Dennis Hastert indicted.

[shemp]

However, it was a law he passed. Which has it's own special humor to it, don't you think?

If he had simply kept withdrawing at $50,000 a month rather than splitting the withdrawals into $10,000 increments to avoid the reporting requirements, he would only have to admit that he was giving it to somebody else to settle a private matter, and there would have been no criminal charges.

But he took an action to evade the law, a law he himself passed, and which he understood the consequences of, and then he lied to federal agents and as somebody who helped impeach Bill Clinton for lying under oath, he also knew he shouldn't be doing that, either.

Oh sweet irony. Though it's very unlikely to happen, he can spend the rest of his life in prison for all I care.

 

[Arcade22]

Even in europe in many country the age of consent is lower than legal age , baring a power relationship like teacher/puppil.

Example denmark, where a teacher cannot have sex with their under 18 pupil EVEN if the age of consent is 15. There are similar exception as far as I know in Sweden, germany , France, those bastion of sexual repression as we all know.

Then comes a really important but generally unstated distinction when people discuss cases like this: is it "sexually abusive" because it's illegal or is it illegal because it is "sexually abusive"?

What he did may have been illegal and even abusive yet a lot of people, both in this thread and elsewhere, seem to treat it as abusive a prior only because what he did seems to be illegal rather than making that assessment based on the actual circumstances. In fact due to how little actual information has been revealed about his alleged "sexual misconduct" making such an determination seems completely impossible.

The same people would almost certainly have no calms about describing any gay sex as "a crime against nature and god" with a good conscience were it criminalized as such.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I agree and I never said he should get away with molesting students. However, he may get away with it due to statutes of limitations.

What's the statute of limitations for blackmail, though? The other guy might or might not be a victim of one thing, but that doesn't mean he's not the villain of another thing.

 

[Arcade22]

What a messy law! This bit: "and uses his or her position of trust or authority over the victim to engage in sexual contact" is critical. It leaves open the possibility that the "culprit" is in the "position of trust or authority" but didn't use that position to engage in sex. The prosecution would have to prove that the teacher used his position, not that he merely occupied that position.

That's the way the equivalent Swedish law is worded and interpreted which is to say that a teacher having sex with their student isn't enough to convict them, they had to exploit the fact that they were in a position of dependence to make them endure or partake in a sexual act. For example by pressuring them or threatening them explicitly or implicitly.

The Swedish law isn't specific to schools and applies to all forms of "positions of dependence" and "position of authority" such as doctors, nurses, psychiatrists and their patients or employers and employees.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

What's the statute of limitations for blackmail, though? The other guy might or might not be a victim of one thing, but that doesn't mean he's not the villain of another thing.

Agreed- the blackmailer is in a heap of trouble, I think.
What happens to Hastert remains to be seen but charges for molestation won't be on the list.

 

[shemp]

Agreed- the blackmailer is in a heap of trouble, I think.
What happens to Hastert remains to be seen but charges for molestation won't be on the list.

Prediction: Hastert gets a slap on the wrist, blackmailer gets ten years.

 

[Ladewig]

Prediction: Hastert gets a slap on the wrist, blackmailer gets ten years.

I wonder if Hastert will have the balls to sue the blackmailer in an attempt to get some of the money back?

 

[Aepervius]

Then comes a really important but generally unstated distinction when people discuss cases like this: is it "sexually abusive" because it's illegal or is it illegal because it is "sexually abusive"?

What he did may have been illegal and even abusive yet a lot of people, both in this thread and elsewhere, seem to treat it as abusive a prior only because what he did seems to be illegal rather than making that assessment based on the actual circumstances. In fact due to how little actual information has been revealed about his alleged "sexual misconduct" making such an determination seems completely impossible.

The same people would almost certainly have no calms about describing any gay sex as "a crime against nature and god" with a good conscience were it criminalized as such.

*shrug*. I would not criminalizing any gay sex or other sex or whatever between adult and 15-18 year old because there are good indication that a teenager that age is able to to have a normal sexual life with an adult, that is why we have consent law. But at the same time, it is very blind to NOT recognize that a teacher has an incredible position of power over a puppil. That is why the exception in case an adult has a position of guardianship or power over a teenager.

As for this specific case : it was almost certainly illegal, he is a politician, he should be held to higher standard than your average person, in integrity. He did not hold to those standard, was being blackmailed and paying. That would be a good reason to indict him for me.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is probably the one and only time I'm going to agree with Elf Grinder. His point (which you seem to have missed) is that, regardless of anything else going on here, THE GODDAMN U.S. GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHT TO REQUIRE YOU TO REPORT YOUR BANK WITHDRAWALS. On this point alone, the law is an ass.

And yet I wonder if he thinks terrorists moving money around would be a legitimate reason to snoop? In addition, Hastert's behavior was likely criminal were it not for the statute of limitations. So the bank snooping does uncover criminal behavior.

