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

[Larry Gude]

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?

Not true. The fact of the matter is that the feds have been trolling for numbers LOWER than the law states and for some time. Our government breaks the law all the time. We simply don't give a #### because we know both parties are up to their necks in it.

 

[philibusters]

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?

I am not a "security for liberties" type. I am not really any type. You are assuming my politics are based on ideology, I would say I am more of pragmatist. By this boards standards I lean left, but in by national standards I don't really lean any way because I am all over the place with my beliefs.

Plus I didn't even say whether I agree with the law or not. I just put up a rationale behind the law, not a defense of it. I am not sure how I feel about the law, I just didn't buy your argument that the law was artificial or lacked a rational basis behind it.

 

[Larry Gude]

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?

And you're not? I'm not?

What did we do when the TSA was formed? Cheer? DHS? More cheers? Pat Act? If we were remotely serious about liberty and freedom we would have stopped identifying as Republicans by now and if we were really serious we would have raised hell about it THEN. I wrote pieces objecting to it but I certainly didn't march on the capital to protest.

 

[Larry Gude]

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. .

My instinct is to say he's a freaking moron. You can't defuse a bomb after it went off. it WILL come out sooner or later. That slimy son of a bitch got the Speaker-ship BECAUSE another guy was disqualified for fooling around. So, that SOB stood there for how many years knowing that.

What a douche.

 

[Gilligan]

And you're not? I'm not?

What did we do when the TSA was formed? Cheer? DHS? More cheers? Pat Act? .

You certainly have me confused with someone else.

 

[Larry Gude]

You certainly have me confused with someone else.

It's a question. Are you saying you opposed those policies at the time? If so, good.

 

[Tilted]

Obviously if Speaker Hastert was sexually active with underage boys (wherever the proper cut off is), even if it was many decades ago, he deserves great condemnation and whatever punishments the law can find for him.

That said, I agree with the suggestions of some others. It's messed up that he, as the apparent victim of blackmail, may face criminal consequences for violating such horse#### laws. For structuring account withdrawals to avoid reporting requirements that shouldn't exist to begin with? Seriously, government is an ass in so, so many ways.

But then again, wasn't he the Speaker of the House when it overwhelming passed the Patriot Act? Didn't he support it and hasn't he, in effect, bragged about getting it passed? I'm not sure I buy the notion of karma, but: Karma, mother ####er! Let those who do great evil have great evil done unto them (though I wouldn't necessarily consider the consequences he faces for the violations charged in the indictment great evil). If it be so by the very instruments of evil that they themselves helped conceive or craft, all the better.

 

[Larry Gude]

Obviously if Speaker Hastert was sexually active with underage boys (wherever the proper cut off is), even if it was many decades ago, he deserves great condemnation and whatever punishments the law can find for him.

That said, I agree with the suggestions of some others. It's messed up that he, as the apparent victim of blackmail, may face criminal consequences for violating such horse#### laws. For structuring account withdrawals to avoid reporting requirements that shouldn't exist to begin with? Seriously, government is an ass in so, so many ways.

But then again, wasn't he the Speaker of the House when it overwhelming passed the Patriot Act? Didn't he support it and hasn't he, in effect, bragged about getting it passed? I'm not sure I buy the notion of karma, but: Karma, mother ####er! Let those who do great evil have great evil done unto them (though I wouldn't necessarily consider the consequences he faces for the violations charged in the indictment great evil). If it be so by the very instruments of evil that they themselves helped conceive or craft, all the better.

All well and good but what party is ALL about the war on crime, consequences be damned? The GOP. So, in OUR desire to control what people use to get off, we gleefully seek out more and more power to use on one another and once gummint has that power, (TSA, DHS, PAT ACT, TARP, Emergency Medical Treatment Act, The ACA anyone?) it does ALL sorts of things with it.

Hastert chose to be blackmailed. He could have said "Go tell your story. I'm not going to let you hold it over my head." and been done with it. He chose to try and find a way to get away with it instead of saying "Yeah, I was hot for that young man". He chose to deceived us all. To take the place of a guy who lost the job for less.

I don't know the details and if it was some 16-17 year old boy I have about as little problem with that as I do some 16-17 year old girl having the hots for her favorite teacher. My problem is his deceit, his desire to try and defuse a bomb that already went off. Douche is he. A used one. From a stinky ho.

 

[vraiblonde]

Obviously if Speaker Hastert was sexually active with underage boys (wherever the proper cut off is), even if it was many decades ago, he deserves great condemnation and whatever punishments the law can find for him.

It was like 40 years ago and the statute of limitations has run out. I don't understand why this is a thing now all of a sudden. Hastert must have pissed someone off.

 

[Tilted]

All well and good but what party is ALL about the war on crime, consequences be damned? The GOP. So, in OUR desire to control what people use to get off, we gleefully seek out more and more power to use on one another and once gummint has that power, (TSA, DHS, PAT ACT, TARP, Emergency Medical Treatment Act, The ACA anyone?) it does ALL sorts of things with it.

