Posted on 06/03/2015 11:41:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Yesterday I started to delve into the Dennis Hastert case, paying particular attention to the specific crimes with which the former Speaker is being charged. But even after I finished writing about it and reading some of the comments here, I wasn’t very happy with my conclusions. There’s something very unsettling about the entire case (leaving out the obvious, horrible alleged child rape parts of it) but I felt that I wasn’t quite able to put my finger on it. Today I found someone who has done a better job of wrestling those questions to the ground and it was Connor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic. He poses a few questions which capture the essence of why this case seems so entirely wrong from a government overreach perspective.
It isn’t illegal to withdraw money from the bank, nor to compensate someone in recognition of past harms, nor to be the victim of a blackmail scheme. So why should it be a crime to hide those actions from the U.S. government? The alarming aspect of this case is the fact that an American is ultimately being prosecuted for the crime of evading federal government surveillance.
That has implications for all of us…
Again, the payments weren’t illegal. But as it turns out, structuring financial transactions “to evade currency transaction reporting requirements” is a violation of federal law.
Recognizing that Hastert is probably one of the least sympathetic figures in the news these days – aside from terrorists and mass shooting suspects – Connor helps us put this question in easier to digest form by applying the scenario to someone less sinister.
Imagine that a documentary filmmaker like Laura Poitras, whose films are critical of government surveillance, is buying a used video camera for $12,000. Vaguely knowing that a report to the federal government is generated for withdrawals of $10,000 or more, she thinks to herself, “What with my films criticizing NSA surveillance, I don’t want to invite any extra scrutiny—out of an abundance of caution, or maybe even paranoia, I’m gonna take out $9,000 today and $3,000 tomorrow. The last thing I need is to give someone a pretext to hassle me.”*
That would be illegal, even though in this hypothetical she has committed no crime and is motivated, like many people, by a simple aversion to being monitored.
Let’s toss in one more hypothetical from Friedersdorf just to drive the point home.
What if the government installed surveillance cameras on various streets in a municipality and then made it a crime to walk along a route that skirted those cameras?
That’s it in a nutshell. (And I only wish I’d summoned up the same clarity of thought to frame the issue that way.) We are a nation of laws and we don’t support people breaking them… and that includes the tax laws. But if you’re not actually breaking any of those laws, what are you really guilty of if you intentionally obfuscate your activities or hide yourself from the prying eyes of Uncle Sam? I’m failing to see how that is validly held to be a crime under our constitution.
The $10K transaction reporting requirement is controversial and Connor goes into it in detail, but I’m not sure that’s where we pin the blame here. After all, it’s not the job of the government to make it easier for you to commit a crime, and unusually large cash transactions – while not illegal in and of themselves – frequently do take place in conjunction with actual crimes. Making the banks report such account activity is not the same as charging someone with a crime, but rather is simply a hint of where prosecutors might want to look. After all, we don’t charge bank robbers with failing to leave a sufficiently clear trail of breadcrumbs back to their hideout. The problem arises with what they typically do with that information and the additional layers of laws which are piled on top of the process which follows.
If you are not providing testimony under oath in a court of law, why is it illegal to lie to investigators absent some other crime? I suppose exceptions could be made for things like providing a fake ID or forged insurance documents or something, but those are actually other crimes in their own right. But when the man from the IRS or the FBI or the Justice Department comes knocking on your door and asks you why you were doing this or that with your bank account, you should absolutely tell him that you’ve done nothing wrong and what you do with your money is your own damn business. If Hastert had done precisely that I assume he wouldn’t be in any trouble today on the “lying to authorities” front, though the “structured transaction” charge would stick. But he made up a story about stashing money at home because he didn’t trust the banks. That, as it turned out, was a lie. But the lie seems to be the only thing they have him on.. Is a lie that much worse than telling the investigator to go pound sand and refusing to cooperate?
