Slashdot Mirror
Why Is It a Crime For Dennis Hastert To Evade Government Scrutiny?
HughPickens.com writes: Dennis Hastert is about the least sympathetic figure one can imagine. The former House Speaker got filthy rich as a lobbyist trading on contacts he gained in office, and his leadership coincided with Congress's abject failure to exercise oversight or protect civil liberties after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Now, Hastert stands accused of improper sexual contact with a boy he knew years ago while teaching high school and trying to hide that sordid history by paying the young man to keep quiet. If federal prosecutors could meet the legal thresholds for charging and convicting Hastert of a sex crime, they would be fully justified in aggressively pursuing the matter.
Yet, as Conor Friedersdorf writes in The Atlantic, the Hastert indictment doesn't charge him for, or even accuse him of, sexual misconduct. Rather, as Glenn Greenwald notes, "Hastert was indicted for two alleged felonies: 1) withdrawing cash from his bank accounts in amounts and patterns designed to hide the payments; and 2) lying to the FBI about the purpose of those withdrawals once they detected them and then inquired with him." It isn't illegal to withdraw money from the bank, nor to compensate someone in recognition of past harms, nor to be the victim of a blackmail scheme. So why should it be a crime to hide those actions from the U.S. government? The current charges could be motivated by a desire to prosecute Hastert for sex crimes. But that dodges the issue. "In order to punish him for that crime, the government should charge him with it, then prosecute him with due process and convict him in front of a jury of his peers," says Greenwald. "What over-criminalization does is allow the government to turn anyone it wants into a felon, and thus punish them without having to overcome those vital burdens. Regardless of one's views of Hastert or his alleged misconduct here, it should take little effort to see why nobody should want that."
Yet, as Conor Friedersdorf writes in The Atlantic, the Hastert indictment doesn't charge him for, or even accuse him of, sexual misconduct. Rather, as Glenn Greenwald notes, "Hastert was indicted for two alleged felonies: 1) withdrawing cash from his bank accounts in amounts and patterns designed to hide the payments; and 2) lying to the FBI about the purpose of those withdrawals once they detected them and then inquired with him." It isn't illegal to withdraw money from the bank, nor to compensate someone in recognition of past harms, nor to be the victim of a blackmail scheme. So why should it be a crime to hide those actions from the U.S. government? The current charges could be motivated by a desire to prosecute Hastert for sex crimes. But that dodges the issue. "In order to punish him for that crime, the government should charge him with it, then prosecute him with due process and convict him in front of a jury of his peers," says Greenwald. "What over-criminalization does is allow the government to turn anyone it wants into a felon, and thus punish them without having to overcome those vital burdens. Regardless of one's views of Hastert or his alleged misconduct here, it should take little effort to see why nobody should want that."
to turn anyone it wants into a felon!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sounds like he was being blackmailed.
Just based on the summary, it could be that the government is hoping that Hastert will plead guilty to this lesser offense, a technical violation that will put him behind bars for a few years. That would spare everyone involved from another Catholic priest/Jerry Sandusky type trial, where the alleged victims are called forward to testify.
Now, Hastert stands accused of improper sexual contact with a boy he knew years ago while teaching high school and
Who's accusing him? AFAICT he's only being accused of paying blackmail payments to this person or persons. No formal charges have been brought regarding the merits (if any) of the blackmailers assertions. More irresponsible reporting by people claiming to be journalists.
Never talk to the cops...and seven times never talk to the FBI...
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
Ironically, its a crime because he made it one. Hiding large bank transactions was made reportable to the FBI and lying to the FBI about them was made a crime both by the Patriot Act that was pushed for and voted for most vociferously by then House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
How is this news for nerds?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Charge him with something different, but loosely related.
Enter discovery / evidence gathering
Compel victim to testify despite being brought off.
Nick him for the more serious offence.
Why don't they charge him with sexual misconduct? Because they don't think they can win the case. They didn't charge Al Capon with bootlegging or murder. They charged him with tax evasion. Because that's the charge they could make stick. Obviously the prosecutors don't think they can make a sexual misconduct case stick.
From what I understand, any form of structuring is illegal.
Structuring is manipulating the amount of cash to evade detection by authorities. $10k USD requires a mandatory report by FinCen, but that's on deposits. I'm not sure there's any mandatory reporting on withdrawals, so I'm not sure why the FBI would be interested. It's not money laundering if you're withdrawing money from your bank account.
It sounds like he got caught lying about a crime he didn't commit, which is one of the more ridiculous aspects of the US judicial system.
See here:
http://popehat.com/2015/05/29/...
(Note the writer is a former federal prosecutor)
From the article:
"We imagine law enforcement operating like we see on TV: someone commits a crime, everyone knows what the crime is, law enforcement reacts by charging them with that crime. But that's not how federal prosecution always works. Particularly with high-profile targets, federal prosecution is often an exercise in searching for a theory to prosecute someone that the feds would like to prosecute. There is an element of creativity: what federal statute can we find to prosecute this person?"
Someone wanted to go after Hastert, they found a way.
Do you have ESP?
Isn't that the precedent you are looking for?
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
The current charges could be motivated by a desire to prosecute Hastert for sex crimes.
Exactly. It's easier to prove structuring than it is to prove an ancient sex crime. While I agree with you that he should be charged with the sex crime and that withdrawing money from your bank account should never be illegal, prosecutorial expediency is what's going on here.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Now, Hastert stands accused of improper sexual contact with a boy he knew years ago while teaching high school and trying to hide that sordid history by paying the young man to keep quiet.
I have not seen anybody make an accusation that they were molested. Citation needed. All I have seen are buzz and rumors.
You already get suspicious looks at the border (where even not having a credit card will increase the time you spend in their little room) and with prospective employers if you don't have a social media account and password to cough up. We are expected to live in glass houses while we let the authorities hide behind lead walls. It is our own submissiveness that got us here. Resistance is nil.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
Hastert needs a good lawyer.
Even if he lied, because his lie may have been to cover up a crime, he cannot be required to tell the truth.
Similarly a felon cannot be required to tell the truth on a 4473 form when he attempts to buy a gun - the Supremes held that the felon isn't required to 'fess up. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Ross Ulbricht had a sentence corresponding to murder-for-hire, but was never charged for it.
... interfering with a police investigation should be legal if the person being investigated feels they've done nothing wrong? Good luck getting widespread buy-in with that concept.
