Why Dennis Hastert’s conviction is an outrage.

Opinion: Why Dennis Hastert’s conviction is an outrage

If you aren’t outraged by what just happened to “disgraced” former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, you’re not paying attention.

No, it doesn’t matter if you think he’s a raging hypocrite.

No, it doesn’t matter even if you think he’s a personal or political sleazebag.

And, no, it doesn’t matter if you’re a Democrat or a liberal or an independent and you despise Hastert because he is a Republican.

None of that matters a damn. We do not have justice in this country only for our friends or our buddies or people we like on TV. Anyone who thinks justice is only for people who are on their “team” should be strapped to a parachute and thrown out of a plane over Afghanistan. You want to live in a tribal chaos? Knock yourself out.

Here in America we are supposed to live under a fair and just system of law, and by any reasonable count this entire case is an absolute disgrace.

Hastert admitted to the court that he knew what he did was ‘wrong.’ Bah. He only ‘broke the law’ because the law is an outrage.

Dennis Hastert, now age 73, faces possible jail time after pleading guilty this week to making a series of illegal bank withdrawals and evading federal financial regulations. He denied a second charge of lying to federal investigators about it. 

His crime? Withdrawing $1.7 million of his own money from his own bank accounts.

His own money.

His own bank accounts.

Yeah.

Hastert withdrew the money in cash between 2010 and 2014 in order to pay hush money to an undisclosed second person.

There are reports he was covering up an accusation of sexual misconduct with a former student dating from when he was a high school wrestling coach — about 30 years ago. The person demanding the payments may have been the student. The reports are unconfirmed and we don’t have more details. 

Yes, I know. Many surely feel a certain sense of schadenfreude. Hastert was among the Republican leaders who pursued Bill Clinton for sexual misconduct in the White House and voted to impeach him. 

Hastert is not facing jail time for the sexual conduct, if any. No charges have been brought or answered. 

He is facing jail because he took his own money out of his own bank accounts in order to pay what amounts to blackmail.

His accuser does not appear to have hired a lawyer or sought damages. He sought hush money.

When did we start supporting blackmailers in this country? When did that become OK? Did I miss the memo?

What if Hastert were a more sympathetic case? What if he hadn’t been paying hush money to cover up alleged sexual misconduct with a student? What if he had been blackmailed for having a love child, or having had an affair, or for being gay? Would he still go to jail for paying?

And what if this weren’t a former politician but, say, a popular figure on TV — like a personality that everybody liked? Would she still be “disgraced”? Would we be piling on?

Hastert admitted to the court that he knew what he did was “wrong.” Bah. He only “broke the law” because the law is an outrage. Your bank has to report it to the Feds if you withdraw more than $10,000 of your own money. Heaven forbid you should handle your own cash. 

Is it wrong for me to point out that so far not one Wall Street crook has faced a day of jail time for stealing the country’s money, but someone faces jail time for handling his own cash?

The $10,000 limit hasn’t been changed in decades. Once it was a lot of money. Now it’s not. Oh, and to make the law even more ridiculous, it’s actually also illegal for you to get around it by acting legally. No, I’m not kidding. If you avoid the $10,000 limits by withdrawing, say, lots of $5,000 installments, they can still send you to jail.

It’s like getting a ticket for “evading the speed limits” by driving at 54 miles per hour.

Or being thrown in jail for “evading the statutory rape laws” by having sex with someone who is over the age of consent.

It simply defies belief. 

Hastert withdrew the money as cash because he wanted to keep the payments anonymous.

The law is there to use against really bad crooks, such as terrorists and drug dealers and so on. But old men paying blackmailers?

Perhaps the prosecutors only used this law to go after Hastert because they couldn’t go after him for the alleged sexual misconduct. The response to that is: Really? I thought we had courts, juries, presumption of innocence and rules of evidence? Instead it’s all being decided by prosecutors based on what they want?

Giving prosecutors a blank check to jail whomever they like: Hmm, that’ll end well. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison must be so proud of us.

One of the ironies is that Hastert could have avoided all of this if he’d simply paid his blackmailer in gold coins instead of greenbacks.

Gold is just as anonymous as cash. But it is essentially exempt from these financial regulations. Hastert could have called up any reputable gold dealer and purchased $50,000 worth of gold Eagles or Buffaloes or Krugerrands at a time, and no one would have asked any questions. All he then had to do was give the coins to his blackmailer, who could then call up a gold dealer and sell them.

I’m highly skeptical of gold’s merit as an investment or an inflation hedge, but as a mechanism for avoiding Big Brother, it is hard to beat.

Actually, he would have had perfect cover, even if anyone had ever asked. From 2010 to 2014, many on the right were predicting that the Kenyan Commie in the White House was going to cause hyperinflation and the collapse of the dollar. Buying millions of dollars’ worth of gold would have been perfectly in character for an elderly Republican.