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

A second person accused Hastert of sexual abuse, official says

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5568ae3c/t...15/550/550x309Dennis Hastert is shown in this 2007 file photo, talking to reporters after announcing his resignation from Congress.
(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)


By RICHARD A. SERRANO AND TIMOTHY M. PHELPS contact the reporters

• 
  

'It was sex': Indicted former House Speaker Hastert paid to conceal sexual misconduct, source says


Indicted former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was paying a former student from Yorkville, Ill., to conceal his alleged sexual abuse of the youth that took place while Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach at a high school there, federal law enforcement officials said Friday.

A top official, who would not be identified speaking about the federal charges in Chicago, said investigators also spoke with a second person who raised similar allegations that corroborated what the student said.
The second person was not being paid by Hastert, the official said.

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5568b155/t...29/450/450x253
Federal prosecutors have announced bank-related charges against former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert.


The disclosures followed Thursday’s federal indictment against Hastert on suspicion of lying to the FBI about the reasons he made large cash withdrawals, which were allegedly used to buy the man’s silence.

A top federal law enforcement official, who would not be identified speaking about the federal charges, said “Individual A” -- as the unnamed acquittance is described in the indictment -- was a male whom Hastert knew prior to his tenure in Congress.

lRelatedhttp://www.trbimg.com/img-5568a377/t...29/150/150x150
POLITICS NOW Hastert, the accidental House speaker, faces his own scandal SEE ALL RELATED


“It goes back a long way, back to then,” the official said. “It has nothing to do with public corruption or a corruption scandal.

Or to his time in office.” Thursday’s indictment described the misconduct “against Individual A” as having “occurred years earlier,” noting that Hastert had known the person “most of Individual A’s life.”

When asked about the nature of Hastert’s alleged misconduct, the law enforcement official said, “It was sex.’’

Hastert has not responded to requests for comment. A representative of the lobbying firm where he had worked, Dickstein Shapiro, declined to comment.

Former colleagues expressed surprise at the charges. “Anyone who knows Denny is shocked and confused by the recent news,” Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) said Friday. “The former speaker should be afforded, like any other American, his day in court to address these very serious accusations.”

READ MORE: The many mysteries surrounding Dennis Hastert

Hastert, 73, of Plano, Ill., was charged with one count each of structuring currency transactions to evade currency transaction reports and making a false statement to the FBI, counts that each carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted. He will be arraigned later at U.S. District Court in downtown Chicago.

Hastert was House speaker for eight years and has been working as a consultant and Washington lobbyist since stepping down from office in 2007.

According to the seven-page indictment, Individual A met multiple times in 2010 with Hastert but brought up the allegations of past misconduct during at least one of the meetings. During that discussion and later meetings, Hastert agreed to pay $3.5 million to Individual A to conceal the wrongdoing, the indictment alleged.

From June 2010 to April 2012, Hastert made 15 withdrawals of $50,000 each from bank accounts he controlled and paid Individual A that cash about every six weeks, according to the charges.

After bank representatives questioned Hastert about the withdrawals in 2012, he began illegally structuring the cash withdrawals in increments less than $10,000 to evade bank reporting requirements, the indictment said.

The FBI began investigating the cash withdrawals in 2013. According to the indictment, agents were interested in whether Hastert was using the cash "for a criminal purpose" but were also investigating the possibility that Hastert "was the victim of a criminal extortion related to, among other matters, his prior positions in government."

When questioned by the FBI about the withdrawals last December, Hastert, who as speaker was once second in line to take over the Oval Office if the president was incapacitated, said he was trying to store cash because he didn't feel safe with the banking system, according to the charges.

"Yeah ... I kept the cash. That's what I'm doing," Hastert was quoted as saying to the agents.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...529-story.html

How Dennis Hastert made a fortune in land deals

By Matea Gold and Anu Narayanswamy May 29 at 9:16 PM

Former House speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who was indicted Thursday on charges of concealing bank withdrawals related to a secret $1.7 million payoff, made a fortune through real estate investments before leaving Congress.

In one controversial transaction conducted through a trust, Hastert reaped millions of dollars by selling farmland near the site of a proposed highway that was to be financed in part with funds that the then-speaker had earmarked.

The rise in Hastert’s personal wealth during his time in Congress was a marked change in lifestyle for the former high school teacher and wrestling coach.

