Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

I don't want to say anything until I'm sure there's not a thread already.

Looks like you've started it.

Ok. Then I'll say that my main thought when I first heard it was about how much I disagree with the idea that the Federal government regulates how much money you can withdraw out of your account. I've been aware of it for some time. But the idea that 1) the Federal government has a right to know when you withdraw more than a certain amount from your account and that 2) if you withdraw less than that in order to keep government out of your business it's a violation of law is really bad.

The real story is that he's being charged with lying to investigators.

Not laundering. Not sexual crimes. Not embezzlement.

FBI: "Mr. Hastert. We have noted you are withdrawing funds in a structured method to avoid reporting. What are you doing with the funds?"
Hastert: "Converting it to cash."
FBI: "Where is the money now?"
Hastert: "None of your business."

Did Hastert commit a crime? Sexual assualt? For the sake of argument, I'll stipulate he did. If the statute of limitations expired, then no enforcement agency can take action. Civilly, it appears Hastert negotiated a settlement agreeable with his victim.

End of subject.

Right?

WRONG!!

Hastert is a Republican and former Speaker of the House, now a lobbyist, and worse, from Illinois.

Under Obama's corrupt Justice Department and politically weaponized FBI, conservatives are being targeted, hunted, harassed, criminally and civilly prosecuted for the thinnest of reasons, and has now been proven, for "offenses" generated by Justice, even when there is no lawful, prosecutable crime.

THAT, is the REAL story.

I just don't think how much we withdraw from our accounts is any of the Federal government's business. There's no way there should be a body of law like that.

Also I don't think it should be against the law to lie to investigators. You're supposed to have a Constitutional protection from self incrimination. If you can't lie to investigators you don't really have that right. I think you can figure out what I'm talking about in terms of why that is so.

JohnStOnge wrote:I just don't think how much we withdraw from our accounts is any of the Federal government's business. There's no way there should be a body of law like that.

Also I don't think it should be against the law to lie to investigators. You're supposed to have a Constitutional protection from self incrimination. If you can't lie to investigators you don't really have that right. I think you can figure out what I'm talking about in terms of why that is so.

Totally agree with this. What's happened to our 4th amendment rights is especially tragic in light of domestic surveillance. Being secure in our personal correspondence, effects, etc. is really not a confusing concept and yet there's people like Ivy who will defend the Patriot Act.

Of course it has to end up having something to do with hiding homosexuality.

Noting Hastert’s “deeply conservative” policy positions back in 1998, the Associated Press reported the “National Right to Life Committee, the Christian Coalition, the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Rifle Association all gave his voting record perfect scores of 100.”

“I felt a special bond with our wrestlers,” Hastert wrote in his 2004 memoir. “And I think they felt one with me.”

I'll bet you did, Denny!

There it is...

Of course it has to end up having something to do with hiding homosexuality.

Yes that's why I was suprised there wasn't already a thread on it when I came looking.

travelinman67 wrote:There it is...

There what is? Kalm pointing out the obvious and unsurprising hypocrisy?