Hastert is being investigated for paying some $1.7 million to “Individual A” for the purpose of concealing and compensating him for some acts that occurred 30 years ago or so. He was planning to pay another $1.8 million eventually. The investigation seems to be focusing on what Hastert did and to whom. But there has been no mention of extortion. Presumably, Hastert didn’t chase this guy down and offer to pay him hush money, but rather Hastert was probably contacted by him and “requested” to pay. Isn’t that extortion? Is there something that would preclude charging him with this? Clearly, there’s a lot that’s not publicly known, but on the face of it, it sure seems like Hastert was being shaken down. Why isn’t a crime being charged? Some legal something?
Hard to say when we know only a little about the story, but there are some possibilities. This person was apparently assaulted by Hastert, so it may well be tha “individual A” saw this as compensation for injury. Or maybe that’s just his claim. Maybe he made a threat that can’t be documented.
What CAN be documented is Hastert’s handling of the money, which seems to fall afoul of banking law and possibly IRS rules as well. And why he did might be irrelevant to whether what he did was criminal or not.
I know that whatever Hastert was trying to cover up happened long enough ago that the statute of limitations has expired. Were the payments made that long ago as well?
Quite often to go after person A you have to get person B’s cooperation. Then the DA or whoever has to decide is it worth losing prosecuting B to get A. If A’s crime (even one now past its statue of limitation time) is worse than B’s, you may well decide to go ahead on that basis.
Assessing blame is a bit complex in this case. Traditionally the person paying blackmail money is the victim, but maybe not here. And maybe that’s why the other guy isn’t being charged.
Justice can be mighty rough sometimes, can’t it? No way a jury would convict a rape victim for getting back some compensation from his rapist, by whatever means.
Except that the money was ostensibly used not only to compensate the victim, but also to conceal the event. That sounds like hush money. That sounds like extortion. Regardless of the victim’s reason for wanting to be compensated, he extorted money from the perp. That sounds like it’s against the law, or should be.
Hypothetical Person A: I’m going tell people what happened.
Hypothetical Person B: I’d rather you didn’t. In fact, I’ll give you $3.5M if you don’t tell anyone.
Person A: Umm, OK.
That’s not extortion, right? Person A didn’t demand any money and has every right to tell others what happened if they so desire.
I have no idea if that’s what happened here, but it’s certainly a possible reason why extortion charges aren’t on the table.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it true he is being prosecuted additionally for lying to federal agents, which is apparently a prosecutable crime?
You would think a politician would at least be smart enough to plead the fifth and refuse to talk without a lawyer present. I think it’s bulkshit that they are charging him but not the guy who blackmailed him, I wonder if they gave the guy immunity in return for testimony against Hastert.
We do not know whether this was blackmail.
Excellent proposition. (No pun intended) I guess that could have happened. Not likely - for $3.5 million - but possible. And, yes, he’s being accused of only financial shenanigans and lying to the FBI right now. Anything else is under investigation.
It’s an interesting question - at what point does it become extortion? In the above scenario, if Person B offers $100K without solicitation from Person A, and Person A says “actually I’d like $3.5M instead,” is that enough to consider it extortion? I’d guess yes because there is now an implicit threat, but it’s just a guess. Anyone know the definitive answer?