Hastert chose to be blackmailed. He could have said "Go tell your story. I'm not going to let you hold it over my head." and been done with it. He chose to try and find a way to get away with it instead of saying "Yeah, I was hot for that young man". He chose to deceived us all. To take the place of a guy who lost the job for less.

I don't know the details and if it was some 16-17 year old boy I have about as little problem with that as I do some 16-17 year old girl having the hots for her favorite teacher. My problem is his deceit, his desire to try and defuse a bomb that already went off. Douche is he. A used one. From a stinky ho.

I tend to agree when it comes to the age of his supposed victim. That's why I added the parenthetical in the first sentence. I'm just not sure what the right age is. Really, there probably isn't a right age that can be identified, there are other variables that matter; but that's how we have to consider it when it comes to defining crimes.

Here's a question for you: If a victim of sexual abuse asks, after the fact, for financial compensation in exchange for not reporting their being abused, does that to some extent turn them into a prostitute rather than (or in addition to) a victim of abuse?

 

[This_person]

It was like 40 years ago and the statute of limitations has run out. I don't understand why this is a thing now all of a sudden. Hastert must have pissed someone off.

My first reaction to stories like this is to believe it is a shiny object dangling to distract you from some other thing. How long was ebola the number one worry of the nation, and then nothing heard about it after - what was being covered up? Reid gets his ass kicked, and then gets caught abusing his power in office, and then resigns. Surely that was a deal (he resign) to avoid prosecution for the abuse of power, but you'll never see it reported that way. Hastert surely is being shown for a sex-related and money-related crime. Any idea who is in power with all of these issues in his/her past, and wants you to not worry to much about it?

 

[Tilted]

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

I would guess that the Justice Department had most of the story (or one version of it) as I would assume from what's stated in the indictment that the blackmailer, the supposed victim from decades ago, was working with them. It's just that someone - whether it was him or lawyers for Mr. Hastert - convinced prosecutors to leave some details, which weren't vital to the charges, out of the indictment.

 

[Larry Gude]

It was like 40 years ago and the statute of limitations has run out. I don't understand why this is a thing now all of a sudden. Hastert must have pissed someone off.

Stopped making payments. Screw him. He took his chances that it would never come out and that means he's a moron.

 

[Tilted]

It was like 40 years ago and the statute of limitations has run out. I don't understand why this is a thing now all of a sudden. Hastert must have pissed someone off.

Sure. He is, or has been in the past, a fairly prominent political figure. So it's likely he has some enemies. But the government prosecutes horse#### all the time and for various reasons. So it might just be government doing what it does without political motivations or personal animus driving this particular horse#### train.

 

[stgislander]

And you're not? I'm not?

What did we do when the TSA was formed? Cheer? DHS? More cheers? Pat Act? If we were remotely serious about liberty and freedom we would have stopped identifying as Republicans by now and if we were really serious we would have raised hell about it THEN. I wrote pieces objecting to it but I certainly didn't march on the capital to protest.

I'll admit, I cheered when DHS was formed. It got the Coast Guard out of the Dept of Transportation and into a department where it could be properly funded.

 

[vraiblonde]

My first reaction to stories like this is to believe it is a shiny object dangling to distract you from some other thing.

Yeah, I thought the same thing with all the media frenzy over Josh Duggar: okay, what's going on that you want to distract me from?

 

[Tilted]

Maybe this indictment, or it coming when it did, is some meta-game level (anti) Patriot Act reauthorization advocacy.

I mean, a good hoist with his own petard (symbolically or otherwise) story can make for some effective point making.

 

[Larry Gude]

Here's a question for you: If a victim of sexual abuse asks, after the fact, for financial compensation in exchange for not reporting their being abused, does that to some extent turn them into a prostitute rather than (or in addition to) a victim of abuse?

No. If the kid wasn't of legal age to consent, if we see them as a victim then, the church sends them 'get over it money'...wait. That wasn't the question. Uh...in this case, err...well, what we don't know is whether Denny offered first or if he was indeed approached with an offer. Presumably, the victim came up with the idea then I can see where it WOULD be black mail except for my view that black mail isn't something that happens TO you. It's the potential price for what you chose to do. Denny was the adult and chose to diddle with a kid so, he, from that moment on, had choices; hope it goes away, the kid moves on to embarrassed to talk about it or whatever and THEN when that wasn't the case he had another choice; tell the kid to get over it or accept the deal which THEN gives him choices; hope it goes away or deal with it, again, when it does not go away.

I mean, I get where there is the thought of prostitution but the kid, regardless of what really went down, was, legally, a victim. So, there's that.

Now, if the kid's mom dressed him up and said "Here's your one chance Fancy don't let me down..." I suppose that is another set of questions...

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah, I thought the same thing with all the media frenzy over Josh Duggar: okay, what's going on that you want to distract me from?

I am proud to say I STILL have NO clue who that is.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'll admit, I cheered when DHS was formed. It got the Coast Guard out of the Dept of Transportation and into a department where it could be properly funded.

Hell of a cost to fix that I'd say.