1) The FBI found just cause to suspect a crime; what the subject was doing appeared to be money laundering, which - as it should - triggers an investigation. 2) They began to investigate the crime. 3) They found no crime, and thus did not prosecute for it. However, in the process, the subject deliberately interfered with the investigation and made false statements to the police, which is a crime. 4) The FBI prosecutes for the crime committed in #3.
I fail to see the problem here.
That said, I'm not surprised that Greenwald does. And I can just imagine the riot he'll throw if they ever go after him for his long-time lack of payment of the court-imposed levies concerning his tax evasion for his porn business.
"Who the **** put an emergency exit in the interrogation room?!" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
Laws not apply to lawmakers
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
The summary doesn't directly mention the underlying problem of structuring cash transactions to avoid the $10,000 reporting threshold to the IRS. This is a huge problem for cash-only businesses. Most banks will tell businesses to deposit smaller sums of cash to avoid the paperwork hassles. Most businesses do that not knowing that it will raise red flags with the IRS. The IRS can confiscates all the cash from the bank account without filing criminal charges, and isn't legally obligated to return the money if they don't file criminal charges. The only way to get the money back is to go to court and/or make a huge public outcry.
The USA PATRIOT act did not even change this much, except for some changes to the reporting requirements for banks. Doing $9900 transactions to avoid the reporting has been a crime since the reporting requirement itself, because it's money laundering. Like civil forfeiture it's a disgusting but well established facet of the Failed War on Some Drugs. As for lying to a federal agent that's been a crime for even longer. There is nothing remotely controversial about the pickle Mr. Hastert finds himself in.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
But as there are legal reasons to do this, so they did not make it illegal to do. Instead Congress (and he was a member of Congress at that time) made it illegal to do one WITHOUT notifying the government.
He failed to comply with the law he himself had voted on. He broke the law and he, among all people, clearly deserves to go to jail for doing so.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
That is the nice thing about having as many laws as we do in the US. If they shouldn't / can't prosecute him on this crime there will be others.
It isn't illegal to withdraw money from the bank
It is illegal to withdraw money from a bank in a manner designed to avoid detection. It's called structuring. If you withdraw large amounts (over $10,000US) the bank is required by law to investigate whether the transaction might be related to illegal activity. The bank is also obligated to investigate unusual or suspicious patterns of money movement. This is primarily due to laws aimed at combating money laundering and financing criminal and terrorist groups. In this case it appears Mr. Hastert was moving money to cover evidence of other (allegedly) illegal activity. That is exactly what these laws are designed to catch.
lying to the FBI about the purpose of those withdrawals once they detected them and then inquired with him
Lying to a law enforcement officer is always illegal. They may or may not care about why you engaged in the activities you did but lying about it is clearly a crime in our justice system. Realistically it cannot be otherwise if you wish to have effective investigations of crimes.
So why should it be a crime to hide those actions from the U.S. government?
It may be that the statute of limitation on the original crime has expired and these follow on crimes are what is still possible to prosecute. Obviously I don't know what the prosecutors are planning but I'm pretty sure there is a good reason. I doubt they would be worrying about these lesser charges if statutory rape were a charge they could use.
To answer the question however, it's a crime because there is no legitimate reason for him to lie. He (allegedly) was attempting to cover up other illegal activity. If his actions were honest he had the option to either decline to answer in accordance with his 5th amendment rights or to answer truthfully. Saying "none of your business" doesn't apply when we are talking about evidence of rape.
If you applied any of the same logic on what is hitting hastert... and overreacted to the same extent... Hillary would be executed.
hastert is being pushed around for moving his money around in suspicious ways. The Clintons do that every day. No. Literally every day. They did it yesterday and they'll do it tomorrow. They've been doing it for years and years and years. The Clinton scandals go back to before Bill became president. And no... it isn't all the vast right wing conspiracy. Even MSNBC and the NYTs are admitting it is a fucking problem.
Do I like Dennis? No... I don't care for the man. But I have a bigger problem with the justice department becoming politically compromised and doing whatever it wants on the basis of political alliances. It needs to be politically non-aligned. And we can see very clearly that is not what is going on.
The justice department, the IRS, the EPA, the Department of Labor... they're all being used to protect political allies and hurt political enemies.
Don't like someone? Audit them with the IRS. They didn't get the hint? Send the EPA in there to find some nit picky thing going on that is impossible to comply with to fine the person with. That didn't work? Send in the department of labor. Ask all the women that work there if any of them would like to get a million dollar settlement for filiing a false discrimination lawsuit.
Keep it up. Everyone submits when the pressure comes down on them.
The Gibson guitar factory got raided by the FBI for having rare woods... finger boards... and they said something about how that was a violation of some law from the 1920s that makes no sense. Coincidentally, the CEO of Gibson was giving money to the rival political party. Tisk tisk. Didn't the fool know you're only allowed to make donations to the ruling party?
And on and on and on.
Here someone will say I'm exaggerating or only painting one party in a bad light. That isn't my intention. I am equally against either party really. My issue is that THIS party is the one doing it RIGHT NOW. So I'm going to focus on them. RIGHT NOW. If they lose power and the other party starts doing it, THEN I'll be talking about them. it isn't happening right now.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
On the potential sex crime front. You need to consider two things, the potential misconduct happened a long time ago. That makes gathering evidence hard and when it comes to criminal courts an accusation is not enough to charge anyone. You need solid evidence. No prosecutor is going to file charges without believing they have at least some chance of winning in court. At least no sane prosecutor.
There may also be a statute of limitations at play. I have no idea what that length of time may be. But, many crimes cannot be prosecuted after enough time has gone by.
Just because you haven't seen charges yet doesn't mean that you won't at some point. It could take time to build a case.
Also, different crimes are tried in different courts and have potentially different prosecutors. Financial crimes that involve banks I think almost always go directly to federal courts. Sexual misconduct/molestation would likely be a county or state court unless inter-state travel or use of a national park or federal lands were involved in which case it would elevate to a federal crime.
Take what I say with a grain of salt. I learned most of my legalese from the internet...
Will you feel sympathy for the next small business owner who gets caught up in this "structuring" bullshit?
I certainly will. It's a tragedy that sometimes innocent people get accused of crimes they didn't commit. However that doesn't make the laws bullshit. If you have a better way to catch criminals engaged in money laundering, by all means let us know. They certainly are imperfect laws. However here we have a guy who apparently was engaging in structuring to avoid detection of a statutory rape. It is unlikely his actions would have been discovered otherwise. This is EXACTLY the sort of crime these laws were intended to deal with.
