Greenwald shills for a pederast...Not really surprised, though

[Blue_Tires]

Check out @yashalevine's Tweet: https://twitter.com/yashalevine/status/604366634057261056?s=09

[jberryhill]

1. "Shills for a pederast" is something of an overcharacterization

Hastert has been indicted for two things:

1. Withdrawing his own money from a bank account in amounts less than $10,000 to avoid reporting of him withdrawing his own money from his own bank account; and

2. Lying about why he was withdrawing the money when investigators asked him why he was withdrawing his own money from his own bank account.

So, here's the thing, our banking regulations required the feds to be informed whenever you withdraw more than $10,000 of your own money from your own bank account.

The reason for those regulations are to give them a heads up if someone might be engaged in money laundering or some other illegal activity.

So, seeing a sequence of smaller withdrawals of his own money from his own bank account, it looked like he was trying to withdraw a lot of his own money from his own bank account without alerting the feds to the fact that he was doing it. Then, when this activity was noticed, they asked him why he was doing it, and he did not tell them the truth.

That's what he is being charged with.

It is a perfectly legitimate question as to (a) why your bank has to tell the feds what you are doing with your own money, and (b) why you have to tell the feds what you are doing with your own money withdrawn from your own bank.

It was not illegal for him to make those payments to the person blackmailing him.

So why is it "shilling for a pederast" to ponder the "crime" of withdrawing your own money from your own bank account and not wanting to answer questions about why he was doing it. Clearly, on the second charge, he should have simply refused to answer, instead of lying about it, since he had no obligation to answer that question, since he wasn't doing anything illegal with the money in the first place.

[clarice]

2. smoke-fire ? just sayin. nt

[jberryhill]

3. I don't understand that reply

I'm not a particular fan of Greenwald, but it is perfectly legitimate to question why a man was arrested for withdrawing his own money from a bank and not wanting to tell investigators what he was doing with it.

Whose money was it?

[LanternWaste]

5. Much as Alfonse Capone was indicted simply for tax fraud...

Much as Alfonse Capone was indicted simply for tax fraud... and implications of his violence is merely something of an over characterization.

"That's what he was being charged with..."

[jberryhill]

9. His income tax evasion was on the proceeds of his crimes

Are you saying that Hastert's money was earned by sexual misconduct?

If the point was to nail him for that, then the indictment would have spelled out what it was.

[MADem]

29. The Hastert crime, though, was lying to a federal official.

Not "withdrawing his own money."

Had he said "None of your fucking business" Hastert would have been on firmer ground.

Also, Hastert was the ARCHITECT of the law that made this money reporting stuff mandatory--so he has nothing to cry about:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/dennis-hastert-patriot-act_n_7465780.html

Patriot Act That Dennis Hastert Passed Led To His Indictment


So, Greeenwald boo-hooing over Hastert getting burned by a law he championed is a bit "CATO INSTITUTE" rich, if you ask me....

[valerief]

53. I hate the Patriot Act, but don't you love that it's biting its asshole creator on his ass? nt

[MADem]

56. Yes, I do. And I find it amusing that this crack 'journalist' isn't pointing out the obvious.

Of course, if he's carrying CATO water, that kind of harshes the mellow on the whole "government overreach poutrage" theme of the piece. Can't have that!

The real story is this: A GOP Useful Tool in a position of authority, doing the bidding of the Bush regime, passed a law that BushCo wanted to better control the population and events. That law was used much later to take the Tool out. Oh, how the mighty have fallen!

This is like a Shakespearean tragic play--it's got mendacity and duplicity and irony, throughout!

Greenwald misses all that, and tries to say "Even though he's not my favorite, he's a VICTIM!!! of the awful Feds!!!"

If he's a victim of the feds, he's also the perpetrator--since it's his actions that created the law that bagged him.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

78. He didn't miss that. Try reading the article. Jesus Christ.

[MADem]

82. He 'buried the lede' and he may have edited the story, too. nt

[Chathamization]

127. Actually Greenwald said that Hastert getting burned by a law he championed was "sweet irony"

And also says: "So he’s reaping what he sowed."

We should try to be honest here. Eh, who am I kidding, it's a Greenwald thread - continue making stuff up about him.

[MADem]

129. He's also emphasizing his "victim" status.

You don't make points for your masters unless you bury that lede, which is what he did. If he were truly interested in that aspect, the headline would be "Sweet Irony: He Reaped What He Sowed."

Hastert is no victim. The story is that the guy who diligently enabled this crappy, overreaching law is now being snarled up in it, and that snarling up is revealing his serious, possibly predatory, personal misconduct (which might well be more than simple misconduct--we'll soon see if there's a Cosby-esque aspect to his behavior, if/when more people come forward).


It's more of a schadenfrede-ish kind of story, but Greenwald is painting it like a Big Bad Gubmint story--because that is what Koch and CATO like and want. Denny Hastert, though, is a poor poster child for the perils of "government overreach." If all the Patriot Act did was catch people who abused kids, people would be for it.

[Chathamization]

131. The headline is: "Denny Hastert is Contemptible, But His Indictment Exemplifies America’s

Over-Criminalization Pathology." Which part do you disagree with? That Hastert is contemptible? Or that the law that Hastert pushed through "exemplifies America's over-criminalization pathology"?

[MADem]

140. Bad law being used to a good end, in this case.

If he wants to emphasize the "bad" aspects of a law, he shouldn't hold up as the poster child a guy who deserves the full measure of it.

If he's trying to claim that "innocent" people are being abused by this law, and "trivial" crimes are being brought to light, this ain't the case to use to make that argument.

[Jim Lane]

159. Thank you! Amazing that it took this long for someone to quote the headline.

If the first four words out of Greenwald's keyboard are "Denny Hastert is Contemptible," then to say that he's shilling for him is ludicrous.

Having double-checked my quotation, I will fault Greenwald for writing "is" instead of "Is" in the headline. If his defense is that he was using sentence case, that's legitimate, but then "Contemptible" is wrongly capitalized.

I'm also not sure about the role of the Patriot Act here. There was a more limited CTR requirement in the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, and it was expanded over the years. I don't care enough about the subject to determine if the current indictment against Hastert would have been sustainable before the Patriot Act.

[still_one]

76. Because it looks likely that he molested an underage kid, thus the hush money.

[greatauntoftriplets]

86. It may have been more than one person.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html

[still_one]

89. I suspect they are trying to build a case for others to come forward

[Snobblevitch]

83. Would a law have been broken by those

who were extorting money from him if they also threatened him in some manner?

I have not yet read enough to know many of the details of his case.

[fadedrose]

108. Turning things around...

If a girl is raped, some goofy guys say she wanted it.

If a boy is what-evered, is it wrong to turn the saying around to say the kid wanted it? Nobody's virtue is worth 3.5 million, and it might be for psychiatric care for the trauma, but that seems excessive even for a team of shrinks.

I'm thinking Denny was "had" - unless more boys turn up...

[peecoolyour]

4. I vehemently disagree with Greenwald on this one.

The trivial stuff has brought down some of society's worst criminals.

Anyone with the money and influence of Hastert SHOULD have to explain what's going on with all those withdrawals.

[jberryhill]

10. As well as people with "too much cash" on them

Right? Because this is part of the same mentality.

[kcr]

13. People with too much cash because they're evading taxes

are breaking the law and shouldn't get away with it. That's what the law he broke is for.

[jberryhill]

16. He was not evading taxes

I'm not sure you know what he was charged with here.

That money was in the bank. It wasn't being hidden. He was withdrawing his own money from the bank. You don't owe taxes on withdrawing your own money from a bank.

[kcr]

25. No, it looks like he was actually paying off a victim he molested.

I'm pretty sure I know what he was charged with. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to have a problem with it.

