Former Speaker Denny Hastert Indicted

[dellinger63]

Wow $3.5 million payoff for wrongdoings done to individual A? Me thinks the 'wrongs' must be a hell of a lot worse than structuring withdrawals to avoid IRS reporting. Please Denny, do tell!!

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/05/...deral-charges/

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Wow $3.5 million payoff for wrongdoings done to individual A? Me thinks the 'wrongs' must be a hell of a lot worse than structuring withdrawals to avoid IRS reporting. Please Denny, do tell!!

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2015/05/...deral-charges/

I think the whole point of paying $3.5 million was so no one would tell.

This article talks about blackmail and hints as to what the situation might be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...eeper-mystery/

Remember how Hastert became Speaker? Bob Livingstone was to be the new Speaker and then Larry Flynt, who had offered a million dollars to anyone with proof of GOP Congressional members who voted for impeachment having used their own, ahem, members, indiscriminately, let out that Livingston had cheated on his wife so Livingston had to resign.

Livingston might have been the lesser sinner...

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I think the whole point of paying $3.5 million was so no one would tell.

This article talks about blackmail and hints as to what the situation might be:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/m...eeper-mystery/

Remember how Hastert became Speaker? Bob Livingstone was to be the new Speaker and then Larry Flynt, who had offered a million dollars to anyone with proof of GOP Congressional members who voted for impeachment having used their own, ahem, members, indiscriminately, let out that Livingston had cheated on his wife so Livingston had to resign.

Livingston might have been the lesser sinner...

Locally they're suspecting 'the act' was while he was a teacher and wrestling coach since that was how the indictment outlining the history starts. Don't think cheating on a wife is worth $3.5 million. Just ask Bill Clinton.

The indictment also states individual A has known him most of his/her life which makes me suspect it was a high school student or wrestler or maybe even a family member, niece/nephew?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The indictment also states individual A has known him most of his/her life which makes me suspect it was a high school student or wrestler or maybe even a family member, niece/nephew?

Yeesh. Impressive he managed to keep it quiet for so many years. Makes me wonder if the Duggar lawyers were all, "We gotta find someone to take the media spotlight off Josh! Go!"

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Yeesh. Impressive he managed to keep it quiet for so many years. Makes me wonder if the Duggar lawyers were all, "We gotta find someone to take the media spotlight off Josh! Go!"

Read somewhere Josh had no part in either of his sisters weddings tho his wife and kids did. And good for them as some things are unforgivable to even the holiest of the holy's.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Yeesh. Impressive he managed to keep it quiet for so many years. Makes me wonder if the Duggar lawyers were all, "We gotta find someone to take the media spotlight off Josh! Go!"

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...lleged_in.html


Wow, irony:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...r_speaker.html

[dellinger63]

http://wgntv.com/2015/05/29/ex-house...t-sources-say/

Another pervert bites the dust. He should have been a priest.

[GenuineRisk]

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

Awesome looks like he's either grabbing ass or Bush knows what's up!


Too bad he's too old to get what's coming to him.

[geeker2]

I guess we are all guilty by association.....

[Rupert Pupkin]

This case is an absolute joke. He didn't do anything wrong. It sounds like he certainly did something wrong 35 years ago with regard to his student. I wouldn't defend him on that. But that is not what he is in trouble for. The statute of limitations has expired on that.

What he is in trouble for is that the bank got suspicious that he was making big withdrawals. It is no crime to make big withdrawals from your own bank account. When the bank questioned him about it, he decided to make more frequent, smaller withdrawals in order to avoid scrutiny. But if it appears to the bank that you are making smaller transactions to avoid scrutiny, they can report you to the feds. The whole purpose of these laws is to catch drug dealers, money launderers, and terrorists.