When he arrived in Washington in 1987, Hastert’s biggest asset was a 104-acre farm in southern Illinois that his wife inherited, worth between $50,000 and $100,000, according to his personal financial disclosure.

By the time the Illinois Republican left 20 years later, his reported assets had swelled to between $3.1 million and $11.3 million, largely because of his investments in farmland in booming parts of Illinois.

Hastert then embarked on a lucrative career as a lobbyist, getting tapped last year to lead the government relations practice at the firm Dickstein Shapiro. His clients there included Peabody Energy, the Secure ID Coalition, Lorillard Tobacco and Fuels America, according to lobbying records. He resigned from the firm Thursday.

It was not until after he was elected speaker in 1999 that Hastert began stepping up his land investments, parlaying some early real estate deals and a small inheritance he had from his father.

By the mid-2000s, Hastert and two partners had amassed 138 acres of farm land outside Plano, Ill., several miles from the proposed site of the Prairie Parkway, a highway connector that would have cut through the northern Illinois countryside.

The then-House speaker’s ownership of the property was not public record, as it was held under a blind land trust called the Little Rock Trust No. 225, which identified only one partner in public filings: Dallas Ingemunson, a local GOP leader and longtime political mentor to Hastert.

At the time, Hastert was championing the highway, which opponents said would tear up the farming region and hasten its suburbanization.

“Our sense was this was being crammed down the throats of a rural community backed by commercial interests, and we called him the chief cheerleader of the project,” said Jan Strasma of the Citizens Against the Sprawlway, a local group against the construction of the Prairie Parkway. “He had the power and could put so much money behind the project, it was hard to oppose.”

Hastert eventually earmarked $207 million for the $1 billion parkway project in a federal transportation bill, which then-President George W. Bush signed during a trip to Hastert’s district in August 2005.

“The Prairie Parkway is crucial for economic development in Kendall and Kane counties,” Bush said during the signing, held at a Caterpiller plant before thousands.

Four months after the bill was signed, Hastert’s trust sold the land to a real estate developer who planned to build 1,700 homes on the parcel. Hastert’s share of the proceeds was worth more than $3 million, Ingemunson later told the Chicago Tribune.

But his role in the deal was not made public until Hastert reported real estate transactions in the area on his annual personal financial disclosure in May 2006, which the Sunlight Foundation used to match against local land records and connect him to the trust.

Hastert dismissed the idea that the land was more valuable because of his earmark. “Nothing to it,” Hastert said at the time.

In the end, the Prairie Parkway never came about. Strasma’s group filed a lawsuit challenging the environmental impact statement, and the federal government rescinded the approval for the project after it failed to get local funding priority. In 2012, the money was diverted to widen an existing two-lane highway in the same area.

Hastert continued to invest in land after the Plano sale, taking as payment from that deal — along with some cash — another parcel in booming Kendall County. He estimated that property’s worth at between $1 million and $5 million when he left office in 2007.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...bb6_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/30/us...ndictment.html

Quote:

---

The former student — who was not identified in court papers — told the F.B.I. that he had been inappropriately touched by Mr. Hastert when the former speaker was a high school teacher and wrestling coach, the two people said Friday. The people briefed on the investigation spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing a federal investigation.

---

Wait a minute .... couldn't anyone claim that in a wrestling environment?

Quote:

---

The FBI began investigating the cash withdrawals in 2013. According to the indictment, agents were interested in whether Hastert was using the cash "for a criminal purpose" but were also investigating the possibility that Hastert "was the victim of a criminal extortion related to, among other matters, his prior positions in government."

---

Well, he wasn't using the money "for a criminal purpose", and it has nothing to do with his prior positions in government. So, where's the beef here? He wasn't money laundering and he wasn't evading bank regulators, he was drawing out big sums which were being reported, so he wasn't trying to hide anything either, until the banks started questioning him, so he withdrew less to relieve their issues, then the FBI tracks his smaller payments which were perfectly legal, and now they're trying to claim he violated some banking law?

Quote:

---

At first, Mr. Hastert provided $50,000 in cash from several bank accounts to the person every six weeks, for a total of 15 such exchanges, the indictment said.

Banks are required to report cash withdrawals of more than $10,000, and in April 2012, bank officials questioned Mr. Hastert about sizable withdrawals from his accounts.

