Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Buzzfeed: Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert Indicted On Federal Charges


Burgold

Recommended Posts

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert on reporting evasion charges and lying to the FBI as part of an effort to conceal paying off the victim of “prior bad acts.”


In an indictment handed down in the District Court of Northern Illinois, the Department of Justice and IRS charged Hastert, 73, with illegally transferring funds in an effort to avoid detection by the IRS, a scheme known as “structuring.”


In the indictment, Hastert is accused of agreeing to pay one individual $3.5 million.


 


http://www.buzzfeed.com/johnstanton/former-house-speaker-dennis-hastert-indicted-on-federal-char#.svYJnGPyx


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must be some nasty stuff to get 3.5m in blackmail.

Gingrich may be a scumbag hypocrite, but unlike every speaker of the house since his departure, he at least knew how to lead and had an impressive record of legislative successes. Hastert was the enabler for the GOP to abandon fiscal discipline and bankrupt the nation. How ridiculous and sad is it that we passed over a much more capable candidate just because he'd had an affair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that as an elected official he may have certain disclosure requirements. And lying to the FBI about what you had for lunch will probably get you in trouble. But what is "illegally transferring funds". If I give someone $3.5M do I have to report it, or do they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that as an elected official he may have certain disclosure requirements. And lying to the FBI about what you had for lunch will probably get you in trouble. But what is "illegally transferring funds". If I give someone $3.5M do I have to report it, or do they?

 

Banks are legally required to report to the government any withdrawl or other transaction which is $10,000 or greater, which I suppose allows them to track potential criminal enterprises like drug dealing, tax evasion, etc.

 

The natural response, of course, is to pull out less, a bunch of times, for example $9900 over and over.

 

Thus, there is also a law against what they call "structuring", which is pulling out smaller amounts with the specific intent of avoiding reporting. 

 

As I understand it, that's what Hastert is being charged with, not the payoff itself. No doubt he didn't want reporting because it would become public record somewhere which might lead someone to follow the trail and find out whatever he was paying someone off for. That's why he initially claimed that he was pulling out the money because he didn't trust the banking system, and why they're claiming he lied about that: they have to establish that he intended to subvert the normal reporting process.

 

*EDIT* If you look at the report attached, you'll see the language there on page 3:

 

"... began withdrawing cash in increments of less than $10,000."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hastert's hush money was to cover up sexual misconduct with former student

 

Washington (CNN)Breaking news update at 4:12 p.m.: Former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was paying a former student in order to keep quiet about allegations of sexual misconduct from the time when Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach in Illinois, two sources with knowledge of the federal government investigation tell CNN.
 
Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach in Yorkville, Illinois between 1965 and 1981 before entering politics. Federal prosecutors indicted Hastert on Thursday for lying to the FBI about $3.5 million he agreed to pay to an undisclosed person to "cover up past misconduct."

 

 
 
More from the link.
 
That's a lot of money. I mean, this made him a pedophile from 30+ years ago. I guess it could be so much because the student might have been a male or really really young. 
 
Either way, such an odd story. Was surprised to see his name pop up since he rolled out of Washington leaving a path of crap behind him back in '06. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...to summarize:

In the late 90s, the president was impeached for lying about an affair by a house of representatives led by a man who was also hiding an affair, who was supposed to be replaced by another congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal he was having an affair, which led to the election of a new speaker who has now been indicted for lying about payments made to cover up sexual contact with an underage boy

Yikes

H/t Volokh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...to summarize:

In the late 90s, the president was impeached for lying about an affair by a house of representatives led by a man who was also hiding an affair, who was supposed to be replaced by another congressman who stepped down when forced to reveal he was having an affair, which led to the election of a new speaker who has now been indicted for lying about payments made to cover up sex with a young boy

Yikes

H/t Volokh

 

 

yikes. Can't make that type of stuff up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Banks are legally required to report to the government any withdrawl or other transaction which is $10,000 or greater, which I suppose allows them to track potential criminal enterprises like drug dealing, tax evasion, etc.

 

The $10,000 reporting requirement is for cash, not for a wire.

 

It would take a lot of cash transactions just under $10,000 to pay someone 3.5 million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The $10,000 reporting requirement is for cash, not for a wire.

 

It would take a lot of cash transactions just under $10,000 to pay someone 3.5 million.

Sorry, but thanks for playing. Wires may not be part of the law in question, but that's not relevant here. If you'll notice, I quoted the actual indictment.

Or, if you'd prefer (though I don't know why the actual indictment isn't good enough), the Chicago Tribune Reports:

 

Hastert made 15 withdrawals of $50,000 apiece over nearly two years but then allegedly began illegally structuring the withdrawals in increments of less than $10,000 to avoid federal reporting requirements after bank representatives questioned him about the large withdrawals in April 2012.

Hartnett said the banks almost certainly warned Hastert that they had to report any withdrawals of $10,000 and up. Starting three months later, Hastert then illegally withdrew a total of $952,000 in increments of less than $10,000, according to the indictment.

Most people are totally unaware of the law. Hastert probably was too, until the bank questioned him, and then he tried to get around it, which is illegal.

I only know about it because some of the more hardcore finance tricks require moving a fair amount of money around in "manufactured spending", which is designed to earn credit card rewards, and I know of several people who have been brought in by the FBI. They told the truth (that they were churning credit card spending), and were let go.

Hastert lied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most people are totally unaware of the law. Hastert probably was too, until the bank questioned him, and then he tried to get around it, which is illegal.

Hastert lied.

I'd be skeptical that Hastert didn't know the law... or rather, that someone in his staff didn't. You may be right, but this guy reached the top of the food chain. I suspect he didn't get there by being a dummy or having aides, lawyers, and advisors who were dummies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quotes from this WaPo Article "Hastert’s post-Congress life one of political withdrawal and chasing cash"

 

After retiring from Congress in 2007, the Illinois Republican did not avail himself of the traditional perks afforded elder statesmen. He didn’t serve on commissions or join think tanks, never became an ambassador and rarely made media appearances to dole out wisdom.
 
At the same time Hastert, 73, was relentless in pounding the K Street pavement, serving as a rainmaker for a law firm for the past seven years. He wasn’t a regular presence in the Capitol hallways lobbying his old colleagues, but he advised nearly two dozen corporate clients that paid millions for his counsel.

 

 

 
In interviews since Thursday’s indictment, Hastert associates said their worries have not been about his lobbying, a routine job here, but about his pace — his late-career drive to take on clients after long professing to care little about money. Instead of spending his mounting fortune on his passion — antique cars — or new clothes, Hastert seemed to be hoarding his earnings, wearing the same suits from his time in Congress and living frugally.

 

 

 
The network of former Hastert staffers and allies, unlike those of most former congressional leaders, seldom gets together. More than a dozen former aides, some of whom asked for anonymity to reflect candidly, said Hastert does not host reunions or happy hours. He “has let his relationships with almost everyone fall apart,” one former adviser said.

 

 

 
Man, sounds like he was turning over most of the cash he could to this person or people from 40 years ago. Sure seems like it is a lot larger than just one student.
 
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but thanks for playing. Wires may not be part of the law in question, but that's not relevant here. If you'll notice, I quoted the actual indictment.

 

Well that's not what you posted.

 

"Banks are legally required to report to the government any withdrawl or other transaction which is $10,000 or greater"

 

That is false.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the difference between hush money and black mail in this instance? Is it the way the request for money is phrased?

 

it might have been offered rather than demanded.

 

are we sure it was not a matter of paternity being concealed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...