• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dennis Hastert indicted.

This joke by Bush at the Radio and TV Correspondents Dinner has taken on new meaning. I wonder if there was some inside knowledge at the time:

 
TragicMonkey said:
Come to think of it, even if you were the victim you could be guilty of concealing a crime if you take payment in exchange for silence, couldn't you?
Click to expand...

I doubt if the victim even sought payment before the perp attained a high enough level of success that the revelation of past wrongs was worth paying to hush, but I don't think I've ever heard of the police prosecuting someone for not reporting a crime committed against them. If so, there are apparently a lot of rape victims (male and female according to the surveys) who need to be on their guard!
 
It occurs to me that Hastert probably could have set up a contract with the victim/blackmailer/whatever for unspecified "personal services", paid by check, and been perfectly legal. Of course, the other party would have had to pay income tax.

And how come the other party hasn't also been charged with currency violations?
 
BenBurch said:
He committed no crime that I can see.
Click to expand...

Blackmail?

ETA:
Sources knowledgeable of the case told ABC News Hastert was paying a man hundreds of thousands of dollars to hide that Hastert had engaged in sexual misconduct with him
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if the FBI was using the man to get to Hastert - or if they are using Hastert to get the man.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
Blackmail?
Click to expand...


As I said above, if the man asked for the money to keep from suing Hastert (as opposed to threatening harm through fear of release of information), then perfectly legal under Federal law. What was said by whom is important to know before saying it looks like crime was committed. I would bet that tax fraud prosecution might be more salient for the other party.
 
hgc said:
As I said above, if the man asked for the money to keep from suing Hastert (as opposed to threatening harm through fear of release of information), then perfectly legal under Federal law. What was said by whom is important to know before saying it looks like crime was committed. I would bet that tax fraud prosecution might be more salient for the other party.
Click to expand...

Unless he reported it and paid taxes on it. It may have been an IRS audit that let the FBI know that they needed to watch Hastert.
 
Last edited:
Trakar said:
Unless he reported it and paid taxes on it. It may have been an IRS audit that let the FBI know that they needed to watch Hastert.
Click to expand...


Except that the first thing we learned about this story a few days ago was that it was the bank reporting a pattern of apparently structured withdrawals by Hastert that caused the investigation. So, no.
 
Trebuchet said:
In addition to what others have said, if it's illegal to "structure" withdrawls to just under the reporting limit, why isn't illegal to be on the receiving end of those?
Click to expand...

There is no associated system to monitor deposits, and it seems logical and reasonable that there shouldn't be. Money deposited in a bank isn't in the individual's possession and an easily obtainable, on suspicion of criminal activity, court order can freeze accounts so that the individual has no access to his monies.
 
hgc said:
Except that the first thing we learned about this story a few days ago was that it was the bank reporting a pattern of apparently structured withdrawals by Hastert that caused the investigation. So, no.
Click to expand...

That means that the warning didn't come from IRS, it doesn't mean the individual didn't process his payments legally and legitimately, to include being in full compliance with taxes on those funds.
 
hgc said:
I would bet that tax fraud prosecution might be more salient for the other party.
Click to expand...

I don't think the receiver is required to report gifts - I could be wrong but that burden is on Hastert, not him, and will affect only what Hastert can leave tax-free to heirs.

ETA: Assuming Hastert paid hush money, and the allegations are true, I'm not sure which person I think is sleazier. By default I would say Hastert, even if the other party was 18, because coach in a position of respect etc. But if someone who was silent begins a reign of terror 30 years after the fact ... to get rich ... and so on ... that person doesn't come off very well either.
 
Last edited:
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
The interesting point is Mr Hastert has not been charged with a sexual relationship between Teacher Student. He was charged with structuring withdrawals from his bank and lying about it.

His actual crime is not something that should even be prosecuted in a free country.

This is 1984 tactics by the government

They do the same thing with Mom and Pop businesses that withdraw money and get charged. They can't have access to their own money and are forced to prove that they committed no crime. Its asset forfeiture and its not right.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone would want a politician being weakened by blackmail. Leads to all kinds of problems.
 
Trakar said:
That means that the warning didn't come from IRS, it doesn't mean the individual didn't process his payments legally and legitimately, to include being in full compliance with taxes on those funds.
Click to expand...

If the funds where a gift for tax purposes, then the receiver is not generally required to pay the tax, but the giver. At least by the IRS website I linked to earlier.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
If the funds where a gift for tax purposes, then the receiver is not generally required to pay the tax, but the giver. At least by the IRS website I linked to earlier.
Click to expand...


Yes, intriguing. One way or another, if you move that kind of money around, the IRS wants its cut from somebody. They may be sending one or the other party a bill for back taxes, and not necessarily pressing charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom