Former Speaker Denny Hastert Indicted
 

Wow $3.5 million payoff for wrongdoings done to individual A? Me thinks the 'wrongs' must be a hell of a lot worse than structuring withdrawals to avoid IRS reporting. Please Denny, do tell!!

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/05/...deral-charges/

I think the whole point of paying $3.5 million was so no one would tell. ;)

This article talks about blackmail and hints as to what the situation might be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...eeper-mystery/

Remember how Hastert became Speaker? Bob Livingstone was to be the new Speaker and then Larry Flynt, who had offered a million dollars to anyone with proof of GOP Congressional members who voted for impeachment having used their own, ahem, members, indiscriminately, let out that Livingston had cheated on his wife so Livingston had to resign.

Livingston might have been the lesser sinner...

Locally they're suspecting 'the act' was while he was a teacher and wrestling coach since that was how the indictment outlining the history starts. Don't think cheating on a wife is worth $3.5 million. Just ask Bill Clinton.

The indictment also states individual A has known him most of his/her life which makes me suspect it was a high school student or wrestler or maybe even a family member, niece/nephew?

Yeesh. Impressive he managed to keep it quiet for so many years. Makes me wonder if the Duggar lawyers were all, "We gotta find someone to take the media spotlight off Josh! Go!"

Read somewhere Josh had no part in either of his sisters weddings tho his wife and kids did. And good for them as some things are unforgivable to even the holiest of the holy's. ;)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...lleged_in.html


Wow, irony:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...r_speaker.html

http://wgntv.com/2015/05/29/ex-house...t-sources-say/

Another pervert bites the dust. He should have been a priest.

Awesome looks like he's either grabbing ass or Bush knows what's up!


Too bad he's too old to get what's coming to him.

I guess we are all guilty by association.....

This case is an absolute joke. He didn't do anything wrong. It sounds like he certainly did something wrong 35 years ago with regard to his student. I wouldn't defend him on that. But that is not what he is in trouble for. The statute of limitations has expired on that.

What he is in trouble for is that the bank got suspicious that he was making big withdrawals. It is no crime to make big withdrawals from your own bank account. When the bank questioned him about it, he decided to make more frequent, smaller withdrawals in order to avoid scrutiny. But if it appears to the bank that you are making smaller transactions to avoid scrutiny, they can report you to the feds. The whole purpose of these laws is to catch drug dealers, money launderers, and terrorists.

In this particular case, the bank reported Hastert's unusual banking activities to the feds. So the FBI called Hastert in and asked him why he was making all of these withdrawals. He obviously did not want to tell them that he was paying hush money to avoid an embarrassing scandal. So he just made something up about wanting to keep a lot of cash because he was worried about the banks. So now he is being charged with lying to the FBI. But the truth of the matter is that it was none of the FBI's business what the withdrawals were for. It would be their business if it involved something illegal such as drugs or money laundering. But since it had nothing to do with anything like that, it was really none of their business.

They are charging him with lying to the FBI and they are also charging him with making frequent, small withdrawals to avoid scrutiny. That is absurd. They have those laws so they can nail people who deposit small amounts of money to try to hide income and also to catch criminals who make smaller transactions to stay under the radar. Hastert was not trying to hide income and he was not trying to conceal criminal activity. The government is trying to nail Hastert on laws that are meant for something totally different. I think it is outrageous.

I'm not defending his behavior from 35 years ago. I wish they could prosecute him for that, but they can't because the statute of limitations has expired. It sounds like he definitely committed a crime 35 years ago. But what they are charging him with is a joke. It's not a crime to withdraw large amounts of money from your bank.

You are actually defending this guy in any way shape or form :eek:? Shocking that you deem bribery to hush pedophilia acceptable. You may be the biggest fuking creep to ever post on Derby trail.

Just to make it clear the victims and there are more than one, were varsity wrestlers so I think Chicken-Hawk rather than pedophiliac is the correct term.;)

Pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubertal children with no gender preference. Apparently studies show one can not choose whether or not to be a pedophile but one can choose whether or not to be a child molester. Which makes about as much sense as a heterosexual or homosexual being able to choose whether or not to have sex.

