Discussion for article #237046
Sorry I doubt this story. I can’t think of too many reason a Dem would have kept a credible story like this under wraps, unless he wasn’t sure if it was true. Think how damaging that would have been to the GOP especially with impeachment and all the turmoil in the US House leadership.
This strikes me as one of the techniques the GOP used (saw it during the Mark Foley story) it essentially “try to tar dems too, so people think everyone is just as bad”. Rightwing news will pick this up, and conservatives can say “see dems are just as bad”. During Foley story I saw stories also alleging black democrats knew something. But once again I go to motive. Why would he have kept this secret when it would have helped Dems maybe win back the US House?
6 Likes
We really don’t know how backroom Congress works in the shadows, do we? Is it not possible that I can get something big from you if I know your dirt and promise to keep it quiet? Is it not possible that leverage is more important to me than defending a Pres., for example, who doesn’t even know my name from sex-hypocrites? Please recall that J. Edgar Hoover made blackmail semi-official government policy.
4 Likes
“The source, who HuffPost said did not want to be named due to the sensitivity of the matter”
“Watt, who is currently the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency”
=
I smell Republican plant calling HuffPo to change the subject. Black guy in charge of the FHFA might as well have a bullseye on his back with respect tot he Teatrolls and angry GOPers whose world domination schemes came to an abrupt halt in 2008 because, they claim, “Fannie and Freddie fucked everything up because something something poor minorities shouldn’t be allowed to become landed gentry.”
Besides, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS: Anonymous source = “impunity to lie in the news.”
4 Likes
But how could he have been sure it was true? What could he have done about it? Neither state or federal law enforcement would have been able to do anything due to the statute of limitations. It only became a matter they could go after when Hastert began paying blackmail, which happened much later.
8 Likes
Had he outed any such info–likely against the wishes of the victim and his family-- he’d almost certainly have been ruthlessly attacked himself, with little to nothing positive to show for it. Additionally, the actual victim might well have been exposed and had his life messed up yet again.
Should these anonymous allegations be printed? Or is this an attempt to spread blame to Dems for GOP crimes? Blame Obama!?
I’m saying something similar in a post several minutes ago.
1 Like
I have no problem believing Watt may have heard about the allegations, but what’s alleged here is that he heard about them through an intermediary of the victim’s family. It’s quite possible Watt couldn’t substantiate the allegations, that the victim wasn’t in a place where he was ready to talk about what happened, and he had no witnesses or other complaining victims. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why Watt may not have pursued the allegations.
Also, by the time this person allegedly sought Watt’s help the victim would’ve been at least in his early 30s, if not mid to late 40s (Hastert was a high school teacher from '65-81 and didn’t become speaker until '99). Plus, the statute of limitations had already expired. Outside of flinging an unsubstantiated accusation of this magnitude and hoping it doesn’t further victimize the victim and destroy the Democrats credibility, I’m not sure what else Watt could’ve been expected to do.
BTW, Hi TPMers!
6 Likes
Yeah, an effort to try an minimize Hastert’s indiscretion/crime by bringing in a Dem. How low can they go?
2 Likes
Where and to whom was Watt supposed to go with even a shred of the story? Leader of the House? House ethics committee? President’s staff member? The boys club knows the rules and cover each other’s asses as far as they can manage it.
1 Like
So glad you’re back. We’ve been longing for your take on the Kentucky Senators and what they’ve been up to recently and all else you shine your light on
3 Likes
Back atcha. I always look forward to your takes.
2 Likes
Maybe it’s because I’ve been watching West Wing on streaming TV and am seeing how the sausage is made, but I’d mark it up to a deal made in back rooms to Watt’s benefit if he didn’t go any further with what he knew now matter how little.
I worked on the Hill for quite a few years as a senior Democratic staffer. There was nothing we hated more that to be approached by a person in the manner described with “information” as described. Putting aside the politically explosive allegations, one was being informed of purported criminal activity. As described, the recipient probably would not have to worry about it if ignored as it probably does not constitute misprision of a felony. What was standard practice in the circles where I worked was to tell the individual that if he/she had such information then they should forthwith go to the FBI, U.S. Attorney and the state prosecutor. And then get away from them ASAP and prepare a detailed Memo to file. There is a realistic probability that such an approach is a set up. The recipient of the approach as described has no personal knowledge of the validity of the vague allegations and no authority to investigate. This is another attempt to smear Mel Watt.
3 Likes
OK. An “intermediary” for the (predominantly all-white) Yorkville, IL high school sex abuse victim of Speaker Denny Hastert (R-IL) approached Democratic Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina about the crimes from years before. And this “person” reveals this anonymously 25+ years later. Riiiiiiight. Or did he hear about it around the same time the Republican leadership did? And Denny certainly knew, and possibly cherished the memory (but feared it’s consequences). False equivalency?
Update from “The Hill” June 02, 2015, 03:52 pm
[Former Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.), now an Obama administration official,
heard about the sexual misconduct allegations against then-House Speaker
Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), though he says he dismissed the information as
rumor and “took no action,” he said Tuesday.Watt, who now leads
the Federal Housing Finance Agency, reportedly met with an advocate for
the former student who accused Hastert of abuse. The report says the
conversation took place “relatively early on in Hastert’s speakership,”
which lasted from 1999 to 2007, according to The Huffington Post, who first reported the information Tuesday afternoon. Watt denied a part of the report, though acknowledged hearing negative information about Hastert.
( “Over 15 years ago I heard an unseemly rumor from someone who, contrary
to what has been reported, was not an intermediary or advocate for the
alleged victim’s family. It would not be the first nor last time that
I, as a Member of Congress, would hear rumors or innuendoes about
colleagues. I had no direct knowledge of any abuse by former Speaker
Hastert and, therefore, took no action.”) ]
BTW: Wonder what Dubya knew and when did he know it? Bet they had a close “relationship”! ~snicker!~
http://www.thehollywoodliberal.com/images/bush_hastert_stroke.jpg