Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Dennis Hastert: Why Prosecutors Will Be Forced To ‘Lose’ or ‘Drop’ the Case

Part I: What’s the ‘Real Case’ in the Hastert Case?

Welcome to our 22nd edition of Probable Cause. This is the introductory episode in our new series on the Dennis Hastert case, prompted by the silence of the US mainstream media per Washington’s calculated design.

With this new series I intend to shed light on obscured facts surrounding Dennis Hastert and his case, his Chief of Staff and loyal partner in crime, the illegal and immoral conduct involving Hastert and several other US officials that took place between 1997 and 2002, other high-profile participants, the parties that were not only fully aware of these activities but were also documenting-recording them, and the highest-level beneficiaries that have much to lose if real trials were to take place or real reporting were to be made public by the mainstream media.

For this episode I’ll begin to explain why the case is highly likely to be dropped or lost-on-purpose by providing you with the broad picture of the real case, talk about those with much at stake if the case were to proceed as a ‘real’ case, and various methods that could be implemented to limit and or end the case.

As always, our next episode will be based on your reaction, critique, responses and questions posed in the comments section below.

*To listen to our previous episodes on this topic click here

Listen to the full episode here:

You can subscribe below to listen to this podcast, as well as all others on our site.


Show Notes

Sibel Edmonds: An Inconvenient Patriot

Who’s Afraid of Sibel Edmonds?

Sibel Edmonds Testimony & Dennis Hastert

Probable Cause with Sibel Edmonds- Dennis Hastert: What Remains Beneath?

Dennis Hastert- A Portrait of a Political System Termite: The Erosion & Rotting of a Nation’s Foundation

Dennis Hastert Indictment (Court Document)

Hastert Indicted

Hastert, in hiding since indictment & molestation allegations, finally due in court

Judge grants extension for Dennis Hastert's pre-trial motions (Sep 11)

Who is Scott Palmer?

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.


  1. Thanks for speaking out (and daring anyone to sue you), this kind of information really needs to get out. I guess the main question that jumps out at me is: how on earth did it even get as far as an indictment of any kind against Hastert? Who has decided to play with this fire, and why?

    • John,

      That’s the question I’ve been asking since May 28, 2015;-) There are several possibilities: 1) He truly pi..ed off someone who is not an ‘insider’ but powerful nonetheless and by the time it got to higher-level it was too late (let’s say 10-12 people from lower-levels within the hierarchy became aware of the case and began working on it; 2)We still don’t know if this started as ‘financial irregularities’ as stated, or, the other way around witness report on sexual violation/blackmail), 3)Is it a ‘show’ to cover-up a bigger case? 4) Is it meant to gain benefit via a mock-trial for the purpose of ‘double jeopardy’ rule (If he is exonerated on this one, he can’t be tried for the same crimes again) …

      I’ll be following the trial. We may find our definitive answer then.

      Do you have other/alternative hypothesis?

      • I sure don’t, unfortunately! But your hypotheses seem to cover the possible bases pretty well. You’ve got a couple that never occurred to me at all, and they all make excellent sense. I was just wondering if it was maybe some kind of power play on somebody’s part, raising the stakes on a blackmail scheme or something, putting some feet to the fire to get some desired result out of it. The legal equivalent of dangling somebody off a balcony by their feet? But as you suggest, who would be both powerful enough and clean enough to manage it? I think your ideas make more sense.

  2. albatross0612 says:

    Truth is the currency of free people, keep fighting Sibel we are here with you.

  3. – I think one thing is clear. One “victum” has fallen onto hard times and saw an opportunity to squeeze money out of Hastert. But then there was someone who knew Hastert had made “structured” withdrawels from his bankaccount, knew the banking laws and also tried to get even with “Denny Boy” Hastert. Was it a former disgruntled business partner (from Turkey) ?? Disgruntled member(s) of Congress ?

    Or perhaps some people are sending out a warning. “Comply with our demands or you’ll get the “Hastert treatment” ? (Hastert was “frameable”). Perhaps someone is after one or more “bigger fish” ?

    • Willy,

      “Or perhaps some people are sending out a warning. “Comply with our demands or you’ll get the “Hastert treatment” ? (Hastert was “frameable”). Perhaps someone is after one or more “bigger fish” ?”

      That’s an interesting line of thought. We know ‘they’ have been in this business of collecting dirt on key figures (The more dirt a candidate has the higher he/she would climb- ex: the reps with the largest number of skeletons in their closets get to be the chairmen of key committees/Whip/Speaker of the House). On the other hand ‘they’ rarely expose the dirty candidates. Once-in-a-while ‘they’ HAVE to use their power to send a message to the rest. Is this (Hastert case) one of them?

      “Was it a former disgruntled business partner (from Turkey) ??”- But why wait till now. Wouldn’t it have been more powerful (with bigger splash) had they done it while he was in congress occupying Speaker of the House Seat? They’ve had tons of dirt on him since … mid 90s (FBI, CIA, Turkish Lobby, Israel Lobby, International Criminal Networks in IL, possibly other colleagues in Congress).

