Close Please enter your Username and Password
Reset Password
If you've forgotten your password, you can enter your email address below. An email will then be sent with a link to set up a new password.
Cancel
Reset Link Sent
Password reset link sent to
Check your email and enter the confirmation code:
Don't see the email?
  • Resend Confirmation Link
  • Start Over
Close
If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service
Blogs >   > My Blog


posts

Member Deleted Post

This post has been deleted by

bondjam33 70M
840 posts
5/29/2015 2:45 pm

 Possibly the fact that - quote ''Hastert was indicted Thursday on charges that he structured bank withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements and later lied about it to the FBI'' and Hillary Clinton has not been indicted for anything?

Perhaps it is because the Hastert case allegedly relates to a salacious story about a possible illegal homosexual liaison between a teacher and a pupil - the sort of story which perennially generates interest.

All of these facts and circumstances, coupled with the usual way in which human interest runs, would give a pretty simple answer to your question.


Unsafe_Sax_54 69M
1590 posts
5/29/2015 3:01 pm

 Well, the exposure has done its job: took the spotlight off of the Clinton Criminal Family Foundation.

For all of 5 minutes.......


bijou624

5/29/2015 10:43 pm

 Hi Maisie: I think this whole situation is appalling. I'm hearing on t.v. that the blackmailer is not guilty of blackmail because there was an 'agreement' to pay the money?? Wouldn't that mean that every blackmailer who gets the money is innocent of blackmail, and every blackmailer who doesn't get the money is guilty of blackmail?? And what about the original crime Hastert is paying millions to cover up?




×
×