Patterico's Pontifications

5/28/2015

Hastert Indicted

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:45 pm

For “structuring” — which isn’t much of a crime and is often abused — and for lying to the FBI. Allegedly.

Supposedly he was giving money to a person he had known for a long time to cover up and compensate for some kind of misconduct he had supposedly perpetrated against that person.

I love this:

The FBI began investigating Hastert in 2013, partly because investigators wanted to know if he was the victim of an extortion scheme, court documents said.

Heck of a way to treat a victim.

66 Responses to “Hastert Indicted”

  1. Gives new meaning to the term “Hastert rule.”

    Patterico (3cc0c1)

  2. I am guessing Hastert bears some responsibility for the odious legislation that bit him in the butt. It is kind of hard to have any sympathy for him.

    Stop passing stupid laws and maybe you won’t have to worry about the stupid laws you passed.

    Of course, if he were a Democrat, there wouldn’t be any issue at all….

    WarEagle82 (d35bad)

  3. How is it that withdrawing any denomination of your own money is any of the DOJ’s effin business? Withdrawing less than the reporting limit is like driving 63 mph in a 65 mph zone. Should we ticket people for going 63 for structuring their driving to avoid a ticket?

    JD (3b5483)

  4. ‘The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”‘

    –Ronald Reagan

    http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan-quotes-detail.aspx?tx=2079

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  5. This is a law that, like other prying laws, was passed for a purpose that it is seldom used for. Law-abiding people keep their money in banks. Tony Soprano kept it in bundles in the attic.

    Money control works just like gun control.

    Repeal.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  6. Those of you sending child support payments to your former mistress: be very afraid.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  7. HE may or may not have voted for this — it was passed by a Democrat House and Senate.

    The requirement for the suspicious activity report and its accompanying implied gag order was added by the Annunzio-Wylie Anti-Money Laundering Act § 1517(b) (part of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, Pub.L. 102–550, 106 Stat. 3762, 4060).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_activity_report

    Note how this went from a breach of depositor privacy before 1986 to being a federal offense to warn the depositor that their privacy was being breached in 1992.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  8. I blame the courts which ruled that statutes of limitations for child molestation can be repealed retroactively.

    nk (dbc370)

  9. wake me when they are serious:
    http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/05/28/players/

    narciso (ee1f88)

  10. The IRS now gets to police your health care. Just saying.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  11. Thanks nk I wish the child I molested thought the same way. I am seeking former senator larry craig for counseling at the foley center.

    denny hastert (4c4f92)

  12. Lying to the FBI when they are investigating you is enshrined as a right. The 5th right I think but I might have the number off by one or not more than nine.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  13. Um, no, it isn’t. The fifth says you can refuse to answer their questions, not that you can lie to them. Still, purely as a matter of equity, if they’re allowed to lie to you how can it be a crime to lie to them? Especially about something that really isn’t any of their business?

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  14. Lying to the police is a right that was widely practiced before there was a Constitution. As such it is protected under #9 and/or #10.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  15. Let’s review the actual text as written.


    nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

    Any situation where Hastert would be monitored by the FBI close enough for a fib to matter one way or the other is a criminal case. In a criminal investigation where everything you say can be used against you in a court, you have the right, nay you have the duty and obligation to your fellow countrymen, who themselves might someday become the target of political hatchetmen, to inhibit and confound their inquiries.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  16. Maybe a liberal interpretation of the bill.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  17. josh duggars last week dennis the menace hastert now what conservative pervert will be caught next week demonstrating his traditional christen family values?

    pervert watch (4c4f92)

  18. In Touch uncovered a police report that was filed regarding Duggar in 2006, in which he was accused of molesting multiple (5) female minors in 2002 and 2003 when he himself was 14-15 years old.
    from the Daily Beast story How Long Did TLC Know About Molestation Claims Against Josh Duggar?

