Why did Dennis Hastert agree to pay Curtis T Williams $3.5 million?

Ernie Souchak, Editor-in Chief

Curtis T. Williams

Why did former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert agree to pay Curtis T. Williams (Individual A), a former student and son of a close family friend, $3.5 million?

According to Hastert, it was because Williams was blackmailing him!

However, the Feds and their sock puppets at the Chicago Tribune insist that Williams was just extracting "hush money" in return for remaining silent about the fact that Hastert molested him decades ago.

Is there a difference?


The action, treated as a criminal offense, of demanding money from a person in return for not revealing compromising or injurious information about that person.

Synonym: extortion.

The only difference is that if they called it what it really was, blackmail, Curtis Williams would have been charged with a crime and been forced to testify that Hastert, a known pederast, gave him cash-stuffed envelopes totaling $1.7 million.

Now why would the Feds, including former FBI Directors Robert Mueller and James Comey, not want Williams to testify against a known pederast?

Could it be that the Deep State was trying to hide something big?


ALERT: The Hastert story is about to take a wild turn!

The “REAL” Dennis Hastert Scandal!






ALERT: The Hastert story is about to take a wild turn!


Ernie Souchak, Editor-in-Chief


Chicago Tribune's Christy Gutowski reported that former House Speaker Dennis Hastert retracted his accusation that Mr. Doe (Individual A) was extorting money from him in her story on the civil case of James Doe vs Dennis Hastert.

She obviously did not fact check that claim.

Because the former speaker is still implying that he is being blackmailed in recent court documents.

IP2P emailed Gutowski to get verification of the claim that Hastert retracted his accusation.

From: [redacted]
To: Christy Gutowski
Sent: February 23, 2017 at 3:20 PM
Subject: Dennis Hastert victim again argues for rest of hush money in court filing

Ms. Christy Gutowski

Did you fact check Ms. Browne's claim that Dennis Hastert has retracted his accusation that "Individual A" was extorting money from him?

Where and when did Hastert make this retraction?

In response, Kristi Browne, the victim's attorney, said in her recent court filing: "Hastert engaged in illegal conduct by failing to make proper disclosures in connection with withdrawing funds from his bank accounts in violation of banking law, rendering himself and the agreement between the parties the subject of a federal investigation. Hastert was the first to disclose his agreement to pay Mr. Doe to federal officials, but falsely accused Mr. Doe of extortion, an accusation he has since retracted."





Gutowski did not reply to our email.

When Gutowski was contacted by phone to discuss the seemingly fraudulent claim that Hastert had retracted his accusation, she refused to answer any questions and stated: "You will have to speak to my editor, I am just a reporter" before abruptly hanging up.

Is she implying that her editor at the Chicago Tribune is responsible for the false reporting?

Why would the Tribune do this? Especially since the Tribune has already reported that it knows the identity of "Individual A"?

(Reporters Shine Light on Alleged Victims in Dennis Hastert Case)

Perhaps the Tribune knows that if it was determined that "Individual A" was indeed blackmailing Dennis Hastert that the public would demand to know who he is?

The Tribune also knows that if it were to reveal the identity of "Individual A" it would not only confirm that Hastert was being blackmailed. It would also raise new and serious questions that would open a can of worms that U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon desperately wants to keep closed to the public.

And lets face it, we all know that when the U.S. attorneys office in Chicago says "jump", the Tribune asks: "how high?"


Nice try Zachary. But we are not falling for your "fake news"

Buckle up, folks. The Hastert story is about to take a wild turn!

(Kristi Browne and Tribune Editors did not respond to attempts for comment)