What is the statute of limitations on criminal sexual assault?
Comments
Hastert Questions — 28 Comments
More will come out, ya think these politicians would have learned ya can’t hide anymore as sooner or later it will come out.
So far it appears to have cost Dennis some big bucks, maybe that is the best penalty that could of happened!
Maybe he should lose his state pension, and fed pension also, and no more lobbying anywhere.
Jail seems like a waste at this point as our $$$$ have to house and feed the dude.
Time will tell, and I’m sure the media will have a field day with this also.
The indictment is for “structuring”, or withdrawing money from banks in a way to avoid reporting requirements, not for the underlying reason for which he withdrew the money.
I heard an interview yesterday with Alan Dershowitz, who said that this looks like a case of prosecutorial overreach.
The intent of the structuring laws is to bring to light instances of illegal activities, such as money laundering or tax evasion.
Hastert was by all appearances being extorted, he was using his own money to pay an extortionist, which is not illegal.
It’s stupid, but it’s not illegal.
The issue of what gave rise to the extortion (if such is the case) is an entirely different issue and not part of the indictment.
No doubt it will come out, but the issue of whether Hastert is open to prosecution on that is outside the scope of this indictment.
Dershowitz thinks there’s less than a 50-50 chance that Hastert is convicted.
If he did whatever he was allegedly trying to conceal, I have no sympathy for him, but the indictment is about an entirely different matter altogether.
I think more people who were abused will come out after this indictment.
We also don’t know how long this abuse went on.
Child abusers do not just stop and become outstanding citizens.
Steve, if Hastert just gave the money to the person it wouldn’t be a crime but the cover up lie is what gets everyone and lying to the FBI is serious so don’t whitewash this.
Unless the law regarding Currency Transaction Reports and Structuring specifically state that the act applies ONLY to funds transferred or withdrawn for illegal purposes, this seems a slam dunk regardless of what Dershowitz says.
They seem (and that’s the beauty of “paper crimes”) to be able to show a clear course of conduct until such time as the bank questions Hastert on his practices at which point he changes course and immediately continues to withdraw, in cash, sums of money falling just below the CTR reporting transactions.
That will be enough to establish intent to circumvent the law and if there is no requirement that the withdrawals are related to some other illegal act by the withdrawer, he’s cooked!
As for lying to the FBI, he should have just kept his yap shut.
Unless he can roll into court with a box containing $1.7M (or whatever) and convince the court he’s had it under his bed all this time, that lie to the FBI will stick.
I’m not trying to whitewash anything, and I made it plain that if Hastert did what it’s rumored that he did, he deserves what he gets.
But the FBI questioning would not have occurred absent the reporting by the bank under civil forfeiture rules that can and increasingly are being used to harass innocent people.
Hastert’s life and reputation are shot, and again, if he had sex with a student, he deserves it.
But we have plenty of reason to focus on the potential abuse contained in the indictment.
Are you willing to say that anything that comes to light during an investigation that’s part of an instance of prosecutorial overreach should be made public?
Watch what you wish for, your ox may be the next one that’s gored.
To LOL’s point, from the Internal Revenue Manual:
9.7.2.3 (05-14-2012)
Civilly Forfeitable Property
All civil forfeiture statutes presently in effect are in rem statutes in which the property itself, not the owner of the property, is accused of wrongdoing. For that reason, only property that was actually used to commit, or was derived from, an offense, or property traceable to it, is subject to forfeiture.
The property itself is the subject of civil forfeiture, and thus must have originated from an illegal act. Unless Hastert’s money was illegally obtained within the meaning of the statute, his withdrawal for legal purposes (and again, paying an extortionist is not a Federal crime)should not have triggered the statute.
His mistake was to not tell the FBI he was being extorted, if in fact that’s the case, or, as you said, keep his yap shut. But if the FBI investigation came as a result of the overreach, they had no business asking him the question in the first place.
Someone please explain the math of how an ex Teacher/State Rep, comes up with a slush fund of $3.5 M for payoffs?
Or is there that much mark up, in a sit down chicken dinner?
