ADVERTISEMENT

Former Speaker Denny Hastert was a teacher/coach in earlier times......

Frankly, I don't take anything at face value anymore. It seems almost too easy that as soon as the presidential season is ramping up, that all of a sudden we have a former Speaker, who is not a member of the current president's party, being indicted for something that nobody is even sure about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe
lionlurker said:
Frankly, I don't take anything at face value anymore. It seems almost too easy that as soon as the presidential season is ramping up, that all of a sudden we have a former Speaker, who is not a member of the current president's party, being indicted for something that nobody is even sure about.
Click to expand...

It seems pretty clear they have the bank records. It also seems pretty clear that they have a witness, "Individual A," who likely has eyewitness testimony to provide regarding who got the payments and what they were for. And that testimony will make Hastert out to have lied to the FBI. Credible? Who knows?

Of course, the witness looks an awful lot like a blackmailer.

I have read more than a few indictments in my day. You might mention his service in the US House in any event, but the fact that he was a teacher and knew A for most of A's life? I do not think you would mention that unless that is relevant to the subject of the blackmail.

"[N]obody is even sure about this"-- I bet at least one or two FBI agents are pretty sure about it, but I take your point But that is always true of an indictment. In the case of OJ it was still true after the criminal trial.
 
demlion said:
It seems pretty clear they have the bank records. It also seems pretty clear that they have a witness, "Individual A," who likely has eyewitness testimony to provide regarding who got the payments and what they were for. And that testimony will make Hastert out to have lied to the FBI. Credible? Who knows?

Of course, the witness looks an awful lot like a blackmailer.

I have read more than a few indictments in my day. You might mention his service in the US House in any event, but the fact that he was a teacher and knew A for most of A's life? I do not think you would mention that unless that is relevant to the subject of the blackmail.

"[N]obody is even sure about this"-- I bet at least one or two FBI agents are pretty sure about it, but I take your point But that is always true of an indictment. In the case of OJ it was still true after the criminal trial.
Click to expand...

Don't misunderstand me. I would not be surprised at all to find out that the guy has done criminal things, because I frankly wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the guys in Congress have done criminal things during their tenure, at least financially. I have a very low opinion of all of them, on both sides of the aisle. All I am saying is that I am always suspicious of partisan activity anymore, especially given that we now know that even the IRS is not above such acts. If you looked hard enough you could probably indict a majority of them.

I don't know anything about the teaching stuff. Thread view fail again.
 
lionlurker said:
Don't misunderstand me. I would not be surprised at all to find out that the guy has done criminal things, because I frankly wouldn't be surprised at all if most of the guys in Congress have done criminal things during their tenure, at least financially. I have a very low opinion of all of them, on both sides of the aisle. All I am saying is that I am always suspicious of partisan activity anymore, especially given that we now know that even the IRS is not above such acts. If you looked hard enough you could probably indict a majority of them.

I don't know anything about the teaching stuff. Thread view fail again.
Click to expand...
We don't misunderstand you. There are always going to be people when one of theirs is caught who say "They all do it on both sides of the aisle" or it's a frame-up.
Well, no doubt they all bend some rules - but black mailable?
I always thought he seemed very secretive and sleazy, and being a wrestling coach didn't make me any less suspicious.
 
Nothing to do with my politics. I'm probably more left on many issues than some of the Democrats around here. I've just learned to take everything with a big grain of salt. It was more a philosophical remark than anything.

I didn't vote for this guy. I'm not even sure what state he's from.
 
lionlurker said:
Nothing to do with my politics. I'm probably more left on many issues than some of the Democrats around here. I've just learned to take everything with a big grain of salt. It was more a philosophical remark than anything.

I didn't vote for this guy. I'm not even sure what state he's from.
Click to expand...
All you need to know: Went directly from being Speaker of the House to lobbying, including for a tobacco company for $7.9M. Not that the type of client mattered at all to him.
Before leaving Congress, he made millions buying up property that adjoined a later highway funded by the feds.
The LA Times is now reporting the scandal is about a male sexual abuse during Hastert's high school coaching days.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html
 
As I said, I don't doubt any of that. All of those guys cash in later. It is revolting.

