The details on the indictment of former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert, 73, have remained hazy with some notable gaps in the underlying criminal enterprise alleged in the complaint. The theory is that Hastert was paying millions to a blackmailer and tried to hide the payment through “structuring” of withdrawing less than $10,000 to avoid reporting to the federal government. What is interesting however is that the underlying alleged blackmailer has not been charged. There is also the question of the subject of the earlier “misconduct” and whether it could be charged. Some offenses like child molestation can be charged many years after the fact. Hastert was indicted on two counts for charged with lying to the F.B.I. and the structuring of withdrawals, both carrying a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
Hastert is accused of structuring the withdrawal of $925,000 in cash and then lying to the FBI about the withdrawals. The FBI says that Hastert met with an unnamed individual in 2010 and discussed “prior misconduct.” It must have been pretty serious “misconduct” if the parties agreed on the payment of $3.5 million “in order to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct against Individual A.”
From 2010 to 2014, Hastert withdrew a total of approximately $1.7 million in cash from various bank accounts and provided it to this unnamed individual. When the bank raised questions in 2012 about the large withdrawals, Hastert reportedly reduced the withdrawals through structuring. In April 2014, Hastert allegedly lied about the money and said he did not trust banks and was keeping the case — when he was giving the money to this individual.
Hastert has been working with the lobbying and law firm of Dickstein Shapiro LLC.
It is curious to have so little information on the underlying facts and “misconduct” or the status of the person receiving such money. Perhaps we will learn more in the coming days about the nature of the misconduct and why the individual was not charged if this were a case of blackmail.
Source: New York Times
Roger J
Good questions indeed. Maybe the man who helped pass these Fascist laws can explain why he got himself entrapped by these Fascist laws?
How many times have we heard the religious right condemning and chastising gay people? Many many many times. He who is without sin…you know…but if their sins are hidden well and the victims paid off to remain silent, we would never know of their sins while they were in front of some podium chastising others…now would we?
Karen S
When will the GOP remove their anti-gay platform?
A single mother who chastises other single mothers for doing exactly what she’s been doing (or even worse) in secret IS a hypocrite. See how that works?
I. Annie
Suit yourself Rick. In the meantime, just how many boys will come forward? So far the count is two.
It seems like he’s an awful human. Not sure why you think that supports your earlier assertions.
There seems to be the opinion that anyone religious or who believes in family values is sinless.
That is incorrect.
Many people who are divorced understand that a stable, happy nuclear family is best for kids. There is no hypocrisy in acknowledging that fact.
Statistics show the dire consequences for children born out of wedlock with no support from the father – poverty, dropping out of high school, drugs, crime, gangs, and jail. These are statistical facts. A single mother in the thick of it can agree that there are these additional road blocks and yet not be a hypocrite.
Max:
“We’re witnessing the failed Conservative movement in action”
Do you believe that all members of a political party must be wonderful people or the entire party is a failure? Did the Filner Headlock de legitimize the Democratic Party?
You can’t trust a politician farther than you can throw them.
I judge a party by the success or failure of its policies. We have seen the crime and poverty infested cesspools that result from decades of Liberalism. It’s policies chase away jobs and create misery. Detroit. Baltimore. Chicago. The places with the lowest chance of climbing out of poverty are run by Liberals.
That kind of human tragedy matters to me.
Saying conservative fiscal policy is a failure because a politician is alleged to be a sex offender is spurious reasoning. Right now it is conjecture what behavior he was hiding. And I am curious about that.
But plenty of sex offenders are Democrats. By your reasoning, the personal crimes of an individual ruins the entire party. It is policy results we should examine.
Although it is ironic that a law he advocated tripped him up.
On another note, we need to reign in civil forfeiture.
Suit yourself Rick. In the meantime, just how many boys will come forward? So far the count is two.
Nick: Ideology has nothing to do with it. He lied to the FBI. Period.He could have told investigators that thirty years he made Sandusky look like a celibate and that he was giving monetary gifts to one or more of his former victims out of contrition, and there may not have been any criminal charges. Jaywalking may not be that big of a deal, but if Pelosi lied about it under oath, then it gets serious. BTW, your commas are gratuitous in your last sentence.
I saw some analysis on This Week a little while ago. Dan Abrams pointed out this is the type of crime that is hardly ever prosecuted. Dem DOJ, Republican former Speaker. Duh! You can bet if there is a Republican DOJ soon, and if Pelosi jaywalks, there will be a prosecution. This is the despicable duopoly. But, the ideologues on both sides eat it up like fresh, hot, popcorn.
aridog: Again, this case won’t go to trial. Hastert will plead guilty to the best deal he can negotiate in order to prevent any of the facts from becoming public. Note his deafening silence in the wake of these charges.