[jberryhill]

33. "I'm not sure why I'm supposed to have a problem with it"

Okay, so when you take your own money out of your own bank account, you have no problem with a cop saying to you "what are you doing with that money?"

Do you have a problem with this:

http://www.abqjournal.com/580107/news/dea-agents-seize-16000-from-aspiring-music-video-producer.html

[kcr]

36. If I'm withdrawing a large amount but doing so in smaller amounts

so I don't have to pay taxes, then yes, I'm breaking the law. So, I don't do that, so it's never been a problem for me.

[jberryhill]

42. You still don't even understand the charge

It has nothing to do with "so I don't have to pay taxes".

You do not understand what he is charged with.

You don't get it at all.

I'm going to try this again.

YOU CAN'T "WITHDRAW MONEY FROM THE BANK IN SMALL AMOUNTS TO AVOID PAYING TAXES."

Withdrawing money from your own bank account is not "income" that you have to pay taxes on.

There is a law which requires banks to report withdrawals of greater than 10,000 to the Treasury Department.

That law has NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH, to do with paying taxes. Quite obviously, if you are trying to hide income to evade taxes YOU DON'T PUT IT IN A BANK IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The reason why banks have to report withdrawals of more than 10,000 is so that the feds can be alerted to someone who might be engaged in drug dealing and money laundering. If they see you make transactions above that amount on a frequent enough basis, and they can't find any other evidence you are engaged in drug dealing and money laundering, then they will actually come to you and ask "What are you doing with the money?"

They don't do this to collect taxes. They do this because they figure you might be up to no good.

In this situation, Hastert wasn't doing anything illegal with the money. He compounded his problem, however, by lying to them about what he was doing with it.

So, the first charge is that he was structuring his withdrawals to avoid having to be asked what he was doing with the money.

It is a perfectly legitimate question to ask why you should have to answer questions about why you are withdrawing money from your own bank account in the first place.

But, seriously, I would love to hear you explain how on earth you think that someone "avoids paying taxes" by taking their money out of their own bank account (which has to report the interest to the IRS in the first place) in small amounts instead of large ones. It's already IN your bank account. The taxable events occurred when you made the money, not when you take it out of the bank.

The law he is charged with violating essentially boils down to "it is illegal for you to not let us watch your bank withdrawals, even if you are not doing anything else illegal."

Let me give you some free advice:

1. If you ever come into a large amount of cash money, and you don't want the government to know about it, so you can avoid taxes, then don't put the money in a bank.

2. When you withdraw money from your own bank account, that's not reportable income. I feel bad thinking you have been paying tax on the same money twice.

[kcr]

45. Up to no good. Yes.

I'm sorry that I mentioned tax evasion as one of the possibilities. That really pushed a button, I see.

Yes. I understand. Banks have to report the large withdrawals. That is why. One would not. Withdraw the large amount. But would instead. Withdraw the smaller amounts. So the bank. Would not report it. As required by the law. See? But sometimes crooks get caught anyway when they break the law, don't they?

[jberryhill]

49. "Up to no good"

No, tax evasion is not "one of the possibilities" of withdrawing money from your own bank account in small amounts or large amounts.

S'plain me how that works.

How does the amount of money I withdraw from my bank account figure into a tax evasion scheme?

Are you saying that if I have unreported income, I put it in the bank, and then leave it in the bank, that there's some kind of mechanism by which my non-reporting of that income is going to work any better or worse?

[kcr]

55. Because no one ever hides large amounts of cash to avoid paying taxes?

That's just never done? Come on, now.

So, S'plain to me how Hastert is the victim, here? He's the pedophile paying off his victim, and triggers a law he helped pass himself with the cash he's paying him. And Hastert is the victim. S'plain. S'plain away.

[jberryhill]

59. Wow...

Nobody hides it IN A FREAKING BANK that's for sure.

Again, tell me how you evade taxes by taking it out of your own bank account, in amounts large or small. You still have not demonstrated an understanding of what it is Hastert has been charged with violating.

You seriously believe that people evade taxes by putting their money in US bank accounts and then taking it out again?

I don't see Hastert as a "victim" here, and I'm curious that you would put words like that in my mouth. Find where I said that.

The question in Greenwald's article - and I challenge you to find a single word I have EVER posted on DU in support of ANYTHING Greenwald has ever written - is why do we make it a crime to take our own money out of our own bank accounts in a way that those conducting general surveillance of the population find inconvenient?

The headline refers to that as "Shilling for a pedophile". That is a gross and unfair characterization of the question.

Now, for all I know, you've been an enthusiastic supporter of the Patriot Act from day one, and I applaud your consistency if that has been your position.

But whether a law is a good idea or not, doesn't in my mind depend on who has been charged with violating it.

[kcr]

64. Yes. That's why they aren't keeping it in the bank account.

Hence the law. You seem to be getting it at that point. So why do you go on to ask me how they evade taxes by taking it out of the bank account? I'm not getting where you're having the difficulty, here.

You certainly seem to be placing him in the victim role, as Greenwald does, when you claim he shouldn't be charged with anything to begin with, and then make the victim out to be the blackmailer.

[jberryhill]

66. Wow...

First off, where did I say he shouldn't be charged?

The question is why should withdrawing your own money from your own bank account be illegal in the first place. That is not an assertion that he shouldn't be charged. Obviously he violated the law. A very stupid law designed for purposes of surveillance of people who are not breaking any other law.

And, no, if you have unreported income, it doesn't matter whether you are "keeping it in the bank account" or withdrawing it from your bank account.

What complete idiot puts money INTO the bank and doesn't report the income? The paper trail is there for the DEPOSIT of the money. Whether you take it out - in any amount or at any time - has nothing to do with WHEN OR HOW YOU GOT THE MONEY in the first place.

That's why we call it "income tax". We don't have an "outgo tax".

Again, this law was part of the financial surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act. It has nothing to do with enforcing any part of the tax code whatsoever.

[kcr]

69. Wowee wow wow

I guess it's the part where you say the thing he's being charged with shouldn't be illegal? So, are you saying he should be charged even though you think it shouldn't be illegal?

I don't think withdrawing your own money from your own bank account should be illegal and as far as I know it still isn't. It's when you deliberately withdraw large amounts of cash in smaller chunks so the bank won't report it that gets you in trouble.

[Luminous Animal]

130. I commend you on your tenacity. You've done the best you can.

[treestar]

200. I can see debating whether or not that law

is a good law and arguing it should be repealed. It's hard to do in the context of Hastert getting caught for it, though. Hard to separate out that issue in this context at this time. Hastert is a Republican behind that and other Patriot Act laws stuff, so arguing the law he was caught under should not exist and should therefore not have caught him is tough to do without seeming to favor him somehow.

I've heard of the reporting requirement for deposits of 10K or over. And wonder if it really has helped the feds to stop anything. Maybe all it does is create paperwork.

[X_Digger]

116. Free clue: You don't pay taxes on money you take out of your bank account.

Fucking duh.

[kcr]

119. Money magically becomes tax exempt when you take it out of your bank account?

Who knew?

No fucking duh, because that's not what I was saying.

[X_Digger]

148. No, it's taxed when it's transferred to you. Fucking duh. It's IN-come tax, not OUT-come tax. Derp.

[kcr]

149. lol

Derp

Sorry. There are some nicer and more patient posters that explained it in this thread, though.

[jberryhill]

157. Good luck

I think our correspondent here thinks he owes tax when he moves money from his left pocket to his right pocket.

[kcr]

161. Given this is an opinion given by a lawyer

who defined illegal activity as a contract? I'm not bothered.

[jberryhill]

190. Whether a contract is illegal doesn't make it "not a contract"

Agreeing to pay a prostitute for sex is a contract. It is not a contract that a court will enforce, but that doesn't make it "not a contract."

For tax purposes, the IRS doesn't care how you made your money. A prostitute, drug dealer, bank robber, etc. all have to report their income.