In this particular case, the bank reported Hastert's unusual banking activities to the feds. So the FBI called Hastert in and asked him why he was making all of these withdrawals. He obviously did not want to tell them that he was paying hush money to avoid an embarrassing scandal. So he just made something up about wanting to keep a lot of cash because he was worried about the banks. So now he is being charged with lying to the FBI. But the truth of the matter is that it was none of the FBI's business what the withdrawals were for. It would be their business if it involved something illegal such as drugs or money laundering. But since it had nothing to do with anything like that, it was really none of their business.

They are charging him with lying to the FBI and they are also charging him with making frequent, small withdrawals to avoid scrutiny. That is absurd. They have those laws so they can nail people who deposit small amounts of money to try to hide income and also to catch criminals who make smaller transactions to stay under the radar. Hastert was not trying to hide income and he was not trying to conceal criminal activity. The government is trying to nail Hastert on laws that are meant for something totally different. I think it is outrageous.

I'm not defending his behavior from 35 years ago. I wish they could prosecute him for that, but they can't because the statute of limitations has expired. It sounds like he definitely committed a crime 35 years ago. But what they are charging him with is a joke. It's not a crime to withdraw large amounts of money from your bank.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

This case is an absolute joke. He didn't do anything wrong. It sounds like he certainly did something wrong 35 years ago with regard to his student. I wouldn't defend him on that. But that is not what he is in trouble for. The statute of limitations has expired on that.

What he is in trouble for is that the bank got suspicious that he was making big withdrawals. It is no crime to make big withdrawals from your own bank account. When the bank questioned him about it, he decided to make more frequent, smaller withdrawals in order to avoid scrutiny. But if it appears to the bank that you are making smaller transactions to avoid scrutiny, they can report you to the feds. The whole purpose of these laws is to catch drug dealers, money launderers, and terrorists.

In this particular case, the bank reported Hastert's unusual banking activities to the feds. So the FBI called Hastert in and asked him why he was making all of these withdrawals. He obviously did not want to tell them that he was paying hush money to avoid an embarrassing scandal. So he just made something up about wanting to keep a lot of cash because he was worried about the banks. So now he is being charged with lying to the FBI. But the truth of the matter is that it was none of the FBI's business what the withdrawals were for. It would be their business if it involved something illegal such as drugs or money laundering. But since it had nothing to do with anything like that, it was really none of their business.

They are charging him with lying to the FBI and they are also charging him with making frequent, small withdrawals to avoid scrutiny. That is absurd. They have those laws so they can nail people who deposit small amounts of money to try to hide income and also to catch criminals who make smaller transactions to stay under the radar. Hastert was not trying to hide income and he was not trying to conceal criminal activity. The government is trying to nail Hastert on laws that are meant for something totally different. I think it is outrageous.

I'm not defending his behavior from 35 years ago. I wish they could prosecute him for that, but they can't because the statute of limitations has expired. It sounds like he definitely committed a crime 35 years ago. But what they are charging him with is a joke. It's not a crime to withdraw large amounts of money from your bank.

You are actually defending this guy in any way shape or form ? Shocking that you deem bribery to hush pedophilia acceptable. You may be the biggest fuking creep to ever post on Derby trail.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

You are actually defending this guy in any way shape or form ? Shocking that you deem bribery to hush pedophilia acceptable. You may be the biggest fuking creep to ever post on Derby trail.

Just to make it clear the victims and there are more than one, were varsity wrestlers so I think Chicken-Hawk rather than pedophiliac is the correct term.

Pedophilia is the attraction to pre-pubertal children with no gender preference. Apparently studies show one can not choose whether or not to be a pedophile but one can choose whether or not to be a child molester. Which makes about as much sense as a heterosexual or homosexual being able to choose whether or not to have sex.

