I'm not sure what pattern you are referring to. Aside from the structuring, has he committed any crimes in the last few decades?



Human justice is not perfect, it does not exist to redress every evil, but rather to effectively suppress grievous vices and to correct the wicked.

Prosecuting a person for something done many decades ago does not provide the same deterrent that prompt prosecution does. Moreover, if a person has gone several decades without reoffending, it is probable that they have repented, and so the corrective purpose of punishment may be superfluous.

It is not a question of the gravity of the crime, but of the benefit which prosecution could have on the common good.


I guess my post went over your head. I am not talking about compounding at all. I am talking about sentencing guidelines that a judge can use when deciding what the sentence is going to be. There will be no compounding of the sentence. The judge will look at the circumstances, and then give Hastert the maximum sentence for THE ONE CRIME HE WAS CONVICTED OF. But feel free to make up some more ****. LOL.
 
I guess my post went over your head. I am not talking about compounding at all. I am talking about sentencing guidelines that a judge can use when deciding what the sentence is going to be. There will be no compounding of the sentence. The judge will look at the circumstances, and then give Hastert the maximum sentence for THE ONE CRIME HE WAS CONVICTED OF. But feel free to make up some more ****. LOL.

Okay. So you just don't know what you're talking about: the felont you mentioned earlier, involving paying hush money to cover a crime, is called "compounding".

Consider yourself educated.
 
I guess my post went over your head. I am not talking about compounding at all. I am talking about sentencing guidelines that a judge can use when deciding what the sentence is going to be. There will be no compounding of the sentence. The judge will look at the circumstances, and then give Hastert the maximum sentence for THE ONE CRIME HE WAS CONVICTED OF. But feel free to make up some more ****. LOL.

Simple terms, Hastert engaged in money laundering to make extortion payments to cover up pedophilia and molestation. In light of that, and how the actions allowed the statute of limitations to expire due to those actions, a maximum sentence on the money laundering charge would be in order. But, justice doesn't frequently work like that.
 
Okay. So you just don't know what you're talking about: the felont you mentioned earlier, involving paying hush money to cover a crime, is called "compounding".

Consider yourself educated.

No, paying the hush money happens to be the crime. The statute of limitations ran out on the crime the hush money covered. You even said so yourself, and you happen to be right on that. So are you now saying that what you said before on the statute of limitations was just BS? This is rich. You were right for once, and you are now saying you were wrong. LMAO.
 
No, paying the hush money happens to be the crime. The statute of limitations ran out on the crime the hush money covered. You even said so yourself, and you happen to be right on that. So are you now saying that what you said before on the statute of limitations was just BS? This is rich. You were right for once, and you are now saying you were wrong. LMAO.

They didn't convict him of extortion. Just sayin.
 
They didn't convict him of extortion. Just sayin.

Yea, they convicted him of money laundering the hush money. They couldn't convict him of extortion, since he was the one being extorted. LOL.
 
Yea, they convicted him of money laundering the hush money. They couldn't convict him of extortion, since he was the one being extorted. LOL.

Unfortunate sad fact, prior bad acts don't count if they haven't been convicted of them. But, damn Hastert seems to be a case to enact maximum sentencing.
 
No, paying the hush money happens to be the crime. The statute of limitations ran out on the crime the hush money covered. You even said so yourself, and you happen to be right on that. So are you now saying that what you said before on the statute of limitations was just BS? This is rich. You were right for once, and you are now saying you were wrong. LMAO.

Try to follow:

You referred, by description rather than name, to the felony of "compounding" (paying hush money to cover a crime). I replied by explaining that the crime of "compounding" is inapplicable because at the time the payments were made, the statute of limitations had already expired on the original crime. You then responded with something incomprehensible, as you apparently thoight "compounding" referred to something about the sentencing procedure. IOW, you didn't know what you were talking about.

I think it would be beneficial if you re-read post #28 and the following posts in light of this new knowledge.
 
Hey look, it only took one post for someone to try and equate the acts of one person with a whole group of people.

well JM, to be fair the catholic church and boy scouts are conservative organizations. Penn State football was run by republicans. Now I don't think there is a link between conservatism and pedophilia but pedophiles do seem to prosper in conservative environments. Just look at the conservative posters at that forum. There is simply no fact that conservatives (yourself included) can convince themselves isn't true. So denial, obedience and gullibility all work to the pedophiles advantage. the catholic church and Penn State examples perfectly illustrate the choices those organizations made for their own self interest instead of the victims.

