Oh I see its a boy, if true that is worse than it being a girl, at least in my mind.
But he still needs to be considered innocent at this point.
That being said, he is charged with lying to feds and structuring, not sexual misconduct.
The indictment is worded to suggest the misconduct is of a sexual nature, otherwise why mention his teaching/coaching history? Why mention it at all? IOW, why not just say Ind A met with Hastert to discuss misconduct? The LATimes posted on Twitter within a few hrs sources suggested the misconduct was sexual.
This is where I have a problem with the story.
Suppose the misconduct had nothing to with a student, male or female? Suppose it happened totally outside of his teaching responsibilities and had nothing to do with sex? If so, he has been branded a pedophile regardless of facts.
What if rumors are true? Then charge him if still within the Statute of Limitations. Don't play word games and use sources to try and convict outside the courtroom.
My concerns have nothing to do with Hastert. I have no use for corrupt politicians or crooks. A 3.5 million payoff suggests something more than simple misconduct.
I see how the same tactics can be used on any of us. Tactics which could be used for anything, from simple leverage to completely destroying a reputation. Not the guilty I worry about, but the innocent.