Should Congress Formally Censure or Reprimand Child Molester Dennis Hastert?

[rdean]

Should Congress Formally Censure or Reprimand Child Molester Dennis Hastert?

Of course not. He's a Republican. Rules are different for them. Reagan lost 90 from embassy attacks, Bush, 60, Hillary 4, so who do Republicans want to charge with a crime? Hillary, of course.

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrat Gerry Studds should have been reprimanded. He was given a standing ovation. Hastert was never charged nor convicted of molestation.

 

[Redfish]

A week from tomorrow, June 22, the longest serving Republican House Speaker in American history, a man two heartbeats away from the president of the US for eight years – will be entering a federal prison.

Dennis Hastert openly admitted in court he spent part of his life as a serial child molester.

Hastert’s alma mater, Wheaton College, has removed his name from its government center.

The Wresting Hall of Fame rescinded their award to him.

For the first time in its history, Northern Illinois University revoked an honorary degree, saying: “[A]dmission of criminal activity and sexual abuse of children does not reflect the values of the university or the spirit in which the degree was awarded.”

While these organizations have rushed to distance themselves from the former House Speaker, the House of Representatives, the association we most think of when talking about the man, has yet to consider any reprimand or censure.

Yes, former members of Congress have been censured before - it doesn't happen often, but this is no ordinary congressman gone bad.

Will Congress distance themselves by officially acknowledging and formally rebuke him for his crimes?

Should they?

No. Reprehensible as it may be, it's personal behavior -- has nothing to do with Congress. This would be the same hypocrisy that tried to impeach Bull Clinton for a blow job.

No. I think it would be a waste of time to do so.

Exactly. It would be empty holier-than-thou posturing.

Bullshit. Clinton was impeached for lying and perjury under oath during a Grand Jury deposition......a felony.

Yes. Impeached.

Impeachment = political equivalent of an indictment,

Trial in the senate - equivalent of a court trial results: NOT GUILTY.

Not guilty isn't the same as innocent when it comes to political trials.

When it comes to *any* trial, it is not the same thing as innocent.

The finding is: NOT GUILTY.

Live it.
Learn it.
Love it.

The verdict in the Clinton impeachment trial, was: not to be removed from office.

innocence or guilt was not the question before congress. The impeachment was a guilty verdict for lying under oath, then congress voted to not remove him from office.

 

[Seawytch]

Let's see...Hastert was the highest ranking public office holder ever sentenced to jail...and it wasn't for taking bribes or some other standard politician shit, it was for molesting many boys over many years. Of course he should be censured. Simply taking down the picture of the longest serving Speaker of the House of Representatives isn't enough.

 

[Seawytch]

Democrat Gerry Studds should have been reprimanded. He was given a standing ovation. Hastert was never charged nor convicted of molestation.

He did, however, admit to it in a court of law.

 

[Redfish]

Bullshit. Clinton was impeached for lying and perjury under oath during a Grand Jury deposition......a felony.

Yes. Impeached.

Impeachment = political equivalent of an indictment,

Trial in the senate - equivalent of a court trial results: NOT GUILTY.

Not guilty isn't the same as innocent when it comes to political trials.

When it comes to *any* trial, it is not the same thing as innocent.

The finding is: NOT GUILTY.

Live it.
Learn it.
Love it.

Your last three sentences make no sense but that isn't what the thread is for. The answer is no, it would be a meaningless symbolic gesture. He should be doing manual labor in the pen until he dies like the rest of them. Child rapists I mean, not Republicans, just to be clear for you.

A week from tomorrow, June 22, the longest serving Republican House Speaker in American history, a man two heartbeats away from the president of the US for eight years – will be entering a federal prison.

Dennis Hastert openly admitted in court he spent part of his life as a serial child molester.

Hastert’s alma mater, Wheaton College, has removed his name from its government center.

The Wresting Hall of Fame rescinded their award to him.