As for the sex scandal, I'm glad they caught him. I wish they'd done it sooner.
 
jj410 said:
All you need to know: Went directly from being Speaker of the House to lobbying, including for a tobacco company for $7.9M. Not that the type of client mattered at all to him.
Before leaving Congress, he made millions buying up property that adjoined a later highway funded by the feds.
The LA Times is now reporting the scandal is about a male sexual abuse during Hastert's high school coaching days.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html
Click to expand...
Well, of course he hasn't been found guilty yet but it doesn't look favorable.
 
jj410 said:
All you need to know: Went directly from being Speaker of the House to lobbying, including for a tobacco company for $7.9M. Not that the type of client mattered at all to him.
Before leaving Congress, he made millions buying up property that adjoined a later highway funded by the feds.
Click to expand...
That is really shameful, but the plain fact is that ex-legislators on both sides of the aisle do this FAR too regularly. I would hazard a guess that ex-legislators who do NOT do this are in the minority. He deserves scorn regardless of how the criminal proceedings turn out, but the most meaningful consequence of this sorry episode would be tighter rules on lobbying by ex-legislators. Perhaps a period of ineligibility to either lobby or (for the many ex-legislators who are attorneys) represent clients in dealings with Congress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fairgambit
LafayetteBear said:
That is really shameful, but the plain fact is that ex-legislators on both sides of the aisle do this FAR too regularly. I would hazard a guess that ex-legislators who do NOT do this are in the minority. He deserves scorn regardless of how the criminal proceedings turn out, but the most meaningful consequence of this sorry episode would be tighter rules on lobbying by ex-legislators. Perhaps a period of ineligibility to either lobby or (for the many ex-legislators who are attorneys) represent clients in dealings with Congress.
Click to expand...
Yes, but this guy takes first prize.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/29/dennis-hastert-indicted-_n_7470808.html
 
I'm always amazed that almost ever one who leaves Congress walks away with way more money than when they got there - millions more and it's not from saving their salaries. If I recall correctly didn't Congress also exempt themselves from Insider Trading Laws. Tough life.
 
Lion84 said:
I'm always amazed that almost ever one who leaves Congress walks away with way more money than when they got there - millions more and it's not from saving their salaries. If I recall correctly didn't Congress also exempt themselves from Insider Trading Laws. Tough life.
Click to expand...
They make their money off of their free health care.....
 
Anyone trying to make partisan hay on lobbying by ex-legislators is kidding himself. It is, unfortunately, ubiquitous.
 
totally correct. Today, we see Harry Reid and the Clinton Foundation in the cross hairs. In some cases, it makes sense. They do get inside info. I recall I heard a rumor, many years ago, when they were relocating the pittsburgh airport. it was all hush-hush, until the announcement. I learned where it was going to be a couple of months before the announcement. I looked up real estate in the area, thinking that it was going to go through the roof. Sadly, it was already owned by several PA politicos who clearly knew where it was going to be years before.
 
lionlurker said:
Frankly, I don't take anything at face value anymore. It seems almost too easy that as soon as the presidential season is ramping up, that all of a sudden we have a former Speaker, who is not a member of the current president's party, being indicted for something that nobody is even sure about.
Click to expand...
On the money excuse the pun.
 
Fila said:
On the money excuse the pun.
Click to expand...
No, just dumb.
Last I checked, this bum hasn't run for anything in years and the scandal is very unlikely to have any effect on elections 18 months from now.
I guess they should just stop all prosecutions of political pedophiles until elections are over, then start them up again until 18 months before the next one?
This appears to go well beyond your run-of-the-mill business-as-usual DC corruption.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
jj410 said:
No, just dumb.
Last I checked, this bum hasn't run for anything in years and the scandal is very unlikely to have any effect on elections 18 months from now.
I guess they should just stop all prosecutions of political pedophiles until elections are over, then start them up again until 18 months before the next one?
This appears to go well beyond your run-of-the-mill business-as-usual DC scandal.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. It's hard to see the political angle when he's not in office and not running for office.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
It's early in the cycle, and there is some low-hanging fruit. There's an art to all of this.
 
