She's no longer married. The request for $ was 8 yrs. ago. And in this article, the legislator described it this way: "I will be happy to pay $150,000 to Cheryl and hope that will bring some degree of peace in her life," Garn wrote in a Jan. 21, 2003, e-mail
I guess Garn thought'd it be "peaceful" -- therapeutic.
If you're Garn in 2002 discussing this with Lds Deseret journalists, & you want them to sit on this kind of story, what would you present it as: blackmail or therapeutic healing $? (Obviously, the latter, lest you fuel more of a temptation to publish it...obviously, it must not have been too tempting for Deseret to publish it since they didn't...hence, Deseret now spends a good chunk of today's article trying to justify why they should be considered real journalists given they patronizingly censored the information from public eyes).
Of course, waffling from one emphasis of your storyline to another is always problematic, damage-control wise. How so in this case? Well, if Kevin Garn was motivated at some point to present this as a "therapeutic healing or peace-filled gift" -- at least that'd be a nice story to present to his wife/family/Deseret News -- then why apparently didn't any ask him re: the ever-so-obvious follow-up question:
"Kevin, why would a woman need $150,000 to therapeutically heal from sharing the same water with you...? (Assuming, Kevin, that for the most part, the bubbled water & night time covered up most that might otherwise be revealed)"
"Kevin!!!?"
"Kevin!!!!!!!!!???" [Think of the movie series "Home Alone" when Kevin's screen mom repeatedly calls out his name, louder & louder each time, with no response]
"Kevin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????"
But Garn likely felt he had to commit to that legal angle in 2002 -- that it wasn't paid as blackmail or a bribe. But now that this is coming out, Garn said yesterday's SL Trib article that he "believed" he was being "extorted" back then; but he paid her the money and had his attorney draft a non-disclosure agreement, where she said she would not go public with her story.
So, in 2002 he legally committed to maintaining one posture to avoid ethical entanglements of catering to blackmail...
...which was all to avoid ethical (& possibly legal) entanglements of conceding to being naked in a hot tub with a minor...
...but now it's 2010 and in order to try to "new hand of Black Jack" he decides he's going to go ahead & try the "she's a blackmailer" angle since that works a little better under these circumstances.
But, you see, all this shows is that's he a spiritual chameleon, changing colors according to what works best ethically for the current situation.
You said: “...but now it’s 2010 and in order to try to “new hand of Black Jack” he decides he’s going to go ahead & try the “she’s a blackmailer” angle since that works a little better under these circumstances.”
From the article: “The nondisclosure deal between Maher and Garn — which Garn says she has clearly violated — took months to finalize, according to documents provided to The Tribune by Maher.”
_____________________
Gee, all that hard work gone to waste! It’s sweet that the newspaper could point out how it all goes to support Garn’s version of events. Your summary is admirable.