Today on Blogcritics
Home » Dennis Hastert: Self-Foot Shooting Extraordinaire

Dennis Hastert: Self-Foot Shooting Extraordinaire

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Speaker of the House Dennis "Jabba" Hastert gave an interview to Rush Limbaugh on his radio program yesterday. The transcript of the interview is readily available at his site, but I would never send anyone to that hellhole. I took the hit so you don’t have to and here is what I found.

First things first: I really believe Dennis Hastert is lying. Yes, I said it. He has told two versions of the famous "what did you know and when" story. He is a bad liar and I love the bad liars who forget what they said in one interview as they go through another. It is great because their previous answers are there for everyone to see. Well, everyone but Hastert, who probably could have used the notes.

The problem with Hastert's tale is that this is not a new problem with Mark Foley. He has been steadily harassing male pages pretty much since 1995. There have been complaints in the past about his behavior and everyone, including Hastert, was aware of his problem with the dirty talking. There are currently two different stories being blurred into one and Hastert is using the distraction rather well. He is not lying when he says he had not seen the emails before Friday. He did not “see” them, but he knew about them and that is the where the lie is.

In the Limbaugh interview Hastert admits to knowing about a problem with Foley. “There were two pieces of paper out there, one that we knew about and we acted on; one that happened in 2003 we didn't know about.” What is the one they knew about then exactly and how did they act on it?

The action is where Hastert can be saved or destroyed. If he had an internal investigation on it and found nothing, I cannot blame Hastert. They impeached a President for having a similar situation arise with an intern. The Republicans have set themselves up as the moral party, so Hastert must have unloaded on Foley when they acted on it, right?

Well, Mean Mr. Hastert did confront Foley on his yen for the young. He did ask Foley directly (while not under oath) if there was anything sexual in the emails and Foley said no. “He said he wouldn't do it anymore. He was sorry. He was just trying to talk to the kid — he liked the kid, nice kid — and he wouldn't do it anymore. We told him not to do it anymore there or to anybody. Period.”

Did I read that right? I must not have because Hastert said they acted on it. I do not think asking him if he did then saying “don’t do it again” really is acting on it. I really must have read that wrong. I would not ask if an email was sexual unless I thought the person would do it. If I thought the person would do it, I would not trust them to readily admit to it.

We did know what the text of that message was because the parents held it and they didn't want it revealed, but we stopped it. We went to Foley; told him to stand down, "Don't do this." We asked if there was any sex or explicit language in this message. There was not, and we thought we had the thing resolved.

Obviously some new definiton of "resolved" I have never seen before.

Hastert claims to have not known about the “vile and repulsive” emails before the story broke on Friday, so then what emails was he talking about to Rush exactly and how many kids has Foley “contacted?” He claims Foley “duped” a lot of people, but he really did not investigate or act on it very hard, did he? He would have known the content if he asked a little harder.

“Did you do it?”


“Was it sexual?”


“Okay, don’t do it again.”

A slap on the wrist would have been a harsher action. Hastert must go. I was not sure where I stood on this until the Rush interview. The man is tailoring his “truth” to fit the audience. He covered this story to protect the seat in November. The joke is on him because the story is out, the damage is done, and Foley remains on the ballot.

Just like Clinton and just like Nixon before him, it is not the act that is their undoing, but the cover-up. Hastert would be clean had he done a real investigation to the parents' complaints. Now he is going to go down with Foley and who knows how many others.

Que Sera Sara

Powered by

About Brad Schader

  • Nancy

    The Party is throwing Hastert overboard to try to save their sorry asses; his two flunkies (formerly always described as “loyal” associates) Reynolds & Boehner have already declared that when THEY found out, they immediately told their “supervisor” Hastert (suddenly he’s not a colleague, he’s the boss), and left it to him to handle. More tellingly, another colleague he was supposed to be fundraising for last night cancelled his invitation – a sure indication that the death knell has begun for Hastert. Jabba is going down. Y’know, on whole I think it couldn’t happen to a more deserving scumbag & humbug than Hastert. Now if only he’d take his two “loyal” buddies, Reynolds & Boehner, with him, there might be a start made to cleaning up the Republican Party back to some semblence of the grand old party it used to be.

    Meanwhile I find it hilarious that the party that pontificates on & trumpets that they are the party of Morality & Family Values is drowning in a morass of lies, pederasty, influence peddling, corruption, cronyism, and god knows what other crimes that haven’t come to light just yet. Family values? Must be the Gambino family. Or the Seany Bean family. Or the Seth Pecksniff/Elmer Gantry family.

