Thread: Feds indict former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-IL) on bank-related charges

Will he plead out so the victim can maintain privacy? Should the victim be charged with extortion? There are so many victims here, all those who voted for Dennis were shammed, yes I meant shammed. Even the party was shammed by him, and if it goes to trial, we need to hear the background facts. It is hard to be hard on aliens when our politicians and clergy are guilty unless we are hard as hell on all the perps of these crimes.

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

Will he plead out so the victim can maintain privacy? . . .

I think that is the plan.
Will he give him the rest of the money then?

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

Will he plead out so the victim can maintain privacy? Should the victim be charged with extortion? There are so many victims here, all those who voted for Dennis were shammed, yes I meant shammed. Even the party was shammed by him, and if it goes to trial, we need to hear the background facts. It is hard to be hard on aliens when our politicians and clergy are guilty unless we are hard as hell on all the perps of these crimes.

He plead not guilty, the article says.

Professor Mundy: Plea deal possible in 'sensational' Hastert Case ...

by The John Marshall Law School

Professor Hugh Mundy says it's possible that former U.S. House speaker Dennis Hastert could cut a plea deal on federal bank fraud charges. Mundy calls the "sensational" case likely easy to prove.

Washington Post - June 9, 2015 - Hastert pleads not guilty to 2 counts of fraud charges in hush-money scandal - Read More

NBC Chicago - June 9, 2015 - Hastert Pleads Not Guilty to Federal Charges in Hush Money Case - Watch Here

Patch - June 9, 2015 - Former Speaker Pleads Not Guilty - Read More

http://news.jmls.edu/2015/06/profess...-hastert-case/

Dennis Hastert's next move: Plea deal or fight the charges?

• Former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert has tough decisions to make about the future of his federal case.
  

Mike Riopell

The indignity of a first court appearance behind him, former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert has a big decision to make.

The answer could be painfully difficult for everyone involved, and the consequences for Hastert and others could be vast.

Will the longtime suburban congressman go to trial to try to clear his name and disprove the charges against him?

Or will he strike a plea deal with federal prosecutors and avoid as much of a potentially messy court battle as possible?

Hastert pleaded not guilty this week, but that won't be the end of the story.

Ricardo Meza, a partner at Greensfelder, Hemker and Gale, helped explain. Meza, of Arlington Heights, is a former assistant U.S. attorney and was most recently Illinois' executive inspector general.

Now, Meza said, prosecutors and Hastert's legal team will probably talk about where the case will go.

"I suspect there will be discussions," he said.

Keep the secrets?

On the one hand, Hastert could plead guilty, opting to avoid a trial on the charges that he lied to the FBI about trying to hide cash withdrawals, all in the name of covering for what the indictment calls "past misconduct."

In this option, Meza says, Hastert perhaps could avoid any further revelations about the motivations for those cash payments. Federal law enforcement sources have told The Associated Press those motivations involve sex from a long time ago when Hastert taught and coached at Yorkville High School.

Keeping more details out of the public record could be a good motivator.

"The government doesn't have to prove motive," Meza said. "The plea doesn't necessarily require the defendant to disclose why he did those things."

Clear his name?

But a guilty plea doesn't keep the media from poking around further, and reporters from across the country have been flooding Yorkville for weeks.

Plus, Meza said, pleading guilty to lying to the FBI is no easy call. That comes with serious penalties and a permanent black mark of a conviction. Both charges carry a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

A trial could allow Hastert to publicly fight the charges and prevail, clearing his name in the eyes of the law and avoiding legal penalties.

A formerly powerful figure at the top of the political world might not be inclined to just roll over.

"Neither of these are small admissions," Meza said of the charges.

"Especially a defendant of that stature who has a reputation."

A message left with Hastert's attorney wasn't returned.

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/2...ews/150619757/

Patriot Act That Dennis Hastert Passed Led To His Indictment

WRITTEN BY HUFFINGTON POST POSTED: 05/28/2015, 10:58PM


On Oct. 24, 2001, then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), shepherded the Patriot Act through the House of Representatives. It passed 357 to 66, advancing to the Senate and then-President George W. Bush’s desk for signing. Hastert took credit for House passage in a 2011 interview, claiming it “wasn’t popular, and there was a lot of fight in the Congress” over it.

