Hastert - what no gleeful thread from .....

[GURPS]

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert Indicted On Federal Charges

The Justice Department charged the Illinois Republican Thursday for evading reporting requirements and lying to the FBI as part of a scheme to pay off the victim of “prior bad acts.”

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert on reporting evasion charges and lying to the FBI as part of an effort to conceal paying off the victim of “prior bad acts.”

In an indictment handed down in the District Court of Northern Illinois, the Department of Justice and IRS charged Hastert, 73, with illegally transferring funds in an effort to avoid detection by the IRS, a scheme known as “structuring.”

In the indictment, Hastert is accused of agreeing to pay one individual $3.5 million.

Although the indictment does not specify the “bad acts,” sources said they could be from before Hastert, who is now a lobbyist in Washington, entered politics in 1980. The indictment does, however, claim that Hastert agreed to make the payments “[d]uring … 2010 meetings and subsequent discussions.” In at least one of those meetings, according to the indictment, Hastert and the individual “discussed past misconduct by [Hastert against the individual] that had occurred years earlier.”

 

[LibertyBeacon]

I'm not a fan of the rules against these "structured withdraws" whereby the transaction has to be < $10K or you get reported to FINCEN or whatever agency, but this is precisely what the War on Drugs that you psychopath statists support will get you.

But that aside, something about this story doesn't add up. Is he being shaken down? Blackmailed? Who is this other person involved who is allegedly a life-long friend of Hastert? Why aren't they named?

 

[GURPS]

I'm not a fan of the rules against these "structured withdraws" whereby the transaction has to be < $10K or you get reported to FINCEN or whatever agency, but this is precisely what the War on Drugs that you psychopath statists support will get you.

But that aside, something about this story doesn't add up. Is he being shaken down? Blackmailed? Who is this other person involved who is allegedly a life-long friend of Hastert? Why aren't they named?

it seems to me the FBI has maybe 1/10 of the story, but enough to get Hastert 'indicted' on structured withdrawals
... but nothing else because no one else is talking - or there is nothing really there

it is a Holder / Obama fishing expedition ..... and before someone says Holder is gone, this chickey did not take over last week and build a case this fast

 

[SamSpade]

Blackmailed?

SURE does sound like it doesn't it? How else would you hide hush money? Blood diamonds?

 

[Hijinx]

SURE does sound like it doesn't it? How else would you hide hush money? Blood diamonds?

I am sure the FBI will get around to Bill and his LLC and the Clinton Foundation soon.

 

[Larry Gude]

S Blood diamonds?

And how would you pay for them?

 

[Larry Gude]

...but this is precisely what the War on Drugs that you psychopath statists support will get you.

?

So, remember that when you get black mailed; "Sorry, pal. I can't pay you. The war on drugs has made hush money an impossibility...you'll just have to out me.'

 

[LibertyBeacon]

It now appears confirmed this is a blackmail case stemming from alleged sexual misconduct when he was a high school teacher. Don't have link handy, should be easy to dig up.

Let's review this, shall we?

Hastert is getting blackmailed, yes he's the one being charged (federal charges) with structuring withdrawals. Does that about accurately describe the situation?

UFB.

 

[Gilligan]

It now appears confirmed this is a blackmail case stemming from alleged sexual misconduct when he was a high school teacher. Don't have link handy, should be easy to dig up.

Let's review this, shall we?

Hastert is getting blackmailed, yes he's the one being charged (federal charges) with structuring withdrawals. Does that about accurately describe the situation?

UFB.

yep..UFB. An artificial crime is apparently all he's actually being accused of...

Must be some really weird celestial alignment chit going on for me to agree with you.

So it's AOK for Bill and Hillary to rake in over 100 million bucks from highly questionable sources and get a total pass for doing that...and an apparent pedophile (30 years ago) has FBI all over his arse for withdrawing his own money out of his own bacnk account(s) to pay blackmail money..which, last I checked IS NOT ILLEGAL TO DO. We are doomed.

Oh..and Hastert should burn in hell. But that's a separate subject

 

[Larry Gude]

It now appears confirmed this is a blackmail case stemming from alleged sexual misconduct when he was a high school teacher. Don't have link handy, should be easy to dig up.

Let's review this, shall we?

Hastert is getting blackmailed, yes he's the one being charged (federal charges) with structuring withdrawals. Does that about accurately describe the situation?