    The problem with the Daily Beast and liberals like Perv here salivating over a nothing burger like this Duggar case, they all insist on teen age boys being queer. If they had their druthers.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  19. Mr. Duggar is a focus on the family guy, which i believe is a registered hate group according to the law center of the southern poverties

    also he likes little girls

    happyfeet (831175)

  20. also he likes little girls

    That’s borderline slander Mr Feets. Young 15 year old Duggar liked boobs. So far I’m only seeing vague insinuations by people I wouldn’t trust with the time of day.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  21. happyfeet, does the fact that was a little boy himself at the time of these indiscretions mean anything to you?

    Russ from Winterset (4335ca)

  22. the important thing to know about Josh Duggar is that Mike Huckabee thinks he’s the bee’s knees

    Huckabee/Duggar 2016!

    but for reals i wonder where Joshie learned his molesty behaviours from

    i saw something nasty in the prayer closet

    happyfeet (831175)

  23. “molesty behaviors”? You’re kidding. A young teen boy makes passes at a young teen girls and it’s molesty? I can understand pervert @17, being a pervert he roots for gay sex. But I’d be surprised if a kid that age wasn’t trying a move on a girl. I know I was. And pervert, being a hateful, bigoted Christophobe hates Hastert, Duggar and all other Christians, understandably. He doesn’t understand that Christians try and often fail but it beats being a vile, hate filled, bigoted self described pervert watcher. Oh, and a dumbass.

    Not a vile hater (f4eb27)

  24. Josh Duggar is a case of the Caesar’s wife standard. Or, if you wish, the “as you judge, you will be judged” standard which, arguably, he himself adopted. In real life, any high school boy who, after going out with a girl, has been asked by his friends “Did you get any tit?” knows that it’s a nothing-burger case like papertiger said.

    nk (dbc370)

  25. Josh, could have been more forthcoming, maybe he will be, he felt ashamed to admit these behaviors, whereas the Kardashians celebrate every deviance even the elders of Sodom would look away, as Haiti is stripped clean, the Middle East through the Sahel is on fire, a little perspective is in order,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  26. he could start by quoting Romans 7:15, whereas the woeld seems to follow 1:21 as a commendation

    narciso (ee1f88)

  27. Who exactly gives a f@ck what some reality TV star did as a teenager? If we are going to hold that against all Republicans, then we should hold the Dema accountable for every rapey molesty action taken by Reps, Senators, Dem staff, and every leftist think tank.

    JD (81f2a1)

  28. Something about he who is without sin can throw the first stone.

    I haven’t followed the details, don’t intend to.

    If there is a danger for an adult today to be inappropriate/molest children today, then that person needs to be made known.

    If you’re talking about what one young teen did to other young teens back in the day, and it has no relevance to the perpetrator or the victims today, why bring it up in public??

    Newsflash: People, being sinful, will sin, and you should expect it. A person of faith should understand that, and that the issue is not being sinless, but to confess (to God and to the necessary people) that it is sin and one will turn from it as God enables them.

    David and Augustine, for example.

    I never watched the show, don’t intend to, God’s best to all of them,
    but I can’t imagine someone wanting to put their family under the strain of such public scrutiny. My goodness, the best one can hope for is that problems get worked out, not that they don’t happen.
    James says if one has sinful attitudes, let alone actions, be honest about them so one can overcome them. Don’t make it harder by being a reality show.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  29. 3. How is it that withdrawing any denomination of your own money is any of the DOJ’s effin business? Withdrawing less than the reporting limit is like driving 63 mph in a 65 mph zone. Should we ticket people for going 63 for structuring their driving to avoid a ticket?

    JD (3b5483) — 5/28/2015 @ 7:48 pm

    This is just how liberals think. I recall Dianne Feinstein going off on gun manufacturers for exploiting a “loophole” in the (I believe) federal assault weapons ban. As part of the law, new high capacity magazines were a law enforcement only item. Older magazines were grandfathered in, but gun manufacturers could only sell 10 round magazines to the general public.

    So what did gun manufacturers do? The slimmed down and shortened their hand guns. Why build a gun that could take a 17 round magazine when they couldn’t legally sell it with a 17 round magazine? If it could only be sold with a 10 round magazine, they downsized the guns to where they were no bigger than they had to be to accept a 10 round magazine. Resulting in more concealable hand guns just as states really started to turn shall issue with CCW licenses. This enraged Feinstein.

    That was the loophole; remaining under the speed limit, sot to speak.

