Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
No Heroes in the Dennis Hastert Scandal
From what I currently understand about the scandal involving the former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, it’s hard to find any good guys. I don’t know Hastert personally so, unlike many who do (or at least thought they did), I was completely unsurprised to hear that he (a former high-school wrestling coach) had been accused of molesting a minor male. That is not to imply, of course, that all, or even a significant minority of wrestling coaches engage in such behavior, but it is a job that one might seek out if one had a taste for it. And that is how this all started. That was the original sin. So Hastert is no victim here, though blackmail is, rightfully, illegal.
The victim could have retained honor by simply coming forward and publicly accusing and exposing Hastert. In so doing, he might have encouraged others to come forward, either in the case of Hastert or in more contemporary similar situations (in fact, another of Hastert’s alleged former underaged pelvic affiliates does seem to have done so).
But it appears that he wasn’t interested in that, and didn’t become interested in redress until he discovered that coach had done very well by doing good in the Congress, and enriched himself with questionable earmarks, shady land deals, and lucrative lobbying fees. So, once having been a victim, the molestee forfeited victimhood by extorting his accused former tormentor.
But wait. Can’t we say that the Justice Department behaved well? Not really. The initial investigation by the FBI into Hastert’s structured withdrawals was legitimate under the law, in which banks are required to report to the authorities such “suspicious” behavior. But, regardless of whether or not you favor the law, it was clearly not meant to deal with situations in which there was no underlying crime. And while extortion is criminal, paying an extortionist, per se, is not.
The problem is that when asked to explain his behavior to the FBI, Hastert had three choices:
He could have said nothing, and lawyered up. The bureau could have investigated to its heart’s content, and probably come up empty, since there was in fact no underlying crime.
Alternately, he could have told them the truth. But this would be at the least embarrassing (even though there would be no intrinsic reason for it to become public), and it would be an admission of his previous malfeasance, even though the FBI would have no jurisdiction over Illinois statutes regarding sexual activity with a minor.
Instead, he lied, and not only lied, but offered such an improbable story that it was obviously a lie. And as Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, and other lower-profile people have discovered, lying to the FBI or federal officials in general, even if not under oath, is a legal no-no.
But while one can be prosecuted for lying to an FBI agent, the prosecutors have discretion. And one suspects that if this were a former Democrat Speaker of the House, in this Justice Department, such discretion might have beeen employed, particularly considering that there was no underlying crime of the nature (racketeering, drug dealing, tax evasion) for which the structuring law was intended. Even Alan Dershowitz, whom no one would accuse of being a partisan Republican, was quoted by NewsMax saying that the prosecution stinks to high heaven:
“This case just smells,” Dershowitz said. “I’m shocked that a prosecutor would allow this kind of case to be brought knowing that it will reveal the secrets, that it would open doors up to things that are alleged or have occurred almost half a century ago. … This is not a case that should’ve been brought in federal court.”
I think that this case is illustrative of what happens when you grant too much federal power over what should be local law enforcement issues, and the War on (Some) Drugs in particular is emblematic of that. It provides entirely too much discretion and ability to oppress the American people, almost all of whom probably unknowingly commit multiple federal felonies a day.
But I’ve never been a big fan of Dennis Hastert, either. Even before this current scandal came to light, the other Dennis Hastert scandal was that he was the architect of the massive government growth during what was supposed to be a Republican administration and Congress, a vociferous defender of the earmarks that had become trading stamps between legislators for passing legislation, and enriching themselves and their districts at the expense of the taxpayer and future generations. I’ll shed no tears if he has to pay hefty fines and jail time, even though I consider the law in general and its implementation in this particular case questionable.
If there are any heroes here, they may show up as other formerly abused, who finally come forward. I don’t know what the statute of limitations for this behavior is in Illinois, but I also would find little to weep for were Hastert to be prosecuted for his behavior of decades ago. After such a stretch of time, chances of conviction might be slight, but it might divert some of his ill-gotten gains to his defense lawyers, and perhaps discourage such behavior on the part of current-day adults with responsibility over minors.
Photo Credit: “Dennis Hastert 109th pictorial photo” by United States Congress – http://www.gpoaccess.gov/pictorial/109th/index.html. Licensed under Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons
Published in Law, Politics
Yeah, I’m having a hard time seeing the point of this prosecution. Also we discussed on another thread people are paid for confidentiality agreements all the time….
As always, the correct response to any law enforcement officer ever is not saying anything and getting a lawyer. If you don’t say anything you can’t lie, really quite simple actually.
Hastert’s behavior is still reprehensible, but he still shouldn’t have said anything.
I’m pretty sure there’s a statue of limitations in this affiar, which is why the victim couldn’t have pursued legal redress so he opted instead to blackmail.
I doubt a prosecution of the victim for blackmail will be forthcoming. But it would be funny (in the tragic, Kafkaesque way) if the IRS also went after him for structuring in the same exact way they went after Hastert.
Absolutely my opinion put in clear word for me to read. Denny Hastert was also a staunch drug warrior. No sympathy.
I doubt a prosecution of the victim for blackmail will be forthcoming. But it would be funny (in the tragic, Kafkaesque way) if the IRS also went after him for structuring in the same exact way they went after Hastert.
It probably wouldn’t be structuring but tax evasion for not reporting the income…
It’s blackmail unless of course you hire a lawyer to do it for you and claim that it’s a demand for a legal settlement.
The lesson here is never, ever, lie to federal agents. Refuse to answer, but don’t lie. ( I wonder how he did lie… did he say he put the money in a safe for a rainy day? )
OK, but has the victim been established as one? If you’re a professional politician and have ever been a coach, teacher, or had other reason to be around minors, it would be pretty easy for someone to approach you and say, “even if it’s not true, your career as a politician will be over. Everyone will always bring it up when your name is mentioned. Never will everyone trust you again, regardless of how many character references you get. Just pay and make it go away.”