[QUOTE="jj410, post: 187083, member: 10564
This appears to go well beyond your run-of-the-mill business-as-usual DC corruption.[/QUOTE]
I don't have enough information about the allegations of bank fraud and the underlying "misconduct" to venture an informed opinion on them. The misconduct has been rumored to involve sex with minors, and if that is true, he should no doubt face prosecution. It's just so salacious that I would prefer to reserve comment until I know a bit more about it. I was merely commenting on the lobbying and information/influence peddling that these folks engage in. That alone I find shameful even if it is not illegal.
 
Aoshiro said:
I tend to agree. It's hard to see the political angle when he's not in office and not running for office.
Click to expand...
There are only so many stories in the world.

Given the kid glove treatment that Hastert received for years, it is not hard to imagine that he ran the Speaker's office much like J. Edgar ran the FBI. And, I predict we will find that the chickens have come home to roost.

This thing will prove not to be partisan at all. More likely it is bipartisan. Like I said, only so many stories in the world.
 
Corruption is the #1 universal problem. All other ills can be traced to it. ALL. Drug trade? Racism? Poverty? What else you got? Corruption is your answer. Unfixable.

Manageable? You tell me.
 
The big picture here is that it should be none of the government's business how often and how much we withdraw from our bank accounts. When was the 4th Amendment repealed? I guess I didn't get the memo.

It should not be illegal to lie to the FBI. Was the 5th Amendment repealed? I guess I didn't get that memo either.
 
NitneLiun said:
The big picture here is that it should be none of the government's business how often and how much we withdraw from our bank accounts. When was the 4th Amendment repealed? I guess I didn't get the memo.

It should not be illegal to lie to the FBI. Was the 5th Amendment repealed? I guess I didn't get that memo either.
Click to expand...
Nah. The big picture is that he phucked a kid. Not sure why the popular narrative is diverting attention from that.
 
If he phucked a kid, why wasn't he charged with phucking a kid? He was charged with lying to the FBI. I suppose the right to not incriminate oneself has been repealed.
 
NitneLiun said:
If he phucked a kid, why wasn't he charged with phucking a kid? He was charged with lying to the FBI. I suppose the right to not incriminate oneself has been repealed.
Click to expand...
#checkyourhead #checkthesourcesyouusetoaccumulateinformation #hesitatetousethewordsknowledgeorwisdom
#if?lolsmh
#urbehindthecurve
#ournewinnocenceproject
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Zenophile
NitneLiun said:
The big picture here is that it should be none of the government's business how often and how much we withdraw from our bank accounts. When was the 4th Amendment repealed? I guess I didn't get the memo.

It should not be illegal to lie to the FBI. Was the 5th Amendment repealed? I guess I didn't get that memo either.
Click to expand...

So if you want to use the federally-insured banking system to house the money you use to run your drug or other illegal activities, that should be none of the government's business? Riiiight. You had best call your congressman on that one. I think the courts have likely dealt with that 'constitutional' issue a long time ago. You know, your bank makes reports of interest paid every year to the IRS too. It would be nice to make that secret so people could cheat on their taxes, right? Sorry you do not get to have your money insured by the feds without giving up your "right" to break the law while using your bank account. Perhaps you think the government should buy you a getaway car, too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LafayetteBear
NitneLiun said:
If he phucked a kid, why wasn't he charged with phucking a kid? He was charged with lying to the FBI. I suppose the right to not incriminate oneself has been repealed.
Click to expand...
Could be the statute of limitations has run on that. Sorry, I know it has always frosted you that Al Capone got hit for tax evasion instead of for being a mobster. I know my heart cries at night for Al. He was one of the most honorable syphilitics in American history, and it is a shame he could not have gotten away with more.

You never had the right not to incriminate yourself in discussions with the victim.
 
demlion said:
So if you want to use the federally-insured banking system to house the money you use to run your drug or other illegal activities, that should be none of the government's business? Riiiight. You had best call your congressman on that one. I think the courts have likely dealt with that 'constitutional' issue a long time ago. You know, your bank makes reports of interest paid every year to the IRS too. It would be nice to make that secret so people could cheat on their taxes, right? Sorry you do not get to have your money insured by the feds without giving up your "right" to break the law while using your bank account. Perhaps you think the government should buy you a getaway car, too.
Click to expand...

