Dennis Hastert is about the least sympathetic figure one can imagine. The former House Speaker got filthy rich as a lobbyist trading on contacts he gained in office, his leadership coincided with Congress's abject failure to exercise oversight or protect civil liberties after the September 11 terrorist attacks, and now Hastert stands accused of improper sexual contact with a boy he knew years ago while teaching high school and trying to hide that sordid history by paying the young man to keep quiet. If federal prosecutors could meet the legal thresholds for charging and convicting Hastert of a sex crime, they would be fully justified in aggressively pursuing the matter.
Yet, as Conor Friedersdorf writes in The Atlantic, the Hastert indictment doesn’t charge him for, or even accuse him of, sexual misconduct. Rather, as Glenn Greenwald notes, “Hastert was indicted for two alleged felonies: 1) withdrawing cash from his bank accounts in amounts and patterns designed to hide the payments; and 2) lying to the FBI about the purpose of those withdrawals once they detected them and then inquired with him.” It isn’t illegal to withdraw money from the bank, nor to compensate someone in recognition of past harms, nor to be the victim of a blackmail scheme. So why should it be a crime to hide those actions from the U.S. government? The current charges could be motivated by a desire to prosecute Hastert for sex crimes. But that dodges the issue. “In order to punish him for that crime, the government should charge him with it, then prosecute him with due process and convict him in front of a jury of his peers,” says Greenwald. “What over-criminalization does is allow the government to turn anyone it wants into a felon, and thus punish them without having to overcome those vital burdens. Regardless of one’s views of Hastert or his alleged misconduct here, it should take little effort to see why nobody should want that.”
(Score: 3, Informative) by srobert on Wednesday June 03 2015, @07:51PM
There are laws against lying to cops and federal agents and so forth.
But there's no law that says you have to answer their questions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @08:50PM
Law? No. But if you make one mad by not answering they will find one or a dozen charges that will stick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @09:07PM
If all else fails, you'll be arrested for "Resisting Arrest".
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday June 03 2015, @11:51PM
Cany ou be arrested for resisting arrest for being arrested for resisting arrest? How deep can it go?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @10:06AM
You joke, but far too many people get arrested with the single, lone charge being "resisting arrest", but nothing to authorize the arrest they're said to be resisting. Being arrested for "resisting arrest" is an example of "this guy didn't actually do anything illegal but fuck him, he's going to rot in jail for 3+ months waiting for the judge to finally see his case and throw it out".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 03 2015, @09:10PM
Are there really such laws or are you thinking of perjury? If you've been sworn in or are signing a sworn affidavit or similar then its perjury to lie, but lying to a cop's random questions on the street isn't.
(Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday June 03 2015, @09:25PM
Are there really such laws or are you thinking of perjury?
No. Lieing to the police tends to fall under 'obstruction'. If your thinking of lieing to the police; shut up and call a lawyer instead. You have the right to remain silent. You have the right to an attorney.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by draconx on Thursday June 04 2015, @12:52AM
Fixed that for you.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 04 2015, @12:38AM