That whirring sound is Atticus Finch spinning in his grave

Apologies (sort of) to my American friends but I am back to bashing the American legal system.  The saving grace in this sad tale is that it is an American writer, professor and thinker who had the guts to point to this abuse by the American justice system.  He needed guts because the man at the centre of the story, Mr. Dennis Hastert, is a confessed child molester and, in some people's eyes even worse, he was a high-ranking Republican politician who became the 51st Speaker of the House of Representatives.  So, you may ask, what's to like?  Well, nothing much about Mr. Hastert but, according to Prof. Filozof at The American Thinker, there is even less to like about the judicial process that has just sentenced him to 15 months in jail.

Before you all recoil in horror muttering 'is that all?' you need to understand that Hastert was not charged or convicted of abusing boys when he was a college teacher.  Under Illinois State law the offences, having occurred over 40 years ago, were subject to the statute of limitations and in any case child abuse is not a Federal offence it is only a State offence.  Now, you might argue that such limitations are absurd but the fact is that that is the law.  So what did the Democrat Dept. of (non)Justice do against this senior Republican politician?  They did what they always do, they bent the rules and charged him with violating, not children, but the Federal Banking law!  I will let Prof. Filozof explain with my emphasis added:

Hastert was instead indicted for violating federal banking law when he tried to pay one individual to keep quiet about the alleged abuse.  The crime of "structuring" is utterly bizarre: if you take $10,000 cash out of your own bank account, the bank must report it to the federal government.  If, however, you take $9,999 out, you will be accused of "structuring" the transaction to avoid the $10,000 reporting requirement.

In other words, the $10,000 number for reporting to the government that you took your own cash out of your own bank account isn't really the true number at all; whenever the government thinks you are "structuring" by taking out less, they will nail you for that anyway.  It's like getting a ticket from a cop for driving below the speed limit because you were trying to avoid a speeding ticket.  It's one of the most questionable prosecutions I've ever heard of.

Both the Federal judge and the Federal prosecutor emphasised that they were after Hastert not for reasons of banking misdemeanours but because of his child molestation history even if that was absolutely none of their Federal judicial business!  What they did not admit was that a good part of their motivation was entirely political!

God bless America, the Land of the Free!

Comments

[Whitewall]

A Stalin era show trial brought to modern times. The pendulum will swing back.

[missred]

Not the first time this thugocracy has subverted justice for it's own political motivations.
http://spectator.org/articles/66150/bob-mcdonnell%E2%80%99s-revenge
Yes we may have some weird laws, but the abuse by this current junta's justice dept is despicable.

[Whitewall]

missred, you've noticed that too?

[missred]

I would be thick as a brick if I didn't WW. Wait, did I just insult most of my friends and relatives? >haha<

[David Duff]

Thanks for that, Miss Red, I hadn't reached that far in the always excellent American Spectator.

[JK]

There's a long tradition David in American jurisprudence of using "financial law" when "regular people law" isn't, quite up for it.

Al Capone and Hillary Clinton spring to mind (though admittedly Hillary's is yet to play out).

Hastert continues to enjoy his defenders - Tom Delay and (former CIA Chief) Porter Goss for instance. And as Whitewall above notes "the pendulum will swing back."

Indeed that pendulum, especially when its anywhere near Washington DC, has a habit of, not so much swing as, spinning like a gyroscope.

I believe David you'll find just the first paragraph from this 2006 article ... well ... I was gonna type "delicious" but given the particular peculiarities ...

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1542077,00.html

[David Duff]

Yes, JK, the irony in that story is indeed delicious. However, we shouldn't confuse one issue with another. For whatever reason the legal system failed to deal with Hastert when it should have done so but now we have the obnoxious sight of the Feds beating him up not for his transgressions but because of his politics. And if 'HillBilly' wins the election you can expect more of the same!

[JK]

Not disagreeing in anyway with your reply David but, from just over the transom I read; "The U.S. Supreme Court approved a new rule Thursday allowing federal judges to issue warrants that target ... outside their jurisdiction ..."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-supreme-court-expands-fbi-hacking-powers

So, "more of the the same" (Patriot Act) no matter who wins the election.

[JK]

Checking that link above (for whatever reason - didn't work) I came upon something else.

I'm sure David - this will pique your interest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/magazine/the-plot-to-take-down-a-fox-news-analyst.html

[David Duff]

Yes, JK, that story has even reached The Daily Mail 'over here'. What a chancer!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3274731/Fox-News-guest-analyst-arrested-lying-working-CIA.html

[Hank]

David

To hit on JK's first point. When a crime is committed usually more than on law is broken. He may have a good alibi for the high profile item and forget to cover his tail on the others. Which do you charge him with -- the one easiest convict. Usually the big cases that fall apart the prosecutor went for the big one with the weak evidence to look tough on crime, instead of the easy conviction on a more mundane charge.

However "Structuring transactions", in my opinion is one of the most dubious laws because it is so easy for a person with no criminal intent to accidently violate it.

[Cuffleyburgers]

No Hank, that's not the point. The point is that structuring is making a crime out of something that is not a crime. Like refusing another drink because you have to drive home, or saving money using tax efficient investment programmes etc.

Basically its the state saying doesnt matter whether you break the law or not, we dont like you and are going to get you for something.

[Hank]

Cuffy

That is true too.