      I still think it ‘somehow’ got out of control. But I believe they are now in control; meaning: They have set up ways/plans to stop this before ‘more’ gets out- dismissing the case on some silly technicality, Def requesting ‘relevant’ gov documents and that being used as an excuse to invoke classification/SSP and get the case dismissed … It is bound to happen- my prediction.

      • – Or perhaps it’s clear Hastert was “on the way out” (think: influence) and therefore was no longer “indispensable”. Someone else wanted his “position of influence”, and was waiting in the wings.
        – Perhaps this is another sign of Erdogan’s upcoming demise as well. That could be an explanation of “why now ?”.

        “Why now ?” Good question and I don’t have a good answer, only speculations.

        • It’s easy to imagine a thousand reasons why somebody would consider Hastert disposable and/or want to cause him trouble. The problem is the one Sibel has identified: you can’t do that without dragging a lot of other powerful people’s skeletons out of the closet. Mutual Assured Destruction, political style. So if it’s a grudge against Hastert, they’d be better off doing what Remo implies: give him the Paul Wellstone treatment.

  4. Thank you!!

  5. conundrum! Even from the paddock at the end of this road, I would agree the case will be dismissed/buried beyond redemption no matter what got it this far. Does Dennis fly little airplanes……?
    The case cannot be accidental unless there is a soon to be dead rogue prosecutor….or unless we are to believe in the fainting hope that justice may actually still exist as a possibility not controlled by the hegamon..yet that is countered by the case at its beginning known to be built around FISA violation, so was checkmate from the beginning..why even start it? unless as directed. which brings us back to the question…..

  6. arealjeffersonian says:

    Great podcast as usual. What puzzles me most is the same as everyone else here – why now, if fact why at all? Did he tick someone with clout off? I would like to pose the reverse question for Sibel. Rather than the question of who loses if it goes to trial – I would ask – who gains if it goes to trial?

    • Good to have you back, Jeffersonian.

      That’s a smart way to examine this: from all angles; including the ‘reversed’ one;-)

      The answer depends on whether we are talking about ‘real’ trials, where everything, gets thrown into the trial bucket, and that includes the special FBI operations that began in 1996 under Clinton Admin and everything they collected on Hastert (and others directly involved). If that becomes the case (though I view it as ‘impossible’), I don’t see a single political body gaining- Democrats and Republicans, three Administrations and their cabinets, will all stand to lose.

      What if they cherry-picked ‘stuff’ for the case? Let’s say, per behind-the-scene arrangement with Hastert and his Def? And let’s say this deal included only damage to one political party, or, one Administration. Then, obviously, it will be the ‘other’ party benefiting. Since it is Chicago, I’d suggest it would be targeting the ‘Republicans'(Hastert as their symbol).

      I still cannot see a single ‘Political’ body, party-related, ‘gaining’ from this. Not a single one. Both parties have equal chance to lose, and lose greatly. That takes care of the political parties/partisan game.

      Foreign Operatives/Organizations: Since Hastert has been ‘outsider’ with ‘inside-tentacles’ … it would be a moot point. It will also risk the position of ‘foreign’ entities’ current insiders. Self-defeating.

      Again I end up going back to the original hypothesis: somehow some maverick, or mavericks, got a hold of this, got too far with it before the ‘real powers’ noticed and stepped in. If that’s the case I can guarantee you: the mavericks will NOT win- they will be eliminated (one way or another- if you catch my drift). They will pay for it big time.

  7. arealjeffersonian says:

    sorry, typo – s/b “in fact”

  8. Perhaps, it’s much more down to earth. Perhaps Hastert’s former “lover” was bleeding “our Denny Boy” financially to death. In order to protect his wealth he turned himself in.

    • Willy,

      I have to rule that out. He could have easily ‘taken care’ of him without much exposure risk.

      On the other hand, you are right: It could have started with something more down-to-earth. Let’s say a disgruntled former aid/associate who knew where some of his skeletons were buried. Hastert got much cash during his long tenure in Congress, but he collected much more afterwards (and publicly as a lobbyist and registered foreign agent). So let’s say, one of his former aids wanted a position & ‘more’ and he/she didn’t get it. Someone like that going to the IL DOJ would carry much more weight than, let’s say, an average citizen claiming ‘sex scandal.’ In fact, they may be truthful when they say ‘it all started with finding out about some financial irregularities …’ That’s something a former aid/associate could have access to easily. Then, let’s say the credible tip was initially processed by a maverick (lower level), and during the process (digging/investigating) the ‘sex’ thing came out, and from there it snowballed …

      Not an unlikely possibility.

  9. 344thBrother says:

    I would like to comment on all the possible what if’s and why’s in this case, but the darn thing is so deep and twisted that it makes my head hurt Instead, I’ll just say good job Sibel and thank you for this, and that dismissal of the case over some technicality seems the most likely outcome to me as well. Either that or Hastert is found dead of “Natural causes”.