Of course, if you abandoned the Democratic Party in 2004, your judgement is suspect.
I. Annie
Neither do I Rick, but nice try at building that straw man.
Of course you did. If other Republicans don’t share Hastert’s guilt they haven’t been shown to be hypocrites. Since you assert they are they have to share that guilt.
I am sometimes inattentive. Has it been established that Hastert did in fact molest young men or boys? Or is this a presumption awaiting confirmation?
I’ve seen a man destroyed by such presumptions when none of his alleged “victims” agreed with the presumptions….save the one who accused him. We’re talking about a couple hundred guys who were young at the time. He was a counselor while in college at a camp in Michigan’s north country. No one I know had anything to say except he was kind and palliative when a boy or young man was sick or otherwise in distress. Yet, because he “touched” these people, one or two at most made the molestation charges 30+ years after the fact. Why? I knew the guy for decades, from age 10, before the accusations and don’t recall his ever being a molester. Something else, politics or business, had to be the impetus.
In short, I’ll wait for concrete evidence about Hastert before judging him as a molester. I would think he has the right to meet and face his accusers, politics aside. I say that as a Democrat until 2004 so my inclination isn’t political. As far as his “structured withdrawals”…that is against the law and he broke that law. He needs top explain that. From what I’ve read, that is all anyone has as evidence against him…the rest is presumption. Of course, the question is why did he do it? At present we just do not really know. How many of us could defend against something someone says we did 30+ years ago? Let him be tried for what he did, not for what the extraneous allegations are unless proven in a court of law.
Mr schulte
You already forgot about our invasion of Iraq?
“The Hastert era in the House may be remembered for rancorous debates on the war in Iraq”
Hastert was a leading member of congress, which according to the constitution, is the only body that may declare war (war is violence mr schulte). Our soldiers would not be authorized legally without congressional approval to invade Iraq. Hastert had great power in the house and voted to authorize it himself.
Everywhere in the world except the United states it is understood that this invasion was illegal, an act of aggression, and violent.
TJustice – you are legally and internationally wrong on Hastert and the Iraq War.
Again, couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
The term thug implies bullying. It can encompass violence, but it’s essentially a style of behavior involving forceful imposition without consideration for types of negotiation more commonly associated with civil society. Hastert was a thug as Speaker of the House.
This case never goes to trial; Hastert pleads out, does some time, has all the gay sex he can get for free in prison, lives out the rest of his life in quiet ignominy, resigned to an embarrassing mention in his obituary.
RTC –
thug
THəɡ/
noun
1.
a violent person, especially a criminal.
synonyms: ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum, gangster, villain, criminal; More
2.
historical
a member of a religious organization of robbers and assassins in India. Devotees of the goddess Kali, the Thugs waylaid and strangled their victims, usually travelers, in a ritually prescribed manner. They were suppressed by the British in the 1830s.
Scanning the comments thus far, I see that no one has asked this fundamental question: how many legal acts does it take to make just one illegal act under the “structuring” law (31 USC 5324)? Further, does it depend on amount – that is, does one $9999 transaction qualify but not 10 transactions of $999? Does it depend on the number of transactions, and their timing? To me, laws like this are redolent of 3rd Reich jurisprudence in which a crime was any act offending “the healthy instinct of the People”, that is, any act we wish to define as a crime. To me, 31 USC 5324 is “poster child” for a bad law. But then, I am only a humble state regulator.
TJustice
I agree that the government routinely piles on charges and the resulting coerced plea bargains are travesties, but this case seems pretty straightforward. Further, prosecutors understand, as do you, that coercion is designed to work on the poor. Denny will be able to afford the best representation.
Sure, scrutiny is always best, but I support this banking law and think the indictment is warranted. Not so much on the charge of lying to the FBI. That law is just much to open to terrible abuse.
Schulte: There’s a possibility that Hastert, hoping to purchase the good will of his victim, may have initiated payments, offering the money as a gift. Of course, if the reports about him are true, he may have paid some portion of all that money to male prostitutes.
Wadewilliams
I will note that on this blog the vast majority of people will not be as attentive to detail when the defendant is a poor, powerless person. In fact, they will be more inclined to punish and humiliate.
When it’s a person “guarding” their liberty, that person can do no wrong – even enslaving other people.