How much of the people's money does the FDIC insure? When banks last failed in 2008 why didn't the FDIC step in and make their depositors whole?

Is your argument then if the government "insures" something your right to privacy in its' use is nullified? Security trumps the Fourth Ammendment. Does that apply to health care? How about Federal Flood Insurance? If you take money from FEMA could the argument not be made the government has the right to inspect your bank accounts to make sure you are not defrauding them? If the government suspected a citizen of a financial crime is there no other recourse available to them other than monitoring the bank accounts of every citizen irrespective of their guilt or innocence?
 
SUPERTODD said:
How much of the people's money does the FDIC insure? When banks last failed in 2008 why didn't the FDIC step in and make their depositors whole?

Is your argument then if the government "insures" something your right to privacy in its' use is nullified? Security trumps the Fourth Ammendment. Does that apply to health care? How about Federal Flood Insurance? If you take money from FEMA could the argument not be made the government has the right to inspect your bank accounts to make sure you are not defrauding them? If the government suspected a citizen of a financial crime is there no other recourse available to them other than monitoring the bank accounts of every citizen irrespective of their guilt or innocence?
Click to expand...

Wow. Got your teabags on early this morning, right? None of this is "my argument." It is the law of the United States--something Denny the Wrestler had every opportunity to change during his time as SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE.

Banks have regulations attending them. If you do not know the regulations then perhaps you should find out about them BEFORE you deposit your money then violate them. Even AFTER Denny found out about the regs he continued to keep his money in banks AND skirt the regs, which--it turns out--is a crime. The FEMA laws, which people like you despise right up until it is your house in a flood, then you got your hand out like Texas, have NOTHING to do with banking.

Wait--if you join the Army, can uncle sam read your bank statements? If the oil and gas you put in your car are subsidized by the federal government, then can uncle sam intervene in the writing of your will? Have you got any other absurdities you would like to pose as legit questions? Good thing we are having this chat before it gets light outside--we would not want your internet subscription to draw black helicopters into your airspace.
 
Hey SUPERTEABAGS--here is what the FDIC says:
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an independent agency of the United States government that protects the funds depositors place in banks and savings associations. FDIC insurance is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Since the FDIC was established in 1933, no depositor has lost a penny of FDIC-insured funds.

FDIC insurance covers all deposit accounts, including:

  • Checking accounts
  • Savings accounts
  • Money market deposit accounts
  • Certificates of deposit
FDIC insurance does not cover other financial products and services that banks may offer, such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, life insurance policies, annuities or securities.

The standard insurance amount is $250,000 per depositor, per insured bank, for each account ownership category.

Were Denny's funds FDIC insured? I am guessing they were. Is the ENTIRE banking system subsidized by the feds? It sure is, slick, and with those subsidies come rules and regs. Follow them or go to jail. It would be much wiser if you intended not to follow them to keep your money somewhere other than in a bank, but that sort of deep level thinking must be beyond you.

I know it is heartbreaking to discover that when those of us who pays lots of taxes provide a government subsidized service, we have regs for you to follow. I know your idea of freedom is that you get to suck up the subsidized service without following the rules, but you and Denny ought to know different.

this reminds me of Texas. Boy they sure hate on their federal government down there, don't they?Admirable,eh?
WeissDisasterSpending_fig1.png


This really makes me laugh:

WeissDisasterSpending_table2-1.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B

This Guy Gets It, Few Do Including Those Here

Replies
34
Views
850
Current Events Board
bdgan
bdgan
Ten Thousan Marbles

More to ignore, Book 136......

Replies
19
Views
485
Current Events Board
Ten Thousan Marbles
Ten Thousan Marbles
ChiTownLion

"My Letter of Apology"

Replies
180
Views
4K
Current Events Board
m.knox
M
WeR0206

Young doctors in Canada are dying at a rate 23X normal after the second booster

Replies
4
Views
589
Current Events Board
WeR0206
WeR0206
2lion70

There was a planned coup to overturn the Biden EC win

Replies
181
Views
5K
Current Events Board
joeaubie21
joeaubie21
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back