For the first time in its history, Northern Illinois University revoked an honorary degree, saying: “[A]dmission of criminal activity and sexual abuse of children does not reflect the values of the university or the spirit in which the degree was awarded.”

While these organizations have rushed to distance themselves from the former House Speaker, the House of Representatives, the association we most think of when talking about the man, has yet to consider any reprimand or censure.

Yes, former members of Congress have been censured before - it doesn't happen often, but this is no ordinary congressman gone bad.

Will Congress distance themselves by officially acknowledging and formally rebuke him for his crimes?

Should they?

No. Reprehensible as it may be, it's personal behavior -- has nothing to do with Congress. This would be the same hypocrisy that tried to impeach Bull Clinton for a blow job.

No. I think it would be a waste of time to do so.

Exactly. It would be empty holier-than-thou posturing.

Bullshit. Clinton was impeached for lying and perjury under oath during a Grand Jury deposition......a felony.

His lying under oath was not a felony. It was civil contempt of court.

wrong, its called perjury.

 

[paperview]

Democrat Gerry Studds should have been reprimanded. He was given a standing ovation. Hastert was never charged nor convicted of molestation.

In 1983 Gerry Studds WAS censured by the House of Representatives, you numbnutz.

He admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old page (above the age of consent).

Unlike Hastert. GOP Speaker of the House.

Who YES, admitted to being a serial child molester.

The judge sentenced him to prison and after release, two years' supervised release, including sex-offender treatment.

Hastert is "one of the highest-ranking politicians in American history to be sentenced to prison."

 

[Redfish]

Democrat Gerry Studds should have been reprimanded. He was given a standing ovation. Hastert was never charged nor convicted of molestation.

In 1983 Gerry Studds WAS censured by the House of Representatives, you numbnutz.

He admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old page (above the age of consent).

Unlike Hastert. GOP Speaker of the House.

Who YES, admitted to being a serial child molester.

The judge sentenced him to prison and after release, two years' supervised release, including sex-offender treatment.

Hastert is "one of the highest-ranking politicians in American history to be sentenced to prison."

So congress should censure him. What exactly do you think that will accomplish? Do you dem/libs think that somehow that will hurt republicans running for public office?

How about censuring Pelosi for being a raving maniac? or Reid for abuse of public funds?

I fully understand that the Hastert thing is something that you dems think you can use politically, so lets not pretend its anything else, ok?

 

[paperview]

No. Reprehensible as it may be, it's personal behavior -- has nothing to do with Congress. This would be the same hypocrisy that tried to impeach Bull Clinton for a blow job.

Exactly. It would be empty holier-than-thou posturing.

Bullshit. Clinton was impeached for lying and perjury under oath during a Grand Jury deposition......a felony.

Yes. Impeached.

Impeachment = political equivalent of an indictment,

Trial in the senate - equivalent of a court trial results: NOT GUILTY.

Not guilty isn't the same as innocent when it comes to political trials.

When it comes to *any* trial, it is not the same thing as innocent.

The finding is: NOT GUILTY.

Live it.
Learn it.
Love it.

The verdict in the Clinton impeachment trial, was: not to be removed from office.

innocence or guilt was not the question before congress. The impeachment was a guilty verdict for lying under oath, then congress voted to not remove him from office.

You're an idiot.

Impeachment = political equivalent of an indictment,

Trial in the senate - equivalent of a court trial results: NOT GUILTY.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/president-clinton-acquitted
President Clinton acquitted - Feb 12, 1999 - HISTORY.com
On February 12, 1999, the five-week impeachment trial of Bill Clinton comes to an end, with the Senate voting to acquit the president on both articles of impeachment: perjury and obstruction of justice.
-------------------
THE PRESIDENT'S ACQUITTAL: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ACQUITTED DECISIVELY: NO MAJORITY FOR EITHER CHARGE

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12— The Senate today acquitted President Clinton on two articles of impeachment, falling short of even a majority vote on either of the charges against him: perjury and obstruction of justice.