    Feinstein wasn’t able to pass a “we’ll get you for following the law, too” bill in the Senate, but this structuring law is an example of that. The feds can get you if you withdraw money in amounts under the reporting requirement. They’ve destroyed businesses that have few credit card customers because they legitimately deal in amounts under $10k. Normally they just seize the bank accounts on the allegation of structuring. Under federal seizure laws they don’t have to prove the crime; you have to prove your property was innocent of he crime. If the feds had to charge these mom & pop businesses with a crime to seize the assets they know they couldn’t prove it.

    http://www.aei.org/publication/the-institute-for-justice-fights-back-against-the-federal-governments-abusive-civil-forfeiture-tactics/

    For more than 30 years, Terry Dehko has successfully run a grocery store in the Detroit suburb of Fraser, Michigan, with his daughter Sandy. In January 2013, without warning, the federal government used civil forfeiture to seize all of the money from the Dehkos’ store bank account (more than $35,000) even though they’ve done absolutely nothing wrong. Their American Dream is now a nightmare.

    Federal civil forfeiture law features an appalling lack of due process: It empowers the government to seize private property from Americans without ever charging, let alone convicting, them of a crime. Perversely, the government then pockets the proceeds while providing no prompt way to get a court to review the seizure.

    On September 25, 2013, Terry and Sandy teamed up with the Institute for Justice to fight back in federal court. A victory will vindicate not just their right to be free from abusive forfeiture tactics, but the right of every American not to have their property wrongfully seized by government.

    Recently a grocer won his case in court; the court ordered the Secret Service/IRS to return something like $105k. But the DoJ is refusing to reimburse the grocer for $25k in legal fees as the law requires. The federal bureaucracy is an organized crime gang.

    Steve57 (4f6474)

  30. As for Hastert, leaving aside a high school teacher/Congressman amassing $3.5 million in disposable cash just for hush money; and leaving aside that lying to the police has always been evidence of guilt even without obstruction of justice statutes; and leaving aside that the money laundering statute is aimed at the recipient of the “under the table” payments as well as the source; he was just stupid. He should have known that banks’ computers track cash transactions over time and raise red flags if the aggregate amounts go over the reporting limits in some defined period. He’s an Illinois politician and a lobbyist, for crying out loud. He should know all the bagman tricks and pitfalls inside out.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. after the rampage of Fitz, Corey, Bhaara, (re D’Souza) I’m staying agnostic on these charges,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  32. I urge people to be cautious. It is possible to be both furious about this law which is a clear misuse of federal power against banks and private citizens– and also to be open to wanting to discern what the hush money was for. This was a very powerful man. Old embarrassments versus old crimes are two different things but can elicit similar fears if they are threatened to be exposed. The minute one starts down the blackmail path it becomes hard to deny something happened. So paying was not, and is pretty much never, smart.

    Tangentially, I believe there is a “list” of politicians, especially R’s, who have, (or are suspected to have lived double lives) who in this new agenda driven climate are slated to be systematically “outed” for reasons that at their core have little to do with public service or misuse of office. Individual cases are privately investigated and developed and then helpfully “tipped” to the Feds. Schock and Hastert may be the tip of that iceberg.

    elissa (46943a)

  33. 13. Um, no, it isn’t. The fifth says you can refuse to answer their questions, not that you can lie to them. Still, purely as a matter of equity, if they’re allowed to lie to you how can it be a crime to lie to them? Especially about something that really isn’t any of their business?

    Milhouse (bdebad) — 5/29/2015 @ 12:25 am

    I wish I could find the article. A couple of years ago a judge threw out evidence because the police officer admitted he lied to the suspects mother to gain entry to her apartment to search her son’s room where he discovered drugs.

    The thing is the suspects mother said she never consented to the search; the lie didn’t work. The officer said she had. The judge tossed the evidence because since it was his word against the mother, and he was admitted liar, he would take her word over his.

    Naturally the prosecutors appealed, and just as naturally the appeals court overruled the lower court because he couldn’t hold the fact cops are allowed to lie against the liars.