- "Why Is It a Crime For Dennis Hastert To Evade Government Scrutiny?"
Because Dennis Hastert made it a crime, and now it comes back and bites him in the ass.
There was a particular well known mobster that they could only nail for tax evasion. When they want to get you, they often find a way.
The big question is if the charges they are trying to prosecute on are prosecutable charges. If so, that's what they are trying to convict him of, even if they'd love to be able to add the other charges that they haven't added because they don't meet the requirements to charge him for.
I've heard there are places where it is illegal to pay blackmail. It's a kind of disincentive to get people to not cooperate with blackmailers. When the criminals know their money making crimes will most likely not make them anything, they are far more reticent in doing those crimes. On the other hand, you pay those low lifes, they'll often just keep doing it over and over. Just look at Mexicos revolving door kidnapping economy. It's so common, companies have funds set aside to pay for it.
It's not about sympathy for this slimeball; it's about whether this is an overreach that gives security authorities an interest in: a couple transferring money from one account to another, or a sole-proprietorship transferring money between personal to business accounts, or one person paying another for a car or boat, or any other legitimate transfer of money between people.
Well said. So what is your proposal for catching those engaged in money laundering and other crimes these laws demonstrable aid with? I agree that the laws are imperfect but I'm seeing a lot of complaining about them without much in the way of solutions.
What's good for the goose is good for the ChiMo.
First, if Hastert committed the sexual crime some have guessed/alleged, wouldn't it be a violation of an Indiana statute and up to the local DA to prosecute? Secondly, often many criminal statutes have a limited time after which they cannot be prosecuted, so if Hastert did what is alleged with a child, it may be so long ago that it cannot be prosecuted. Murder is one of those crimes that generally does not have a statue of limitation. Also, one cannot be prosecuted for an action that became a crime ex post facto. The only thing law enforcement could find to legally go after him is the crime of taking out too little money per transaction from bank accounts.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
It sounds like he got caught lying about a crime he didn't commit, which is one of the more ridiculous aspects of the US judicial system.
If he didn't commit a crime there was no reason to lie about it. He had the option to say nothing under the 5th amendment. He certainly cannot reasonable argue that he didn't know it was a crime to lie to the FBI about his activities especially since he helped write some of the laws pertaining to prosecution of those very same activities.
They came for lobbyists making a gadzillion dollars representing Turkish interests, but I was not a lobbyist representing Turkish interests.
They came for persons making "structured" bank withdrawals totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, but I was not making bank widthdrawals in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The judicial branch, just like the legislative and executive branches are appointed and/or elected at the behest of the current administration. You cannot directly vote for the president, you cannot vote directly for your senators, you cannot vote for judges and prosecutors, they are all appointed by representatives of the state(s).
Off course they will always get themselves and their cronies in, what would you do?
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
From the wikipedia article:
Hastert was known as a frequent critic of Bill Clinton, and immediately upon assuming the speakership, he "played a lead role" in the impeachment of the president.[37].
If you'll remember, Bill Clinton was impeached because of lying under oath.
It isn't illegal to withdraw money from the bank
Actually, withdrawing money from a bank can be illegal, if it is determined that you structured your withdrawals to avoid the reporting mandated by the government for large withdrawals (i.e. over $10K). Thank you War on Drugs for that bit.
nor to compensate someone in recognition of past harms
Compensating someone for past harms? No. Compensating someone for refusing to testify and/or cooperate with an active investigation? Yeah, that is probably illegal for both parties.
Lessee, the banks are legally required to report withdrawals of $10k or more. So, in the majority of cases, someone who deliberately intends to evade reporting withdraws $9,990 or so... multiple times. I'm sure someone here can come up with a good reason that you wouldn't want it known to, say, the IRS.
On the other hand, the most likely reason for this law is to catch under the table payouts... y'know, like to bribe legislative and other government officials, etc.
Sorry, but I agree with the bust.
mark "and they got Al Capone on tax avoidance"
I'm surprised they didn't just charge the money with a crime and seize it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
No pity for pedophiles. A bullet between the eyes is what he deserves.
First of all, I do agree, that neither bank-withdrawals (in whatever "pattern"), nor lying to anyone (unless under oath) should be a crime. Absolutely not.
But, as long as it is a crime, people like Dennis Hastert — who had the power to do something about these laws, but did not, absolutely must be prosecuted under them. To the fullest extent and without mercy. (I argued the same thing about Spitzer — whose case was even worse, for he not only kept the laws he broke on the books, he strengthened them.)
He is not a regular citizen — employee, student, businessman. He had the power — and more of it, than even an "average" Congressman.
All that said about him, I find it disturbing, that the ruling party would prosecute the opposition's politicians. It does not look good. At all... They should be focusing on their own — like the aforementioned Mr. Spitzer, whose sole "punishment" for breaking federal laws, was resignation...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
| It may be that the statute of limitation on the original crime has expired and these follow on crimes are what is still possible to prosecute. Obviously I don't know what the prosecutors are planning but I'm pretty sure there is a good reason. I doubt they would be worrying about these lesser charges if statutory rape were a charge they could use.
That would be a state crime, not a federal crime. The state would have to prosecute him for that one unless there was some kidnapping/sex trafficking crime involved.
The problem with that is the supposed victim would have to testify, and then be open to charges of blackmail himself.
If Hastert's lobbying career is over, he may find it worthwhile to sue the blackmailer to get his money back.
For that quote alone, Atlas Shrugged was a worthwhile read.
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
Structuring laws are to keep the meth dealers from depositing 9000 dollars at a time to conceal their criminal enterprise.
Now Hastert's abuse may have been a crime (statute of limitations ran out?), but that is not what he is charged with.
He took his legally earned money (we assume) and paid it to someone.
This should not be a crime, and indeed had he withdrawn the money by check and paid, there would be NO crime !
(Somewhat, since who knows what the gov't does) tongue in cheeck:
Make anyone a felon? Why, some days I've committed as many as six felonies before breakfast.
"I'm just one hundred and one, five months and a day."
"I can't believe that!" said Alice.
"Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes."
Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
how about we call it what it was, child molestation
Isn't that making oneself an accessory to a crime or something? Isn't there some necessity to report a known criminal activity?
And does anyone have any specific details about what is preventing prosecution of the sex crime? Is it that the victim is uncooperative?