UFB.

I am NOT the only one who watched Clear and Present Danger. Not possible.


Why try to defuse a bomb that has already gone off????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[LibertyBeacon]

yep..UFB. An artificial crime is apparently all he's actually being accused of...

But to play devil's advocate for a moment, how is it an "artificial" crime? A democratically elected government, representing the will of The People via the consent of the governed, and so on and so forth made this law so. There is nothing artificial about it. Multiple deposits/withdrawals of $9,999 is a prima facie crime, by word of that government.

What, precisely, do you mean by artificial?

 

[Gilligan]

What, precisely, do you mean by artificial?

Artificial in the sense that it was created out of thin air. There was never anything inherently wrong or criminal about withdrawing ones own money from a bank. There still isn't anything inherently wrong with it..but now yr a criminal if you do it a certain way.

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm not a huge fan of "unnamed sources". Even the extortionist isn't named, and last time I looked extortion was a crime.

When I first heard this story I was like, surprise surprise, another criminal politician. But then I realized this isn't passing the smell test. CNN, if you can believe it, asked the pertinent questions:

Who is "Individual A"?
When did the alleged abuse happen?
Why did it take so long for it to come out?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/29/politics/dennis-hastert-indictment-questions/

So my thought on this is to have no opinion until there's something to actually have an opinion on.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Artificial in the sense that it was created out of thin air. There was never anything inherently wrong or criminal about withdrawing ones own money from a bank. There still isn't anything inherently wrong with it..but now yr a criminal if you do it a certain way.

I certainly agree with your sentiment. But aren't the vast majority of laws (not natural law) created out of thin air?

 

[Gilligan]

I certainly agree with your sentiment. But aren't the vast majority of laws (not natural law) created out of thin air?

I don't know about the vast majority...but there certainly are plenty more that criminalize inherently non-criminal actions, I'm sure.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

I don't know about the vast majority...but there certainly are plenty more that criminalize inherently non-criminal actions, I'm sure.

Very well. I think you understand my point then. No need for me to be obtuse beyond that which I already am.

 

[Gilligan]

No need for me to be obtuse beyond that which I already am.

But that would not be grasping at something beyond your reach either.

 

[Hijinx]

The DOJ under this administration has a hard- on for Republicans, and any Democrat such as Bob Menendez who happens to buck them.
Nixon was a piker compared to Obama.

Using the power of government agencies to punish and stifle opposition.

IMO Its isn't Hastert that belongs in jail but this corrupt administration and it's minions.

 

[philibusters]

It is always good to let the facts come out, but my instincts is that this will have some legs to it. Ultimately if you are conservative I think your instinct will be to downplay this news and if you are a liberal it will be to gleefully emphasis it.

As for as whether the money withdrawal laws are artificial, I don't think its artificial. I do agree there is nothing morally wronging with withdrawing money in a certain manner, but the issue is whether certain patterns of money withdrawal are usually designed to conceal illegal behavior. Its a little bit analogous to how the olympics bans masking agents. The masking drugs don't give the athlete any advantage but they are banned caused they could hide drugs that do give them advantage.

Likewise as somebody pointed blackmail is a law that seems artificial (releasing truthful information to embarrass somebody is not a criminal act), but it has negative consequences of tending to get people not report crime by giving them a monetary incentive to keep quiet.

 

[Gilligan]

It is always good to let the facts come out, but my instincts is that this will have some legs to it. Ultimately if you are conservative I think your instinct will be to downplay this news and if you are a liberal it will be to gleefully emphasis it.

As for as whether the money withdrawal laws are artificial, I don't think its artificial. I do agree there is nothing morally wronging with withdrawing money in a certain manner, but the issue is whether certain patterns of money withdrawal are usually designed to conceal illegal behavior. Its a little bit analogous to how the olympics bans masking agents. The masking drugs don't give the athlete any advantage but they are banned caused they could hide drugs that do give them advantage.

Likewise as somebody pointed blackmail is a law that seems artificial (releasing truthful information to embarrass somebody is not a criminal act), but it has negative consequences of tending to get people not report crime by giving them a monetary incentive to keep quiet.

I take it you are one of those"give up real liberties in exchange for perceived safety" types.

I'm definitely not. And some progressive moron that was duly elected is putting forth a bill that would report my personal info to a fed database if I bought more than 1000 rounds of ammunition within a 5-day period. You see how this crap works?