And not for nothing, if there was a "liberal" organization that encouraged and protected child rapists, we'd never hear the end of it.
 
Um no. Not sure how you came to that conclusion but it figures. Let me help as you seem to need it. You claimed I was comparing 1 individuals actions to a larger subset. I said if it was only 1 life would be grand, meaning if it was only Hastert the pedophile then you would be correct. However the hypocrisy extends much farther for the holier than though cons. Like senator wide stance or Henry Hyde and his infidelity or Bob Barr and the disgrace of a domestic situation he was involved in. Repukes claim to have higher moral standards but it really is bull****. They are not better than anyone else and hypocrites for claiming otherwise. I hope this helps. In addition as I mentioned Hastert was a very powerful and influential repuke. A fine representative of a con if I ever saw one.

Again you seem to miss your own point. You focus of the hypocrisy of a large group of people as if they are all child molesters. This is both a bigoted comment and a crazy comment. Hypocrisy should be expected from a law breaker, and their hypocritical message is actually the correct one. You judge people hypocrites who have too high a standard that they don't follow... so in this case the too high standard would be opposing child rape? Do you really think that bar should be lowered? :roll:

You argue that it is BS to claim that the Republicans have a higher moral standard... this too is a bizarre argument to pull from this story. Are you saying that Democrats are OK with child rape?

Also, on your argument of his position in government, and a list of other Republicans caught in scandal, are you really ready to start playing a matching game? Should I judge all Democrats and liberals by the actions of Elliot Spitzer, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, Gary Condit etc. etc.? Would it make any sense to call these politicians hypocrites?
 
Last edited:
well JM, to be fair the catholic church and boy scouts are conservative organizations. Penn State football was run by republicans.

And what fair point are you trying to make here? Is it OK in your mind to brand a whole group of people by the actions of some? Are you so myopic that you believe the same can't be done with some other random group? We could do the same thing with "school teacher" or any other subset of the population.. is that fair?

Now I don't think there is a link between conservatism and pedophilia but pedophiles do seem to prosper in conservative environments.

Again, you are trying to go from the specific to the general.

Just look at the conservative posters at that forum. There is simply no fact that conservatives (yourself included) can convince themselves isn't true.

Nice freudian slip. Yes, you got me, I do believe all facts are true! :lamo

So denial, obedience and gullibility all work to the pedophiles advantage.

Begging the question.

the catholic church and Penn State examples perfectly illustrate the choices those organizations made for their own self interest instead of the victims.

And again, should we use all incidents of criminal behavior a "perfect illustrations" of the larger groups the perpetrators are a member of?

And not for nothing, if there was a "liberal" organization that encouraged and protected child rapists, we'd never hear the end of it.

NAMBLA.
 
Last edited:
And what fair point are you trying to make here? Is it OK in your mind to brand a whole group of people by the actions of some? Are you so myopic that you believe the same can't be done with some other random group? We could do the same thing with "school teacher" or any other subset of the population.. is that fair?

You completely missed the point. that's okay, I expected nothing less. But I did get a nice quote from you. I don't think you understand my comment about the ability of conservatives to believe things that are not true.
 
You completely missed the point. that's okay, I expected nothing less. But I did get a nice quote from you. I don't think you understand my comment about the ability of conservatives to believe things that are not true.

I know what you were trying to say which is why I categorized what you actually said as a slip. What you actually said was hilarious.

Any chance you will respond to the rest of the post?
 
I know what you were trying to say which is why I categorized what you actually said as a slip. What you actually said was hilarious.

Any chance you will respond to the rest of the post?

I'm sorry, your attempt to categorize Nambla as a "liberal" organization is rather pathetic and I ignored it. The rest of it was you simply missing the point.

And again, should we use all incidents of criminal behavior a "perfect illustrations" of the larger groups the perpetrators are a member of?

that wasn't my point at all so I told you that you missed the point. and you're correct, I should have said "cant". So just to be clear, there is no fact that conservatives cant convince themselves isn't true when convenient. For example when I post the estimates that say there are 17 million newly insured people thanks to Obamacare, conservatives call it a lie and say it includes previously insured. In that example, I posted a fact. Conservatives in that example convinced themselves its not true. So there no fact I can post that conservatives can't convince themselves is not true. But you did give me another quote.
 
They cant hammer him for subject A, but they can certainly consider that when they are sentencing him for subject B. Nothing indicates worthiness for leniency. He should get the max.
 