    Equity has nothing to do with our legal system. That should be obvious from the George Zimmerman case when the local authorities refused to charge him because he hadn’t committed a crime. So the state decided to persecute him for political purposes. And after they lost the prosecutors still pronounced him guilty. Bernie De La Rosa, one of the prosecutors, said he had never lost a murder case. When you looked at his miserable performance you had to conclude that if what passes for our justice system wasn’t stacked he couldn’t have won the vast majority of them.

    Exhibit A:

    Solicitors across South Carolina are taking issue with comments made by S.C. Supreme Court Justice Donald Beatty, who criticized what he called prosecutorial misconduct in the 9th Circuit Solicitor’s Office at a recent prosecutors conference.

    …Duffie Stone, whose 14th Judicial Circuit includes Beaufort County, is among 13 solicitors who have signed a letter written by Wilson to S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson asking that Beatty recuse himself from criminal appeals coming from the 9th Circuit.

    …Beatty said the Supreme Court would no longer turn a blind eye to prosecutorial misconduct and would be “coming after” prosecutors who try to withhold evidence, delay cases or use other questionable tactics, to get convictions.

    Read more here: http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/12/02/2826686_sc-supreme-court-justice-beatty.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

    Beatty was specific about what they would no longer would turn a blind eye to; the list included perjury and witness tampering. The LHMFM reports this as “what he called prosecutorial misconduct.” No, those are actual crimes. It’s not his opinion. And prosecutors routinely sponsor know liars as witnesses to commit perjury, for instance.

    Any prosecutor who thinks a judge should be removed for saying that the prosecutors, not just the accused, should follow the law (and the code of ethics) because that indicates “anti-prosecution bias” should be disbarred.

    One of the problems with our system is that too many prosecutors and too many judges are elected. And to get elected they need convictions. Certain convictions, in some jurisdictions.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/05/mosbys-favorites.php

    Baltimore City state’s attorney Marilyn Mosby is prosecuting the six Baltimore police officers charged in connection with the death of Freddie Gray. She seems to bring a certain animus to the task.

    …The video below captures Mosby speaking to supporters at the Multicultural Prayer Movement two days before she announced the charges she had brought against the Baltimore police officers.

    …Quotable quote: “We will pursue justice by any and all means necessary.”

    This is a political bias crime being played out on the national stage. Marylin Mosby obviously has her eye on higher office, and to get elected she needs to confirm the unsupportable belief of the thugs forming the Baltimore mob that the system is racist.

    No offense, Pat. I know not all prosecutors are unethical. But prosecutors like Marilyn Mosby, Angela Corey, Bernie De La Rosa, and Mike Knifong demonstrate there is a deep sickness in our legal system. And they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

    Steve57 (4f6474)

  34. Just to back up my statement that Mosby, Corey, De La Rosa, and Knifong are just the tip of the iceberg.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/orangecounty/la-me-jailhouse-snitch-20150313-story.html

    Orange County D.A. is removed from Scott Dekraai murder trial

    In a stinging rebuke, a criminal court judge removed the Orange County district attorney’s office from one of its highest-profile murder cases, saying prosecutors had violated mass shooter Scott Dekraai’s rights by repeatedly failing to turn over important evidence.

    “Certain aspects of the district attorney’s performance in this case might be described as a comedy of errors but for the fact that it has been so sadly deficient,” Superior Court Judge Thomas Goethals wrote in his ruling. “There is nothing funny about that.”…

    That’s right; an entire office of approximately 250 attorneys was disqualified from a case due to pervasive, systemic prosecutorial misconduct.

    http://observer.com/2014/10/fed-up-with-govt-misconduct-federal-judge-takes-nuclear-option/

    Fed Up With Govt Misconduct, Federal Judge Takes Nuclear Option

    Federal Prosecutor Alleges Boss Pressured Him To Engage in ‘Unethical Conduct'; Judge Calls Abuses ‘Egregious,’ ‘Pervasive,’ and ‘Reprehensible’

    In perhaps the most stunning documentation yet of abuses by Eric Holder’s Justice Department, two former Assistant United States Attorneys spoke to defense attorneys and revealed appalling deceit and corruption of justice. This latest litigation time bomb has exploded from multi-million dollar litigation originally brought by the Department of Justice against Sierra Pacific based on allegations that the lumber company and related defendants were responsible for a wildfire that destroyed 65,000 acres in California.