Patriot Act That Dennis Hastert Passed Led To His Indictment

Posted: 05/28/2015 11:58 pm EDT Updated: 05/29/2015 5:59 pm EDT

On Oct. 24, 2001, then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) shepherded the Patriot Act through the House of Representatives. It passed 357 to 66, advancing to the Senate and then-President George W. Bush’s desk for signing.

Hastert took credit for House passage in a 2011 interview, claiming it “wasn’t popular, and there was a lot of fight in the Congress” over it.

Little did Hastert know at the time that the law he helped pass would give federal law enforcement the tools to indict him on charges of violating banking-related reporting requirements more than a decade later.

The Department of Justice on Thursday announced Hastert's indictment for agreeing to pay $3.5 million in hush money to keep someone quiet about his “prior misconduct.” The indictment accuses Hastert of structuring bank withdrawals to avoid bank reporting requirements, and lying to the FBI about the nature of the withdrawals. It does not reveal the “misconduct” that Hastert was trying to conceal. The recipient of the money was a resident of Yorkville, Illinois, where Hastert taught high school and coached wrestling from 1965 to 1981.

The indictment suggests that law enforcement officials relied on the Patriot Act’s expansion of bank reporting requirements to snare Hastert. As the IRS notes, “the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 increased the scope” of cash reporting laws “to help trace funds used for terrorism.” The Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, which was amended by the Patriot Act, had already required banks to report suspicious transactions.

The banks that Hastert frequented, the indictment states, were required to “prepare and file with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network a Currency Transaction Report (Form 104) for any transaction or series of transactions involving currency of more than $10,000.” From 2010 to 2012, Hastert made 15 withdrawals of $50,000 from multiple bank accounts in order to make the hush money payments, according to the indictment. One or more of the banks flagged the transactions as suspicious. In April 2012, “pursuant to bank policy and federal regulations,” bank representatives questioned Hastert about the transactions, according to the indictment.

After that, according to the indictment, Hastert began withdrawing cash in increments smaller than $10,000 to avoid detection. When the FBI questioned Hastert about the purpose of the withdrawals, the indictment alleges, Hastert lied and told them he was keeping the cash for himself.

Peter Djinis, a former senior enforcement attorney in the Department of the Treasury, told The Huffington Post that the Patriot Act may have enabled Hastert's banks to communicate their suspicions with one another.

The Patriot Act immunizes banks from legal liability for sharing information about unusual customer transactions, Djinis noted. Prior to the law, those kinds of communications might have put the banks in legal danger for violating customers' privacy rights.

Now, if a bank sees "something suspicious, they can contact another financial institution and discuss what they saw to get a fuller picture," Djinis said. Since Hastert was using multiple bank accounts, he said, "there may well have been such discussions in Hastert’s case."

If the Patriot Act is ultimately Hastert's undoing, it will not be the first time the law has been used to prosecute a politician’s criminal activity. In 2008, Newsweek reported that the Patriot Act’s expanded banking disclosure requirements put the FBI on the trail of former New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer (D). Investigators identified payments made in connection with Spitzer’s solicitation of prostitutes.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7/7...his-indictment

The Patriot Act needs to be repealed in its totality. For a law that was intended to protect Americans against international terrorism to be exploited to invade the privacy and impede the financial rights of Americans, is a clear sign that this was the undisclosed intent of the law to begin with, and not to stop terrorism. In fact, I'm not even sure how the federal government can use the Patriot Act in such a manner against Hastert. When a law states it is for one thing, how can it be used for something completely different and still be a valid law? Well, it can't.

http://www.alipac.us/f9/former-u-s-r...eturns-320714/

. . . April 1997, he was convicted on 16 counts of bank fraud, misusing campaign funds for personal use and lying to investigators. After being convicted, Reynolds served the first sentence, and another 42 for the the second conviction . . .

Originally Posted by Judy

He plead not guilty, the article says.

Not guilty plea upon arraignment is not too meaningful, it is always a defense attorney's advice. Jails and prisons are full of those who originally plead not guilty. That said, I am not saying Hastert is guilty as charged. That said, what is he hiding to motivate him to pay millions in hush money? I wish to hear the "rest of the story."

Originally Posted by kevinssdad

Not guilty plea upon arraignment is not too meaningful, it is always a defense attorney's advice. Jails and prisons are full of those who originally plead not guilty. That said, I am not saying Hastert is guilty as charged. That said, what is he hiding to motivate him to pay millions in hush money? I wish to hear the "rest of the story."

That's true. He may change his plea later on to avoid a trial.