This misunderstanding of pedophilia is a huge reason why the Catholic church can't get their shiat together as the majority of victims (78%) were 11 years old or older (only 6% were 7 and under) 81% of all victims were male and the average number of offences reported for each offending priest was 18. Yet the church and society at large attributes the abuse problem to pedophilia when the actual problem is priests offending minors (mainly male) that are post pubertal. Kind of like treating heart disease with cancer drugs.


http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/P...useScandal.htm

It's not surprising that you miss the point entirely. I'm not defending the guy in any way. What I'm saying is that in terms of the law it is completely irrelevant what he did 35 years ago. The statute of limitations has expired. It doesn't matter what any of us think about the guy. He may be the worst guy in the world. We are still a country about laws. I don't like it when the government abuses the law. These banking laws are intrusive enough when they are used to try to catch the people that they are designed to catch. This case is not what those laws are for. At this point, any financial arrangement between Hastert and his former student is between them. This is none of the government's business at this point in time. It was the government's business 35 years ago when the crime was committed. It is the same with Bill Cosby. The guy may be a creep, but at this point there is nothing that can be done. The statute of limitations is up.

Wouldn't bribery to conceal a crime also be a crime or do you miss that point conveniently. Would lying to investigators to conceal that also be a crime? But of course you miss that entirely as you defend a child molester who happens to be a republican. :zz: WOW :zz:

One of those rare occasions we agree. I don't care what they lock him up on I just want him locked up.

Al Capone killed dozens and dozens yet went away on tax charges. Point is he went away.

Just hope Denny doesn't come up with some lame excuse like arguing the definition of 'is' :rolleyes:

I also think there should be no statute of limitations on any sex crime, as the victim is victimized for life.

BTW I also should add I don't think a high school junior or senior is a child.

I don't care that he is a republican. I would be saying the exact same thing with regards to Bill Cosby. There is no defending what Bill Cosby did 30 years ago. But at this point he can't be charged with anything because the statute of limitations has expired. If starting tomorrow Bill Cosby starts paying hush money to some of these women, that is totally legal. At this point, if investigators asked Bill Cosby why he was making large bank withdrawals, it really wouldn't be any of their business.

You totally and conveniently didn't even address the ongoing crime of bribery to conceal a crime thingy....

I think a wide portion of America would disagree and they also would call that person a pedophile even if it disagrees with your clinical definition. Mark this day down Dell 2-Jun-2015 we agree on something.

I'm not so sure it was bribery to conceal a crime or extortion with the threat of coming forward. Nonetheless the victim is the victim and Denny is the abuser and the POS.

Side note: I was in Florida over this winter and ran to the bank (Chase) to make a cash deposit ($2,300) for a friend who owns a restaurant. I had to show ID as it was explained to me it was bank policy, not government policy, for cash deposits over $500 if the depositor was not a co-signer on the account the deposit was being made. The teller said the reason was money laundering and drug dealing prevention and I didn't care as she was BEAUTIFUL to look at while filling out the paper work and I obviously had nothing to hide. ;)

Denny could have taken whatever amount he wanted out of the bank but obviously with something to hide didn't want a paper trail and thus structured the withdrawals to prevent being detected and keep his dirty little secret to himself. Got to feel a little sorry for his family and wife as they had nothing to do with the crime but not as sorry as I feel for the victims who will live with this for the rest of their lives.

BTW Just heard Boston police killed a man on the terrorist watch list, threatening them with a knife. Great job and thanks for saving taxpayers a bundle! http://www.wcvb.com/news/police-shoo...f-cvs/33350364

There is no bribery to conceal a crime. At this point there is no crime in either one of those cases. It doesn't matter if we are talking about Hastert or Cosby. Once the statute runs out, there is no crime. Any hush money at this point is to avoid public humiliation. It's not to avoid being prosecuted for a crime.

Has Hastert been charged with what you referred to as "the ongoing crime of bribery to conceal a crime"? Of course not. It would not apply in this case. The same goes for Bill Cosby. He can pay any one of these women to keep quiet. That is not illegal at this point. In cases where the statue of limitations has not expired, it is a crime to bribe a victim to not press charges or to bribe a victim to drop charges.