Illegality is a ground for dismissing a contract enforcement action by a court. Gambling debt is a frequent flyer in that category. But illegality does not render it "not a contract".

Someone above said this was "gift income". It is not. Actually, the legal analyst on Chris Hayes said the same thing - it was a contract.

We don't know what the exact terms were. But even if it was illegal, that does not render it "not a contract" for tax purposes.

[treestar]

201. In a business account it could be

Money that comes into my business account is subject to tax. But then it is doubtful Hastert was using that type of account.

[Jim Lane]

132. The law is mostly aimed at drug dealers, but tax evasion is in there, too.

Suppose Hastert told his ne'er-do-well grandson, "You get that bachelor's degree and I'll give you $50,000." After stints at five different colleges, the kid finally completes the degree. If Hastert writes him a check for $50,000, Hastert owes gift tax, and there's a paper/electronic trail to prove it. Bank records establish the transfer; the circumstances make clear that Hastert received nothing of value.

So maybe Hastert, to prevent the creation of that record, withdraws $50,000 in cash in one day and gives it to the kid. Then the bank will do a Cash Transaction Report on his withdrawal, which may alert the feds to his unpaid gift tax liability.

If he instead withdraws $50,000 over several days in four-figure increments, there's no CTR. That's why it's a felony called "structuring" -- it enables someone to evade the CTR requirement.

Of course, the main thing is drug dealers. They need to deal in large sums and they don't want paper/electronic records of their transactions, so they use cash. The CTR's may either alert the government to illegal activity or be valuable evidence in a trial. If you grant that the CTR requirement is legitimate, then criminalizing structuring is also legitimate. The first charge against Hastert is that he was structuring.

As for lying to the FBI, I think you're right that he's entitled to answer their questions by saying, "Go to hell." I'm guessing that one point of such an interview is to see if the suspect can readily clear himself. Maybe Hastert chooses to tell the FBI, "Yeah, every few days I withdraw $8,000 or so and I go blow it at the casino." Then they check with the casino and confirm he's a big loser there and that his buy-ins roughly correspond to his cash withdrawals. OK, his cash withdrawal pattern was not structuring. Case closed. I personally have no problem with saying that people generally don't have to tell the government what they're doing with their own money, but if they choose to answer, they can be prosecuted if they lie.

[jberryhill]

155. The analysis fails...

...at the point where you say "Hastert received nothing of value."

Are you saying that if you have a legal claim against me, and I agree to pay you X in exchange for you not filing suit, that I have received "nothing of value"?

[Jim Lane]

158. You misread the analysis.

The passage you quote was not about the actual case -- payment of hush money. It was about my hypothetical in which Hastert offered an incentive payment to get his grandson to finish school.

I haven't done tax law in many moons, but it seems to me that, in my hypothetical, Hastert would owe gift tax. Do you agree?

[jberryhill]

212. No Hastert does not owe gift tax for contract payments

The payments to Individual A were contractual, not a gift.

[Jim Lane]

214. I never said he did! I've explained this twice now!

You're a lawyer and I'm surprised you're having so much trouble recognizing a hypothetical.

From my first post:

Suppose Hastert told his ne'er-do-well grandson, "You get that bachelor's degree and I'll give you $50,000." After stints at five different colleges, the kid finally completes the degree. If Hastert writes him a check for $50,000, Hastert owes gift tax, and there's a paper/electronic trail to prove it. Bank records establish the transfer; the circumstances make clear that Hastert received nothing of value.

Note that word "Suppose" -- it means I'm not asserting this as fact. I don't know whether Hastert even has a grandson, but I'm talking about a hypothetical one-time payment to a hypothetical grandson, not an actual series of payments to the actual Individual A.

Perhaps I made a mistake by using Hastert, because he's a real person and everyone's fixated on him (except of course for the Greenwald-bashers who try to distort this into the basis for smearing Greenwald). Go back and reread my post but read "Hastert" as "Thertas" -- Mr. Ebenezer Thertas is the one with the grandson. My point is that making a large gift by check would leave a record, which could help establish that Mr. Thertas owed gift tax; withdrawing $50,000 in cash all at once and handing it to the kid would leave a record with the federal government, because the bank would file a CTR; and withdrawing a total of $50,000 in cash in four-figure increments over several days (i.e., structuring) would not trigger a CTR. Therefore, the CTR requirement, and the criminalization of structuring to evade the CTR requirement, are both legitimate tools to combat tax evasion. I disagree with Greenwald's criticism to that extent.

Now let's consider a different hypothetical. Mr. Breakan Shatter contracted with Individual B to perform certain services, and Mr. Shatter made payments to Individual B pursuant to that contract. In that case, I agree that Mr. Shatter doesn't owe gift tax. BUT it's quite possible that, on those facts, Individual B has received payment for services and owes income tax on those payments. It would certainly be much easier for Individual B to evade the taxes due if the payments were made in cash than if they were made by check, drawn on Shatter's account and payable to Individual B. Therefore, the CTR and structuring rules could also be helpful in addressing income tax evasion -- not income tax evasion by Shatter, because obviously his withdrawing his own money from the bank is not a taxable event, but income tax evasion by Individual B.

In the actual case, a question that might arise is whether Individual A owes income tax on the hush money payments. I express no opinion about that. The only point I'm making is that the rules Greenwald criticizes would, in some instances, aid in detecting tax evasion. I still think their main value is in inconveniencing drug dealers and other criminals, though.

[pnwmom]

143. Aren't you required to report miscellaneous income that you pay someone? Even cash?

So either he failed to file a gift tax return or he failed to file a miscellaneous income form.

And he allegedly lied to the FBI, which is a crime.

All in an effort, apparently, to cover up crimes he may have committed against the teens in his care.

[jberryhill]

154. Gift?

This was a contract.

A gift is something freely given without any expectation of return value.

Return value does not have to be monetary. He was receiving value in return. Specifically, he was obtaining the value, to him, of forbearance of Individual A from going public with the accusation and/or from filing suit against him.

There is no way these payments were a gift. Likewise, this person was not an employee or independent contractor engaged in the provision of goods or services.

[pnwmom]

160. Individual A could be said to be engaged in a service of sorts.

The service of keeping his mouth shut.

[peecoolyour]

15. I think it's great that people who do an excellent job at concealing major crimes

go up the river on smaller charges for being sloppy with the minute details of the crimes or the cover-up that follows. And I'm glad the laws used to make it happen are on the books.

If other people don't feel that way, that's their prerogative. But I'm not changing my view on this.

And this isn't a vendetta against Greenwald like it might be for others. I just happen to disagree with him this time.

When he inevitably writes the article decrying the life sentence handed down to Ross Ulbricht (Silk Road founder), I'll be nodding my head in strong approval.

[jberryhill]

18. The major crime being what?

You realize that Individual A was engaging in extortion, yes?

[peecoolyour]

19. Sexual abuse of a student. nt

[jberryhill]

21. Do you think individual A was reporting that income?

So, I see. When I'm a crime victim my options are to report the crime or try to get rich?

[peecoolyour]

26. No.

And they should have to answer for that, as well as extortion.

[jberryhill]

31. Okay

But if we are talking about "concealing a crime", that applies to both of them.

The distinction here with an "Al Capone" situation was that Capone was known to be engaged in crime, and they busted him for tax evasion.

Here, the cart and the horse are backwards, and it is not "shilling for a pedophile" to ponder what has happened here - a he withdrew his own money from their own bank account in such a way as to cooperate with Individual A's demand for payment in exchange for silence.

Had he simply made the withdrawals above 10K, had them reported by the bank, and said "Nunya business, talk to my lawyer" when asked what he was doing with the money, there would be no indictment here.