Bukowski said it. I believe it. That settles it.
for cash-only businesses. Most banks will tell businesses to deposit smaller sums of cash to avoid the paperwork hassles. Most businesses do that not knowing that it will raise red flags with the IRS
Another aspect of this reporting requirement is that its *not indexed for inflation*. In 1970 10k had the purchasing power of over 60k today but the reporting requirement remains unchanged. Over time this creates and increasing burden on businesses and banks as they are required to report transactions of smaller and smaller value. In the distant future when a cup of coffee at starbucks costs $10,000 we will all have to file a report with fincen every morning.
I'm really not clear what "evading government scrutiny" means at all. What Hastert did doesn't seem to fit that definition -- he lied to investigators. Not even a questionable/sort-of-weasel lie even, it was a simple and direct statement that was contrary to the truth.
I agree the government has no right to harass anyone (or snoop their phone calls or steal their emails, FWIW). And the government has no right to demand answers to their questions -- Hastert had the right to remain silent and he declined to exercise it. What the government did here was pretty classic "traditional" investigation -- interview people that are speaking to your voluntarily and find the inconsistencies in what they say.
[ And while there's a lot to say about coercive interviewing, it's a bit ridiculous to think that applies to a powerful defendant. We're talking about a man that was third in line to be the President, not some teenager being browbeat by a pair of officers in the middle of the night. ]
WOW! I didn't know that. You must be psycho
Because he's a fool who tried to cover up one crime with another. He got caught in his own web. As bad as some of these laws are, and as much as the government has over-stepped its bounds in some cases, it doesn't look like they did here. He lied to the FBI? That's such a fundamental mistake. I learned not to do that when I was a teen-ager. It was actually emphasized in discussions of how to approach a clearance interview. "Even if you've done something illegal, don't lie. It doesn't necessarily mean you won't get cleared, and it could be a felony to lie" or something like that. This truth was born out in my later years, as I met people who had admitted to various drug offenses during interviews, and they received clearance.
The primary objection to these laws — and the reason they are considered "bullshit" — is that they allow confiscation of funds without having to prove anything. The government does not even need to file a suit!
None of the victims are "criminals" — because nobody is a criminal until found guilty in a court of law — and your above-quoted excuse for the law is thus automatically invalid.
Worse, the practice — and the bullshit laws "authorizing" it — are in direct violation of the Fifth Amendment, which purports to protect us against this exact practice (emphasis mine): "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Hundreds of ordinary hard working Americans are having their businesses destroyed and lives torn apart by the overzealous application of these ill-advised "structuring" laws.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/03/24/the-federal-structuring-laws-are-smurfin-ridiculous/
I suspect the reason he was not charged with sexual misconduct is that the victim refuses to cooperate. Without the victim's testimony, the case falls apart.
Abuses abound on all fronts, but I'm surprised no one is looking at this for the political motive: The current administration is very good at deflecting criminality of Democratic politicians and very good at smearing as many Republican politicians as possible. I suspect that the reverse will be true when Republicans regain power. It's our fault: We keep electing politicians who forget that they are supposed to protect the rights of EVERYBODY, not just their party members. How cool would it be if voters voted for competency rather than just team affiliation?
"The mind works quicker than you think!"
If the intent is to catch actual criminal wrongdoing, rather than make large swathes of the population criminal, the structuring rules are a very good examples of a bad law. First off, the reporting requirements are poorly understood by banking officials who should know better, and the actual reporting can be for cash amounts of as little as $3000.
A few years back I was involved in what became a rather complicated transaction to buy a rather expensive used car. Because the owners were extremely flakey and confused there ended up being a number (I think five) wire transfers to different accounts. This produced a blizzard of enquiries from my bank and later from federal officials with various agencies with three-letter acronyms. All of the enquiries were worded in a maximally threatening way. All I wanted to do was buy a stupid car. Which turned out to be a piece of shit anyway.
There are lots of examples of this. The Migratory Bird Treaty act is a great example. Say you find some bird feathers in your yard, and decide to keep them. Say your kids find some more and keep them too. Oops! $5000 fine per feather. Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse. And by the way, if you can identify your bird feathers and they came from non-migratory birds, you are fine. Unless they are eagle feathers, in which case you are screwed. Except if you are Native American and using the eagle feathers for legitimate cultural purposes.
Don't even get me started on insider trading laws. Oh hell, as the insider trading laws are written, there is no way to be employed by a company doing useful work and not be at least technically in violation of said laws. Whatever guidance your corporate attorneys give you is based on the SECs guidance on what they actually want to prosecute. That guidance could change tomorrow if they decide to go after you.
I remember somewhere that this kind of administrative law crap was a substantial factor in what caused the American Revolution.
Did you read what I wrote? The fact that he tried to hide what he did with his money is not a crime. Your pointing this out means nothing as I made the exact same comment. But it is a simple fact that making suspicious financial transactions triggers investigations, as they should. The police can and should investigate when it looks like people are trying to launder money. And then he made false statements to the police during the investigation, which is a crime. You never have the right to lie to the police, even if you feel you've done nothing wrong.
It's his bed that he's made and he has to lie in it.
The stupid thing is all he had to do was plead the fifth. Which any lawyer would have advised him to do. But he was so concerned with trying to sweep this thing under the rug that he didn't want to do anything that might make it look like he had something to hide and decided that lying to the police was the best option.
"Who the **** put an emergency exit in the interrogation room?!" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
The Seventeenth Amend disagrees... unfortunately.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
"Lying to a law enforcement officer is always illegal"
No, it isn't. It's almost always legal. The exceptions are on legal documents which clearly state that you assert that all information is truthful to the best of your knowledge or if you are under oath swearing to tell the truth. Now, they can use anything you say against you in court, but the fact that you lied is in no way illegal except in the previous circumstances.
I have integrity so... I'd appoint people that also had integrity. Such people would destroy me as readily as anyone else if duty demanded it.
People like me don't often get into positions of power. Mostly because everyone has a vote and that means stupid people can vote. Stupid people out number smart people... lazy out number the engaged. And so because it is easy to lie to morons... you get a government elected by morons. Which is generally run by con artists of varying stripes because they're better at manipulating people.
And thus you get what we have today.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Politicians should not be prosecuted for LYING. After all, it's their primary function. They can't help it. It's like trying to prosecute an ordinary citizen for drawing breath. What would be unusual is a politician telling the truth.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Evade government scrutiny? It is called currency. Legal tender for all debts public and private, with emphasis on private.
It should not be against the law for me to withdraw my own money from my own account, how ever I structure it, it is my money.
Just remember that there are no recordings of your conversation with FBI agents, so it's just their word against yours. If they "misremember" something, good luck proving it.