Curious if Elf Grinder thinks the same about the NSA and whether Snowden was a hero or a traitor?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Agreed- the blackmailer is in a heap of trouble, I think.
What happens to Hastert remains to be seen but charges for molestation won't be on the list.

Rumor has it the feds are unlikely to pursue a sexual abuse victim for this lind of blackmail. And I doubt there will be a public outcry for prosecution.

 

[hgc]

And yet I wonder if he thinks terrorists moving money around would be a legitimate reason to snoop? In addition, Hastert's behavior was likely criminal were it not for the statute of limitations. So the bank snooping does uncover criminal behavior.

Curious if Elf Grinder thinks the same about the NSA and whether Snowden was a hero or a traitor?

In a similar vein, terrorists keeping hordes of money in their homes would be a legitimate reason for the authorities to snoop around all our houses? After all, there is likely criminal behavior lurking out there, within or without statutes of limitation.

 

[Trakar]

The same people would almost certainly have no calms about describing any gay sex as "a crime against nature and god" with a good conscience were it criminalized as such.

What is the compelling evidence you use to support this assertion?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

In a similar vein, terrorists keeping hordes of money in their homes would be a legitimate reason for the authorities to snoop around all our houses? After all, there is likely criminal behavior lurking out there, within or without statutes of limitation.

That wasn't my point. Inconsistency (aka hypocrisy) was my point. But it appears the Elf cannot answer for 2 weeks.

 

[fuelair]

Then comes a really important but generally unstated distinction when people discuss cases like this: is it "sexually abusive" because it's illegal or is it illegal because it is "sexually abusive"?

What he did may have been illegal and even abusive yet a lot of people, both in this thread and elsewhere, seem to treat it as abusive a prior only because what he did seems to be illegal rather than making that assessment based on the actual circumstances. In fact due to how little actual information has been revealed about his alleged "sexual misconduct" making such an determination seems completely impossible.

The same people would almost certainly have no calms about describing any gay sex as "a crime against nature and god" with a good conscience were it criminalized as such.

I have much calms about it. Are you perhaps thinking of qualms? Sounds similar but does not mean the same...........

 

[fuelair]

That wasn't my point. Inconsistency (aka hypocrisy) was my point. But it appears the Elf cannot answer for 2 weeks.

Is not this his second exasperation?

 

[BenBurch]

Is not this his second exasperation?

Yes, hence the length.

 

[stevea]

I don't know why they fear the "over $10,000" form so much.

Here it is, with the instructions: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8300.pdf

Because it creates a traceable record of the (unlawful in this case) transaction - duh ? Shoulda used bitcoin.

Oddly that req and $10k limit was created in 1970, when a new new Porche 911s cost <$10k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Secrecy_Act

Clearly any police state would prefer that all transactions are fully recorded to provide the state with evidence.

 

[shemp]

And yet I wonder if he thinks terrorists moving money around would be a legitimate reason to snoop? In addition, Hastert's behavior was likely criminal were it not for the statute of limitations. So the bank snooping does uncover criminal behavior.

Curious if Elf Grinder thinks the same about the NSA and whether Snowden was a hero or a traitor?

If the government has a LEGITIMATE reason to look into your banking, then that's different. People who have no reason to be under suspicion should not have to report banking transactions.

 

[Trakar]

Is not this his second exasperation?

three in one month

 

[stevea]

And yet I wonder if he thinks terrorists moving money around would be a legitimate reason to snoop? In addition, Hastert's behavior was likely criminal were it not for the statute of limitations. So the bank snooping does uncover criminal behavior.

Curious if Elf Grinder thinks the same about the NSA and whether Snowden was a hero or a traitor?

I wouldn't attempt to speak for Elf' on a bet.

Clearly our government is not permitted to perform such searches, except by warrants issued based on probable cause. Your exaggerated, unrealistic fears of terrorism cause you to prefer a police state to a republic with a functional 4th amendment.

If one views warrantless bulk info collection of data on the entire citizenry as a valid function of government - IOW if you support a police state that would make a soviet era E.German state proud - then he's a criminal; otherwise a selfless whistle-blower. I don't view our police state as favorably as you seem to.

Rumor has it the feds are unlikely to pursue a sexual abuse victim for this lind of blackmail. And I doubt there will be a public outcry for prosecution.

Where do you get your rumors ? You are suggesting that certain cases of blackmail are now acceptable and not prosecutable - and that's vile.

That would be a rather odd & sad decision (but this "justice" department is quite odd & sad). If blackmailing a politician, whilst leaving a trail of clear evidence, isn't an actionable offense, then there is little hope for the republic. The fact that one has a valid reason to feel harmed and feel antipathy can never justify such criminality. It might weigh in at the sentencing phase.