I guess the reason that aspect of it is interesting to me is that I have, on several occasions, held funds for individuals engaging in various sorts of perfectly legal transactions. On several occasions, I have gotten calls from the bank which, while not directly saying it was because they were asked by the feds to find out, have been seeking some kind of "can you tell us what the funds were used for?" That's a hell of a question for someone to go asking an attorney, and it puts me and the bank in a very awkward spot, because I'm not allowed to violate confidentiality obligations to my clients. This happens a couple of times a year, and it is annoying as hell to be regularly pestered at the behest of law enforcement agencies when there is utterly nothing illegal going on.

[kcr]

34. No, you were right before.

He is a monster and got caught but twisted, Libertarian arglebargle spewing forth from Greenwald is trying to make him the victim and his victim the monster, all so the big bad government can be blamed. It's nonsense.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. there sure is an awful lot of nonsense on DU these days!

[MADem]

75. The "VICTIM" was the one who helped to PASS THE LAW in the first place!

Don't mention THAT, though, Greenwald--because it ruins the "story!"

This isn't journalism. Real journalism would point out that ironic fact!

Big Government Hastert shepherded the Patriot Act through Congress--he carried BushCo water--and he got hoisted on his own petard.

THAT's the story, here!!!!

[kcr]

81. I know. I really can't wrap my head around this either.

How anyone on DU can look at this and think HASTERT is the victim. It's ludicrous.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

84. ^^^^Untrue statement. Please don't be taken in.^^^

This poster has made this claim at least twice in this thread. Please do what she did not do and read the article, in which Greenwald lays out that Hastert shepherded the PATRIOT Act, and now he' said victim of it. Thank you.

[MADem]

90. Uh, sorry--he did pass the law. He was the Speaker when the Patriot Act went through.

He was the ACTOR who created the conditions of his downfall, not the VICTIM, as Greenwald paints him from the headline on down, as a VICTIM of some vague "government overreach."

Greenwald should spend less time boohooing for Denny, and more time talking about how Denny carried Bush water to create the law that brought him down.

Of course, that probably wasn't in his portfolio when he was given this assignment.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

97. He pointed out the irony. You said in SEVERAL places that he didn't. You are wrong.

"Beyond his above-listed sins, he shepherded the 2001 enactment and 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act, whose banking provisions, in sweet irony, seemed to have played a key role in his detection and in creating the crime of which he stands accused."

No more, please. No more "he might have edited it". No more word games. This one is simple.

[MADem]

98. The story isn't about "the irony." There's no "irony" in his story, just a brief, added mention.

The story is about poor widdle Denny and how the Big Bad Gubmint is being MEEEAAAN to him.

Read the comments, too. Might help.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

101. You're changing the subject. The subject is the falsehood you've repeated about 6 times here.

Your claims are untrue. Now either run from that statement or address it head-on.

[MADem]

104. No I'm not. The subject is the article, and the article emphasizes a poor "victim" who was not a

victim at all. He was, in fact, a perpetrator. He perpetrated a crime, several, in fact, and he perpetrated the passage of the very law that caught him out.

[Luminous Animal]

112. Oh lowered. Just admit you didn't read the article

Hastert is about the least sympathetic figure one can imagine. Beyond his above-listed sins, he shepherded the 2001 enactment and 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act, whose banking provisions, in sweet irony, seemed to have played a key role in his detection and in creating the crime of which he stands accused. His long record in Congress involved, among many things, denying equal rights to people based on the “Family Values” tripe, as well as continually supporting ever-increasing penalties and always-diminished rights for criminal defendants. So he’s reaping what he sowed.

[MADem]

120. The man is NOT a victim. He is the architect of his demise.

The 'overreach' GG is crying about would not have happened had his "victim" not processed the Patriot Act for the Bush regime.

It's called 'burying the lede' and it's obvious.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

113. Your words, repeated several times, are not true. Changing the subject will not change the truth.

You're on bedrock, and there's nowhere else to go (but you still could get your hand out of that tree if you'd learn to let go once in awhile).

[MADem]

117. Now I'm "on bedrock" because I don't agree that Denny is a victim....ooooh kay.

You sure love that Greenwald guy, I see!!!!

[Cha]

188. Must defend Greenwald at all costs.. even if Greenwald is defending bush waterboy Hastert and

apparent pervert.

Damn.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

192. Are you saying you're a supporter of lying?

Yes, that's what you just did. Have fun celebrating lies.

[Cha]

193. Don't try your twisted bullcrap on me.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

194. Or what, Cha?

[Cha]

195. "or what?".. what kind of bully question is that?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

197. That's my question. You're the person communicating a threat.

What is it you intend to do to me?

[Cha]

198. "A threat".. oh my.. you guys always like to play the victim card. Always.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

199. I'm one guy. And I'm done with you for now.

[Cha]

204. Yeah, I know you are.

[whatchamacallit]

205. ...

Oops wrong place

[Luminous Animal]

111. I guess you missed this sentence:

"That is highlighted not only by his central role in enabling every War on Terror excess, but also by this fact:"

And this:

"Hastert is about the least sympathetic figure one can imagine. Beyond his above-listed sins, he shepherded the 2001 enactment and 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act, whose banking provisions, in sweet irony, seemed to have played a key role in his detection and in creating the crime of which he stands accused. "

[MADem]

114. Tucked in amongst tears and sobbing over "victim" Denny.

That's like claiming that Hermann Göring was a "victim" of Nurenberg, when he created the conditions for the trials to occur in the first place.

[Luminous Animal]

123. Just like I thought. You didn't read the article. He flat out states that Hastert is reaping what he

sowed. I.e., Hastert created the conditions for the indictment to occur in the first place.

[MADem]

125. I did read it. Victim, victim, victim, quick caveat, victim, victim.

It's obvious he's carrying water. For whom? CATO or someone else?

[Luminous Animal]

128. You are flat out misrepresenting the article. The only person he refers to as a victim

is Hastert's accuser. I'll leave you with this again:

FIRST PARAGRAPH of 14:

Bush-era House Speaker Denny Hastert, who was indicted yesterday, is a living, breathing embodiment of everything sleazy and wrong with U.S. politics. That is highlighted not only by his central role in enabling every War on Terror excess, but also by this fact:

FIFTH PARAGRAPH of 14.

Hastert is about the least sympathetic figure one can imagine. Beyond his above-listed sins, he shepherded the 2001 enactment and 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act, whose banking provisions, in sweet irony, seemed to have played a key role in his detection and in creating the crime of which he stands accused. His long record in Congress involved, among many things, denying equal rights to people based on the “Family Values” tripe, as well as continually supporting ever-increasing penalties and always-diminished rights for criminal defendants. So he’s reaping what he sowed.

[MADem]

137. No, I'm not. But, but, BUT!!!

.....BUT HIS INDICTMENT EXEMPLIFIES AMERICA’S OVER-CRIMINALIZATION PATHOLOGY....

...But Hastert was not indicted for any of that. ...

But there’s a reason the U.S. has become a sprawling, oppressive penal state...

But one key factor is over-criminalization: converting relatively trivial and harmless acts into major felonies....



Trivial and harmless acts? Child abuse followed by what is starting to look like blackmail?

Hastert is not the poster child for tears and wailing about excesses of government. He's an abuser who got caught out--late, but better late than never.

Oddly enough, he's an example of a BAD LAW being used--for once-- in a good way.

[kcr]

144. And really, money laundering laws are nothing new. The concept itself isn't bad.

He was actually doing something wrong, something that money laundering laws are designed to catch. Greenwald is trying to pull a fast one, IMO with this reasoning. But you don't even have to squint that hard to see the Libertarian talking points in there. This isn't government overreach in the least.

But OMGZ you missed that one detail in case you didn't see all the other posts pointing that out. Are you sure you read the article?

[MADem]

152. Let the minimizing begin!

Sample: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/604290231207092224

Also, the article was EDITED--he changed "unsympathetic" to "contemptible" and he added to the article without making notes about it.

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/604281504936677376

Not good journalism, that.