That July, Mr. Hastert began making smaller withdrawals, of less than $10,000, and he continued providing them to the person at prearranged meeting places and times, the indictment said.

---

You have the inherent right to withdraw your money any damn way you want to, when you want to and how you want to. If the banks don't like big withdrawals because they don't have the cash on hand to accommodate you and don't want to have to fill out the paperwork to report it to the feds, then you accommodate them and withdraw less, so they don't have to round up the larger amounts and fill out forms to the feds.

Well, let this be a lesson on one side to all, your money, life and privacy are not safe and secure with the current banking system.

That doesn't defend "inappropriate touching" in a school wrestling environment, if it occurred, or if it's still even a legal matter, but if it did and it is, that should be resolved by local prosecutors, not the FBI, the IRS, or the federal government.

The whole purpose of these cash withdrawal cash deposit bank reporting requirements is to try to control drug money. What a joke! There's more drug money flowing out of the country than the FBI can even count, yet they're devoting resources to tracking the private accounts of Dennis Hastert who was clearly scammed out of $1.7 million in hush money by someone who didn't hush.

It's not illegal to pay someone money, hush or otherwise, and it's not illegal to withdraw your money in any amount you want to, regardless of bank reporting requirements, which is why he's not charged with either one, because he broke no law. Now please someone tell me how after making 15 $50,000 reportable cash withdrawals, knowing full well, these withdrawals are reported by the banks, he was trying to "evade" something? Only after the bank officials questioned him did he decide to reduce it to under $10,000 so the banks wouldn't have to report it or concern themselves with it, plus not to mention have to round up $50,000 in cash every six weeks, which most of these banks don't even have on hand in their facilities to begin with.

At this point, in my opinion, this case says a whole lot more about the wrong-doing of government with respect to individual bank accounts and bank regulations than it does Dennis Hastert.

As to "inappropriate touching", if there's something there then some local prosecutor in Illinois needs to get on the case and drag Individual A in for an interview on that.

. . . A statement from the U.S. attorney's office in Chicago says the 73-year-old Illinois Republican is accused of structuring the withdrawal of $952,000 in cash in order to evade the requirement that banks report cash transactions over $10,000. He's also accused of lying to the FBI. . .
----------------------------------

Making false statements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) is the common name for the United States federal crime laid out in Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, which generally prohibits knowingly and willfully making false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in "any matter within the jurisdiction" of the federal government of the United States, even by mere denial.^[1]

A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart,^[2] Rod Blagojevich,^[3] Scooter Libby,^[4] Bernard Madoff,^[5] and Jeffrey Skilling.^[6]

This statute is used in many contexts. Most commonly, prosecutors use this statute to reach cover-up crimes such as perjury, false declarations, and obstruction of justice and government fraud cases.^[7]

Its earliest progenitor was the False Claims Act of 1863, and in 1934 the requirement of an intent to defraud was eliminated to enforce the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) against producers of "hot oil", oil produced in violation of production restrictions established pursuant to the NIRA.

Contents

[hide]

• 1 Overview
• 2 Convictions
• 3 Jurisdiction
• 4 History
• 5 See also
• 6 References

Overview[edit]

The statute spells out this purpose in subsection 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a), which states:

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entryshall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, …

Even constitutionally explicit Fifth Amendment rights do not exonerate affirmative false statements.^[8] As the Court in Brogan v. United States said:^[9]

Our legal system provides methods for challenging the Government's right to ask questions — lying is not one of them.

Convictions[edit]

A number of notable people have been convicted under the section, including Martha Stewart, Rod Blagojevich, Scooter Libby, Bernard Madoff, and Jeffrey Skilling.

Many famous people have been charged under this law, including Najibullah Zazi (whose lying charge was later dropped after heftier charges were preferred against him),^[10] Ali Saleh Kahlah Al-Marri, and Martha Stewart. There was also talk of prosecuting Tareq And Michaele Salahi under this statute. In the wake of such cases, many observers have concluded that it is best for anyone with the slightest degree of criminal exposure to refrain from submitting to an interview by government agents. Solomon L. Wisenberg suggests simply asking for the agent's business card and saying, "[M]y attorney will be in contact with you."^[11] The invocation of counsel cannot be used against a defendant at trial.^[12]

Jurisdiction[edit]

