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!”
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.
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?
“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.”
... 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"
How is this news for nerds?
The government's ability to monitor everyone's financial transactions is part of the broad surveillance state enabled by technology. We face a choice between an Orwellian future, where the state is capable of monitoring every aspect of our lives: what we buy, where we go, who we talk to, or a future where technology empowers individuals by making government transparent, efficient, and accountable. That is one of the biggest choices of our time, and this story is another warning that we are on the wrong path.
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.
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.
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.
The $10,000 limit was set forth in 1970 and never indexed for inflation.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
We could get rid off the reason for money laundering laws in the first place. End the stupid drug war already. Have a tax system that does not require tracking one's every financial transaction. Then there's no excuse for this part of our garbage heap of a legal code.
I hate to use this guy as a catalyst for reform, but if that's what it takes so be it.
Back in the 20s and 30s in the US, the mob ran roughshod over the land. The only way devised to corral them-- because of massive corruption on local, state, and federal levels-- was to invoke tax laws. It worked. It got Capone, and a bunch of the mob.
Hastert is caught in a similar pickle. Meet the reporting requirements; they're designed to trap this, and other kinds of illicit behavior. Trillions of dollars have left the USA, some of it legally (Apple Computer) and some of it not. The laws were designed to trap floods of untracked cash (Dennis Hastert's payments). It worked. I want the law; I want the reporting requirements; don't presume you understand the motivations of /.ers.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
That would be $62,284.35 in 2015 dollars.
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.
Hastert is caught in a similar pickle. Meet the reporting requirements; they're designed to trap this, and other kinds of illicit behavior.
They don't just trap illicit behavior. Legitimate businesses have been hit, many times, for structuring. They charge the money in the bank account, not the individual or business, so you have to *prove* it's legitimate. Often they'll let you get half or so of it back in exchange for not involving the legal system. People have been out of tens of thousands of dollars for this.
Restaurants
A Mexican restaurant: "Critics say the I.R.S. rarely investigates such cases to see if the business owner has legitimate reasons for making small deposits, such as an insurance policy that covers only a limited amount of cash."
Multiple small businesses in Michigan
Simply speaking: Many businesses will frequently make deposits under $10k for two reasons:
1. That's simply what they make
2. Insurance policies that only cover 'up to' $10k or so of cash, so business policy is to make a deposit whenever they're close to that amount so they're always covered.
The IRS doesn't care, will look at it as 'structuring', and seize all your bank accounts.
I don't read AC A human right
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"