It's a crime because it points to a crime, and the crime itself may be difficult or impossible to convict. Al Capone did all sorts of criminal things, but prosecutors couldn't convict him of anything, so they prosecuted a law they could: tax evasion. Laws restricting someone like Hastert from managing his cash as he sees fit may outrage libetardian nutcases, but it helped us find out what Hastert is up to.
The Iraq war was all politics too. Dubya didn't like Saddam Hussein, so, we invaded a soverign nation, killed hundreds of thousands and blew trillions of dollars, while also creating an entire generation of kids who are amputees.
You don't live in a open, free society. Get used to it, this is only going to get worse, because the government is corrupt and has been for some time.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
When someone launders money, they are typically hiding illegal transactions, such as the sale of illegal goods. By going after the money, law enforcement can effectively track and prosecute the activity behind it.
Structuring has ensnared many innocent people. If someone runs a legitimate business that brings in close to, but not over $10,000 in receipts, the government has learned to seize first and ask questions later. The innocent people, then need to prove that they are innocent in order to have their assets returned. Structuring laws should be declared a violation of the constitution as an illegal search and seizure.
The question that the original poster had was why is this going to prosecution, and the answer is that that Hastert lied to FBI agents. This is despite the absence of any other crime. Note that Martha Stewart had the same issue, as have many others. Funny how the police can lie to suspects though.
The lesson to be learned is DO NOT TALK TO POLICE.
For a few hours, it was illegal for the NSA to collect phone metadata. They did it anyway and promised not to search it until after they got permission.
They did not hide this fact. It was part of the Senate debate for getting new permission.
Mr. Hastert did something legal but tried to hide it.
The prosecutor's choice of targets seems backwards.
Kind of like the law being used to further an agenda.
Makes one wonder if the lady with the scales and the blindfold can really see.
In other news, the sun came up again today.
Combine unknowably large numbers of ambiguous laws with selective enforcement and you have total control over your citizens. Right now, the typical American is in violation of around 3 laws per day, even if they do nothing at all.
He voted for this law. He broke the law. He was advised by his bank that he was breaking it, so it's not like he was ignorant. If you don't like the security state, change the damn law, but I think this is a perfectly valid prosecution.
This subject came up in last week's bust of FIFA. Deternined forensic rooting around would probably find a lot of evidence that FIFA officials bribed their way through at least the last couple of decades. But the FBI did not have that evidence, so it took the easy way out, US banking laws criminalize dealing in cash. It's technically a crime to deposit more than $10,000 into a US bank at one time. So is making smaller deposits over any length of time, which is called "structuring." Everybody deposits cash on occasion and in technical violation, so structuring is a handy charge to use when you want to put someone away but don't have enough real evidence.
Now tha this has bitten Republicans, perhaps Congress will repeal this mess after the next election when there won't be a veto.
I'm going to guess that he didn't file a gift tax return with the IRS for the millions he gave to person X. In which case he's up for tax evasion.
There's a certain degree of paranoia involved here as well. But this law isn't even the most onerous in the U.S. The worst one is the police confiscation laws that were originally intended to be anti-trafficking tools but now tend to be abused rather badly.
http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
-Matt
> The Clintons do that every day. No. Literally every day. They did it yesterday and they'll do it tomorrow. They've been doing it for years and years and years. The Clinton scandals go back to before Bill became president.
Do you have any evidence of this like anywhere besides some weird echo machine? Not a fan of all of the above but more gratuitous Clinton derangement syndrome is just weird at this point. Do you still bring up Ted Kennedy's car when discussing Washington DC?
Withdrawing money in a suspicious way was the crime (as in he might have withdrawn $5000 at a time many times... felony).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuring#United_States
I don't think you grasp how depraved your country's laws are.
"Hastert was indicted for two alleged felonies: 1) withdrawing cash from his bank accounts in amounts and patterns designed to hide the payments; and 2) lying ..."
You are glossing over the 1st felony here because it rightly seems absurd according to your common sense world view. But it is very real.
There is no law in America according to the definition of law. You are subject to the whims of people in power.
As one of the few people that still uses cash to conduct my business, I find this line of reasoning problematic. I have had the tellers ask me to withdraw my cash in smaller amounts so that they do not need to fill out the paperwork (you might say this is laziness on their part but the paperwork involved is rather overly time consuming). In most cases I only do 1 withdraw a week but I have had to go multiple times and withdraw. Should I be considered a potential criminal for using cash instead of a check?
According to the government I am a criminal, I have had people knocking on my door multiple times. Just remember withdrawing multiple amounts under a specified limit is considering structuring, it doesn't matter if its only $1 or $9999, if you have withdrawn cash more than once you are guilty of structuring. Don't believe me, read the law ACTUALLY says. It is a vague and dangerous thing that needs to be fixed.
Even though I'm in IT, and not in a role that has any access to any actual server/system and never touch any cash, I have to take the same training every year. How to spot fraud/organized crime/terrorists.
We also learn about laws passed back in the 1930's, things like "don't give the money in the bank to your friends, don't give the bank's stuff to your family".
Things you wouldn't think would need to be written into law, but actually need to be, because at one time, banks did bad things.
Can you imagine?
Trust me, you want these laws. If you knew more about how the banking system works you'd want more regulation. Big banks are still laundering money for drug cartels (drugs are fun, cartels are not), terrorists, and FIFA.
Once when I was self employed I had to cash a check for over 10K, and they had me fill out a short form for the cash. It wasn't a big deal. Hastert is just a bad guy and didn't want anyone to know.
The power balance is just too lopsided. If they ask, just tell them that, on advice of counsel, you respectfully decline to communicate with them.
Have gnu, will travel.
Right. Because the Clinton Foundation was sloppy in their accounting when they were getting donations to use to build schools in poor countries is EXACTLY the same as paying to cover up you pedophilia.
I hope the kid he molested gets the rest of his money.
"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."
Have gnu, will travel.
Hastert actually seems to have committed a couple felonies that are within the statute of limitations and clearly fall within Federal jurisdiction. What about the sex crimes? I'm sure we'll learn more after further investigation by the Feds and Illinois justice departments. Give them time!
How a former school teacher has over a million to give away, is what I want investigated.
*chuckles*
You know you're outing yourself as a bigger partisan hack and more gullible than MSNBC... right? I'm just saying... the Huffington Post, Politico, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, etc... they've all verified this shit.
And yet... here you are... your head so far up your own ass your eyes and ears have atrophied.