[kcr]

156. I thought so

Butthey're just going to keep hammering you for that over and over because that's easier then explaining how you twist paying hush money to a victim into extortion/blackmail so that Hastert looks the like the victim. And then the argument can somehow be it isn't illegal to pay a blackmailer. That's totally legit. And keep squawking that you didn't read the article.

[MADem]

163. It's not real journalism...it's the Intercept!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

172. I lie was told repeatedly, and I destroyed that lie.

But on to your post. You've just told another poster that people are going to continue to pick on her because it's easier to pick on her because it's easier than...what? What the fuck are you saying? Are you able to complete the thought? Do you really believe people are picking on MADem in order to try to get others to be sympathetic toward Hastert? That's what you're bringing here? That's we're somehow trying to defend Denny Hastert? As to the claims that the other poster hasn't read the article, what say you, sir? Does accuracy matter to you, or does it not?

Fuck me, this site used to have higher caliber thought than this addled garbage. I feel like I've walked into the the last day of a two-week glue sniffing festival.

I'd request an honest answer from you, irrespective of what you think of me.

[kcr]

173. What I'm saying is I can't believe people on DU are defending Hastert. Yep.

I don't get it. I'll be honest. Does accuracy of whether or not another DUer caught a particular part of an article matter more than the general idea of what is being argued? Because I tend to think that when someone laser focuses on some petty detail like that it's because they know they've got nothing. That's the only thing I can figure. Because how does someone getting caught lying to the FBI about withdrawing money to pay what turns out to be an ex student over a million dollars for very mysterious reasons that don't look good turn out to be a cause celebre for some here? Because Glen Greenwald writes an article with Libertarian anti government talking points that somehow make sense to them because they don't really understand that it actually isn't illegal to withdraw money from a bank? That it isnt' about innocent people getting arrested for no reason for withdrawing money because government evil?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

174. It's a relatively trivial point she was trying to make, but untrue nonetheless.

No, I'm not a defender of that fuck Denny Hastert. Remove that from your head; it's ludicrous. But I do DETEST lies told with the intent to deceive others into believing something they know not to be true. And I'll attack the living shit out of those lies every time I see them until those lies are a fine dust. You can choose to believe that or not, but I'm going to continue to attack serial lies when I see them repeated over and over.

As to the rest of your post, it's fatally flawed, at least it is if you're referring to me. Denny motherfucking Hastert is NOT a cause celebre for me, and I understand banking just well enough to work at a bank, thank you. So go ahead and tell me more about how I'm looking to defend the individual Denny Hastert. We've both been here since 2001. Instead of making veiled accusations about me being a bagger or a libertarian, you could spend your effort searching for my old posts about that fuck Hastert.

[kcr]

176. Trivial and irrelevant

Because the main point was still correct that Greenwald was painting Hastert as a victim. Whether the lie is true or not makes no difference. It was merely a missed detail, likely because Greenwald has been editing the and updating the article, and that part of it may not have been in the article when MADem first read it. Or it was missed. At any rate, your attempts to attack the living shit out of it seems like a giant waste of time to me.

If Hastert isn't a cause celebre for you, you sure have a funny way of showing it in this thread.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

178. So much for the class of 2001. This is pretty despicable of you. I know, it's just the Internet.

But it was still a low blow.

I'm just going to leave it at this: you go read every post I've made in this thread, and ask yourself where I defended Hastert or his character, or anything at all about him. And you can stop with your accusations right about fucking now. Now you go on and find some other lies to minimize while you're working on your next accusation.

[kcr]

179. Just calling it like I see it. I'm sorry.

I'd probably feel worse about it if you weren't being such a jerk to another long time DUer. I think if you slowed down and saw how you were coming across, you'd realize it looks very much like you're defending Hastert. Again. I'm sorry.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

181. OK, I'm done.

The other poster was being a jerk. I didn't come into this thread in an attempt to diminish someone's reputation. Someone else did obviously come to this thread with that intent, and it offended me. And I had rock solid proof that an untrue statement was being blased all over this thread. So I replied in every damn place I could find in order to counter that garbage and prove that it was untrue. And from that, you are calling it like you see it, and what you see is that this somehow makes me a Denny Hastert supporter. Fuck, not even Republicans are Hastert supporters. Teabaggers sure as hell aren't. We've made fun of that piece of shit since day 1, and you conclude I'm a Hastert fan because you didn't like the way I responded to another poster.

I don't think we live in the same reality; in yours, the rules of logic appear to be different. So long.

[kcr]

182. What rock solid proof did you have?

You know, I didn't see that part of the article the first time I read it, either. I either missed it or it was edited. But I'm not a liar because I happened not to bring up that part of the article. You didn't have rock solid proof. You just got steamed in an internet argument and didn't want to back down and decided to blast someone for being a liar.

It's ridiculous. I did get blasted once for being a "liar" in a similar fashion by education reformers. I'd merely misread the article. I went back and saw they were right. But you know? Even though I did admit the oops, it was really beyond irritating and the urge to just leave it was strong because oh, let's stop arguing the points right now because YOU'RE WRONG THE ARTICLE DID NOT SAY THAT!!! Excuse the fuck out of me. It was also on some trivial point that didn't change the argument at all.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

183. Why would I back down when I'm right and I can prove it?

Again, we cannot carry this on much longer. You do not operate on basic cultural and linguistic premises, and you draw wild and irrational conclusions that you've said are based in emotion. If you want to float the crackpot theory that paragraphs are being added to Greenwald's piece (you know, just to fuck with you and MADem, I'm sure that's what Greenwald was thinking), then you're going to need to get busy with that web time machine and provide some evidence for your revolutionary hypothesis. It doesn't much matter whether you or MADem missed it when (if) you read the article, it was there. Objective proof does not rest upon the cognitive and reading abilities of the various people who visit a given website. That's why it's called, you know, objective truth.

And no, I never back down when I have someone dead to rights and I'm in the right. What kind of craven, mewling person would do such a thing?

[kcr]

184. Yet none of that rock solid proof

Where is the proof of no edits?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

185. You're unbalanced.

[Luminous Animal]

164. Hastert is not accused of money laundering.

Here is the indictment.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/politics/indictment-of-former-house-speaker-dennis-hastert/1565/

[kcr]

165. I didn't say he was

I know what he was indicted for. I was explaining why the actual type of regulation the law was based on isn't bad. It isn't meant to catch one specific crime. There are many crimes involving money. People move large amounts of money around for valid reasons too, of course, and they have legal, legit ways of doing so. The argument that it's illegal to withdraw your own money and this is government overreach, and using Dennis Hastert's indictment as an example is ridiculous.

[Luminous Animal]

166. Laws like these make legal and legit suspect and ensnare innocent people who end up on

a suspect list for the rest of their lives. It enlists bankers into law enforcement and turns them into snitches. The patriot act did similar to librarians in that it required them to report their patrons reading habits.

Fortunately, for the most part, the librarians said, 'Fuck that'.

[kcr]

169. If the argument is with how the law is enforced, i.e. the patriot act, I won't necessarily disagree.

But I'm not anti government and I'm not anti-regulation.

[treestar]

206. Yes, there is apparently a debate on that law

Libertarians like Greenwald would be against that law. Thus it would follow Hastert should not have been indicted for what he did, because they don't like the law he was indicted under.

Which is weird because liberals usually are OK with government regulation. I think this is about defending Glenn, because he is on Ed Snowden's side.

And this government regulation bringing down someone like Hastert - a bad time to rant against that law on a liberal site.

[Luminous Animal]

146. As Greenwald points out, he was not indicted for his crime of child abuse.

Nor is it a crime to pay off your blackmailer.

The trivial and harmless acts were withdrawing ones money and lying to the Feds.

Hastert is being used as a foil for the larger picture... a BAD LAW with which he bears responsibility for passing. That is, (as Greenwald states) "reaping what he sowed".