The jurisdictional element of the crime is defined as the "right to say and the power to act".^[13] It applies to criminal investigations, such as false statements made in response to an inquiry by an FBI or other Federal agent, or made voluntarily to an agent.^[13]

Courts have affirmed § 1001 convictions for false statements made to private entities receiving federal funds or subject to federal regulation or supervision.^[14][15]

Some courts have recognized an "exculpatory no" exception for simple false denials of guilt in response to government initiated inquiries, while others have rejected it or done neither.^[13]

History[edit]

The earliest statutory progenitor of §1001 was the original False Claims Act, adopted as the Act of March 2, 1863, 12 Stat. 696.^[16] That enactment made it a criminal offense for any person, whether a civilian or a member of the military services, to:

… present or cause to be presented for payment or approval to or by any person or officer in the civil or military service of the United States, any claim upon or against the Government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof, knowing such claim to be false, fictitious, or fraudulent …

It was completely reworded by Pub.L. 65–228, 40 Stat. 1015, enacted October 23, 1918, which amended the statute to read:

… or whoever, for the purpose of obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or approval of such claim, or for the purpose and with the intent of cheating and swindling or defrauding the Government of the United States, or any department thereof, or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, shall knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use or cause to be made or used any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry …

In 1934, the requirement of an intent to defraud was eliminated at the request of the Secretary of the Interior Harold Ickes, who wished to use the statute to enforce Section 9(c) of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 (NIRA) against producers of "hot oil", oil produced in violation of production restrictions established pursuant to the NIRA,^[17]when Pub.L. 73–394, 48 Stat. 996, enacted June 18, 1934, amended it to read:

… or whoever, for the purpose of obtaining or aiding to obtain the payment or approval of such claim, or for the purpose and with the intent of cheating and swindling or defrauding the Government of the United States, or any department thereof, or any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder, shall knowingly and willfully falsify or conceal or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or make or cause to be made any false or fraudulent statements or representations, or make or use or cause to be made or used any false bill, receipt, voucher, roll, account, claim, certificate, affidavit, or deposition, knowing the same to contain any fraudulent or fictitious statement or entry, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or of any corporation in which the United States of America is a stockholder …

Pub.L. 80–772, 62 Stat. 683, enacted June 25, 1948, simplified it further and replaced it with:

Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry …

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

PDF: Read the Hastert indictment

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...528-story.html

Quote:

---

(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device[ , ] a material fact;(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation;

---

It wasn't material. There is no crime, so there is no materiality associated with his statements, whether they were true or not. And how exactly does the FBI think they know more about what Dennis Hastert did with his money than he does? And since it was allegedly hush money and Individual A didn't hush, seems to me A owes Dennis Hastert his $1.7 million back AFTER Individual A pays federal income tax on it, so he better work hard and earn the difference. And of course, Individual B was paid by Individual A, so B needs to pony up his share as well.

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. No wonder there's an ever-growing $300 billion drug trade in the US when the FBI is wasting their time and our money on non-crimes like drawing your own money out of the bank for legal purposes.

And another thing that's irking the heck out of me on this case is not only are the blackmailer "secret witnesses" names secret, but the FBI agents names are secret, the top FBI officials talking to the press are secret, so the only person who so far is "identified" in this case is a private citizen who is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law where EVERYONE will be "identified". Until then, all the accusers are "secret" while Dennis Hastert's life is ruined with the publicity before he's even had a trial on his guilt or innocence of withdrawing his own hard-earned money out of the bank for legal purposes.

Over the years I have noticed that courts and federal agencies seldom base their decisions on comments posted online by people.

Just like Congress:

http://www.alipac.us/f19/study-congr...-think-319865/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Over the years I have noticed that courts and federal agencies seldom base their decisions on comments posted online by people.

Just like Congress:

http://www.alipac.us/f19/study-congr...-think-319865/

---

I've found that the federal government doesn't care what voters think.

That's why we're $18 trillion and growing in national debt, why we have 20 million or more unemployed Americans, why Medicaid enrollment rises every year and has increased 50% in just 6 years from 49 million to over 70 million, why all new net job growth since 2006 has gone to illegal aliens and new immigrants, why we have 30 million illegal aliens roaming through our country, and why its trying to shove yet another disastrous treasonous free trade agreement down everyone's throat.

Our federal government is an epic failure, comprised of a bunch of twisted, distorted, dingle-berries.