Posted on 06/07/2015 5:39:30 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Dennis Hastert has not been indicted on a charge of sexual abuse, nor has he been indicted on a charge of paying money he was not legally allowed to pay. The indictment of Mr. Hastert, a former House speaker, released last week, lays out two counts: taking money out of the bank the wrong way, and then lying to the F.B.I. about what he did with the money.
Does that make sense? Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic, for example, is worried that the indictment constitutes government overreach, punishing Mr. Hastert for concealing payments whose disclosure he may have thought would be damaging to his reputation, but which were not illegal.
Federal prosecutors allege Mr. Hastert was paying hush money in exchange for wrongdoing that happened long ago.
But Mr. Hastert is charged with structuring: making repeated four-figure cash withdrawals from his bank in order to avoid the generation of cash transaction reports, which banks are required to send the government about every transaction over $10,000. These reports have been required since 1970, with the intention of helping the federal government identify organized criminals and tax evaders.
To be clear: It’s not illegal simply to take $8,000 out of the bank repeatedly.
“The criminal provisions there do have strong mens rea (criminal intent) requirements: The government has the burden to prove that the defendant knew about the reporting requirement and intended to evade it,” said Jim Copland, who directs the Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute, a right-of-center think tank. “So this is quite unlike many of the regulatory crimes that can ensnare the unsophisticated.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Indeed, because one can be sure that if one runs as a republican and is a corrupt perv, one will be crucified and made an example of.
Wrong...
He was not elected to House until '87; the Bank Secrecy Act was passed in '70.
You like it when we have pervs on our side as long as they tap quietly in airport restrooms, and molest their students discreetly?
They’re probably “to gutless to fight it” because someone/some entity has dirt on most of them...
” I think the law was more intended to be for money being deposited into a back account in order to launder the money.”
The problem is, that it was just a GREAT idea when “only criminals” and/or “dope dealers” were doing it...the occasional innocent people who were ensnared by it were just “collateral damage”, I guess...no doubt, the government quickly and cheerfully unfroze their accounts with an apology when the small matter was cleared up... </s>
He had a chance to change the law but he didn't.
He should get no sympathy now, the filthy pervert.
How the hell did he come up with $3.5 m?
= = = = = = = = = = =
That should be the focus here. If for nothing else than to shine the light and having them flee like cockroaches when it comes on.
How does a struggling HS teacher who (probably) supplemented his income by being a wrestling coach, then (BARF ALERT) becoming a Public Servant for many years get to ‘save’ that much money in his ‘political career’. Must have had hands in cookie jar or sold his seat to the highest bidder. (We know that is rule of the day etc) That is the fact that should be rammed down the publics throat.
Has Corzine been indicted or sanctioned yet? Have the Clintons been indicted or sanctioned? Not really enough space to list ALL the Pols that should be ‘guests of the state’ - at the very least. Leavenworth can use the business.
PRESIDENT Bill Clinton lied in the face of a federal judge.
That's TEN YEARS, RIGHT NOW for a peasant. How many years did Clinton serve, again?
I'm beginning to think that this Hastert deal is just one of those "Buckle up for safety" commercials that they did before they got the CLICKITERTICKET laws passed.
Teh Authoritays don't like cash - unless THEY'RE using it for some criminal activity...
I was under the impression that these were violations of the Patriot Act. If not, then I stand corrected.
Hastert is a lobbyist right now. Maybe the $3.5M cash payments were a way to funnel money to public officials behind the façade of this “hush money” story.
When questioned regarding structuring, an honest answer to investigators would have stopped any prosecution. By lying he committed the crime.
I don’t know about the ‘legality’ of payoffs for blackmail, but had he not lied, he’d only have had the stigma to deal with instead of that plus the legal indictment.
It boils down to him being a lying hypocritical scumbag RINO deigning to ‘lead’ us all. Couple that with the ability to amass $3.5million for a sex payoff and none of this turns out good for him.
It just makes me think back on all the good thinks those RINOs might have done back then and didn’t. Now I see why. I wonder what bones Boehner and McConnell have in their bags.
Agreed. I wonder whether the Hastert thing is yet another warning that anyone can be arrested for anything at anytime?
RE: You can withdraw money but under $10,000.00 and not too often! This is an old Bill Clinton law!
1) It would not have become law had Congress not passed it. And who was in control of Congress when Clinton was President and who was the Speaker?
2) This is a law that INCREASES government involvement in our lives, it should be repealed.
Good point, but it ain't happening.
Hillary Clinton committed MULTIPLE felonies in the email server deal (obstruction). She been arrested yet?
It is more telling about that. I'm sure his wife had no idea about this 3.5 mil he had or was not involved in the finances of the family. sad.
Whatever persuades the sheep to surrender the liberties our Founding Fathers fought and died for.
1993-1995 I think was Tom Foolery from Washington!!
This is a law that INCREASES government involvement in our lives, it should be repealed.
I agree fully!!!
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.