    In what was dubbed the “Moonlight Fire” case, the tables are now turned. The defendants have discovered new evidence and filed a stunning motion. The new evidence and disclosures are being taken seriously by the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of California—as they should be. In a shocking action, Judge Morrison C. England Jr. ordered the recusal of every federal judge in the Eastern District of California.

    …In an extraordinary development, Judge England, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, ordered the recusal of all the Eastern District judges from the case because of serious allegations that the Court itself was defrauded by the government in the original prosecution. To avoid any appearance of partiality, he has referred the case to Ninth Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski to appoint a judge from outside the Eastern District to handle the case going forward. Judge Kozinski has excoriated prosecutors for failing to meet their legal and ethical obligations…

    But when judges demand that prosecutors live up to their legal and ethical obligations, and when they say their courts will not to a blind eye to illegal and unethical behavior, there are plenty of prosecutors who will demand those judges recuse themselves because they are biased against the prosecutors and in favor of the defense.

    35. …Tangentially, I believe there is a “list” of politicians, especially R’s, who have, (or are suspected to have lived double lives) who in this new agenda driven climate are slated to be systematically “outed” for reasons that at their core have little to do with public service or misuse of office. Individual cases are privately investigated and developed and then helpfully “tipped” to the Feds. Schock and Hastert may be the tip of that iceberg.

    elissa (46943a) — 5/29/2015 @ 7:12 am

    I think you’re right in that the list concentrates especially on the R’s, but of course not exclusively as the Menendez indictment shows. I forget what letter they assigned to him (A, B, C, whatever) but Harry Reid was one of the unnamed Senators in the Menendez indictment. So that could very well be a factor in Harry Reid’s decision to retire. And a warning to other Democratic Senators to get in line behind Obama. Anybody who thinks of deviating from the Gospel according to Chicago Jesus got a warning shot across the bow in that indictment.

    Steve57 (4f6474)

  35. narciso @29
    Apparently the Qataris didn’t bring enough money with them…
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinians-drop-bid-to-have-israel-banned-from-fifa/

    kishnevi (adea75)

  36. There once was an Albertson’s grocery a few blocks down where the store was robbed by three black youths armed with handguns. A hostage situation emerged where one or more of the degenerates took an incling to one of the store clerks. Gang rape, not the man spreading, he looked at me funny on the subway so I’m going to carry a mattresse at school type of rape, but the old fashion beat her brutally so her mother couldn’t recognize her at the hospital after type of rape.

    Those three pieces of filth, representing a clear and present danger to the public, were never named in the newspaper, or on TV, because they were under the age of 18.

    Notice how some unnamed accuser feeling impinged upon by 14-15 year old Duggar, and carried that grudge in their knapsack for 4 years, while the boy was paying penance in re education camp or some such, until after he was 18. That was by design. They wanted to vigilante up on him with a little street justice, for a crime that wasn’t a crime. Now the Daily Beast is only too happy to aid and abet.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  37. Both the NYT and the LA Tinmes have new “insider” articles about the Hastert allegations and millions in hush money. I’ll link them for those here who are interested. (Hopefully the links will work.)

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us/politics/hastert-indictment.html?

    elissa (46943a)

  38. you know what the plural of peccadillo is?

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  39. peccadillos!

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  40. please to use it in a sentence?

    oh my goodness lookit all these peccadillos!

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  41. My sister plays the peccadillo and the flute.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  42. oh my goodness

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  43. Gary Studds.

    Kevin M (56aae1)

  44. I don’t quite get why are we talking about the Duggars on a thread about banking law and Denny Hastert paying blackmail?

    elissa (46943a)

  45. Ask Perry.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  46. Oh, OK. No. I won’t be asking Perry.

    elissa (46943a)

  47. Because whatever he did was almost certainly also a peccadillo as far as the law is concerned, and if he and his parents weren’t the serious Christian type they’d never have taken it seriously and nobody would ever have heard about it. It only became an issue because they have the moral standards they do, so how this discredits them is beyond me.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  48. I’ve lost a dollop of respect for the office of Speaker of the House back when I discovered they let Democrats vote for it.