This is happening. Wake up.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
If they want to know about every cash deposit/withdrawal, then pass a law that banks have to report all of them. Right now it has to exceed $10k before it's reported.
Not wanting to be spied on is a natural inclination.
nobody's mentioned HIM yet - isn't blackmail still a crime worth prosecuting?
so, yes it is illegal.
If he paid money to someone in excess of $400, that person owes income tax on it. If it is a 1 time gift of over $10K the giver owes tax on it. There are laws in place that make what he did illegal. Which, again, is why he was indicted, because it is illegal. These laws are in place to thwart money laundering and tax evasion.
He wasn't necessarily trying to avoid taxes, but ultimately he did, so again, it is illegal.
Add to it Francisco's speech in defense of money, and the story of the Twentieth Century Motor Company. Those passages are worth the read of the book.
Yes, let's all spend lots of time drumming up sympathy for a republican fat cat and never mind about the millions of people whose money and property has been seized via "civil forfeiture" laws which actually do give police the power to seize damn near anything from damn near anybody on damn near any pretext they can dream up.
No, no. Since the information came out and it's about someone we don't like (Hastert), it's "whistleblowing" not blackmail.
If it was someone we liked it would be blackmail. Understand?
The person being prosecuted for breaking the law passed the laws he broke. That is justice, not tyranny. Unjust would be the person not being charged for breaking the laws. The point of him helping to pass those laws is only relevant because someone wants to claim good vs. bad law as part of the context of him breaking the laws (which is a completely different issue).
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If it's such a big fuss (read cost) then the banking lobby would've moved to have it adjusted to inflation. What's in it for them by not having the said adjustment done?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Well, he was a public service and as such I am happy that he was under higher scrutiny. The simple fact is that it is illegal to mislead or lie to police, regardless of whether or not you are being investigated or ultimately convicted of any crime. However, I do not think we need to allow fishing expeditions that allow police to use these laws. Still, I would not or (if it currently occurs) am not opposed to fishing expeditions against elected officials to see if they have any suspect or illegal activities.
If Ayn Rand said there's no way to lead innocent men, I'd agree with you.
This is primarily due to laws aimed at combating money laundering and financing criminal and terrorist groups.
That may have been the intention of the law, but it has become quite a cash cow for law enforcement through abuses of the statute. These laws flip the Constitution on its head because you are guilty until you can prove your innocence. That's not always easy with cash. There are cases where they've literally taken the life savings of little old ladies.
Lying to a law enforcement officer is always illegal.
No. There's a law against lying to Federal agents, and Michigan recently passed such a law, but it varies by state. Cops, of course, can lie their ass off to you.
Obviously I don't know what the prosecutors are planning but I'm pretty sure there is a good reason.
Yeah, don't count on it. This law, and similar state laws, have been abused to such an extent that many legislators are now trying to pass reform laws. The most recent story I've read, concerns a convenience store owner whose assets were seized because his cash deposits, his daily receipts, were often in excess of $10k. His bank advised him to make smaller deposits, else they had to report them. He did that, and that's when the Feds swooped in and cleaned him out. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
Google something like: "forfeiture abuses" to see many, many more egregious cases.
-- sudon't
Air-ride Equipped
You're conflating a war that turned out to have bad intelligence with a federal agency attacking DOMESTIC political enemies and protecting DOMESTIC political allies?
That's fucking filthy.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It isn't even mentioned in the summary until the end, but "over-criminalization" has been worrying me, too. Another example, and an even better one, is the increasing criminalization of predicate behaviors, like alcoholism, that MIGHT lead to criminal behavior but are not of themselves criminal. There are many such predicate behaviors that are now criminalized, and the number increases. Making these predicate behaviors illegal allows gung-ho police and prosecutors and lawyers to indict and convict many more people than they could otherwise. It once again trades liberty for "safety".
Shrug. Yes, things like tax evasion are not sexy, but they are still criminal. Al Capone was presumably responsible for dozens of murders, but he was tried and convicted on tax fraud charges.
Beyond the illegality of "structuring" withdrawals to evade scrutiny, here's another handy tip for those planning to pay millions of dollars of hush money to cover up something embarrassing from your past:
You can only give $14K or less in cash per year to someone without having to file Form 709 -- Gift Tax. You may not have to pay gift tax on that transaction, but it does count towards your lifetime gift+estate tax exemption of (currently) $5.34 million.
The Clinton Foundation spends a paltry amount on actual charitable works; in fact they spend as much on office supplies as charity. The vast majority of money is spent on paying Clintonites salaries during times they can't be paid by other official means (see Sidney Blumenthal) as well as paying for first class airfare and hotels for the Clintons and their friends.
There is a reason most charity watchdog groups refuse to classify the Clinton Foundation as a charity.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
The US government decided that they wanted to know all about large cash transactions
The $10,000 threshold was set in 1970, when it really was a large amount (over $60,000 in today's dollars). Now, not so much, and over the years, the number of people becoming ensnared due to transactions that are not in support of any crime has increased. What do you say to that, you statist scum? Do you seriously suppose that the threshold was not linked to inflation but left to have its real value fall continuously and indefinitely because of oversight? Because if so, you're either a bald-faced liar, or, well, I have a bridge to sell you.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
If federal prosecutors could meet the legal thresholds for charging and convicting Hastert of a sex crime, they would be fully justified in aggressively pursuing the matter.
If federal prosecutors could meet the legal thresholds for charging and convicting anyone of any crime, they would be fully justified in aggressively pursuing the matter. So what? I hope your high school journalism teacher didn't accept assignments with this type of padding in them.
We've really hit rock bottom in an Orwellian sort of way. I agree with the original poster that actual crimes should be prosecuted by due process. But when the government can't seem to gather the requisite evidence, it uses broad charges like "Obstruction of Justice." The only thing that Dennis Hastert is **currently** guilty of (and that could and hopefully will change) is not having a lawyer present when he was questioned by the FBI goons. Never talk to law enforcement without one present.
Be More, Be Manly, The Manly Geek Ubergeek Extraordinaire Blogger: www.manlygeek.com/blog Podcaster: podcast.man
Nothing all that new here ... check out Sulla's actions ... or those of Marius ... or Cinna ...
Of course THOSE proscriptions were death instead of whatever is ahead for the enemies of the interestingly named 'Department of Justice'.
We have Senators too. Ain't much fun to live in interesting times is it?
I don't know where you live, but I directly vote for my senators twice every six years.
