Well, potentially it does -- at least as how far we in the public "try" these things. And why is that? Because if Garn is a public liar on one element of his past "relationship" with this woman, then that opens the character credibility floodgate where he claimed she "demanded" the $. (Or, it's possible that indeed she demanded $150,000 -- but that he initiated the idea for a cash settlement...so if he initiated the whole idea of a cash settlement, what then?)
None of that changes the elements of the crime of extortion .
Except that given all the circumstances...like the fact of where they met immediately before Garn extended a check of $20,000 to her...somehow, I just don't think this will ever get anywhere near prosecution status.
As far as covering up a crime , likely some form of rape , that looks like anther good guess . Still extortion . He wouldn't have paid if he didn't have something to hide would he ? A religious hypocrite wanting to hide sex with a minor is the kind of thing is what criminal extortionists would call a pat hand . I am sure he will have your prayers . He needs them .
And she -- Garn's 15 yo victim who carried all that into adulthood -- she doesn't need prayers???...(Just the male perpetrators make your intercessory prayer list?)
And you didn't answer the Q: If Maher extorted Garn in front of his wife and Lds bishop in the Lds bishop's office, doesn't that mean that the Lds bishop has covered up a crime that took place in a Mormon facility by not reporting it to the authorities?
I have not researched if the bishop has a legal duty to report about the child rape , or a clergy exemption , but he sure had a decency duty to not allow a child rapist to go unreported IMHO . As to the extortion in his office , I doubt he had a legal duty to report , cover up? Sounds like it .
I don’t see why anybody would have any sympathy for Garn, and I doubt anybody would support trying to prosecute the girl.
On the other hand, I think sympathy for the girl is satisfied when she decided that $150,000 was a good price for whatever she did in the hot tub (and given that she did not suggest there was a sex act, I think those trying to defend her who claim she allowed him to actually have sex with her do her a disservice. If she SAID she was raped, that would be a different matter. But she says only that there was “contact”, which could mean he groped her and she told him to stop, which sounds much better for her than her supporters suggesting she let him have sex with her).
And if you are saying that she was actually forcibly raped in the hot tub, that raises a whole bunch of other questions as to what all those people in her office were thinking — what sister tells her forcibly raped sibling to take money instead of getting the bastard thrown in jail?
For this reason, and because the girl never said there was sex involved, I don’t believe there was sex involved. To say there was sex is to suggest that the girl has lied by ommission.