It's not 'my' clinical definition it's 'the' definition. Probably why 16, 17, and 18 year olds are often charged as 'adults' and why 16 year olds are able to drive and in some states marry and why 18 year olds are able to join the military.

I think your 'wide portion of America' is an exaggeration but at least we agreed for a couple minutes. :tro:

Hastert took credit for getting the PATRIOT Act passed, which made indicting people committing this kind of action (the money withdrawals, not the abuse of minors) easier. I'm not sure if that counts as irony or karma.

Irony, karma would be him getting a mop handle stuck up his azz till it comes out his mouth.

Unfortunately I'm sure with his connections he'll never do time, get a huge fine and disappear into some hole. Or he'll put off trial long enough his fat azz will die of 'natural' causes.

Both.
He lied to the fbi, and took withdrawls in a way to hide acrutiny...when the fbi got sord, they thought he might have had something going on from when he was in congress....he should have told the truth. Might have hit the press anyway, but he wouldnt be facing charges.

The FBI were tipped off by a second male victim. They knew exactly what they were targeting going in. Supposedly another member of congress was also tipped off years ago to Denny's love of boys but thought it just a made up rumor.

The problem is though Denny committed two crimes; lying to the FBI and structuring withdrawals to avoid filing both are rather minor and unless he's charged with separate counts for each withdrawal he'll likely escape with a minor sentence after a plea compared to what he could have faced for sexual assault and sex with a minor times how many times he committed each offense. Again I feel sex crimes should have no statute of limitations but it is what it is.

Couldn't a lawyer make a case that the crimes were ongoing as hush money was paid to conceal them?

Don't know but an interesting argument for prosecutors to consider which, I'm sure they have. From what I understand the hush money didn't begin until the mid 2000's which would have made it some 20 years plus after the sexual abuse occured.

Just wish the law placing a statute of limitation on sexual abuse/rape crimes was changed and I think the Denny Hastert Law would be a apropos name.

Read not too long ago that over 75% of women locked up in Cook County Jail were victims of sexual abuse some time in their lives. As I stated before a victim of abuse lives with it for a lifetime so I think an abuser/offender should as well be prosecutable over a lifetime.

And again 04-Jun-2015 :tro:

Stop it!

Another victim disgusting that Denny had the gall to write 'My right hand man' in the lad's yearbook.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/exclu...ry?id=31530828

Denny hiding out in Wisconsin :eek:

Man he has the look of a creep!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-charges.html

Jus sayin:D

I'm wondering what the recipient did with $3.5M in cash. Did he spend it? Or did it go into financial institutions in a progression of structured (illegal) deposits?

I think he received only a portion of the promised $3.5M, if I remember right about 900K.

I'm sure he declared it and filed proper State and Federal taxes. :rolleyes:

One of Denny's other boy toys, identified by name, and outed by his sister died of AIDS in the mid 90's.

Oddly the victim(s) no longer have a gender among Chicago media outlets.:wf

Sorry, I had to go back to the article and read that "only" $1.7M was paid starting in 2010 and going through 2014. I wonder what took so long for an indictment?

"Recipient" must be really pissed that Hastert got caught.

it took a while because when the bank first questioned him, hastert than changed how he withdrew. but taking out money right at the limit like he was doing...well, it's like using different docs and pharmacies to get your various pain pills. sooner or later, it'll come up again. and then he lied to the fbi when they asked, so they dug deeper...and here we are.
the funny part is that he was a big proponent of those rules, and knew them well-but they still tripped him up?
and the fbi only dug more because they were concerned that he was being blackmailed from his time in congrss-was there an issue with governmental secrets and the like?
well, no there wasn't. at that point, when they came to him, he should have told them exactly what was up. because it might have come out, but he would have nothing to worry about other than bad press. now he has that, along with criminal charges, which is a lot worse than some bad press!
as for molestation, i really think they need to lengthen the statute of limitations for cases like that. it can take years for a kid to grow up and get the will to say 'hey, i'm not going to be a victim anymore'.