"Non-objective law is the most effective weapon of human enslavement: its victims become its enforcers and enslave themselves." -- Ayn Rand
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/law,_objective_and_non-objective.html
It's not just in the U.S.A.
In Canada we've just had a verdict in a supposedly homegrown terrorism case (do a search for the names Nuttal and Korody), but it's clear that the defendants only have a handful of brain cells between them (heroin will do that...), and the undercover cops had a major part in turning a couple of harmless losers who aren't quite sure what day it is in to a major threat to national security. Needless to say, their lawyer is going for entrapment.
Also needless to say, the media are going entirely with the government/party line...
...laura
I got mandatory training on this when doing a Perl gig at Wells Fargo about ten years ago. The impression I got is that the bank didn't care for the reporting, but had to do it. The more enthusiastic part of the training seemed to be how to not quite violate the Do Not Call List law.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Federal judiciary is appointed by the President with confirmation from the Senate. Appointments are for life, and it's real hard to get rid of a Federal judge who's not convicted of a crime. The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch, and does depend on the current President.
BTW, I do vote for my own Senators. You may want to get a newer copy of the Constitution, since the old way (selection by the legislature) was amended away a long time ago.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Iraq war was not because of faulty intelligence. Find a copy of Colin Powell's book "It Worked For Me". For best results, get the audiobook, as Powell himself read it and it's interesting to listen to his tone of voice changes while talking about his UN presentation. He says that he was given a lawyer's brief on why to go to war, not an intelligence estimate, and didn't have time to do his own fact-checking.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The Gibson guitar factory got raided by the FBI for having rare woods... finger boards... and they said something about how that was a violation of some law from the 1920s that makes no sense.
Uh, what? The Gibson guitar factory got raided for violating a law proposed by George W. Bush in 2003. And eventually signed into law by George W. Bush when Congress agreed with his initiative and passed the law. It worked, too. Illegal logging is down around the world. Boohoo, contributing to the party that made your actions illegal doesn't get you a "get out of jail free" card. How sad for you.
The Justice Department may or may not be engaged in politically motivated prosecution, but your choice of examples is feeble.
Structuring bank payments to avoid detection for the purposes of tax reporting is a crime. Do your fucking homework.
While I certainly agree with (both) the basic premises, I would also point out that
as a culture, we have completely UNDERcriminalized reprehensible behavior from
far too many people whose misbehavior represents a significant national threat. Has
what Hastert has done so much worse than what Hillary did? Why does he get the
full flame-thrower treatment and she, still standing amongst the slowly dissipating
smoke from her crime of (at least) destroying 30,000 government documents which
may or may not have been proof of criminal actions is lauded as the first female
president-in-waiting? Could it be because her husband helped set these new standards
of so-what-everybody-does-it thinking that now excuse the administration of a man who
has done more harm to this country than any external enemy could have ever hoped to
inflict?
We aren't really OVERcriminalizing. We simply aren't bothering to apply consistent
standards to determine whether a given behavior should be taken as criminal.
Lying to a law enforcement officer is always illegal. They may or may not care about why you engaged in the activities you did but lying about it is clearly a crime in our justice system. Realistically it cannot be otherwise if you wish to have effective investigations of crimes.
If they wanted to have effective investigation of crimes, they should not have made talking to the cops a terribly risky endeavor.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Ok, I will say it since no one else has the balls to point out the obvious hypocrisy here.
Dennis Hastert became speaker of the house in 1999, right after the Monica Lewinsky case which was actually an investigation into the Clinton Whitewater case, where when the republicans could not pin any of their bogus allegations on the Clintons they turned to making it a "the President got a Blow Job!" case.
Dennis Hastert, meanwhile is a child molester it seems. Where are the people that are ready to turn this case into what it is, child molestation and lying to the feds about it?
All the self righteous hand wringing of the early 2000's by conservatives to me about how "Immoral" the Clintons and therefore the Democrats were is just plain bullshit.
Don't get me wrong, if Hastert did something that violates the law, then he should be appropriately punished. The thing that bothers me is it should not be ANYONE's business how much money I put into, or out of my personal bank account! Period! The other thing is, selective prosecution. How come some of the shady dealings that Bill & Hillary, are not treated with the same level of prosecution, that someone with an (R) by there name receives.
You're going to put on those clown shoes in public? After whining about 20 year old Clinton Chronicle horseshit, you're going through a marthathon session of Twister to excuse the Bush Administration's constant, bald-faced lying on Iraq?
Really?
Well, thanks for making it clear you're as much of a drooling, brain dead partisan tribalist as an Obamabot who spent years railing against the Patriot Act only to snooze when Obama pushed the far more odious NDAA into law.
Could you guys all move out to Political Hack Island and fight it out, leaving the rest of us in peace?
Why. Because you miss the days of monopolies and trusts openly buying U.S. Senate seats on the floors of statehouses?
His cash draws probably exceeded the amount that has to be reported to the officials. Since he tried to avoid the reporting requirement, he became a person of federal interest.
You'd be ok with a murder paying off the family to keep quiet about a murder he committed? That's why. He's paying to cover up a crime.
If Hastert's lobbying career is over, he may find it worthwhile to sue the blackmailer to get his money back.
Couldn't the blackmailer then counter-sue him for the trauma caused by the rape, evidence of which would be the fact that Hastert was prepared to pay money to prevent it being revealed? Or do statutes of limitations apply in civil cases?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Well I would tend to agree but, if Ross Ulbricht can get life in prison and have people justifing it based on crimes he wasn't even charged with, then I don't see why this is a problem.
Whats good for the goose is amazing for the gander.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Lying? Really Think you could prove that in a court of law? Because the clinton scandals you could prove in a court of law. As well as obstruction of justice and other fun stuff.
Cite what you could actually prove. Not your raging bias boner.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Wrong, sir!
That's so wrong I'm going to let wonka rub it in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They were cited as violating the Lacy act of 1900. The law is 115 years old. that is a bit before Bush jr's time and a bit before his father's time as well. So... where did you get that information?
Your link did not cite the Gibson incident at all. Please cite a link that attributes the gibson raid to Bush. I think you just made that up and effectively attempted a really stupid lie.
http://www.bizjournals.com/nas...
http://www.science20.com/scien...
The issue involved fingerboards imported from India. The Lacy act involves people basically smuggling things through the customs of other countries and then into the US. The idea was to punish companies in the US that break the laws of other countries when they export things.
The problem is that Gibson did not break the Lacy act because their exports complied entirely with Indian law. The Indian government has no problem with what Gibson did. Therefore it is not possible for them to be in violation of the Lacy act.