This misunderstanding of pedophilia is a huge reason why the Catholic church can't get their shiat together as the majority of victims (78%) were 11 years old or older (only 6% were 7 and under) 81% of all victims were male and the average number of offences reported for each offending priest was 18. Yet the church and society at large attributes the abuse problem to pedophilia when the actual problem is priests offending minors (mainly male) that are post pubertal. Kind of like treating heart disease with cancer drugs.


http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/P...useScandal.htm

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

You are actually defending this guy in any way shape or form ? Shocking that you deem bribery to hush pedophilia acceptable. You may be the biggest fuking creep to ever post on Derby trail.

It's not surprising that you miss the point entirely. I'm not defending the guy in any way. What I'm saying is that in terms of the law it is completely irrelevant what he did 35 years ago. The statute of limitations has expired. It doesn't matter what any of us think about the guy. He may be the worst guy in the world. We are still a country about laws. I don't like it when the government abuses the law. These banking laws are intrusive enough when they are used to try to catch the people that they are designed to catch. This case is not what those laws are for. At this point, any financial arrangement between Hastert and his former student is between them. This is none of the government's business at this point in time. It was the government's business 35 years ago when the crime was committed. It is the same with Bill Cosby. The guy may be a creep, but at this point there is nothing that can be done. The statute of limitations is up.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

It's not surprising that you miss the point entirely. I'm not defending the guy in any way. What I'm saying is that in terms of the law it is completely irrelevant what he did 35 years ago. The statute of limitations has expired. It doesn't matter what any of us think about the guy. He may be the worst guy in the world. We are still a country about laws. I don't like it when the government abuses the law. These banking laws are intrusive enough when they are used to try to catch the people that they are designed to catch. This case is not what those laws are for. At this point, any financial arrangement between Hastert and his former student is between them. This is none of the government's business at this point in time. It was the government's business 35 years ago when the crime was committed. It is the same with Bill Cosby. The guy may be a creep, but at this point there is nothing that can be done. The statute of limitations is up.

Wouldn't bribery to conceal a crime also be a crime or do you miss that point conveniently. Would lying to investigators to conceal that also be a crime? But of course you miss that entirely as you defend a child molester who happens to be a republican. WOW

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by jms62

Wouldn't bribery to conceal a crime also be a crime or do you miss that point conveniently. Would lying to investigators to conceal that also be a crime? But of course you miss that entirely as you defend a child molester who happens to be a republican. WOW

One of those rare occasions we agree. I don't care what they lock him up on I just want him locked up.

Al Capone killed dozens and dozens yet went away on tax charges. Point is he went away.

Just hope Denny doesn't come up with some lame excuse like arguing the definition of 'is'

I also think there should be no statute of limitations on any sex crime, as the victim is victimized for life.

[dellinger63]

BTW I also should add I don't think a high school junior or senior is a child.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by jms62

Wouldn't bribery to conceal a crime also be a crime or do you miss that point conveniently. Would lying to investigators to conceal that also be a crime? But of course you miss that entirely as you defend a child molester who happens to be a republican. WOW

I don't care that he is a republican. I would be saying the exact same thing with regards to Bill Cosby. There is no defending what Bill Cosby did 30 years ago. But at this point he can't be charged with anything because the statute of limitations has expired. If starting tomorrow Bill Cosby starts paying hush money to some of these women, that is totally legal. At this point, if investigators asked Bill Cosby why he was making large bank withdrawals, it really wouldn't be any of their business.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't care that he is a republican. I would be saying the exact same thing with regards to Bill Cosby. There is no defending what Bill Cosby did 30 years ago. But at this point he can't be charged with anything because the statute of limitations has expired. If starting tomorrow Bill Cosby starts paying hush money to some of these women, that is totally legal. At this point, if investigators asked Bill Cosby why he was making large bank withdrawals, it really wouldn't be any of their business.

You totally and conveniently didn't even address the ongoing crime of bribery to conceal a crime thingy....

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

BTW I also should add I don't think a high school junior or senior is a child.

I think a wide portion of America would disagree and they also would call that person a pedophile even if it disagrees with your clinical definition. Mark this day down Dell 2-Jun-2015 we agree on something.