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?

[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.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

So let us suppose that some conservative politician has a black great-grandmother that he wants to keep hidden because his campaign is based on barely-concealed themes of racial animus. A descendant of the brother of the great-grandmother threatens to disclose the birth certificate of the pol's great grandmother that has the letter "N" under "race"... and some unaltered photographs of what he presents as some "Cherokee princess"* that he waxes rhapsodical about. The blackmailer asks for $20K every year, and the pol sends amounts of $9.8K twice a year as cashier's checks from the bank and another $400 as a money order paid for in cash.

The blackmailer gets greedier, demanding $25K, and the pol then sends cashier checks for $12K and a money order for $1000... not recognizing that the amount for which the Feds look is not adjusted for inflation. The pol gets caught.

The Feds see the blackmail as a worse crime than the payoff, and give the pol a deal -- testify against the blackmailer in a federal court for tax fraud or money laundering even if such implies having to admit to failing the one-drop rule. Having to admit that he is one-eighth black is far better than ending up with some tough black guys who dealt drugs or robbed banks who now reside in a federal penitentiary.

*The Cherokee had no nobility, so the story of his grandmother's origin is a sham. 

This is the most dangerous view I've seen on Atlas and just recently, many expressed support for killing a baby because of who its parents were. Charging victims with crimes just to get them to testify is the absolute greatest wrong happening in the developed world at the moment even in cases where it is done to get justice.

Lying to the Feds is probably necessary too. The less people who known undesirable facts the better. He obviously deemed the money less important than the public's lack of knowledge regarding such events. Using a new crime where an individual is a victim (or perhaps not even necessarily a victim but just broadly defined "crimes" in general) to prosecute a crime where the statute of limitations has passed is also a very dangerous precedent (though this is obviously not the first time it's happened, so perhaps simply a dangerous practice).

The first paragraph is also unbelievably absurd. Start living in the 21st century please.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

The scenario is fiction. I was trying to reverse a scenario into one in which the blackmailed person was blackmailed for something not a crime. Having a black ancestor and hiding such for political reasons is no crime. Was it a perfect scenario? Of course not -- but one involving a combination of innocence but an understandable deceit.

The Feds take tax evasion and money-laundering seriously.  Someone living high on the hog without being able to explain how is probably cheating on taxes or (in some cases) the welfare system.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There was no excuse back then for a teacher having a sexual relationship of any kind with a student. See also Mary K. LeTourneau -- let alone Pamela Smart (who got her male underage lover to kill her husband -- for which she is in prison for life). Having been a substitute school teacher I recognize the potential to steer someone underage into an exploitative and illicit relationship that can badly hurt the child -- and can rightly cause me to do a very long stint in the state prison. It is enough for me to recognize that everything about such behavior is a disaster for everyone involved.  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not as absurd as the idea that someone who eventually became Speaker of the House could have had a sexual relationship with a student while a teacher -- a betrayal of his profession and his relationship with a student.

Oh, by the way -- the alleged abuse of a youth was done in the 20th century.

Oh my gosh!!! When did I ever excuse the misconduct?! Please tell me. You are either insane or simply not reading what I am writing. We are talking about the 21st century!! This indictment is over an event in the 21st century - starting 5 years ago - that involves this man withdrawing less than 10,000 from a bank account to avoid detection so that someone can blackmail him and the person blackmailing him doesn't get caught. That is a horrible law when it is used to go after a victim! This is not about what was done in the 70s or whenever. Your appetite to extract vengeance on people who commit a wrong is obscenely high. There is a statute of limitations for a reason. What he did was wrong. He is for some reason paying for it 40 years later because he paid for it not to be leaked. There is nothing wrong with what he did. If he withdrew and paid all at once, he would be fine now.