Denny Hastert indicted

[CountryClassSF]

But do you think, in general, if someone is being extorted by an individual, that the person 'structuring' should receive a higher penalty than the blackmailer who is demanding payment?

Probably not. It would be a shame in this case if this unknown individual gets off scot-free with his 3.5 million dollars of hush money, for example.

Yeah that's the part that doesn't sit well with me.

[pbrower2a]

But do you think, in general, if someone is being extorted by an individual, that the person 'structuring' should receive a higher penalty than the blackmailer who is demanding payment?

The blackmail could be the result of the blackmailed person committing a crime.

[CountryClassSF]

This story is getting weirder by the minute: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/243418-dennis-hastert's-weird-2014-CSPAN-call

[CountryClassSF]

But do you think, in general, if someone is being extorted by an individual, that the person 'structuring' should receive a higher penalty than the blackmailer who is demanding payment?

The blackmail could be the result of the blackmailed person committing a crime.

Sure - and that's the obvious exception. But in the sole context of a structuring case, I think too many innocent people get snared.

[Likely Voter]

once i saw the actual indictment I knew it was something like this. US Attorney doesnt mention a defendent was a HS coach in 1970s unless it is relevent.

I wonder if Individual A has proof of the misconduct. This was a lot of money to pay for just an accusation that could be denied, especially if Hastert could say the person was trying to blackmail him.
It is interesting that the indictment doesn't say "alleged misconduct"

[Panda Express]

Not the #1 story on Fox News

[CountryClassSF]

A second accuser has been interviewed in the investigation, per the Sun Times

http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/7/71/646669/source-ex-house-speaker-dennis-hastert-allegedly-paid-hide-sexual-misconduct

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Thanks folks! I did not appreciate the mess you all appear to have made of this thread. while I was out celebrating the high school graduation of my grandnephew.  I locked this while I took care of this.  I wasn't as lenient this time in handing out points as I cleaned out yet another Augean stable. Reopening, but please folks, do not try to hijack this topic or respond to those who do.

[Badger]

Our founders never intended to have a permanent political class. But we'll never get reasonable term limits in place unless we have a constitutional convention

Yes, "term limits " is obviously the lesson to draw here.

I was responding to the post about people continuously being re elected despite corruption, Badger.

and this corruption had nothing to do with his time in congress, so just as irrelevant

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'm still confused as to why he's being indicted for giving in to blackmail. Lying to federal officials?

He wasn't indicted for giving into blackmail. He was indicted for repeatedly making withdrawals from his bank account of slightly under $10,000. If you withdraw >$10,000 the bank makes a statement to the government. Hastert tried to avoid that by repeatedly withdrawing amounts just under that. Making multiple <$10,000 withdrawals to avoid the statement is a money laundering offense usually used to prosecute drug dealers, mafia people, etc.

That's a horrendous law. Just set the limit lower if it's that much of a concern rather than prosecute a guy like this.

He should've just gone all in - one shot. Too bad. Not gonna be too upset over this considering the original issue at hand even if it was many years ago. Still concerning to see the government acting like this.

I think you're missing the point of th law. Setting a lower limit just means that people like Hastert would just take out more withdrawals at a lower amount each time. The limit itself isn't too important, it's the people who are obviously intentionally trying to evade it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

LOL, did he withdraw $3.5 million in separate withdraws of $9999 each? You probably have a higher chance of the feds showing up if you do that then if you write a letter to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue detailing how you are going to kill the President.

[Indy Texas]

The 109th was probably one of the most corrupt Congresses to ever convene

For once, I agree with CountryClassSF. There was something particularly skeezy about the House Republicans who held office between 1994 and the close of the Bush Administration: Bob Livingston, Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Charles Taylor, Mark Foley, Mark Souder, etc, and now Denny.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The 109th was probably one of the most corrupt Congresses to ever convene

For once, I agree with CountryClassSF. There was something particularly skeezy about the House Republicans who held office between 1994 and the close of the Bush Administration: Bob Livingston, Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Charles Taylor, Mark Foley, Mark Souder, etc, and now Denny.

The contract to finks America.

[Joe Republic]

Haha

[Ebsy]

Definitely a male voice.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The so called media realized they couldn't defend him, so....

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/3d281c11a96b4ad082fe88aa0db04305/Article_2015-05-28-10%20Things%20to%20Know-Friday/id-ab816cb64b174cdfa4eb7bb3d4034ad6
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/10-things-to-know-for-friday/ar-BBkkPz3

And so on...

[CountryClassSF]

The 109th was probably one of the most corrupt Congresses to ever convene

For once, I agree with CountryClassSF. There was something particularly skeezy about the House Republicans who held office between 1994 and the close of the Bush Administration: Bob Livingston, Tom DeLay, Duke Cunningham, Charles Taylor, Mark Foley, Mark Souder, etc, and now Denny.

