A documentary film featuring an extraordinarily candid interview with a former priest convicted of molesting children has heightened interest among law enforcement officials here in considering a criminal case against Cardinal Roger M. Mahony, says a prosecutor who has been investigating sexual abuse cases involving priests.
(NYTimes article)
Basically, Mahony and Hastert did the same thing: they appeased and protected a pedophile for political and expediency reasons and allowed the predator to continue preying on society. And Hastert's knowledge of political donations being contibuted by Foley after learning that he is a pedophile stalking teenagers further complicates Hastert's legal exposure.
"The film does certainly charge the atmosphere here in Los Angeles," said William Hodgman, the top deputy of the target crimes division of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, who coordinated prosecutions of priests in Los Angeles.
The film also "will fuel ongoing consideration as to whether Cardinal Mahony and others engaged in criminal activity," Mr. Hodgman added.
Joe Scott, a spokesman for the district attorney, Steve Cooley, confirmed that characterization.
So, this NYTimes article, citing a new documentary that exposes Mahony's moving from parish to parish this depraved pedophile-priest Oliver O'Grady, covering up criminal activity, is further exposing Mahony to possible legal prosecution, according to LA's district attorney.
So then why wouldn't Hastert bear the same responsibility and possible prosecution if Foley had even committed one act of pedophilia after Hastert and the other Republican leadership officials were notified of Foley and especially if Hastert is shown to have seen the IM's cited in the link below?
Hastert is quite similarly exposed legally and suffers from the same guilt by covering-up as Mahony. Months if not years passed, multiple incidents reported, and no action ever taken until the media exposed the sordid affair.
So what's the difference?
Don't say it's because the disgusting priest actually molested the kids while no evidence has surfaced yet that Foley did the same because...
Now's the time to define "pedophile" and notice that sexual contact is NOT part of that definition and simply seeking a rendezvous with an underage child constitutes the crime:
Pedophile:
an adult whose primary sexual interest is in children; some professionals make a differentiation between a pedophile, whose sexual partner of choice is a prepubertal child, and a hebephile, who is aroused by adolescents.
an adult who is sexually attracted to children
Foley is a "hebephile" obviously since he harassed teens for sex.
Hastert's legal exposure explains Boehner's throwing of Hastert under the bus....
Hastert will absolutely be legally exposed if he knew of the IM's discussed in this diary.