involving past House Speaker Hasert.

The topic of how to deal with blackmail comes up here every once in a while.  As it says at the end of the article, it's an art, not a  science.

What isn't mentioned in the article is why Hasert felt it necessary to say anything to the FBI at all.  Apparently he is not familiar with the Fifth Amendment which allows one to STFU.  That's one for us guys and gals to remember.

There is no law that I know of that stops one from just giving their money to another person, except of course there is a tax law about gift taxes that the payer (not the payee) must make.  That may be the fulcrum of the issue, but why isn't it mentioned?  

I suspect we have not heard the last about this and Mr. Hasert is going to learn something about Chinese water torture.

still not a lawyer

There have been whispers that perhaps he was a little too "hands on" as a wrestling coach.

he LA Times is reporting that one of Hastert's former students was blackmailing him.  

Hastert needs to be sent to an institution.  This is why the insanity defense was created.

still not one of those you know whats.

This kind of reminds me of the difference between a prostitute and a sugar baby. They are both exchanging sex for money it's the order of things that make the difference.

I don't understand why an educated man who was a congressman would not be wise enough to STFU and hit the lawyer's number on his speed dial.

and I also have trouble holding down a job because of my depression and anxiety.  You morally owe it to me to help me pay for professional help and to keep a roof over my head while I seek to recover. Hastert might conclude that it makes sense to help the victim in order to suppress a scandal regardless of whether criminal charges are even threatened and regardless of whether any statute of limitations might prevent criminal charges. Not clear to me that this scenario would constitute blackmail.

Just go through your daily paper and see how many stories there are of people convicted on partly or wholly their own testimony or statements to LE.


It's mind blowing.

With his security clearances he may not be able to tell the FBI to go away.  

I am 100% Blackmail proof. No one has any leverage over me because I am not ashamed of anything I have done, and that definitely includes fucking hookers.

I really can't wait until some BSC hooker tries to blackmail me, I will literally  LMFAO

but I still haven't done anything that I am ashamed of. So I will remain blackmail proof forever.

Besides any woman half my age would have to know i had a "past" and while I wouldn't be constantly be rubbing her nose in it, I certainly wouldn't be keeping it a secret either.

I can't link it because it is a paywall. In simple terms: Two people can agree that one has harmed the other. To settle the issue a damage amount can be agreed upon and paid. A confidentiality agreement can be signed. All this can be done without involvement of attorneys and the courts and is perfectly legal.

someone you wronged, is the element that the wronged party will do something to harm the other party (E.g. expose the fact in a way that will injure that party.)

But on the other hand, if you hire an attorney to do it properly, such that the "harm" would consist of a lawsuit unless the party makes restitution, then I think that is a legal way to avoid committing blackmail.

I tend to think that this was not done in this case.

The fine line between the two is admittedly murky.

still not a lawyer.

concerning child abuse, which is not prosecutable because of the statute of limitation, I do not think that Hastert is getting a fair shake here.

True, he is a nitwit for lying, and even for structuring the withdrawals, but since the real underlying crime is the child abuse, which again is unproven and un-prosecutable, I see this as a no harm, no foul situation and therefore should not be pursued.  

It's not unlike the laws concerning conspiracy, which is a serious felony.  If the law you conspired to break was jay-walking, then you still get popped for the felony.  LE uses this to extract confessions and plea deals where otherwise they would never have been able to prove a case.  I say that situation stinks.

Just 2 cents from someone who's still not a lawyer.

in which an injured party accepts compensation privately. All depends if the compensation is proportionate to the injury. We don't know the specifics of Hastert's victim. Maybe the molestation was particularly heinous and resulted in psychological injuries that destroyed the victim's ability to support himself or live normally. Pure speculation on my part, and not trying to justify any actual blackmail that may be involved.  Hastert's motivation might have been to suppress exposure but victim's motivation might have been to be made whole. Bullshit? Maybe, but we don't know the facts.

and will remain so as far as the law is concerned on account of the statute of limitations.

I know that it gnaws at us to let such horrendous crimes go unpunished, but I would not want to dismantle the checks and balances in the Bill of Rights to go after one criminal, no matter how heinous their deed was.

Hastert will now be judged in the court of public opinion, which is the only court that can now touch him.

As for the other charges involving the money structuring and the dishonesty to the FBI, I would not pursue them if I had my druthers as they are pointless unless there was an underlying case to be prosecuted.

The victim may have simply approach Hassert and TD him he had a damage claim and that unless a satisfCtory damages settlement was reached the victim would be compelled to file a civil suit.   Hassert then agreed to pay, but imposed a confidentiality agreement as part of the deal.  Standard legal procedure.  As lawyer for a specific client you have no duty to worry about others or expose past wrongdoing.  The victim and his lawyer simply may have followed standard legal practice.  That is not blackmail.  It is, however, unethical to threaten to bring criminal action to gain a civil advantage - but that's not necessary since the perp always knows that could result.

He would at a minimum owe the gift tax on the money he gave the blackmailer.

Oddly that charge hasn't been mentioned, at least not yet.

I'm concerned about the structuring charge.  I will grant that a person who does structuring to avoid detection of a another crime should face charges for both; but when the structuring was not in support of some other crime (Being blackmailed is not a crime as far as I know.) then to use it to punish a person strikes me as unconstitutional and an abuse of prosecuting powers.

The comparison with Al Capone is not justified.  Capone was widely known to have committed many crimes but issues (Mostly corruption within the government*, if the truth be known.) prevented successful prosecution.  Also tax evasion is in and of itself is a crime that causes all of us to become victims as we must shoulder a higher tax burden on account of same.  Structuring withdrawals from your own bank account does not produce in and of itself any victims.  It's only practical use is to assist the government in determining if a crime is occurring.  Ironically, the government seems to have no problems in determining when people withdraw this or that sum of money, so it prompts the question:  Why have such a law at all?  I'd toss it if I had my druthers on that.

still not a lawyer

*On the day that the Valentine's Day Massacre occurred Al Capone was playing poker with the Mayor and Chief of Police of Chicago.

in which case the donee must pay taxes.  As for the unified credit, as you say it must be reported, but I'm surprised that it is treated so cavalierly as you suggest, but...

still not a lawyer (or accountant)

From the NY Times: "Paul Caron, a tax law professor at Pepperdine University, noted that the person who was paid money by Mr. Hastert may have owed income tax on the payments, whether they constituted a settlement, extortion or something else. Yes, even proceeds from extortion are taxable income; there was a Supreme Court case about the matter in 1952."

And that they end up in the same cell

Now THAT would be justice

Does anyone remember "I did not have sex with that woman"??? I can see that same man twenty years later claiming "it's not blackmail" when it's pretty obvious to everyone that's exactly what it was.

There has been no proof of extortion offered in this case. Some opinions but no charges have been filed. The fact that Hastert asked that the person not be named comes down on the non extortion side. His reputation is destroyed now. Why wouldn't he be crying "extortion" to any who would listen? He hasn't yet.

Recipient, not donee.

Lying to LE period will earn you a charge of "obstruction of justice" which in the case of simple solicitation is a more severe crime than the socalled crime itself.