From lukery's website:
http://wotisitgood4.blogspot.com/2006/10/hastert-key-to-understanding-brewster.htmlMiguel writes:
"Just want to correct the record a little (I think) on the Hastert bribery charges. I don't think Vanity Fair ever mentions suitcases full of cash. In fact, I believe the Vanity Fair lawyers must have deliberately cut that part of the story out, because there is no hard evidence- no paper trail- these payments were ever made. With the unitemized contributions, at least there was some circumstantial evidence that those payments might have been made, so I believe VF lawyers allowed it.
But Dan Ellsberg said on KPFA that Hastert received suitcases of cash delivered to his home near the Fox River. And Sibel made a hint of "bags of cash" on one Charles Goyette interview. And my general impression is that the unitemized contributions are how the bribery started in 1996-1997. They must have been "retainer" payments, and not for any specific action (this is my hypothesis). When Hastert became Speaker, I think the price of his obedience to Turkish interests rose significantly, so he worried that unitemized contributions were too risky, and demanded cash payments. And I think the 500K for Armenian Genocide was definitely cash, not unitemized contributions.
...
From Part Three of my interview with Larisa:
Lukery: OK - but if we go back to Hastert in 1996 - (he was being bribed) when he's basically a nobody...
LA: Look - if you're already at the top, chances are you're already either owned by something or somebody – as the Hastert allegations show - or you're not buyable - as in Feingold's case. You're just not for sale - so they just leave you alone.
So of course they're going to go after the available, pliable ones. In fact, if you look at how CIA officers are trained, they're trained to provide a pitch of sorts to identify the weakest, and have them turn against their own country. So one would think that foreign assets are quite capable of doing the same thing."