In my opinion, no bad law can be used in a good way because this bad law ensnares innocent people. I read jberryhill's posts and called a friend of mine who is also a lawyer. He has also been interrogated by his bank re business withdrawals and subsequently he, too, had his personal finances questioned. He also got a visit from the Feds. For withdrawing his own money for legal purposes.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

168. Another untrue statement. Read the article. No, really read the article.

[treestar]

202. I think Glenn is trying to criticize the existence of the law

as it is very Libertarian to be against having to report things to the government. It's not a good time to do that, since the Hastert Factor gets people distracted. He's in essence arguing against having to report and saying how intrusive it is. But it follows then if he had had his way and Congress never passed the law or repealed it, Hastert would not have been indicted for anything.

[still_one]

77. Those are two different issues. The kid was molested

[MADem]

87. I haven't seen anything that says "the kid was molested" yet. I am not ruling it out.

Not ruling it in either--because his behavior is being characterized as "misconduct" and not a criminal act like molestation.

If the student had been eighteen years old and the behavior was consensual, that would be "misconduct" to my mind, because of the violoation of the senior-subordinate/teacher-student/coach-athlete relationship.

[still_one]

94. This is a strategy so others come forward, and I strongly suspect there was more than one

incident, and it was high school, so I think it is probable a minor, but they are not naming it officially because there is not enough evidence, but hoping others come forward

[MADem]

107. I cannot disagree with you. All I can tell you is that this rumor is very old indeed!

I heard it back in the nineties, when I was working in DC and had to go up on the Hill as part of my job.

[still_one]

133. maybe in the course of time we will see

[Cha]

189. "sexual abuse"..

"On Friday, federal law enforcement officials said Hastert had paid $1.7 million over the last four years to conceal sexual abuse against a former male student he knew during his days as a teacher in Yorkville, Ill., where Hastert worked until 1981."

snip//

"He made several cash payments beginning in 2010, after being contacted by the individual, the indictment said.

Hastert allegedly began by withdrawing $50,000 at a time, but when the
activity was questioned by banking officials, he reduced the withdrawals to under $10,000, the indictment said."

MOre..
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-hastert-misconduct-20150529-story.html

Blackmail. Didn't come cheap either.. I would think if it were consensual there wouldn't be as much leverage for blackmail.. but, obviously Dennis didn't want it out no matter what.

This is the first I've heard of this.. when I saw Hastert was indicted I figured it was some political thing.. wasn't paying much attention until this thread when I looked up "pederast" and wondered what that had to do with Dennis Hastert! I never would guessed this.

[pnwmom]

141. Individual A should be prosecuted for extortion. But Hastert, if he committed sex crimes against a minor

should be prosecuted for that.

At this point we don't know what Hastert did that he thought was worth millions to cover up.

[MADem]

109. Al Capone! He's the poster boy for this kind of thing!

That Silk Road guy wasn't just selling drugs, he was selling prostitutes and assassination services...which makes it difficult for me to cry too much for him.

[MADem]

38. HASTERT passed that "too much money" law--he was the guy who shoved the PATRIOT ACT through Congress

So why is Greenwald boo-hooing over a guy who was hoisted on his own petard, in essence?

Did he get a memo from CATO to so do, or what?

Pull the damn string, here!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/dennis-hastert-patriot-act_n_7465780.html

[jberryhill]

44. So, you think the reasonableness of a law depends on who gets charged?

That's an unusual position for you.

Let's say that Hastert was part of passing a law making it a capital offense to have gray hair.

Then, his hair turns gray, and he gets busted for it.

In that situation, you'd say that any criticism of the law is unfounded?

I don't see, in that article, Greenwald shedding any tears over Hastert personally. It does point out that what we have here is a guy indicted on charges of (a) withdrawing his own money from his own bank account, and (b) not wanting to say why.

Should you have to answer to the government when you take money out of your own bank account or not?

The other theme here, and the only reason I started in this thread in the first place is to characterize that as "Shilling for a pederast" is simply an inaccurate characterization of the article.

[stevenleser]

103. Yes, you should have to answer to the government for that.

There are very few legitimate reasons to repeatedly withdraw large sums of money (>$10,000 in cash) from the bank. And those legitimate reasons provide ample ways of proving that's for what you withdrew the money.

Most legitimate transactions of that size involve wire transfers, letters of credit, or plastic.

[AngryAmish]

20. Imagine if your were the FBI and US Attorney's office

Hastert's charges are small beer. In my opinion what you do with your money is your business and everyone should lie to the government on principle.

HOWEVER, they found out that Hastert buggered a kid in the 70s. It is a state crime and the statute has run. I would indight this asshole on principle, so he does not get away with it.

Also, imagine the shitstorm if the investigated this guy, found out he was a pederast and did nothing? That is how careers are ruined.

[jberryhill]

23. You have it backwards

They didn't find out he molested a kid and then set about to figure out what they could bust him for.

They noticed suspicious transactions on his account, because of the way that all bank accounts are monitored by them, and set to finding out why.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

6. Okay

How long before the cult of Glenn Greenwald shows up here to defend him?

[MohRokTah]

11. I think you're late to the party.

[Marr]

7. What a gross and deceitful OP.

Greenwald's article is filled with condemnations of Hastert and his corrupt history-- personal and political.

His point is that the US has more people in prison than any other country, and has simply criminalized too many things. Hastert is, after all, not being indicted for his past 'indiscretions', or whatever they're calling them. He's being indicted for hiding money transfers and lying to the FBI about what they were for.

[m-lekktor]

14. exactly. this OP and the assholes on Twitter

COMPLETELY mischaracterized what Greenwald wrote in that piece. unfuckingbelievable and not even worth spending time on. jesus christ these clowns must think people have zero reading comprehension skills.

[merrily]

28. Not unusual, sadly.

[Vattel]

48. I agree. Unbelievably sleazy OP

[Octafish]

8. I prefer to focus on what Greenwald actually wrote.

But one key factor is over-criminalization: converting relatively trivial and harmless acts into major felonies. The postal worker who just engaged in an act of nonviolent political protest — flying a gyrocopter to the U.S. Capitol lawn to protest the corrupting role of money in U.S. politics — faces up to nine years in prison on multiple felony charges. That is over-criminalization, as are the shamefully large number of people in prison for selling prohibited narcotics to consenting adults who wanted them, or even for just possessing them.

Radley Balko, who has done among the best work on the broken U.S. criminal justice system, said this morning: “Dennis Hastert is one of the last people I want to be defending. But these charges are the picture of over-criminalization run amok.” Indeed, who is the victim in Hastert’s alleged crimes, which — again — do not include the “past misconduct”? He literally faces felony counts and years in prison for hiding an agreement to pay someone claiming to have been victimized by him, an agreement that is perfectly legal and standard (even common) when done with lawyers as part of an actual or threatened court case.

So, you see, he's not shilling for a pedarast, Blue Tires. Greenwald's standing up for the Bill of Rights, which is a lot different thing.

[kcr]

22. Of course. Paying off victims to silence them is perfectly legal and above board.

Why does anyone have a problem with that? Yeah, that's just like court cases

Seriously, Greenwald is so out of line here. It's disgusting.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

91. Read the article or look foolish. It's all covered.

[kcr]

93. Or you could point out where I'm wrong n/t

[DisgustipatedinCA]

95. I'm not trying to be evasive

The whole article deals with Hastert being charged for one thing, even though he's suspected of/guilty of another thing. Greenwald makes perfectly clear that his problem is that the government charged him (using the law he helped to create) with relatively minor offenses that in the opinion of Greenwald shouldn't be offenses. He also points out that if done with lawyers present, silencing people with money is a common and legal practice. And yes, he goes to great lengths to excoriate Hastert and everything about him, but he's bothered by government overreach.

