I’m sort of amused he couldn’t have come up with a better excuse than that he was hiding one and a half million bucks under his mattress. Though I guess I’d be pretty hard pressed to come up with a legitimate reason to be withdrawing 10k three times a month that would stand up to even cursory follow up.
Why not hookers and blow? It would be less damaging.
And if I understand correctly, under “know your customer” rules, the banks will ask questions if there is an unusual spike or notable change of pattern in otherwise lawfully reported large cash transactions.
I wonder what *would *happen if somebody just said “fast women and slow horses… what’s it to you, J.P.?” when asked by the bank why they are drawing so much money so often…
$30,000 dollars a month is a lot of hookers and blow, even for a Congressman.
I’m not sure why, “None of your business,” wouldn’t have been an adequate answer. If Hastert hadn’t structured his withdrawals to avoid reporting, he would not have committed a crime. His original withdrawals were perfectly legal.
It was the tandem sex scandals of Gingrich and Livingston that elevated Hastert to the speaker position in the first place. The first two guys were brought down by revelations of adultery (with adult women) right when they were impeaching Clinton for same—and Hastert was picked as a “safe” alternative. Irony upon irony! You can’t even make this up. Now Hastert is done in by news of an actual statutory crime, which makes Clinton’s, Gingrich’s, and Livingston’s garden-variety affairs look quite tame.
Two right-wing political born-again Christians getting nailed for sexual abuse of minors just a week apart. It patterns with the massive Catholic sexual abuse of minors issue. What moral can be drawn from this? Sexually repressive religions as havens for the vilest sort of sex offenders? Say it’s so.
It’s been a long time (at least the statute of limitations) since I’ve been around coke (sigh), but if someone is throwing parties where an ounce of powder is put out for guests to enjoy, then I could believe it.
I used to work in a High Net Worth Individuals bank and a well-known, popular TV celeb had an account with us, and withdrew the maximum £500 every day from the ATM. I doubt he was spending it all on taxis.
That probably would’ve been the wisest course. It sounds like the FBI agents were the first ones to suggest the BS hiding it under the mattress excuse, and Hastert foolishly affirmed it.
But even with that, there really aren’t many good reasons to be withdrawing just under the reporting limit three times a month. Just about any legitimate enterprise would want to be paid 30k monthly. So even with a “none of your business” response, the FBI would’ve kept digging, found individual A, and Hastert still would’ve been indicted, albeit without the lying charge.
No, he wouldn’t have. He’s indicted for structuring his withdrawals to avoid reporting. Had he not done that, there would be nothing to indict him for.
Clinton wasn’t being impeached for having an affair. He was being impeached for perjury related to the affair.
That’s what he said!
I see that I misread and misunderstood this. Yes, you’re right, after he started structuring, it was too late.
My “None of your business” comment referred to his being questioned by his bank, which apparently spurred the change in his withdrawal pattern.
I wonder if Individual A (the recipient of the funds) deposited the money in a bank, and if in doing so, he also violated laws.
I’m sure this has been emphasized already, but I think Hastert’s deep Christian morality should be placed in the thread record.
We’re lucky Hastert was a Democrat (:smack:) and the responsible journalists at FoxNews are tempering their reaction. Can you imagine if a Republican had done this? The liberal media would be shitting over themselves trying to turn this into a hideous scandal comparable to the outrage when Hillary used a government ball-point pen for a private letter.
Gotcha.
Yea, its sort of an interesting question why he felt he had to structure in the first place. I wonder if registered lobbyists come under some sort of particular scrutiny when they move large amounts of money around that Hastert was trying to avoid. Otherwise, you’d think he would’ve just moved the money in a few lumps and figured TPTB woudl figure he was remodeling his house or something.
banks run special software every day to look for these kinds of patterns . It’s called anti money laundering software.
Ostensibly.
I should add that banks are required by fed law to look for this type of thing so that’s why they run the software to look for it.
Also I just read that many banks are closing branches near the Mexican border because they think too many people down there are laundering drug money.
No. Not at all. The reality was that he was impeached because he was Clinton. Legally he was impeached because of perjury and obstruction of justice. (And he was, in fact, guilty of those crimes although he shouldn’t have been impeached as a result.) The affairs had little to do with the issue despite many on the left incorrectly saying that “he was impeached because of a blow job.” Don’t get me wrong, I voted for him twice and would again but his behavior during that time was disgusting. They were starting to portray Lewinsky as an delusional, lying whore and if not for the dress they would have been successful.
Yes, Gingrich and Livingston were hypocrites but equally are any feminists who defend Clinton over that particular issue. (No pun intended)