Denny Hastert indicted

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I'm still confused as to why he's being indicted for giving in to blackmail. Lying to federal officials?

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm still confused as to why he's being indicted for giving in to blackmail. Lying to federal officials?

He used his power to do real harm to boys.

Identify the blackmailer too.  He got his just compensation in full.  

[pbrower2a]

The misconduct was sexual abuse, per LAT.

Definitely not political.

[Ebsy]

So, the guy that followed Newt Gingrich was just as morally bankrupt. Say it ain't so.

[CountryClassSF]

So, the guy that followed Newt Gingrich was just as morally bankrupt. Say it ain't so.

Gingrich made mistakes, but he didn't abuse somebody.  Come on.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

This really shocks me. I'd never thought he'd be a pedo or corrupt.

[CountryClassSF]

The 109th was probably one of the most corrupt Congresses to ever convene

[BaconBacon96]

The misconduct was sexual abuse, per LAT.

Jesus Christ.

[The Mikado]

I'm still confused as to why he's being indicted for giving in to blackmail. Lying to federal officials?

He wasn't indicted for giving into blackmail. He was indicted for repeatedly making withdrawals from his bank account of slightly under $10,000. If you withdraw >$10,000 the bank makes a statement to the government. Hastert tried to avoid that by repeatedly withdrawing amounts just under that. Making multiple <$10,000 withdrawals to avoid the statement is a money laundering offense usually used to prosecute drug dealers, mafia people, etc.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

I'm still confused as to why he's being indicted for giving in to blackmail. Lying to federal officials?

He wasn't indicted for giving into blackmail. He was indicted for repeatedly making withdrawals from his bank account of slightly under $10,000. If you withdraw >$10,000 the bank makes a statement to the government. Hastert tried to avoid that by repeatedly withdrawing amounts just under that. Making multiple <$10,000 withdrawals to avoid the statement is a money laundering offense usually used to prosecute drug dealers, mafia people, etc.

That's a horrendous law. Just set the limit lower if it's that much of a concern rather than prosecute a guy like this.

He should've just gone all in - one shot. Too bad. Not gonna be too upset over this considering the original issue at hand even if it was many years ago. Still concerning to see the government acting like this.

[CountryClassSF]

Yes, structuring law needs serious reform. If it's an extortion case, for example, why does it appear (not referring solely to this case) that the victim faces more legal ramifications than the blackmailer?

[Beet]

Well this puts the Mark Foley scandal in a new light.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Disgusting.  And this sicko was once the Speaker of the House, the legislative body that writes laws for the rest of us.  And his district kept voting for him because he had seniority and brought the bacon home.  What a sick country...

[CountryClassSF]

Our founders never intended to have a permanent political class. But we'll never get reasonable term limits in place unless we have a constitutional convention

[Badger]

Our founders never intended to have a permanent political class. But we'll never get reasonable term limits in place unless we have a constitutional convention

Yes, "term limits " is obviously the lesson to draw here.

[CountryClassSF]

Our founders never intended to have a permanent political class. But we'll never get reasonable term limits in place unless we have a constitutional convention

Yes, "term limits " is obviously the lesson to draw here.

I was responding to the post about people continuously being re elected despite corruption, Badger.

[The Mikado]

Our founders never intended to have a permanent political class. But we'll never get reasonable term limits in place unless we have a constitutional convention

The states that have term limits have shown that all they do is result in musical chairs politicians who hold onto one office and then bounce into another one. (California is the guiding example here)

[Obama-Biden Democrat]

The party of family values.

[CountryClassSF]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

100% true for states like this one especially with statewide offices. But if we were able to constitutionally impose term limits on members of Congress, it would have more of an effect in the sense that there are only two Houses of Congress. Once they've served out whatever allotted term they are permitted to have in both Houses, their congressional career would then be over.

[Torie]

Our founders never intended to have a permanent political class. But we'll never get reasonable term limits in place unless we have a constitutional convention

Yes, "term limits " is obviously the lesson to draw here.

I was responding to the post about people continuously being re elected despite corruption, Badger.

Isn't term limits an inherently undemocratic concept, denying folks of the right to vote for whom they wish?  Most politicians who are known to be corrupt don't last too long anyway. The idea to have term limits so those who are corrupt, but it is hidden, can't stay too long, strikes me as nutter. In fact, short terms might encourage more corruption, since there is less time to feather one's nest. Totally nutter to me.

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm still confused as to why he's being indicted for giving in to blackmail. Lying to federal officials?

He wasn't indicted for giving into blackmail. He was indicted for repeatedly making withdrawals from his bank account of slightly under $10,000. If you withdraw >$10,000 the bank makes a statement to the government. Hastert tried to avoid that by repeatedly withdrawing amounts just under that. Making multiple <$10,000 withdrawals to avoid the statement is a money laundering offense usually used to prosecute drug dealers, mafia people, etc.

That's a horrendous law. Just set the limit lower if it's that much of a concern rather than prosecute a guy like this.

He should've just gone all in - one shot. Too bad. Not gonna be too upset over this considering the original issue at hand even if it was many years ago. Still concerning to see the government acting like this.

How exactly is it a horrendous law if it worked exactly the way it was supposed to?

[CountryClassSF]

How exactly is it a horrendous law if it worked exactly the way it was supposed to?

It doesn't always. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/26/us/law-lets-irs-seize-accounts-on-suspicion-no-crime-required.html

[The Mikado]

I'm still confused as to why he's being indicted for giving in to blackmail. Lying to federal officials?

He wasn't indicted for giving into blackmail. He was indicted for repeatedly making withdrawals from his bank account of slightly under $10,000. If you withdraw >$10,000 the bank makes a statement to the government. Hastert tried to avoid that by repeatedly withdrawing amounts just under that. Making multiple <$10,000 withdrawals to avoid the statement is a money laundering offense usually used to prosecute drug dealers, mafia people, etc.

That's a horrendous law. Just set the limit lower if it's that much of a concern rather than prosecute a guy like this.

He should've just gone all in - one shot. Too bad. Not gonna be too upset over this considering the original issue at hand even if it was many years ago. Still concerning to see the government acting like this.

I don't really see what's wrong with the law as it is now. If you're actively repeatedly withdrawing, say, $9,900 to avoid the automatic report filed at $10,000, you're...actively avoiding a report. That's inherently suspicious behavior.

Presumably, while his bank would've given him a call about it, in the long run no one would've cared if Hastert just withdrew a quarter million or whatever in one lump sum and fed some cock-and-bull story to the bank about what it was for. Acting like you're avoiding the attention of law enforcement...draws the attention of law enforcement.

In any case, regardless of what happened in 1970, on this charge alone the government can send Hastert to federal prison.

[CountryClassSF]

 But do you think, in general, if someone is being extorted by an individual, that the person 'structuring' should receive a higher penalty than the blackmailer who is demanding payment?

[The Mikado]

But do you think, in general, if someone is being extorted by an individual, that the person 'structuring' should receive a higher penalty than the blackmailer who is demanding payment?

Probably not. It would be a shame in this case if this unknown individual gets off scot-free with his 3.5 million dollars of hush money, for example.