    Honest to God I thought it was a winner takes all spoils system. How else to plausibly explain Nancy?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  49. Hastert may have done himself in by trying to do the right thing decades later. He could have just denied whatever the extortionist threatened to say to the press. Perhaps he felt genuine remorse and felt that compensation was in order. Regardless, giving money to the alleged victim is going to severely undermine any claim to innocence now.

    norcal (72b8e8)

  50. Hastert never came across as a Harvard man, but I guess he is.

    mg (31009b)

  51. Hastert was barely relevant when he was Speaker. How he chooses to spend his money as a private citizen is no concern of mine

    JD (50cdd7)

  52. There once was an Albertson’s grocery a few blocks down where the store was robbed by three black youths armed with handguns. A hostage situation emerged where one or more of the degenerates took an incling to one of the store clerks. Gang rape, not the man spreading, he looked at me funny on the subway so I’m going to carry a mattresse at school type of rape, but the old fashion beat her brutally so her mother couldn’t recognize her at the hospital after type of rape.

    A link to a news article about this case?

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893)

  53. I like Just one Minute‘s take on Speaker Hastert. He isn’t paying off an extortionist.

    He is quietly bequeathing funds to his illegitimate son.
    And JD is right. +5

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  54. Yeah Michael, that was back in the eighties. Maybe the newspaper has an archive.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  55. I read a story (can’t verify if it was true) where a man received cash payments from a client which he deposited into the bank over several transactions. Each transaction was around $9000.
    The man paid taxes on the cash… was still charged with structuring. Technically he did structure his transactions in a way that fit under the $10,000 threshhold, and maybe he had intended not to declare the cash as income, but had a change of heart and he did pay taxes on it. But he still broke the law.
    There is a hole in that story a mile wide, and my guess is the feds had to be hating on this guy for something to be sitting on his account looking for transactions under the reporting limit, but “structuring” is supposed to be aimed at money laundering, drug dealing and terrorist fund raising, not at people who are too embarrassed to put their name on a check.

    This Hastert thing really seems to me to be a case of taking a scalp

    steveg (fed1c9)

  56. from Overlawyered:
    On the other hand, if you are former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, you might not find the federal structuring laws so intimidating. Spitzer had good reason to be intimately familiar with the bank reports system since he had relied on its output in conducting white-collar investigations, and he was “smurfing” deposits in furtherance of conduct that was itself illegal, as he knew well, having crusaded in favor of longer sentences for “johns” as part of his appeal to New York City feminist and legal-services groups. But as Harvey Silverglate points out, “Spitzer, with the help of a high-powered legal team, was able to convince the Justice Department’s lawyers to drop the charges.”

    http://overlawyered.com/2012/04/structuring-who-can-get-away-with-it-and-who-cant/

    steveg (fed1c9)

  57. Denny relinquished quite a few board posts in the last few days. I can’t imagine they will be building a memorial statue of the x speaker. Perhaps the aclu will give him a call for support.

    mg (31009b)

  58. Regardless, giving money to the alleged victim is going to severely undermine any claim to innocence now.

    I think there might be a statute of limitations on acts from 30 or 40 years ago. There should be; people change a lot in that time, and if they don’t something is more current. The blackmail, otoh, is not so old a crime….

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  59. And Jon Corzine is still walking around.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  60. As is bill clinton.

    mg (31009b)

  61. Noticing how the media portrait of Josh Duggar has it as a 15 year old boy molesting fifteen year old girl. Something is very off with that choice of terminology.
    It’s a hatchet job.

    Just like with Hastert here. Unnamed sources, sexual misconduct, are the universal phrases in the Democrats media.


    The Yorkville, Illinois, school district where Hastert taught said that it had “no knowledge of Mr. Hastert’s alleged misconduct, nor has any individual contacted the District to report any such misconduct.”

    – from MSNBC.

    If there were something shady to it MSNBC would have sunk their teeth in like a pitbull on a T-bone.

    Instead they come up with no paper trail, no complainant, nobody with a bad word to say about a guy who has been out of office for ten years.

