WWTBAM Bored

Federal prosecutors on Thursday charged former Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert with agreeing to pay $3.5 million in hush money to someone he committed “prior misconduct” against, withdrawing the money in small enough amounts to try to avoid detection, then lying to the FBI when questioned about it.

The feds don’t specify the misconduct or name the person Hastert allegedly paid. But they say “Individual A” lived in Yorkville, where Hastert was a coach and high school teacher for years, and knew Hastert for “most of Individual A’s life.”

Full story: http://chicago.suntimes.com/news-chicag ... tructuring

Silly me.

When I read that, I thought at first they were talking about the actor Dennis Haysbert, who does the Allstate commercials. I wondered what he'd done to get in trouble.

This thing is majorly creepy sounding.

A crooked politician? Where's the fainting couch? I believe I have the vapors.

silverscreenselect wrote:Silly me.

When I read that, I thought at first they were talking about the actor Dennis Haysbert, who does the Allstate commercials. I wondered what he'd done to get in trouble.

President David Palmer? He wouldn't do anything like that.
Now President Wayne Palmer, that might be a different story. (But "24" was so unrealistic There's no way that two brothers would ever really end up each elected President.)

- Tim H.

silverscreenselect wrote:Silly me.

When I read that, I thought at first they were talking about the actor Dennis Haysbert, who does the Allstate commercials. I wondered what he'd done to get in trouble.

I did, too.

After the Sam Shepard news, I was thinking, "what's going on with these guys?"

silverscreenselect wrote:Silly me.

When I read that, I thought at first they were talking about the actor Dennis Haysbert, who does the Allstate commercials. I wondered what he'd done to get in trouble.

I thought it was this guy:

ne1410s wrote:A crooked politician? Where's the fainting couch? I believe I have the vapors.

From Illinois at that!

ne1410s wrote:A crooked politician? Where's the fainting couch? I believe I have the vapors.

The conduct for which he was charged doesn't seem to have anything to do with his former official capacity. --Bob

Exactly what I thought:

Chicago Tribune wrote:Indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was paying an individual from his past to conceal sexual misconduct, two law enforcement officials said Friday. The actions date to Hastert's time as a Yorkville, Ill., high school wrestling coach and teacher, the official said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-d ... story.html

Bob Juch wrote:Exactly what I thought:

Chicago Tribune wrote:Indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was paying an individual from his past to conceal sexual misconduct, two law enforcement officials said Friday. The actions date to Hastert's time as a Yorkville, Ill., high school wrestling coach and teacher, the official said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-d ... story.html

Is there not a statute of limitations?

Also, seems that the other party should be brought up on bribery charges? Why else would he be paying money?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Exactly what I thought:

Chicago Tribune wrote:Indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was paying an individual from his past to conceal sexual misconduct, two law enforcement officials said Friday. The actions date to Hastert's time as a Yorkville, Ill., high school wrestling coach and teacher, the official said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-d ... story.html

Is there not a statute of limitations?

Not for blackmail. It's been rumored for years that Hastert was gay.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Is there not a statute of limitations?

Not for blackmail. It's been rumored for years that Hastert was gay.

But then wouldn't he be the victim, of the blackmail?

The charges against him or for hiding the payments.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Is there not a statute of limitations?

Not for blackmail. It's been rumored for years that Hastert was gay.

But then wouldn't he be the victim, of the blackmail?

The charges against him or for hiding the payments.

I mean that there was no time limit for the blackmailer. Hastert just recently started paying.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Exactly what I thought:

Chicago Tribune wrote:Indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was paying an individual from his past to conceal sexual misconduct, two law enforcement officials said Friday. The actions date to Hastert's time as a Yorkville, Ill., high school wrestling coach and teacher, the official said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-d ... story.html

Is there not a statute of limitations?

If you're talking about the underlying alleged misconduct, in many states the statute of limitations is tolled (suspended) until the victim reaches the age of majority, and sometimes longer. I don't know Illinois law on this issue, of course.

It's not blackmail to pay someone money to avoid a civil lawsuit. It's a settlement. What would be blackmail would be to demand money to refrain from pressing criminal charges or to refrain from gratuitously publicizing embarrassing information.

In other words, "Pay me or I'll sue you" isn't blackmail. "Pay me or I'll call the cops" is. So is "Pay me or I'll call the Chicago Tribune." --Bob

Bob Juch wrote:Not for blackmail. It's been rumored for years that Hastert was gay.

I can assure everybody that Speaker Hastert is not gay. He told me so in the Capitol men's room.

As I said earlier this is majorly creepy. Don't know anyone who is involved in this shit. What is it with public figs? What the fuckety fuck?

I know. I know.

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Is there not a statute of limitations?

If you're talking about the underlying alleged misconduct, in many states the statute of limitations is tolled (suspended) until the victim reaches the age of majority, and sometimes longer. I don't know Illinois law on this issue, of course.

It's not blackmail to pay someone money to avoid a civil lawsuit. It's a settlement. What would be blackmail would be to demand money to refrain from pressing criminal charges or to refrain from gratuitously publicizing embarrassing information.

In other words, "Pay me or I'll sue you" isn't blackmail. "Pay me or I'll call the cops" is. So is "Pay me or I'll call the Chicago Tribune." --Bob

I want to say the statute in Illinois is age of majority plus 20 years (criminally, and would assume the same civilly), but I can't remember 100% (it was discussed in my criminal law class), and would also depend on when the "crime" occurred as the law may have been different at the time.

My guess is the former speaker was more worried about his legacy being tarnished than anything. The person he was paying off probably set off red flags to the IRS and got caught and said he got them from Hastert; the feds went to question him and he tried to cover it up. Just my speculation.

http://popehat.com/2015/05/29/dennis-ha ... ial-power/
As Radley Balko has pointed out, structuring (or "smurfing") charges are extremely flexible. They demonstrate the reality of how Americans targeted by the Department of Justice can be charged. 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?

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://popehat.com/2015/05/29/dennis-ha ... ial-power/
As Radley Balko has pointed out, structuring (or "smurfing") charges are extremely flexible. They demonstrate the reality of how Americans targeted by the Department of Justice can be charged. 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?

That may be so in general, but if the indictment in this case is correct, the charge here is pretty clear. He was formerly withdrawing money without regard to the $10,000 reporting requirement. When he started receiving inquiries about the withdrawals, he changed his pattern to avoid triggering the requirement. When the FBI asked him about it, he lied.

It's never the crime. It's always the cover-up. --Bob

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:http://popehat.com/2015/05/29/dennis-ha ... ial-power/
As Radley Balko has pointed out, structuring (or "smurfing") charges are extremely flexible. They demonstrate the reality of how Americans targeted by the Department of Justice can be charged. 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?

An owner of a restaurant here is charged with structuring because every day he puts just under $10,000 in cash from his restaurant in the bank. Of course having a Hispanic surname probably helped.

Guilty.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/politics/ ... index.html

http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/h ... 4cf31.html

My apologies if that doesn't work, but it can be cut and pasted into your browser bar.

tlynn78 wrote:http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/h ... 4cf31.html

My apologies if that doesn't work, but it can be cut and pasted into your browser bar.

It works just fine. In the future, you can use the "preview" feature to see if it looks right prior to submitting. To test the link in preview, if you click on the link, you will go to the linked page, losing what you entered prior to the preview. If you right-click the link in preview and select either "open in a new tab" or "open in a new window," your preview will be retained so you can submit it (if it all works).