I think the camera question that Connor poses is the one that really got me. For the record, I’m not opposed to there being cameras covering public spaces and making such footage available to law enforcement (with a warrant) as part of their investigation into an actual crime. But if you scope out where all the cameras are and purposely walk on paths which avoid them every day while not breaking any laws, how on Earth could they consider prosecuting you? Apparently under the current theory of government practices, they just might be able to. And yes… that’s disturbing.
Some call it skirting the boundaries of propriety..
Others see it as exacting justice..
I see a lot of fat mattresses in politicos futures here on out.
Banks are quasi gubamental organisms.. And bound by law to same.
Why? Because we let them. When these laws started, we could have stood up and stopped it, but as usual, we said “Hell, they’re just doing to those other people, so I don’t care”.
RE: Why? Because we let them. When these laws started, we could have stood up and stopped it
Well, there is always a need for someone like rand Paul in the senate after all (even when he isn’t my choice to be President ).
Refusing to let the cops into your home without a warrant is “avoiding government scrutiny”.
I read that Hastert voted for this when he was in the house. that sucks for him.
RE: I read that Hastert voted for this when he was in the house. that sucks for him.
Yep, it’s called being hoisted by your own petard.
The problem is that people think that their money is their money. Not so fast, comrade.
Anybody who sings the national anthem is a liar. Not the land of the free. And the home of cowards who are afraid to live life without the nanny state.
structuring financial transactions “to evade currency transaction reporting requirements” is a violation of federal law.
If you own a business that deals in a lot of cash and gross under $10k a day to the tune off $8500 one day, $9800 another, etc. you may find yourself in trouble for the appearance of evading currency transaction reporting requirements.
Add to this the fact that when this was enacted you could have bought MULTIPLE new cars for under that amount of money you see the challenges inflation has brought to the issue.
What if the government installed surveillance cameras on various streets in a municipality and then made it a crime to walk along a route that skirted those cameras?
What if the government installed surveillance cameras on various streets in a municipality and then made it a crime to walk along a route that skirted those cameras?
No problem,,wear burqua, topped off by a sombrero
It’s because you are their subject and tax slave rather than them being your public servant. Simple really.
It creates a problem for Smaritan.
Well, when I transfer funds in excess of 10K, it is to write a check to the effing government for taxes. Now, where does that leave me? D@mned if I do, and D@mned if I don’t.
He helped expand it under the PATRIOT Act, but the Bank Secrecy Act was passed into law in 1970.
Because we let them get away with making it so. While the unmitigated support for the Patriot Act was rampant, equally abysmal laws were passed before it.
They keep us scared and rely on a bumper sticker mentality. If we are survive, it will take a clean slate of Representatives and a repeal of many a law.
MOST small retail businesses make daily deposits of less than $10,000.
Often it is at the SUGGESTION OF THE BANK, to avoid the paperwork.
This “structuring” “law” has become a fund raising scheme for government agencies, and it has NOTHING to do with fighting crime.
You see, there is risk in fighting criminals....and why do that?
A government employee or elected official with clearance do not have a right to hide being blackmailed
If he wanted to pay the hush money.. quit the government, surrender your clearance....and become a private citizen
they he can pay all the hush money out he pleases and I'll support him in his right to do so with no one sticking their nose into it
Try buying a car with cash.
An old farmer I know did, and the cops showed up a few minutes later. He had bought cars with cash for decades.
It is now illegal to use cash, or not finance large purchases.
Anybody that has dealt with clearances and working for the government knows their number one concern is your finances they do not want to see you in a position to be compromised
They do not want to see you being able to be blackmailed .
you want those positions of power and access to security information you give up certain privileges of privacy
give up your positions of power and you can get back your right and privileges of privacy..eventually....because you still hold that knowledge after you leave ..
same reason that Hillary Clinton cannot have her own private email server as Secretary of State
if she wants to be a private citizen she can have her own damn private email server.
quit looking at this as he was Joe Blow private citizen... it’s not the case.
I gave up a chance for job with a top security clearance out in that airbase in Nevada desert that does not exist.....
And I did not take the opportunity in part because I wanted to retain my rights as a private citizen to do things like even post on this freaking board
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.