  • Bedford the Great

    Well, that’s what the GOP gets for having homosexual like Foley around. If you have a dog around you are bound to get fleas.

  • Nancy

    Gay per se has nothing to do with it; gays are not automatically pedophiles; in fact, most pedophiles are straight, church-going self-proclaimed Christians posing as upright, moral citizens & pillars of their communities, who are monsters in secret.

  • dee

    In regards to comment #1… There is a huge difference between cheating on your wife (not illegal) and trying to have sex with underage boys (illegal). Do I really have to point this out to the repubs? There is no double standard here. Typical republican move to attempt to change the subject and not talk or deflect what the real issue is here. And of course Hastert is lying. I don’t think he’s necessarily a bad guy, but how much evidence do you need in order to know that he’s obviously lying? How many people have to say that they told him months, years ago about this? Don’t lie to me, don’t pretend that I’m stupid and why did you not do anything about it after you knew about the threat he posed? Foley was terrorizing the pages.

  • Georgio

    As usual the women on these Blogs have it right!ummmm maybe we should have a women president .

  • brad schader

    While Foley disgusts me, the pages were of age. This is not a case of going after children. They were 17 and 18 years old. The age of consent is 16. These were not kids. It was inappropriate for Foley, but not illegal.

    The harm with both the Foley case and the Clinton case is the cover-up. Clinton was not impeached for the affair, he was impeached for lying about it. Hastert is not being driven out because Foley broke the law, he is being driven out for the cover-up.

  • Nancy

    A 17- to 18-year old is no match for a powerful congressman (or even a non-powerful congressman) 2ce or 3 times their age. There’s a reason superiors are forbidden by law to hit on subordinates, & it doesn’t stop when the subordinates leave, as long as those subordinates remain obligated to the superior for references, etc. That’s the law, as well as basic ethics. Kids that age also don’t think straight & can be easily intimidated by aggressive adults into doing what in other circumstances they know they shouldn’t. Lee Malvo is a prime example of that. Foley was well aware what he was doing was a form of stalking not to mention violating every norm of hitting on subordinates, but he did it anyway, preferring to indulge his gonads & congressional sense of being above the law/rules and specially entitled, instead of his brains & common sense.

    Hastert, too, has indulged in his sense of entitlement & being above the law; indeed it wasn’t so long ago he was trying to assert that congressmen are exempt from being searched or investigated by the law, and that their offices should be sacrosanct! Unfortunately for him and fortunately for us, nobody’s buying that one. He tried to derail it by calling in Justice/the FBI, cleverly figuring that while his own actions might be unethical & immoral (in lying & covering for Foley), they weren’t illegal & therefore in the end he’d be able to claim that since they didn’t charge him, he was exonerated (since the FBI doesn’t give a rat’s butt about anything not actually illegal). Alas, he tried to pin the blame on the wrong fall guy, a former aide to Foley & current aide to Reynolds who decided he wasn’t going to put up with being the patsy for Jabba The Hutt Hastert, and spilled the beans yesterday afternoon just before quitting & wiping The Hill off his feet. Good for him. Nice to know there’s someone in that shitpile called congress who isn’t prepared to swear to Hastert’s lies.

  • brad schader

    I agree it is wrong and immoral and evil and everything else but it is not illegal. That does not mean they are clean, just that they broke no laws. There are still prices to pay and they will pay them. I love watching the sinking GOP, but Foley did not break any laws. Neither did Clinton which is why the Senate aquitted him, but he was still impeached for the cover-up.

    Americans will tolerate almost anything, but we will not accept lying. We may try to deny the lie to ourselves and will succeed for years in doing it, but once the lie is out in the open we never forgive.

  • Nancy

    Lying is worse than murder, in a way, because murder can be an accidental, one-time thing, while lies are always premeditated & deliberate. They also irrevocably break what trust exists, and that, once broken, can never be made whole again. Someone can kill, and you know it will never happen again; but a liar will continue to lie. Lying also implies with it a lack of respect for the one(s) lied to; an implication that they are too stupid and unimportant to tell the truth to, and that the liar feels he can get away with it because they’ll never know or find out. Hence the unforgiveness of lying.

  • Lee Richards

    Brad, you’re maybe jumping to conclusions. The FBI is investigating Foley’s behavior to determine IF any laws were broken.