I’m tired of hearing about these political gadfly’s with net worth’s, in the millions.
Anyone know Senator Dick Durbin’s net worth?
How about Mark Kirk’s?
I never ever liked Hasert.
I am not surprised by any of the accusations.
Many years ago we had heard of a bit of this being thrown around in his district but when nothing came of it we thought it was rumor.
I think many many people have known about the accusations for a long time so i hope they get called out too.
As they should.
Steve, why are we talking civil forfeiture?
The point was that AFAIK the Currency Transaction Report applies to ANY transaction where $10,000 or more in cash is involved.
It doesn’t matter if it’s being used to buy heroin, a new car for your graduating senior or to donate to your church or synagogue.
If you withdraw $10K in CASH, you fill out the form.
Seems pretty clear to me.
While there are a number of exemptions to the act, it doesn’t appear that any would have been available to Hastert.
What am I missing?
I feel schadenfreude.
US lawmakers keep adding rules to the books, with mostly good intentions.
I can’t but chuckle when they get ensnared themselves in the rules that they wrote.
The latest grande idea that I have and that will of course never happen is this: an anti-congress.
An entity whose only job is to vote on what laws to remove from the books.
And why is it that things such as the 10k cutoff for cash withdrawals or the alternative minimum tax threshold are not indexed to inflation?
Do the lawmakers not understand “planned obsolence” as it applies to the federal reserve notes?
The defined benefit public sector teacher pensions of those full career (33 – 35 years worked) teachers are worth easily a million and often multi millions.
Administrators more.
Many retire with less years worked.
University professors and administrators same story.
Judges and legislators more lucrative.
State workers get Social Security and pension so combined same story.
IMRF less lucrative and depending on salary same story.
Fire and Police as good or better than teachers.
Plenty of public sector millionaires with the payout in pension and typically very generous retirement plans taxpayer subsidized.
Most earn lifetime employee contributions back in first 1 -2 years of retirement.
Many retired public sector workers continue working in retirement.
As for sexual misconduct by educators not nearly enough is being done.
There were over 800 cases last year in the United States and that is not all the cases just those some guy found.
The Catholic Church has much better training for children than the public schools in this area.
Maybe this Hastert case will spur much needed improvements.
Amongst the worst is passing the trash where the school knows or suspects misconduct but allows the educator to resign.
There have been some small reforms but not nearly enough.
Most school boards can and do destroy their records after a few years and so all sorts of records about educator misconduct have been destroyed.
LOL: He was “structuring”, i.e.: withdrawing less than $10K per transaction.
The bank was required to report a pattern of withdrawals that it deemed to be a part of a pattern to avoid the $10K threshold.
These reporting laws are part and parcel of the civil forfeiture statutes, and are the trigger mechanisms by which these statutes are invoked.
The burden of showing that the withdrawals were not improper is not on the bank or the prosecutor, it’s on the person making making the withdrawal.
That’s entirely inappropriate.
If there’s a suspicion that the withdrawals, either over or under $10K are for a purpose for which the civil forfeiture provisions would apply, the burden should be on those who would allege the illegality.
Steve, since when does illegality matter to the all
mighty and powerful government – at any level ?
Not when it comes to ” confiscating ” your property (your money).
Apparently you and others have yet to take notice that we are, and have been, living in a Socialist country for over 100 years.
Think 16th Amendment …
Passing the trash certainly happened in Crystal Lake Grade School District 47.
Back in the 1970’s, I believe.
Can’t remember the name of the sex abuser who was principal at Lundahl.
When he came back from Iowa, he was prosecuted.
Cal, the principal at Lundahl was Virgil Laughlin.
One of the victims came back and testified against him.
He was later found dead in his apartment, natural causes they said.
How many votes are being influenced by past and current behavior(s) not known by the general public?
We have a new Hastert Rule.
Is it being applied frequently in D.C.?
Springfield?
McHenry County?
Does this explain the behavior of Boehner?
McConnell?
Questioning What Rule is the Hastert Rule?
How does it read.
Which he?
