Skip to comments.Indictment of former House speaker Dennis Hastert
Posted on 08/18/2015 10:02:47 PM PDT by Rabin
Federal prosecutors on Thursday indicted former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert on charges of purposefully withdrawing less than $10,000 in order to evade...
Violations: Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a)(2); Title 31, United States Code,Section 5324
(Excerpt) Read more at apps.washingtonpost.com ...
Cometh now the fed, to charge evasive use of private cap.
I don’t recognize a law that prevents me from transferring my money in specific amounts.
I’m not championing a blackmail paying pedophile over this issue.
Surely, we can find a better example.
Same here. It is a morally reprehensible law and used daily to harass and/or destroy average Americans breaking no other laws.
At the very least, the amount should be adjusted for inflation, as should the AMT law dollar threshold. I think that would put it at around $100,000 today.
Wonder how many of our problems come from a government infested with deviant perverts like Hastert, the toe tapper, and others? They don’t want what we do and work quietly against us.
And if they don’t the Democrats own them when they figure out what they’re into.
It’s a modern nest of vipers.
If he had only set up his own private email server to evade government oversight of his official government position while compromising national security... precedent suggests he'd be fine.
You were driving under the speed limit to avoid a ticket, you’re going to Prison!
Don't argue amounts or inflation adjustment. You're just playing into their hands. Arguing amounts implies you accept the principle.
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Hottie: My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course...
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Hottie: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
+1 this post
Wrong calendar dates. The indictment was back in May.
Don’t argue amounts or inflation adjustment. You’re just playing into their hands. Arguing amounts implies you accept the principle.
Your response amplifies exactly what I was saying before the part you quoted.
Philosophically, we are in utter agreement.
I completely agree. Please see my follow up post just before this one.
And to amplify just a bit: I not only agree with you, but this issue is one of the few that really make my blood boil. And for the reasons you so succinctly mentioned.
Surely, the USG pigs can find a better law under which to charge Hastert.
If I were on the jury, the verdict would be NG or hung. Don't confuse me with the facts! My verdict would not be on the facts, but on the fact that the law is an ass!
Most people don’t have enough money to commit this crime or even to do it on accident. The only time most people get large amounts of cash is if they are purchasing something and the seller requires cash. They may deposit cash for the same reason. Now the reason this became law was to catch drug dealers and tax evaders. They deal in cash very frequently. I think it is a bad idea for many reasons. It makes a criminal out of a non criminal. It forces banks into the policing profession. Whatever gain is had is not worth it.
The only person in my lifetime that I have known who dealt mostly in cash was my grandfather. He died about 25 years ago so I’m talking about way before this law was on the books. So using my narrow example, he didn’t run his cash through banks. He kept it at his home. Me, if I had cash that close to me I would spend it.
Alleged blackmail paying pedophile. The thing is, yes he looks guilty. But there is a statute of limitations for a reason on the base charge. The reason for the cash limit law is to catch people evading taxes and participating in illegal activity such as drug sales. Dennis was not using the cash illegally. The blackmailer should be charged with the crime of blackmail. I don’t care if he was the victim years ago as a reason to not charge him. You don’t get to be a vigilante. He could have sought justice during the time allowed by law rather than resort to a criminal act to punish Hastert himself.
It is not that I think Hastert should not be charged with structuring. He knew it was illegal. it is just that I think the law is wrong and should be repealed. It is a nightmare for banks. If they fail to report they face big fines. It is too much of a burden to place on mere tellers.
I know it’s the wrong premise . . . so find an example that doesn’t require being on the side of a pedophile.
Ain’t that amazing, no charges for the real crime. It’s gotten to the point where queer male teachers get about the same treatment as female teachers having hetero sex with students
See, forced to say Alleged! Not acceptable.
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.