The girl got $150,000 from him in 2002. Supposedly she also has had a job.
And now, having apparently squandered the entire $150,000, plus over spent her earnings by another whopping $165,000 (thus leaving her in debt to the tune of 350,000), we are supposed to sympathise with her?
This revelation makes it more likely that, being in debt up to her eyeballs, she went back to Garn to try to extort more money, and when he refused, she broke her agreement and revealed the incident.
How does a person who obviously doesn’t hardly make any money get people to loan her over $160,000 dollars?
I'm more inclined to sympathize with a young woman who can't control her spending habits than I am a powerful sleazebag who convinces a young girl to disrobe for him and then pays hush money. I don't think that either are very sympathetic individuals but she more than he.
How does a person who obviously doesn’t hardly make any money get people to loan her over $160,000 dollars?
I don't know what is listed on the bankruptcy filing but $160K in loans isn't that remarkable. A house mortgage, a couple of automobile loans, a couple of uninsured medical procedures with hospital stays, a handful of credit cards, and a debtor can get to $160,000 in no time.
Your defense of Garn comes very close to blaming the victim for the situation.