Laughlin or his victim?
Steve Reick – You are EXACTLY right on this in so many ways.
Laughlin went to Jail, it was his victim found.
I guess you would have to go back to Lundahl to see all the people that Virgil hired.
Birds of a Feather.
The Los Angeles Times reporters in Washington DC have been updating the story.
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert accused of hiding sex abuse of former student
By Richard A. Serrano and Katherine Skiba
Times staff writer Timothy M. Phelps in Washington contributed to this report.
Hastert became a lobbyist right after retiring from Congress and if he wasn’t guilty he would not have resigned his lobbying job or paid that much.
I think this is the tip of the iceberg and many more will come out throughout his career.
The pathetic thing is he was sold as a replacement to Gingrich who was cheating on his crippled second wife and who was supposed to be replaced by Bob Livingston another republican who also had a sex scandal and they sold Hastert as squeaky clean.
The house controlled by Republicans condemned and impeached Clinton who had sex with an adult intern but were hypocrites in their own lives and then run on Christian values and family values.
Questioning the republicans constantly use the Hastert rule and that is one reason congress and the country is so corrupt along with both sides voting party lines instead of representing the people.
The supreme court in Citizens United said money is free speech but the dirty dealings of K street and revolving door from congress to lobbyist will shake those who have their eyes closed open them.
Don’t vote republican or democrat vote for someone who will vote the way you want.
Karma and to all those who comment on this Blog.
A must read for all of you is “The Franklin Cover-Up by John W. DeCamp.
I think Hastert had his own cover-up for a long time.
I looked at the book info on Amazon and I think after the president alluded to in that book more of the details will be released.
Karma, John DeCamp was told to write the book, in order to stay alive.
He was told by the Head of the CIA back then to write a book.
Later the Head of the CIA was found dead, of course it was said it was an accident.
I believe his name was William Colby.
It is hard to remember all of this, but it is in the book.
Should the name of the blackmailer be revealed?
More will come out, ya think these politicians would have learned ya can’t hide anymore as sooner or later it will come out.
So far it appears to have cost Dennis some big bucks, maybe that is the best penalty that could of happened!
Maybe he should lose his state pension, and fed pension also, and no more lobbying anywhere.
Jail seems like a waste at this point as our $$$$ have to house and feed the dude.
Time will tell, and I’m sure the media will have a field day with this also.
The indictment is for “structuring”, or withdrawing money from banks in a way to avoid reporting requirements, not for the underlying reason for which he withdrew the money.
I heard an interview yesterday with Alan Dershowitz, who said that this looks like a case of prosecutorial overreach.
The intent of the structuring laws is to bring to light instances of illegal activities, such as money laundering or tax evasion.
Hastert was by all appearances being extorted, he was using his own money to pay an extortionist, which is not illegal.
It’s stupid, but it’s not illegal.
The issue of what gave rise to the extortion (if such is the case) is an entirely different issue and not part of the indictment.
No doubt it will come out, but the issue of whether Hastert is open to prosecution on that is outside the scope of this indictment.
Dershowitz thinks there’s less than a 50-50 chance that Hastert is convicted.
If he did whatever he was allegedly trying to conceal, I have no sympathy for him, but the indictment is about an entirely different matter altogether.
I think more people who were abused will come out after this indictment.
We also don’t know how long this abuse went on.
Child abusers do not just stop and become outstanding citizens.
Steve, if Hastert just gave the money to the person it wouldn’t be a crime but the cover up lie is what gets everyone and lying to the FBI is serious so don’t whitewash this.
Unless the law regarding Currency Transaction Reports and Structuring specifically state that the act applies ONLY to funds transferred or withdrawn for illegal purposes, this seems a slam dunk regardless of what Dershowitz says.
They seem (and that’s the beauty of “paper crimes”) to be able to show a clear course of conduct until such time as the bank questions Hastert on his practices at which point he changes course and immediately continues to withdraw, in cash, sums of money falling just below the CTR reporting transactions.
That will be enough to establish intent to circumvent the law and if there is no requirement that the withdrawals are related to some other illegal act by the withdrawer, he’s cooked!
