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 ...
Looks to me like he has a point. I don’t see where it is wrong to take money out of ones back account regardless of the amount. I think the law was more intended to be for money being deposited into a back account in order to launder the money.
Hastert’s biggest crime is ‘breathing while Republican’.
I have no clue whether Denny Hastert is diddling little boys but he’s been a crook for years. Years ago I watched a whole documentary about him arranging for a road to be built past or through a property he owned so he could jack up the price and get a nice payoff. He’s a disgrace to the GOP whether he’s a pedophile or not. Looks like his chickens are coming home to roost.
I see your point, but every single politician can be described as “a crook for years”. They ALL do the same thing.
It should not be any business of the government what someone does with his or her own money, unless it is used in the commission of a crime; and only THEN, when the government is investigating the crime, should they be able to track the money for use as evidence at trial.
If I want to take my money out of the bank and wallpaper my house with it, it should not be the government’s business.
Of course, we are no longer a free country, so I’m dreaming.
I saw the same documentary. Wallace on Fox did the story. It was about Congressmen using their privilege to enhance their wealth. Hastert said he had to do something like that to pay for his retirement. He’s scum. He voted for that law and now it got him.
I saw the same documentary. Wallace on Fox did the story. It was about Congressmen using their privilege to enhance their wealth. Hastert said he had to do something like that to pay for his retirement. He’s scum. He voted for that law and now it got him.
All this is a result of the War on Drugs. End the WOD and you end the reason for hundreds of intrusive and unconstitutional laws.
It appears that his biggest crime is molesting boys whom he had a position of trust over as their wrestling coach. Has it been proven in court? No. But the fact that he was pulling out millions of dollars, in a way that he thought would evade scrutiny, to purchase the victim’s silence speaks loud and clear about his guilt.
I get the point about money withdrawals and strongly disagree with it.
That said, dennis hastert was a polotician and a scumbag, redundant as those terms may be. Air should be illegal if he breathes it. So they can toss hom in the clink for as long as they want and I’m not going to lose a minute of sleep over it.
Wasn’t it Stalin who originally made it a crime to take your money out of the bank...?
No, wait, I must be thinking of Mao Tse Tung.
Well we need not to defend them when their sins catch up. Hastert is bad news.
Three points:
1. Hastert might be a pedophile.
2. Only Republican politicians are investigated and indicted for such crimes.
3. False indictments of Republicans for political persecution is now commonplace, and Republican “leaders” are too gutless to fight it.
I don't care for perverts but I also don't care for pumped up charges....
Martha Stewart would have almost certainly received no jail time if she had simply remained silent, and probably would have escaped any prosecution at all.
I don't know the details of Hastert’s legal position, but how often do potential criminal defendants IMPROVE their legal outcome by voluntarily talking to the Feds?
“All this is a result of the War on Drugs. End the WOD and you end the reason for hundreds of intrusive and unconstitutional laws.”
*****
The “War on Drugs” excuse has now morphed into the “War on Terrorism” mantra. Ending WOD wouldn’t change a thing.
I don’t mind seeing Dennis Hastert prosecuted, but I object strongly to him being prosecuted over a bad law. The “structuring” laws and the civil forfeiture laws should be repealed - those laws serve no valid purpose. If they can prosecute Hastert for being a predator who harmed children, I’ll support life without parole. Otherwise, Obama’s corrupt justice department needs to stop persecuting Hastert for merely being a sleaze while republican.
Hastert is being prosecuted for violating a Federal law that passed while he was Speaker of the House of Representatives. I wouldn’t care if they sentenced that @sshole to a trip to the sun in a rocket ship.
I’ve said from the beginning that there is a lot more to this story than meets the eye. Why would a former elected official — who hasn’t been in office in years — pay $3.5M in hush money over an incident that: (1) occurred long before he was in public office, and (2) occurred so long ago that the statute of limitations for any criminal prosecution expired years ago?
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.