After a harrowing year of scandal and investigation, the five-week-long Senate trial of the President -- only the second in the 210-year history of the Republic -- culminated shortly after noon when the roll calls began that would determine Mr. Clinton's fate.

''Is respondent William Jefferson Clinton guilty or not guilty?'' asked Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in his gold-striped black robe. In a hushed chamber, with senators standing one by one to pronounce Mr. Clinton ''guilty'' or ''not guilty,'' the Senate rejected the charge of perjury, 55 to 45, with 10 Republicans voting against conviction.

It then split 50-50 on a second article accusing Mr. Clinton of obstruction of justice in concealing his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky. Five Republicans broke ranks on the obstruction-of-justice charge. No Democrats voted to convict on either charge, and it would have taken a dozen of them, and all 55 Republicans, to reach the two-thirds majority of 67 senators required for conviction.

Chief Justice Rehnquist announced the acquittal of the nation's 42d President at 12:39 P.M. ''It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said William Jefferson Clinton be, and he hereby is, acquitted of the charges in the said articles,'' he said. Almost immediately, the mood in the Senate lightened.

THE PRESIDENT'S ACQUITTAL: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ACQUITTED DECISIVELY: NO MAJORITY FOR EITHER CHARGE

 

[Redfish]

Bullshit. Clinton was impeached for lying and perjury under oath during a Grand Jury deposition......a felony.

Yes. Impeached.

Impeachment = political equivalent of an indictment,

Trial in the senate - equivalent of a court trial results: NOT GUILTY.

Not guilty isn't the same as innocent when it comes to political trials.

When it comes to *any* trial, it is not the same thing as innocent.

The finding is: NOT GUILTY.

Live it.
Learn it.
Love it.

The verdict in the Clinton impeachment trial, was: not to be removed from office.

innocence or guilt was not the question before congress. The impeachment was a guilty verdict for lying under oath, then congress voted to not remove him from office.

You're an idiot.

Impeachment = political equivalent of an indictment,

Trial in the senate - equivalent of a court trial results: NOT GUILTY.
President Clinton acquitted - Feb 12, 1999 - HISTORY.com
On February 12, 1999, the five-week impeachment trial of Bill Clinton comes to an end, with the Senate voting to acquit the president on both articles of impeachment: perjury and obstruction of justice.
-------------------
THE PRESIDENT'S ACQUITTAL: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ACQUITTED DECISIVELY: NO MAJORITY FOR EITHER CHARGE

WASHINGTON, Feb. 12— The Senate today acquitted President Clinton on two articles of impeachment, falling short of even a majority vote on either of the charges against him: perjury and obstruction of justice.

After a harrowing year of scandal and investigation, the five-week-long Senate trial of the President -- only the second in the 210-year history of the Republic -- culminated shortly after noon when the roll calls began that would determine Mr. Clinton's fate.

''Is respondent William Jefferson Clinton guilty or not guilty?'' asked Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in his gold-striped black robe. In a hushed chamber, with senators standing one by one to pronounce Mr. Clinton ''guilty'' or ''not guilty,'' the Senate rejected the charge of perjury, 55 to 45, with 10 Republicans voting against conviction.

It then split 50-50 on a second article accusing Mr. Clinton of obstruction of justice in concealing his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky. Five Republicans broke ranks on the obstruction-of-justice charge. No Democrats voted to convict on either charge, and it would have taken a dozen of them, and all 55 Republicans, to reach the two-thirds majority of 67 senators required for conviction.

Chief Justice Rehnquist announced the acquittal of the nation's 42d President at 12:39 P.M. ''It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the said William Jefferson Clinton be, and he hereby is, acquitted of the charges in the said articles,'' he said. Almost immediately, the mood in the Senate lightened.