As for lying to the FBI, he should have just kept his yap shut.
Unless he can roll into court with a box containing $1.7M (or whatever) and convince the court he’s had it under his bed all this time, that lie to the FBI will stick.
I’m not trying to whitewash anything, and I made it plain that if Hastert did what it’s rumored that he did, he deserves what he gets.
But the FBI questioning would not have occurred absent the reporting by the bank under civil forfeiture rules that can and increasingly are being used to harass innocent people.
See:
https://youtu.be/uGtFWC-12-w
Hastert’s life and reputation are shot, and again, if he had sex with a student, he deserves it.
But we have plenty of reason to focus on the potential abuse contained in the indictment.
Are you willing to say that anything that comes to light during an investigation that’s part of an instance of prosecutorial overreach should be made public?
Watch what you wish for, your ox may be the next one that’s gored.
To LOL’s point, from the Internal Revenue Manual:
9.7.2.3 (05-14-2012)
Civilly Forfeitable Property
All civil forfeiture statutes presently in effect are in rem statutes in which the property itself, not the owner of the property, is accused of wrongdoing. For that reason, only property that was actually used to commit, or was derived from, an offense, or property traceable to it, is subject to forfeiture.
The property itself is the subject of civil forfeiture, and thus must have originated from an illegal act. Unless Hastert’s money was illegally obtained within the meaning of the statute, his withdrawal for legal purposes (and again, paying an extortionist is not a Federal crime)should not have triggered the statute.
His mistake was to not tell the FBI he was being extorted, if in fact that’s the case, or, as you said, keep his yap shut. But if the FBI investigation came as a result of the overreach, they had no business asking him the question in the first place.
Someone please explain the math of how an ex Teacher/State Rep, comes up with a slush fund of $3.5 M for payoffs?
Or is there that much mark up, in a sit down chicken dinner?
I’m tired of hearing about these political gadfly’s with net worth’s, in the millions.
Anyone know Senator Dick Durbin’s net worth?
How about Mark Kirk’s?
I never ever liked Hasert.
I am not surprised by any of the accusations.
Many years ago we had heard of a bit of this being thrown around in his district but when nothing came of it we thought it was rumor.
I think many many people have known about the accusations for a long time so i hope they get called out too.
As they should.
Steve, why are we talking civil forfeiture?
The point was that AFAIK the Currency Transaction Report applies to ANY transaction where $10,000 or more in cash is involved.
It doesn’t matter if it’s being used to buy heroin, a new car for your graduating senior or to donate to your church or synagogue.
If you withdraw $10K in CASH, you fill out the form.
Seems pretty clear to me.
While there are a number of exemptions to the act, it doesn’t appear that any would have been available to Hastert.
What am I missing?
I feel schadenfreude.
US lawmakers keep adding rules to the books, with mostly good intentions.
I can’t but chuckle when they get ensnared themselves in the rules that they wrote.
The latest grande idea that I have and that will of course never happen is this: an anti-congress.
An entity whose only job is to vote on what laws to remove from the books.
And why is it that things such as the 10k cutoff for cash withdrawals or the alternative minimum tax threshold are not indexed to inflation?
Do the lawmakers not understand “planned obsolence” as it applies to the federal reserve notes?
The defined benefit public sector teacher pensions of those full career (33 – 35 years worked) teachers are worth easily a million and often multi millions.
Administrators more.
Many retire with less years worked.
University professors and administrators same story.
Judges and legislators more lucrative.
State workers get Social Security and pension so combined same story.
IMRF less lucrative and depending on salary same story.
Fire and Police as good or better than teachers.
Plenty of public sector millionaires with the payout in pension and typically very generous retirement plans taxpayer subsidized.
Most earn lifetime employee contributions back in first 1 -2 years of retirement.
Many retired public sector workers continue working in retirement.
As for sexual misconduct by educators not nearly enough is being done.
There were over 800 cases last year in the United States and that is not all the cases just those some guy found.
The Catholic Church has much better training for children than the public schools in this area.