  10. Could this be aimed at you Sibel? seems such classic misdirection…and you are the only one talking out of shop…I mean Hastert is surrounded by professionals. Enemy’s yes, but. The keys to the kingdom be holds will not be traded lightly that outcome appears certain. He’s old…can afford to be dangled awhile…media is safe enough to restrict any honest inquiry that may emerge while the bait is out…trying to draw an attack on some one….

    • Hi remo,

      Even that begs the question: Why now? The timing of it is also suspect.

      Knowing the case very well, being fully aware of related ‘interests’ and those involved … I still can’t see the ‘main’ purpose. Maybe it is right in front of me, and very simple, yet, I am not seeing it. Maybe together, with the coming episodes we’ll see a clear picture emerging. Maybe?

      • Laz Damar says:

        Question, is there really a person A? If there is, perhaps this whole thing is staged so he doesn’t have to hand over the money. If not, I’ve no idea. Usually, blackmail is also a criminal offense. So why not prosecute person A. It sounds like they have all the evidence they need to do at least that if sch a person exists. It seems like person A is the key to understanding why this happened now.

  11. thanks. I can only watch and listen ….

  12. Robert Beal says:

    Try lemon water and turning down the gain (check with your audio tech).

  13. She’s busy with the flight recorder,
    but will definitely try the lemon water.

  14. Ribbit-Mark says:

    Thanks Sibel.
    Electrifying stuff!
    Brings new understanding to a certain ‘The Lone Gladio’ character.
    I’m looking forward to further revelations, wherever they may come from.

  15. Great work SIbel, My take on this is that it is not really about Hastert, except that he is the trail to people that the power wants to manipulate in some way. I would be looking at who is potentially harmed by the furtherance of the case moving forward, and that whoever/whatever this is has not be resolved, which is why there is a continuance. After all, do you think that Hastert is the only one that is dirty? Of course not! This whole what I call “second tier” power level, meaning the persons who are the interface between the ultimate power that is essentially hidden and the rest of the world, are sociopaths and/ or worse and at some point moving up they are compromised and essentially sell their soul for power, always knowing that they have to do the bidding of the deep state or will be destroyed. He is being dangled out there show everyone in this second tier that they are powerless to do anything but the bidding of the deep state. But primarily to move certain second tier players on the chess board a certain way. My bet would be Obama, as he was around Chicago coming up during this time and there is probably some nice dirty connections that would be strategically revealed that could take him down.

  16. 1) If someone tried to take down Obama with this, who would that be? Clinton’s?

    2) Perhaps this isn’t an isolated issue? We have had the whole British pedo gang thing and more from other high ups in other countries. Corbett has a lot of notes on that I think. Why is this all “grazing” the fan now?

  17. And on that note, from what I have seen this type of crap with Hastert is typical. Is it not typical? Perhaps their ship is so overloaded with blackmail and such that it is becoming hard to control?

  18. – I could imagine there’s a completely different “Struggle” going on with a more FAR reaching future consequences. The struggle could be between the camp Hastert & Co. on the one hand and one or more of the “Security Services”/Departments on the other hand.

    Hastert made “Structured Withdrawels” and that’s against the (“Security”) laws.

    Some departments (Treasury, Homeland Security, DoJ, etc.) could be trying to make Hastert a prominent example of a “Security” law violation. If they’re able to nail Hastert then that would boost the standing/image of these departments and the “Security laws”. But it also would reign in the ability of the powerful/corrupted to do what ever like to do.
    If however, and that seems to me more likely today (could change tomorrow), Hastert & Co. would win/prevail (with whatever tactic) then it would deal a large blow to these departments and the “Security” laws. It even could render these “Security” laws (more or less) useless. Especially the “high heeled” & “Powerful” people then could feel free to do whatever they would like to do without having to bother (too much) about the security laws. That could be a very severe blow for the egos in the “Security” services.

    • Combine the thoughts above with what I wrote in my 1st reply.

      Or perhaps some people are sending out a warning. “Comply with our demands or you’ll get the “Hastert treatment” ? (Hastert was “frameable”). Perhaps someone is after one or more “bigger fish” ?

  19. Hi Sibel,
    at about 12:10 into the episode you say:

    “Why no coverage of my own under oath and on record testimony on Hastert’s illegal and immoral activities in 2010”

    Should that have been 2009 (Schmidt vs. Krikorian) or did you mean another testimony?

  20. I relistened to your first episode, and you seem to be saying that there are four independent groups monitoring Hastert:
    3. Partnership of foreign agents from Turkey and Israel
    4. A certain foreign clandestine criminal group operating under the CIA in Chicago was also involved.

    Did you mean to distinguish 3 & 4 as independent surveillance operations, or did you mean to say that 3 & 4 were overlapping/cooperating?

Speak Your Mind