THE PRESIDENT'S ACQUITTAL: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ACQUITTED DECISIVELY: NO MAJORITY FOR EITHER CHARGE

a partisan vote not to remove him from office. A guilty verdict would have said that the articles of impeachment were valid and that he should be removed from office.

That verdict did not say that he was innocent of lying under oath, all it said was that the majority in congress did not want to remove him from office.

Everyone in the world knows that he lied under oath, the proof was on Monica's dress.

 

[Katzndogz]

Let's see...Hastert was the highest ranking public office holder ever sentenced to jail...and it wasn't for taking bribes or some other standard politician shit, it was for molesting many boys over many years. Of course he should be censured. Simply taking down the picture of the longest serving Speaker of the House of Representatives isn't enough.

Hastert was not sentenced to jail for molesting anyone. He was never charged nor convicted of molestation. He was charged with structuring, moving money around without filling out required government forms.

 

[paperview]

Judge calls Hastert 'serial child molester,' gives him 15 months in Federal Prison ...
"Nothing is more stunning than having the words 'serial child molester' and 'speaker of the House' in the same sentence." - Judge Durkin, who sentenced the low life piece of trash.

 

[paperview]

'...As Hastert gathered his papers and moved to take a seat, Durkin said he had a few questions of his own.

"You said you mistreated athletes. Did you sexually abuse Mr. Cross?" Durkin asked.

"I — I don't remember doing that, but I accept his statement," Hastert said.

"Did you sexually abuse Victim B?" asked Durkin, referring to another former wrestler who accused Hastert of performing a sex act on him when he was 14.

"Yes," Hastert replied quickly.

"Alright. And how about Mr. Reinboldt? Did you sexually abuse him?" the judge asked.

After Hastert replied, "That was a different situation," Durkin said, "If you want to elaborate, now is the time to do it."

Hastert conferred with his lawyer.

"I — I would accept Ms. Burdge's statement," he then said haltingly.

"So you did sexually abuse him?" Durkin asked.

"Yes," Hastert replied."

Judge calls Hastert 'serial child molester,' gives him 15 months in prison

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes. Impeached.

Impeachment = political equivalent of an indictment,

Trial in the senate - equivalent of a court trial results: NOT GUILTY.

Not guilty isn't the same as innocent when it comes to political trials.

When it comes to *any* trial, it is not the same thing as innocent.

The finding is: NOT GUILTY.

Live it.
Learn it.
Love it.

Your last three sentences make no sense but that isn't what the thread is for. The answer is no, it would be a meaningless symbolic gesture. He should be doing manual labor in the pen until he dies like the rest of them. Child rapists I mean, not Republicans, just to be clear for you.

A week from tomorrow, June 22, the longest serving Republican House Speaker in American history, a man two heartbeats away from the president of the US for eight years – will be entering a federal prison.

Dennis Hastert openly admitted in court he spent part of his life as a serial child molester.

Hastert’s alma mater, Wheaton College, has removed his name from its government center.

The Wresting Hall of Fame rescinded their award to him.

For the first time in its history, Northern Illinois University revoked an honorary degree, saying: “[A]dmission of criminal activity and sexual abuse of children does not reflect the values of the university or the spirit in which the degree was awarded.”

While these organizations have rushed to distance themselves from the former House Speaker, the House of Representatives, the association we most think of when talking about the man, has yet to consider any reprimand or censure.

Yes, former members of Congress have been censured before - it doesn't happen often, but this is no ordinary congressman gone bad.

Will Congress distance themselves by officially acknowledging and formally rebuke him for his crimes?

Should they?

No. Reprehensible as it may be, it's personal behavior -- has nothing to do with Congress. This would be the same hypocrisy that tried to impeach Bull Clinton for a blow job.

No. I think it would be a waste of time to do so.

Exactly. It would be empty holier-than-thou posturing.

Bullshit. Clinton was impeached for lying and perjury under oath during a Grand Jury deposition......a felony.