Yup. They got too cozy with lobbyists to boot.  Don't forget good old Bob Ney!

[pbrower2a]

But do you think, in general, if someone is being extorted by an individual, that the person 'structuring' should receive a higher penalty than the blackmailer who is demanding payment?

The blackmail could be the result of the blackmailed person committing a crime.

Sure - and that's the obvious exception. But in the sole context of a structuring case, I think too many innocent people get snared.

One is more likely to expose a blackmailer than commit the crime of lying to the Feds unless one is guilty of some crime. If one is blackmailed for something that could simply be embarrassing, then it is the blackmail that is the crime. The recipient of income from blackmail might then be subjected to some other crime -- let us say money laundering or tax evasion. 

So let us suppose that some conservative politician has a black great-grandmother that he wants to keep hidden because his campaign is based on barely-concealed themes of racial animus. A descendant of the brother of the great-grandmother threatens to disclose the birth certificate of the pol's great grandmother that has the letter "N" under "race"... and some unaltered photographs of what he presents as some "Cherokee princess"* that he waxes rhapsodical about. The blackmailer asks for $20K every year, and the pol sends amounts of $9.8K twice a year as cashier's checks from the bank and another $400 as a money order paid for in cash.

The blackmailer gets greedier, demanding $25K, and the pol then sends cashier checks for $12K and a money order for $1000... not recognizing that the amount for which the Feds look is not adjusted for inflation. The pol gets caught.

The Feds see the blackmail as a worse crime than the payoff, and give the pol a deal -- testify against the blackmailer in a federal court for tax fraud or money laundering even if such implies having to admit to failing the one-drop rule. Having to admit that he is one-eighth black is far better than ending up with some tough black guys who dealt drugs or robbed banks who now reside in a federal penitentiary.

In the case of Dennis Hastert, it seems that the reality covered up is worse than the payoffs. Surely the child sexual abuse would now be sloughed off in the courts due to the statute of limitations. But money laundering -- if Hastert can't be nailed for the child sexual abuse he can be nailed for money laundering.

...I suspect that the victim was caught first for either money laundering or tax evasion. Of course he cut his deal to save himself from some federal time and some confiscations. I don't know for sure, but that is how things can work. 

*The Cherokee had no nobility, so the story of his grandmother's origin is a sham. 

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

So let us suppose that some conservative politician has a black great-grandmother that he wants to keep hidden because his campaign is based on barely-concealed themes of racial animus. A descendant of the brother of the great-grandmother threatens to disclose the birth certificate of the pol's great grandmother that has the letter "N" under "race"... and some unaltered photographs of what he presents as some "Cherokee princess"* that he waxes rhapsodical about. The blackmailer asks for $20K every year, and the pol sends amounts of $9.8K twice a year as cashier's checks from the bank and another $400 as a money order paid for in cash.

The blackmailer gets greedier, demanding $25K, and the pol then sends cashier checks for $12K and a money order for $1000... not recognizing that the amount for which the Feds look is not adjusted for inflation. The pol gets caught.

The Feds see the blackmail as a worse crime than the payoff, and give the pol a deal -- testify against the blackmailer in a federal court for tax fraud or money laundering even if such implies having to admit to failing the one-drop rule. Having to admit that he is one-eighth black is far better than ending up with some tough black guys who dealt drugs or robbed banks who now reside in a federal penitentiary.

*The Cherokee had no nobility, so the story of his grandmother's origin is a sham. 

This is the most dangerous view I've seen on Atlas and just recently, many expressed support for killing a baby because of who its parents were. Charging victims with crimes just to get them to testify is the absolute greatest wrong happening in the developed world at the moment even in cases where it is done to get justice.

Lying to the Feds is probably necessary too. The less people who known undesirable facts the better. He obviously deemed the money less important than the public's lack of knowledge regarding such events. Using a new crime where an individual is a victim (or perhaps not even necessarily a victim but just broadly defined "crimes" in general) to prosecute a crime where the statute of limitations has passed is also a very dangerous precedent (though this is obviously not the first time it's happened, so perhaps simply a dangerous practice).

The first paragraph is also unbelievably absurd. Start living in the 21st century please.

[Torie]

So let us suppose that some conservative politician has a black great-grandmother that he wants to keep hidden because his campaign is based on barely-concealed themes of racial animus. A descendant of the brother of the great-grandmother threatens to disclose the birth certificate of the pol's great grandmother that has the letter "N" under "race"... and some unaltered photographs of what he presents as some "Cherokee princess"* that he waxes rhapsodical about. The blackmailer asks for $20K every year, and the pol sends amounts of $9.8K twice a year as cashier's checks from the bank and another $400 as a money order paid for in cash.

The blackmailer gets greedier, demanding $25K, and the pol then sends cashier checks for $12K and a money order for $1000... not recognizing that the amount for which the Feds look is not adjusted for inflation. The pol gets caught.