  • MCH

    So, Lardbaugh interviewed Hastert, eh. Did they compare notes afterwards on their medical deferments from the Vietnam War?

    And I wonder if Lardbaugh stood so he wouldn’t aggravate the cyst on his ass, and Hastert sat as to not bother his bum knees…?

  • brad schader

    I can tell you that he broke no Florida laws nor any D.C. laws. As far as if he did anything in any other state you are correct I am assuming. The age of consent in Florida and DC is 16, so the pages were of age. Sodomy is illegal in Florida, but it appears so far he only talked dirty, so he is clean there as well.

    He is a dirty old man, but not a pedophile.

  • dee

    “He is a dirty old man, but not a pedophile.”

    Maybe… but only because the children he was pursuing didn’t take the bait. What else could he have been after when inviting a boy to his home for drinks? From personal experience, I know whenever alcohol is involved, sex is usually also on the mind… He would have been a pedophile but the kids just didn’t give him the opportunity to… How can anyone defend this guys actions? Saying well he didn’t actually do anything illegal… he would have and was taking actions to make his fantasies come true…

  • brad schader

    Even if the pages went to his house and did everything under the sun with Foley he would not be a pedophile. They pages were 17 and 18.

    How am I defending his actions? I said he was wrong. I said he abused his power. I said he should go. I cannot find one place I have defended Foley’s actions.

    The right accuses the left of supporting terrorists when the left tries to explain the exact situation so why are you now doing the same thing to someone explaining the exact situation with Foley?

  • Margaret Romao Toigo

    Sodomy used to be illegal in Florida, but, as of Lawrence v. Texas, in 2003, it’s legal in all 50 states.

  • Arch Conservative

    Gay per se has nothing to do with it; gays are not automatically pedophiles; in fact, most pedophiles are straight, church-going self-proclaimed Christians posing as upright, moral citizens & pillars of their communities, who are monsters in secret.

    I’d like to know your source thats shows most pedophiles are self proclaimed Christians who attend church. I’m sure you have a valid source..

    But frankly it sounds like you just pulled that one out of your ass..

    Wouldn’t be the first time you’ve done that.

  • Nancy

    Arch, your problem is you judge everyone else by your own standards of what YOU do. So since YOU tend to pull ‘factoids’ out of YOUR ass, you assume the rest of us do, too.

    Check out the study by Dr. G. Abel of Emory U. School of Med., 1987: “Molesters often become youth ministers, daycare workers, Boy Scout leaders, teachers, Big Brothers, and pediatricians. [He] is often an active Christian who is involved with his church.” The study goes on to expound on how molesters usually use the facade of being good upstanding citizens to prey on children without suspicion by their parents & the community at large.

    This is just one study. Google the subject yourself if you can be bothered, instead of just pulling your opinions out of your ass where your brain obviously is.

  • zingzing

    uh! good gawd!

  • MB

    “…most pedophiles are straight, church-going self-proclaimed Christians posing as upright, moral citizens & pillars of their communities, who are monsters in secret.”

    I think Nancy is getting close on this one, and she is right to characterize these ‘monsters’ as “self-proclaimed Christians posing as upright, moral citizens” but the truth herein is likely too subtle for most observers.

    It seems obvious that these predators seek out church going elements of the community because co-opting and desecrating these elements of our society is the core belief of these monsters.

    Let’s face it, openly gay reps. get away with the exact same overt behavior because they accept the mantle and back the causes of the avowed homosexual elements of society.

    Of course, an animal like Foley would seek to wrap himself in the rainbow banner, but he is not going to be welcomed. Gays will be the first to proclaim the quote above, because they are seeking to gain perceived moral adavantage. The same high ground that they forfitted by looking the other way from known gay pedophilia in the reps. ranks.

    It cuts both ways, straight people end up with predator monsters in their midsts and gays end up with the similar scum hiding behind the rainbow banner.

    Pedophilia is perversion that comes in two flavors, gay and straight…and sometimes swirled.

  • Nancy

    You’ll find this tendency to hide behind the upright Church Deacon Scoutmaster image even more frequently among serial killers, interestingly enough. Check out the BTK killer for a classic. But lots of pedophiles use this schtick, too; after all, they count on nobody being gutsy enough to call them on it, or accuse the upstanding churchman & moral pillar of society of unthinkable depravity. Just google ‘pedophiliac profiles’….