His lying under oath was not a felony. It was civil contempt of court.

wrong, its called perjury.

Wrong, it was called civil contempt of court by the judge he lied to.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why should they even waste taxpayer money/time on his worthless ass.

 

[there4eyeM]

[/QUOTE]Wrong, it was called civil contempt of court by the judge he lied to.[/QUOTE]
Certainly, not a 'high crime' such as, oh, stealing arms from the U.S. people and selling them illegally in order to obtain funds for unconstitutional purposes. Now, that might qualify for impeachment and conviction.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes. Impeached.

Impeachment = political equivalent of an indictment,

Trial in the senate - equivalent of a court trial results: NOT GUILTY.

Not guilty isn't the same as innocent when it comes to political trials.

When it comes to *any* trial, it is not the same thing as innocent.

The finding is: NOT GUILTY.

Live it.
Learn it.
Love it.

Your last three sentences make no sense but that isn't what the thread is for. The answer is no, it would be a meaningless symbolic gesture. He should be doing manual labor in the pen until he dies like the rest of them. Child rapists I mean, not Republicans, just to be clear for you.

A week from tomorrow, June 22, the longest serving Republican House Speaker in American history, a man two heartbeats away from the president of the US for eight years – will be entering a federal prison.

Dennis Hastert openly admitted in court he spent part of his life as a serial child molester.

Hastert’s alma mater, Wheaton College, has removed his name from its government center.

The Wresting Hall of Fame rescinded their award to him.

For the first time in its history, Northern Illinois University revoked an honorary degree, saying: “[A]dmission of criminal activity and sexual abuse of children does not reflect the values of the university or the spirit in which the degree was awarded.”

While these organizations have rushed to distance themselves from the former House Speaker, the House of Representatives, the association we most think of when talking about the man, has yet to consider any reprimand or censure.

Yes, former members of Congress have been censured before - it doesn't happen often, but this is no ordinary congressman gone bad.

Will Congress distance themselves by officially acknowledging and formally rebuke him for his crimes?

Should they?

No. Reprehensible as it may be, it's personal behavior -- has nothing to do with Congress. This would be the same hypocrisy that tried to impeach Bull Clinton for a blow job.

No. I think it would be a waste of time to do so.

Exactly. It would be empty holier-than-thou posturing.

Bullshit. Clinton was impeached for lying and perjury under oath during a Grand Jury deposition......a felony.

His lying under oath was not a felony. It was civil contempt of court.

wrong, its called perjury.

1. Perjury has to be a 'material' lie under oath.

2. Clinton lied about sex with Lewinsky in the Paula Jones case.

3. The judge in the Jones case, Susan Wright, excluded all evidence related to Monica Lewinsky as not 'essential' to the case,

thus rendering the lie immaterial and thus by legal definition not qualifying as perjury.

 

[NYcarbineer]

His lying under oath was not a felony. It was civil contempt of court.

Otherwise known as perjury. Which is fine if a liberal does it, outrageous if a Republican does it.

What was it when Scooter Libby did it, and was actually convicted of it?

 

[paperview]

His lying under oath was not a felony. It was civil contempt of court.

Otherwise known as perjury. Which is fine if a liberal does it, outrageous if a Republican does it.

What was it when Scooter Libby did it, and was actually convicted of it?

I recall how the right wing had conniptions about his perjury charge...saying how unfair it was and defending the Scoot man.

We saw then how much they gave a shit about actual perjury.

 

[NYcarbineer]

His lying under oath was not a felony. It was civil contempt of court.

Otherwise known as perjury. Which is fine if a liberal does it, outrageous if a Republican does it.

What was it when Scooter Libby did it, and was actually convicted of it?

I recall how the right wing had conniptions about his perjury charge...saying how unfair it was and defending the Scoot man.

We saw then how much they gave a shit about actual perjury.

Give it a name! Not to mention their joy at Bush's commutation of his sentence.