The Feds see the blackmail as a worse crime than the payoff, and give the pol a deal -- testify against the blackmailer in a federal court for tax fraud or money laundering even if such implies having to admit to failing the one-drop rule. Having to admit that he is one-eighth black is far better than ending up with some tough black guys who dealt drugs or robbed banks who now reside in a federal penitentiary.

*The Cherokee had no nobility, so the story of his grandmother's origin is a sham. 

This is the most dangerous view I've seen on Atlas and just recently, many expressed support for killing a baby because of who its parents were. Charging victims with crimes just to get them to testify is the absolute greatest wrong happening in the developed world at the moment even in cases where it is done to get justice.

Lying to the Feds is probably necessary too. The less people who known undesirable facts the better. He obviously deemed the money less important than the public's lack of knowledge regarding such events. Using a new crime where an individual is a victim (or perhaps not even necessarily a victim but just broadly defined "crimes" in general) to prosecute a crime where the statute of limitations has passed is also a very dangerous precedent (though this is obviously not the first time it's happened, so perhaps simply a dangerous practice).

The first paragraph is also unbelievably absurd. Start living in the 21st century please.

The policy that you decry when applied here, also helps to thwart tax evasion.

[SATW]

Crazy stuff. Hastert seems like a horrible human being, if these allegations are true (which seems to be the case).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I see that Paedogeddon has crossed the pond.

[retromike22]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/29/if-i-understand-the-history-correctly/

"If I understand the history correctly, in the late 1990s, the President was impeached for lying about a sexual affair by a House of Representatives led by a man who was also then hiding a sexual affair, who was supposed to be replaced by another Congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal that he too was having a sexual affair, which led to the election of a new Speaker of the House who now has been indicted for lying about payments covering up his sexual contact with a boy."

[pbrower2a]

So let us suppose that some conservative politician has a black great-grandmother that he wants to keep hidden because his campaign is based on barely-concealed themes of racial animus. A descendant of the brother of the great-grandmother threatens to disclose the birth certificate of the pol's great grandmother that has the letter "N" under "race"... and some unaltered photographs of what he presents as some "Cherokee princess"* that he waxes rhapsodical about. The blackmailer asks for $20K every year, and the pol sends amounts of $9.8K twice a year as cashier's checks from the bank and another $400 as a money order paid for in cash.

The blackmailer gets greedier, demanding $25K, and the pol then sends cashier checks for $12K and a money order for $1000... not recognizing that the amount for which the Feds look is not adjusted for inflation. The pol gets caught.

The Feds see the blackmail as a worse crime than the payoff, and give the pol a deal -- testify against the blackmailer in a federal court for tax fraud or money laundering even if such implies having to admit to failing the one-drop rule. Having to admit that he is one-eighth black is far better than ending up with some tough black guys who dealt drugs or robbed banks who now reside in a federal penitentiary.

*The Cherokee had no nobility, so the story of his grandmother's origin is a sham.  

This is the most dangerous view I've seen on Atlas and just recently, many expressed support for killing a baby because of who its parents were. Charging victims with crimes just to get them to testify is the absolute greatest wrong happening in the developed world at the moment even in cases where it is done to get justice.

The scenario is fiction. I was trying to reverse a scenario into one in which the blackmailed person was blackmailed for something not a crime. Having a black ancestor and hiding such for political reasons is no crime. Was it a perfect scenario? Of course not -- but one involving a combination of innocence but an understandable deceit.

The Feds take tax evasion and money-laundering seriously.  Someone living high on the hog without being able to explain how is probably cheating on taxes or (in some cases) the welfare system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was no excuse back then for a teacher having a sexual relationship of any kind with a student. See also Mary K. LeTourneau -- let alone Pamela Smart (who got her male underage lover to kill her husband -- for which she is in prison for life). Having been a substitute school teacher I recognize the potential to steer someone underage into an exploitative and illicit relationship that can badly hurt the child -- and can rightly cause me to do a very long stint in the state prison. It is enough for me to recognize that everything about such behavior is a disaster for everyone involved.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not as absurd as the idea that someone who eventually became Speaker of the House could have had a sexual relationship with a student while a teacher -- a betrayal of his profession and his relationship with a student.

Oh, by the way -- the alleged abuse of a youth was done in the 20th century.

[Linus Van Pelt]

I agree that the law against "structuring" is a terrible law.

A pretty basic principle of a free society should be that you can be prosecuted for disobeying the letter of the law, but you can't be prosecuted for disagreeing with the laws you obey. So it had better be that obeying the letter of the law is enough to be free from persecution, even when your sole motivation is to avoid prosecution. The idea that you can have one law and then another law that makes it illegal to obey the first law when your psychological motivation is only to avoid criminal investigation and penalty, rather than to further the broad, vague purposes of the law, has pretty authoritarian implications.