    Let’s assume the FBI involved with this aren’t on a questionable snipe hunt.
    A shake down artist with what? Photos from 40 years ago? Horse manure. Anyone could fake a photo.

    If that were the case Hastert would have told the extortionist to pound sand.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  62. I’m thinking about how George Bush treated Scooter Libby.
    It seems President Bush did not think perjury and obstruction should be pardoned regardless to whether or not there was an underlying crime that was being obstructed.
    I disagreed with Bush, thinking he should have pardoned Libby given the whole thing was a witch hunt through the administration when the real scandal and the real witch was Valerie Plame who was aided and abetted by her lying husband.
    But Bush is a principled man who believes that people in his administration should not obstruct justice or commit perjury in the course of trying to protect those around the office who might get hurt… in other words I think the Bush position was that Libby did not know for sure there was no underlying scandal and thus he was wrong to behave like he did. Bush did not disagree that Libby had technically committed a crime, but rather that the punishment was excessive (which it was). “President Bush’s decision to give clemency was on the advice of his White House Counsel, Fred F. Fielding. According to aides that were close to Bush, the clemency ended up becoming the best compromise, rather than a full pardon or not intervening with Libby’s sentence. Fielding worded the commutation explanation “in a way that would make it harder for Bush to revisit it in the future…; [the] language was intended to send an unmistakable message, internally as well as externally: No one is above the law.””

    This did not stop Bush from being investigated by (via wikipedia):
    “The Use and Misuse of Presidential Clemency Power for Executive Branch Officials”, held July 11, 2007 by the full Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives. The hearing was intended to “explore the grave questions that arise when the Presidential clemency power is used to erase criminal penalties for high-ranking executive branch employees whose offenses relate to their work for the President”,[2] as well as to assess the consequences of the perjury and obstruction of justice of which vice-presidential Chief of Staff Lewis Libby was convicted March 6, 2007.””

    There is another thread out there where I guess Ace vs. Cooke are duking it out over whether the right should pounce on skeletons in the closet “punching back twice as hard”.
    I see it a lot like a sports contest as well. A contest where one side owns the most of referee(s) and judges as well as most of the sportswriters. A contest where most of the public rely on those sports writers to tell them what happened rather than watching the whole match themselves.
    Everyone who has played a sport knows that the strike zone can get gets bigger when you are at bat and smaller when the other side is up. The official(s) will call the slightest touch on you, but swallow the whistle while your best player is pounded and mauled; and if he or she fights back they get ejected.
    Sometimes if you want to win the championship trophy vs an opponent and officials who will punch you in the mouth and steal it, you have to fight back with everything you’ve got. Skill here, scorched earth there…

    Modern warfare as practiced by American’s has even more clear lessons.

    The Marines in Fallujah started out with ROE’s that had them kicking in the doors and clearing houses with flash grenades and rifles. After several days they transitioned to rocketing houses first or using satchel charges and bangalore torpedos and then clearing the house. It was a battle of life or death, not one of hearts and minds… a battle situation on the ground that dictated an adjustment of the rules the Marines had imposed on themselves. The same went for schools, hospitals and mosques the rules transitioned to accomodate the rules by which the enemy wanted to fight…. “you want to fight from a mosque? here’s a few holes in your mosque… we will kill you in there too..”
    If the Marines had not adjusted to down and dirty eye gouging, bulldozing tactics they would have suffered ever more horrific casualties and maybe “lost” the battle in the media and been forced to withdraw from Fallujah a loser for the second time.
    It was better to win and get a little dirty than lose standing on the rules.

    So when is it worth it to rewrite the ROE’s, or is the answer never?

    My guess is Scooter Libby couldn’t care less if John Podesta and George Stephanopolous got scarfed up in some nonsense charges and then got dinged with “obstruction” and while I might object on principle, he who lives by the sword sometimes has to know he may die from it… otherwise there is no incentive to play by the rules.

    steveg (fed1c9)

  63. On the other hand, if you are former New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer,

    How short people’s memories are. Spitzer was NY’s Governor when he fell.

    Milhouse (a0cc5c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.8634 secs.