It used to be that we could look for a pattern, a bunch of other complaints that never went forward. That was certainly the case with Bill Clinton. It’s what gave the lie to Juanita Hill’s story.
But now, after Cosby, there are mobs of folks just waiting to come forward. No burden of proof: it’s an offense to question.
Sure, Hastert appeared to be a politician in the worst sense. But is there anything solid in the rest of it?
He said he didn’t trust the banking system.
It is correct to say there are no heroes here. It is also reasonable to rank the villains. As I see them, from least to most villainous:
#3. The abusee, individual A – a sad exemplar of a malignant modern movement in America: exploitation of (even legitimate) victimhood.
#2. The abuser, Hastert – a sad example of another malignant modern movement in America: corruption and exploitation of power over others.
#1 The United States Government – the malignancy incarnate, representing the cynical betrayal of the promise of decent governance enshrined in the Constitution; the government was to serve the people, secure their rights, rather than cower and coerce them. As has been pointed out in “Three Felonies a Day,” our laws have criminalized much of what is indisputably common and ordinary behavior – i.e. behavior which is not malum in se (e.g., a series of bank transactions of a given size is not prima facie evidence of criminal activity, but our government arbitrarily says it is because some criminals do so. It no longer cares if it ensnares 100 innocents if it nets one criminal) . This has resulted in a state of affairs where prosecutorial discretion is frequently informed by politics – either political correctness or partisanship. I can think of nothing more corrosive or inimical to fundamental American values than this.
Many times, in various posts, I have recalled the famous quote of Stalin’s secret police chief, Lavrentiy Berea: “You show me the man and I will find you the crime.”
So he took money out, they asked him why he did it, and he told them he didn’t trust the banks to hold it … how can you prove that wrong? Does the fact that he later paid someone prove it wrong? Not trusting the banking system isn’t illegal, and either is paying an extortionist.
Wow and to think ST got banned for less.
Whether or not he trusted the banking system, it became pretty clear that that wasn’t the reason for structuring.
Driver: What was I doing wrong, officer?
Cop: You were driving under the speed limit. Everyone else is going at least 5 mph faster than the limit. That’s probable cause that you’re hiding something. I’d like to search your car.
It sure seems like a lot of people are jumping to a lot of conclusions. Autistic License has expressed something quite real for anyone in the public eye–and even some outside. All I’ve heard admitted is blackmail over “something of a sexual nature” that happened decades ago, back when he was a teacher/coach. That’s pretty darned broad and could even include a completely consensual extra-marital affair.
The only this we know to be completely true is that we don’t know what happened. Everything else is speculative. What’s really appalling is how ready so many people are salivating to speculate. I must say this is just one more for the “what the hell has happened to our culture” series.
Caryn,
It’s pretty much established that a male student was demanding hush money for some kind of sexual abuse. 3.5 million is a lot of money to pay out to some scammer who is making up false charges.
Apparently his lack of trust in the banks was well founded.
Apparently, someone in Illinois has a lack of trust in High School teachers. I know I lack trust in politicians. It’s bad all over, Denny.
I suspect that it was a confidential settlement of a liability claim, but not legally illegal extortion (blackmail). Assume hypothetically, there was a sexual assault, there may be many reasons (and maybe millions of reasons) the alleged victim does not want to come forward. If the liability resulted from an act otherwise criminal, it may not have been prosecutable (having already been settled civilly with no willing witness for the prosecution). On that set of assumed facts, there is no prosecutable crime (for lack of a complaining witness). So, the prosecutors targeting of Hastert form the artificial crime of structuring smacks of police state tactics.
Franco,
“[P]retty much established” is not established. Real sexual abuse should be prosecuted. Demands for hush money for something that could ruin a career–even if not true–are often met if the reality or suggestion are embarrassing enough and the atmosphere partisan enough and the career ambition strong enough. I repeat: we do not know the truth. All we really know is that the Justice Department has behaved shamefully and that Hastert has apparently wasted $3.5 million.
Rand and all,
I am going to suggest something here. What do the FIFA soccer scandal and the Hastert scandal have in common. They both get the Clintons off the front page or at least compete with them for the front page. Everybody does it. That’s Clintonism’s #1 excuse.
I’m not saying that there aren’t crimes here. Just ask yourself, why prosecute either of these just this minute? It looks like big smoke for the big Clintons to me. FIFA to divert attention from Clinton Cash. Hastert to divert attention from Bill’s Bimbos.
Regards,
Jim
Jim,
You are such a cynic! (I like that in a person.)
First of all, I have no idea why Mr. Hastert is paying off his young inamorata. Isn’t buggery a thing to be celebrated? I’m assuming in a few years it will be mandatory. So what we have is a law that makes it illegal to withdraw your own money in cash. (In incremental limits to be delicate about it.) Exhibit A for getting rid of the tax on income and putting the tax on purchases; that way everyone gets it in the neck. Strippers, drug dealers and all the little bodegas and housecleaning businesses.
I was beyond shocked when I found out a couple of years ago that Congress-critters are allowed to buy into investments over which they supervise and make regulations about. In any other realm of the American universe this would be known as insider trading. This is why we need to have term limits as soon as possible. This will put an end to all kinds of grifting. If our representatives are going to make themselves immune to laws against stealing the least we can do is limit the time we give them to rob us. If a congressman can’t figure out how to fleece his fellow citizens in a couple of years, he’s too dumb to be in Congress.
He made payments to someone. Unless he issues a 1099 or files a gift tax return, he may have committed a crime per the IRS.