I'm sorry if I came on a little strong, but there are those here who try to crucify Greenwald every chance they get. Even in this thread, there are easily disprovable lies that are told in hopes that people won't read the actual article, but just go away with a negative impression of Greenwald instead.

I'm not even sure how much I agree with Greenwald on this one, but to at least some extent, I do. But he did lay out a pretty defensible case, in my view.

[kcr]

99. In this particular instance, it is right to "crucify Greenwald"

Greenwald's comparison is ludicrous. So, if I just decide to take matters in my own hands and lock someone in my basement in a cage when they do something I don't like, can I claim that should be legal, because hey, they do that with lawyers in the courts when they arrest people, so that's the same?

Whether or not you support the Patriot Act, it did what it was designed to do, here. He was using large amounts of money illegally. Greenwald's logic as to why it wasn't wrong is as I pointed out above, insane. The fact Hastert himself helped engineer the vehicle of his demise is delicious irony. Why anyone is agonizing over this is beyond me. And of all the aspects of the Patriot Act, this particular one really doesn't bother me all that much. Need to move massive amounts of cash around? Do it legally. If you're a crook, like Hastert? You're going to run into problems. Oh, well.

[MADem]

39. Why didn't Greenwald mention who passed that law that bagged Hastert...?

It's a fair question.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/dennis-hastert-patriot-act_n_7465780.html

He's shilling for CATO, if you ask me. Still.

[jberryhill]

52. Hillary Clinton

Or was Hastert alone in Washington when the Patriot Act was passed?

[MADem]

54. You can't possibly be serious. You do realize that had Hastert not backed the law, it would

never have made it to the floor of the House, and thus not made it to the Senate? He got the ball rolling.

He was the architect of his own disgrace.

[jberryhill]

60. And that makes it a good law

Correct?

[MADem]

63. What is your problem?

Why do you keep making false inferences about me through the use of bullshit questions?

What is wrong with you that you would do such a thing? You aren't trolling, are you? You aren't engaging in deliberate disruption for sport, are you? You aren't trying to be divisive in order to create drama at DU, are you?

See? You like it?

What you are doing is rude and uncivil. Never once have I said the Patriot Act is a good law, but you sure as hell are trying to stuff that shit down my throat, and I'm not putting up with it.

CUT THE CRAP. You should be ashamed of yourself for even going down that ugly road.

[jberryhill]

72. I'll tell you what is an "ugly road"

The notion advanced by the OP that criticizing this law is "shilling for a pedophile".

Because I am an attorney who frequently handles client funds for large settlements and other transactions, I personally get shaken down by this law several times a year.

It is a very uncomfortable position to be put in - knowing that the bank is asking "what is the nature of this transaction" when I have confidentiality obligations to my clients, but also knowing that if my answers are "suspicious" or "uncooperative", I'm going to get shaken down even further to VIOLATE my legal obligations to my clients.

So, the last time around, they then started looking at transactions from my personal account.

Now, I have a stepdaughter in college whom I send a regular allowance to every month. You see how it feels when someone starts interrogating you with:

"Okay, so those were client settlement transactions. Okay.... Now, who is (Name of my stepdaughter)?"

"That's my daughter."

"She has a different name than you do, why is that?"

I fucking went ballistic. I told the lady from the bank, "Look, you want to dig into my relationships with my wife and my own fucking children then you send the Treasury agent who is leaning on you over here right fucking now."

You don't understand the problem with this law because you have never had any direct personal experience with being shaken down by your bank acting as a proxy for a federal agent somewhere, wanting to know about your married LGBT daughter.

I won't "CUT THE CRAP" at your demand. You find yourself someone else you think you can tell what to do.

[MADem]

186. Take that up with the creep who wrote it--the one who is the subject of this thread. nt

[Doctor_J]

85. blue tires needs his picture next to the word"obsessed" in the dictionary

Sadly there are enough Greenwald haters at du to get all of his rants to the greatest page.

[MohRokTah]

12. Nothing that asshat does surprises me any more.

The only good thing is, he's an asshat openly in public for all to view.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Did you reaad the article?

Because on the large arc of US Law and legal system he has more than just a point.

Radley Balko, who has done among the best work on the broken U.S. criminal justice system, said this morning: “Dennis Hastert is one of the last people I want to be defending. But these charges are the picture of over-criminalization run amok.” Indeed, who is the victim in Hastert’s alleged crimes, which — again — do not include the “past misconduct”? He literally faces felony counts and years in prison for hiding an agreement to pay someone claiming to have been victimized by him, an agreement that is perfectly legal and standard (even common) when done with lawyers as part of an actual or threatened court case.

We do have an issue with over criminalization, Though it usually does not involve the former speaker of the House, and he was responsible for many of those laws. Irony, I know. It usually involves people in the hood, where nobody cares.

I have read Balko's work, and it should be read by people here, not that I expect it. Because you know what? That is a coming political crisis...

[KG]

24. I lulz'd

as usual.

[merrily]

27. saying he reviles Hastert is not exactly shilling for him

[Tarheel_Dem]

30. GG? The dude who defended & secretly wiretapped for the White Supremacist guy? No one....

should be surprised. Well, except for these guys......

[Kalidurga]

32. I am not a Greenwald fan but...

I didn't see him shilling for Hastert. He might be completely revolted by the sexual abuse. But, he can still also be revolted by a system that allows the government to step in and ask you what you are doing with your own money for not other reason than you have a lot of it.

[jberryhill]

35. Obviously, anyone withdrawing money from a bank needs to be watched

http://www.abqjournal.com/580107/news/dea-agents-seize-16000-from-aspiring-music-video-producer.html

[Kalidurga]

37. Obviously

Or they might own a store and gasp be selling food that people have become dependent on, we really got to stop with the coddling of food pushers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/11/15/irs-backs-down-returns-seized-cash-to-family-businesses/

[MADem]

40. I think he's shilling for the CATO Institute, myself.

Hastert is just the 'device' used to support the "Shrink the government down so it can be drowned in a bathtub" crowd.

After all, it was HASTERT who CREATED/PASSED the law that is now being used to bag him:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/dennis-hastert-patriot-act_n_7465780.html

Greenwald doesn't mention that--but of course he HAD to know. I mean, he wasn't comatose when the Patriot Act was being passed.

Follow the money....and/or the past associations. This has CATO all over it.

[Kalidurga]

46. Well that is one of the reasons I am not a Greenwald fan

I am of course shocked by the allegations against Hastert. And I wouldn't have used him as an example of the over reach of the government. But, I am not going to accuse him of shilling for Hastert when he there is a probability he is doing worse like you said. Shilling for the 1% is much worse, it allows them to ruin people and that ruin includes but is not limited to the kind of thing Hastert has been accused of.

[MADem]

47. Hastert is merely a blunt instrument by which to flog the argument.

Greenwald is lazy though, because he chose a poor tool, since Hastert helped to create the law that was used to bag him.

A good 'journalist' (as opposed to someone who writes articles to confirm biases held by one's employers) would make that point clear.

This story is more about IRONY than government overreach.

[jberryhill]

50. So you are supporting a provision of the Patriot Act, is that right?

[MADem]

61. WTF?

Try reading. REALLY. Read, don't infer, don't assume. Let me make my point clear in the simplest way I can manage:

Who was the one who got the House to pass the law? HASTERT.

Who was the one who got BAGGED by the law? HASTERT.

THAT is what I'm saying.

Good grief. Don't ascribe beliefs or attitudes to people. You do a poor job of it.

[jberryhill]

62. Greenwald's article is about the law he was bagged by

...and why do we need a law that penalizes people for taking their own money out of their own bank accounts.

I gathered from your participation in this thread that you take issue with raising that question, and therefore don't have any problem with a law that penalizes people, who are doing nothing illegal at all, from taking their own money out of their own bank accounts in a way that makes them difficult to notice.