Unfortunate sad fact, prior bad acts don't count if they haven't been convicted of them. But, damn Hastert seems to be a case to enact maximum sentencing.

Actually, federal sentencing guidelines allow prior bad acts to be considered even if there was no conviction
 
With all due respect, there are some Conservatives who don't practice what they preach. By the same token, there are some Liberal sleazebags out there too. Human nature being what it is, it was bound to happen.
No doubt, probably more so. My objection is that the liberal sleezbags usually aren't the ones claiming others should have the so called "high moral standards". Certainly not the way cons crudade around about how OTHERS should behave.
 
Hastert can burn in hell
 
Try to follow:

You referred, by description rather than name, to the felony of "compounding" (paying hush money to cover a crime). I replied by explaining that the crime of "compounding" is inapplicable because at the time the payments were made, the statute of limitations had already expired on the original crime. You then responded with something incomprehensible, as you apparently thoight "compounding" referred to something about the sentencing procedure. IOW, you didn't know what you were talking about.

I think it would be beneficial if you re-read post #28 and the following posts in light of this new knowledge.

No, YOU are the one who can't follow. And nice going trying to put words into my mouth I never said. That is dishonest.

Sentencing guidelines for a crime have absolutely nothing to do with compounding, since the sentence is given on the crime he is convicted of, and there is a minimum and maximum punishment he can receive for the crime he has been convicted of. There is no more time involved, other than the time Hastert will be given for money laundering. That can range from probation to the maximum sentence, depending on how the judge rules in THIS case. A judge can make a determination using those guidelines, based on the egregiousness of what he did, and give him the maximum sentence if he wants to, and there is absolutely no compounding involved, since it is related to the crime he is convicted of, not the one the statute of limitations ran out on. If the maximum sentence for a crime is, say, 10 years, a judge cannot sentence him to 11 years because of another crime. THAT would be compounding. However, the judge CAN give out 10 years, because that is what the maximum sentence IS for the crime he was convicted of. Try to keep up. Duh, and please stop your dishonesty!!!!
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, your attempt to categorize Nambla as a "liberal" organization is rather pathetic and I ignored it. The rest of it was you simply missing the point.

Ah, so you build a false reality by ignoring inconvenient truths.. how ironic. Regardless of how distasteful it is, their attempts to have their sexual orientation recognized and legalized is as liberal an effort as any other movement.

that wasn't my point at all so I told you that you missed the point. and you're correct, I should have said "cant". So just to be clear, there is no fact that conservatives cant convince themselves isn't true when convenient. For example when I post the estimates that say there are 17 million newly insured people thanks to Obamacare, conservatives call it a lie and say it includes previously insured. In that example, I posted a fact. Conservatives in that example convinced themselves its not true. So there no fact I can post that conservatives can't convince themselves is not true. But you did give me another quote.

Hah! Oh boy, Vern, you are a hoot. I have not said what I thought you intended to say, only what you actually said... so how you manage to determine I was wrong on what you intended to say is indeed a mystery.

Also, I love how you recall and estimate and then call it a fact. It seems you are the one convincing yourself into believing falsehoods. Estimates aren't facts.

You are hilarious. Just more irony to add to the list of Vern-isms.
 
No, YOU are the one who can't follow. And nice going trying to put words into my mouth I never said. That is dishonest.

Sentencing guidelines for a crime have absolutely nothing to do with compounding, since the sentence is given on the crime he is convicted of, and there is a minimum and maximum punishment he can receive for the crime he has been convicted of. There is no more time involved, other than the time Hastert will be given for money laundering. That can range from probation to the maximum sentence, depending on how the judge rules in THIS case. A judge can make a determination using those guidelines, based on the egregiousness of what he did, and give him the maximum sentence if he wants to, and there is absolutely no compounding involved, since it is related to the crime he is convicted of, not the one the statute of limitations ran out on. If the maximum sentence for a crime is, say, 10 years, a judge cannot sentence him to 11 years because of another crime. THAT would be compounding. However, the judge CAN give out 10 years, because that is what the maximum sentence IS for the crime he was convicted of. Try to keep up. Duh, and please stop your dishonesty!!!!

I have a rule, when someone doesn't know what they are talking about, I will make two attempts to help them jnderstand. This is my second, so if you still don't get it, I'll have to leave you in your ignorance:

"Compounding" does not refer to anything having to do with the sentence. Compounding is the act of paying money to keep someone from reporting a crime to the police. You were the one who brought up the crime of compounding, although you didn't know that it was called that.
 
Back
Top Bottom