Maybe this Hastert case will spur much needed improvements.
Amongst the worst is passing the trash where the school knows or suspects misconduct but allows the educator to resign.
There have been some small reforms but not nearly enough.
Most school boards can and do destroy their records after a few years and so all sorts of records about educator misconduct have been destroyed.
LOL: He was “structuring”, i.e.: withdrawing less than $10K per transaction.
The bank was required to report a pattern of withdrawals that it deemed to be a part of a pattern to avoid the $10K threshold.
These reporting laws are part and parcel of the civil forfeiture statutes, and are the trigger mechanisms by which these statutes are invoked.
The burden of showing that the withdrawals were not improper is not on the bank or the prosecutor, it’s on the person making making the withdrawal.
That’s entirely inappropriate.
If there’s a suspicion that the withdrawals, either over or under $10K are for a purpose for which the civil forfeiture provisions would apply, the burden should be on those who would allege the illegality.
Steve, since when does illegality matter to the all
mighty and powerful government – at any level ?
Not when it comes to ” confiscating ” your property (your money).
Apparently you and others have yet to take notice that we are, and have been, living in a Socialist country for over 100 years.
Think 16th Amendment …
Passing the trash certainly happened in Crystal Lake Grade School District 47.
Back in the 1970’s, I believe.
Can’t remember the name of the sex abuser who was principal at Lundahl.
When he came back from Iowa, he was prosecuted.
Cal, the principal at Lundahl was Virgil Laughlin.
One of the victims came back and testified against him.
He was later found dead in his apartment, natural causes they said.
How many votes are being influenced by past and current behavior(s) not known by the general public?
We have a new Hastert Rule.
Is it being applied frequently in D.C.?
Springfield?
McHenry County?
Does this explain the behavior of Boehner?
McConnell?
Questioning What Rule is the Hastert Rule?
How does it read.
Which he?
Laughlin or his victim?
Steve Reick – You are EXACTLY right on this in so many ways.
Laughlin went to Jail, it was his victim found.
I guess you would have to go back to Lundahl to see all the people that Virgil hired.
Birds of a Feather.
The Los Angeles Times reporters in Washington DC have been updating the story.
Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert accused of hiding sex abuse of former student
By Richard A. Serrano and Katherine Skiba
Times staff writer Timothy M. Phelps in Washington contributed to this report.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html
New York Times
Hastert Case Is Said to Be Linked to Decades-Old Sexual Abuse
By Michael D. Shear and Michael S. Schmidt
May 29, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/politics/hastert-indictment.html?_r=0&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Politics&action=keypress®ion=FixedLeft&pgtype=article
Hastert became a lobbyist right after retiring from Congress and if he wasn’t guilty he would not have resigned his lobbying job or paid that much.
I think this is the tip of the iceberg and many more will come out throughout his career.
The pathetic thing is he was sold as a replacement to Gingrich who was cheating on his crippled second wife and who was supposed to be replaced by Bob Livingston another republican who also had a sex scandal and they sold Hastert as squeaky clean.
The house controlled by Republicans condemned and impeached Clinton who had sex with an adult intern but were hypocrites in their own lives and then run on Christian values and family values.
Questioning the republicans constantly use the Hastert rule and that is one reason congress and the country is so corrupt along with both sides voting party lines instead of representing the people.
The supreme court in Citizens United said money is free speech but the dirty dealings of K street and revolving door from congress to lobbyist will shake those who have their eyes closed open them.
Don’t vote republican or democrat vote for someone who will vote the way you want.
Karma and to all those who comment on this Blog.
A must read for all of you is “The Franklin Cover-Up by John W. DeCamp.
I think Hastert had his own cover-up for a long time.
I looked at the book info on Amazon and I think after the president alluded to in that book more of the details will be released.
Karma, John DeCamp was told to write the book, in order to stay alive.
He was told by the Head of the CIA back then to write a book.
Later the Head of the CIA was found dead, of course it was said it was an accident.
I believe his name was William Colby.
It is hard to remember all of this, but it is in the book.