And it should further be noted that Gibson's competitors also imported fingerboards from India and were not raided.
Gibson apparently paid the Federal government 300,000 dollars to fuck off. Because the legal fees exceeded the costs of that fine.
Welcome to the 21st century. Were the government abuses you with your own money and if you want to resist you have to spend more of your own money.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You're trying to hang charge of TREASON which requires load bearing structural steel levels of evidence on an argument that is at best a wobbly house of cards of evidence.
You're saying that an off handed comment which you're just interpreting a certain way means there was not only deceit but a specific kind of it in a context which you have provided for me out of whole cloth. This is at best tautology.
You can't make those claims on that basis.
A voice change? The fact that he might have gotten a legal argument prior to going into a diplomatic and political setting? Fucking shocking. I'm sure cabinet members never get briefed by legal teams before making complex arguments that will touch on legal matters... Right guys?
This means treason? You do realize that if you held the same standard for Hillary, the Benghazi situation would again see her charged with treason as well... more easily. Because the evidence for that is quite a bit stronger. We have for example her being aware that the incident was not triggered by a youtube video FROM HER OWN EMAILS very early on in the incident.
Bengazi had a few scandals baked into it. The first was that they lied to the American people about it being an AQ terrorist attack because Obama was trying to claim that the terrorism issue was done. Clearly it wasn't so they lied. That is easily proven and not controversal.
The more controversal point which there isn't enough evidence for yet... but this what the republicans are digging for... is that Hillary let US diplomatic forces die because she worried that sending in the Marines to save our people would create a bigger incident. And politically since they were trying to pretend AQ didn't exist and terrorism was done... they let our people die.
Again, I freely admit that there isn't enough evidence for that charge. Unlike you with your stupid Powell citation, I realize that this is a suspicion and an allegation but by no means proven or possibly even provable.
But that is what the republicans are digging for in Benghazi. Just in case you didn't know.
There's more though. Because it is also provable that Hillary received many requests for security at that facility prior to it being attacked. They were begging for support. They said they were afraid and they wanted something to defend themselves.
Hillary says she didn't even read the requests despite them being flagged by the state department as being pretty fucking critical memos. On that, alone you can cite her for gross incompetence.
But then consider that she probably did read them and chose to deny the security... for the same reason they lied about why the facility was attacked and for the same reason they PROBABLY didn't send support. That is, sending more security would make it clear that there was a security problem there. And she was more worried about that political impression than the safety of her people. Is there proof of that? Nope.
All we have proof of is that she lied for political advantage and was at the very least grossly incompetent. That's best case and in the fucking bag.
Worst case... and unproven, is that she left her people undefended for poltiical advantage and then murdered them rather than admit to an issue.
I'll point out that when the whole thing was going on and the attack was ongoing... she went home to go to sleep. How many secretaries of state would do that when their diplomats were getting murdered?
Go back to the Iran hostage situation. Think the secretary of state got any sleep? They were taking naps at the white house when that was happening. She went home.
You want to put Dennis' feet to the fire? Fine... The price is Hillary gets burned alive. Frankly, the dems have no credibility in this context anymore.
None.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
there were problems with the old system, but it did actually make the states powerful in the federal government which was the point of making the senators appointed.
The people vote for the for their congressman. The senate was supposed to represent the state governments in the federal legislature.
I think a better way of reforming the system would have been to set up a system for dealing with corruption.
The existing system basically gives the state governments no agency in the federal legislature. Which is not how our government was supposed to work.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Hastard on his own pederasty (I couldn't resist)
If the prosecutors knew what the money was being used for via a wiretap or an investigation before they "interviewed" Hastard then this was the usual setup of an unwary non-lawyer. Since he is not a public official like Spitzer was (and thus potentially subject to blackmail in his official capacity) I'm not sure that the Hastard interview was so routine. There are a lot of structured cash cases out there to investigate. As this continues we will get a timeline from the Court sometime in 2017 and be able to decide if this was a setup.. And why has the ex-student not been charged or has he? In other words, did he contact the prosecutor or did he cooperate and help set up Hastard.
Paraphrasing the head of the Soviet secret police talking to Stalin in the 1930s, "Show me the man and I'll find you the crime". Finally this is a direct outgrowth of the Al Capone tax evasion charge in the U.S. Just remember, whatever they can do to him they can do to you.
We need our politicians to decriminalize the very act of being human in the US. We need to make the US the land of the free once more. We are no longer a free country as evidenced by the Patriot act. The whole legislation that makes it easier to bring down terrorist are making more and more American's felons. We put more people in Jail and Prison than any other country in the world. We created a crime out of taking out 9999 dollars at a time called structuring. Now If I wanted to take out more than 10 K from my saving and blow it all on coke that should be my business. The government is so ate up with the war on terrorism and the war on drugs and in a sick manner linked the two, that we the people are all caught up in the cross hairs. So when the FBI ask you a question any question, and you lie to them, and they can lie all they want to you, it's a felony. Think about all this the next time you are standing in line at CVS to sign for your monthly allotment of psudophed. (Oh yeah another piece of the Patriot act)
Paul E. Bahre
Man, that was an impressive and mostly off-topic rant. Is it really your position that doubting what you say on the causes of the Iraq war is sufficient evidence to convict Hillary Clinton?
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
not really. I pointed out you were making claims that can't be substantiated and you're now continuing your pattern of evasion.
There is nothing anyone could possibly say to you that would get you to respond ethically. The concept is alien to you. I've tried. And you just do "this" every time.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So much for my insightful "Yeah, and Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion, where he died of syphilis" comment being original and thought provoking. Most people disapprove of child molesters using a position of power to gain sexual satisfaction for themselves. If money laundering sheds this pustule from the herd, well, good on thems as prosecutes him, imo.
--- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
I expressed an opinion, and provided evidence. You responded by saying I was accusing people of treason (false), cast doubt on my evidence (this part is legit, although I still think you're wrong), and going off on a long rant about Hillary Clinton.
I'm giving up on you. Come back when you learn something about reading for content.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"The Iraq war was not because of faulty intelligence. "
This is just an opinion? You stated it like it was a fact.
And your "evidence" was less than hearsay.
As to you giving up... Since your entire position amounted to pile of steaming bullshit, exactly why am I supposed to miss when you give up here?
Did you even try to make sense before you gave up? Not from where I'm sitting. That was fucking pathetic, dude. Try harder next time.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.