Then, the other charge is that if you are asked what you are doing with your own money, what obligations should you have to someone asking you that question?

But, clearly, it is "Shilling for a pedophile" to question why anyone should be arrested for withdrawing their own money from their own bank account.

Okay.

The Miranda Rule is also, one supposes, a piece of crap because you do know that Miranda was a rapist, right?

[MADem]

65. The law that HASTERT, as SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, shepherded through Congress.

THAT is the point that you seem UNABLE (or more likely, unwilling) to grasp. It is a point that should be covered in Greenwald's story.

Of course, that would defeat the purpose of the story, which is to paint Hastert as a VICTIM, instead of as the ARCHITECT of his own demise.

[jberryhill]

67. What difference does it make?

It is a criticism of the law in question.

Obviously, the personalities involved are of primary importance to you in discussing whether a law is a good one or not.

That Hastert was speaker at the time is ironic, but I don't see what that has to do with whether people should be arrested for taking their own money out of their own bank account.

And, I challenge you - find one word of DU EVER that I have posted in support of Greenwald, if personalities are so important.

[MADem]

70. The victim, here, is the perpetrator. It makes a huge difference.

He was the architect of his own downfall. That is a key piece to the story, yet it was ignored, because it ruins the arc of it. It's rather difficult to paint someone as a victim when the "victim" created the very mechanism that ensnared him.


It's not about "personalities." Look up the phrase "hoisted on his own petard." Then look up "Too clever by half."

[jberryhill]

73. So it makes a "huge difference"

...as to whether a law makes sense, if someone who was involved in writing it gets charged under it?

I'm sure that's happened with lots of laws.

I still don't know how that is some important omission from Greenwald's story here.

Now that you've called me a troll, have you managed to track down all of the numerous posts I have made on DU in support of Greenwald?

Maybe you like a law that makes me go into explaining to someone at a bank the sexual orientation and relationships of my children, in the course of explaining who I pay allowances to. Maybe that kind of nosiness is your thing. It's not mine.

[MADem]

92. The article painted Hastert as a victim.

Discussion of the Patriot Act is a separate issue.

Why don't you fire up a thread about that, and try having a civil discussion on the topic?

Maybe run a poll?

I don't think you'll find many--if any--people here rooting for the Patriot Act.


But that didn't stop you from trying to paint me with that stink, did it?


I didn't call you a troll. I asked you bullshit questions, just like you were doing to me.

Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot, do you?

[jberryhill]

122. You didn't read the article anyway

"Hastert is about the least sympathetic figure one can imagine. Beyond his above-listed sins, he shepherded the 2001 enactment and 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act, whose banking provisions, in sweet irony, seemed to have played a key role in his detection and in creating the crime of which he stands accused."

You keep saying that's not there.

It's IN the article.

[GeorgeGist]

187. Thanks.

[Kalidurga]

74. Oh I am slow on the uptake today

I am probably blinded by the thing where Hastert has been accused of multiple instances of having sex with his students.

[MADem]

80. See, that's the thing--he's not being accused of that.

He faces no charges for that at all. None. Nada. Zip.

He was "caught" because he was transferring funds to someone after lying to a federal investigator and saying he was just keeping that money at home.

LYING is what nailed him, not improper conduct with a student.

The irony is that the law that caught him out for "lying" was one he helped put on the books.

[Kalidurga]

96. I know

and if what he is accused of happened in 1973, I don't see how he could even possibly be charged. But, it's still very disgusting. And we won't here much about this from Conservatives at all. It all seems so Sandusky like, except there will never be a trial for the abuse, just the corruption. I am good with that. I just hope that someday we can live in a world where lying to the Feds isn't the only way to get justice.

[treestar]

207. True. But it's a libertarian thing.

Liberals are more likely to be OK with it - it might catch "the banksters" doing something wrong. Though the purpose was more likely to be about drug transactions originally, and about terrorists after 911.

[TeeYiYi]

41. I agree with Greenwald on this one. ..nt

TYY

[bvar22]

43. Please, please, please, go look at the website where the OP found this.

Assault rifles, handguns, targets, ammo belts, and GW Bush..... real reliable source there.

[MADem]

51. The link leads to TWITTER and Greenwald's article at FIRST LOOK.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/05/29/denny-hastert-highly-unsympathetic-face-americas-criminalization-pathology/

There's a subset here that just loves that source and finds it edgy--or something.

No mention in the article of the law that was used to bag Hastert--his own PATRIOT ACT that he helped to pass.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

100. ^^^^^ THIS STATEMENT IS UNTURE (AGAIN). I'VE SHOWN THE QUOTE TO MADEM^^^^

"No mention in the article of the law that was used to bag Hastert--his own PATRIOT ACT that he helped to pass"--MADem

"Beyond his above-listed sins, he shepherded the 2001 enactment and 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act, whose banking provisions, in sweet irony, seemed to have played a key role in his detection and in creating the crime of which he stands accused."--Glenn Greenwald.

Are you now at the point where you just straight-up deny reality? Because that's the point we've arrived at.

[MADem]

105. Now you're getting stalkerish--the link in the OP is to TWITTER--go click on it, and leave me alone.

Away with ye, now....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

115. This isn't stalking. It's correcting an untruth.

And I already told you that every time I see you post that untruth, I'm going to call you on it. Lies should not be left unchallenged.

[MADem]

124. Well, let me 'correct an untruth'--the link you are whining about is to TWITTER. TWITTER--not

anything "nefarious."

And the link at TWITTER is to Greenwald's article at FIRST LOOK.

So let's talk about untruths, shall we? You keep telling one about the link--you should stop doing that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

138. You've been untruthful in the extreme in this thread. Here's the rundown.

Jury, I'd only ask that you peruse the entire thread and ask yourself whether this poster accidentally spread an untruth a dozen times or so in one thread, or if the poster is doing this on purpose, and whether it's worse to call someone on a lie repeated many times, or if it's worse to knowingly tell a lie many times.

You've held something to be true several times in this thread:

"I find it amusing that this crack 'journalist' isn't pointing out the obvious."..."The real story is this: A GOP Useful Tool in a position of authority, doing the bidding of the Bush regime, passed a law that BushCo wanted to better control the population and events. That law was used much later to take the Tool out. Oh, how the mighty have fallen!"

This is false, and I told you so in a reply. Here's what Greenwald said in the Intercept article that the Tweet is OBVIOUSLY referring to:
"Hastert is about the least sympathetic figure one can imagine. Beyond his above-listed sins, he shepherded the 2001 enactment and 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act, whose banking provisions, in sweet irony, seemed to have played a key role in his detection and in creating the crime of which he stands accused."

You then replied to me that he buried the lede and that he may have edited it. No, and no. But the point still stood. Greenwald directly addressed what you said he failed to address.

Then you posted to someone else:
"The "VICTIM" was the one who helped to PASS THE LAW in the first place!

Don't mention THAT, though, Greenwald--because it ruins the "story!"

This isn't journalism. Real journalism would point out that ironic fact!"

I told you this was an untrue statement, and I gave you the Greenwald quote you can see above. Your response was to change the subject thusly:
"Uh, sorry--he did pass the law. He was the Speaker when the Patriot Act went through."

This was never in question. He did help to pass the law, Greenwald pointed it out. But it does not constitute an answer to me questioning the falsehood you kept repeating.

Then you changed the subject again and said it was all about how Greenwald stuck up for "poor widdle Denny". Again, that has nothing to do with the lie you kept repeating.

Then you changed the subject again by saying "the subject is the article". Strangely enough, you've switched now to saying that the subject is a tweet on Twitter, and you're acting as though Greenwald's Intercept article has nothing to do with this.

Let's keep scrolling down through the thread. Here's what you said in a later post:
"Why didn't Greenwald mention who passed that law that bagged Hastert...?"
By this time, you'd been shown the truth several times. You kept repeating something you knew to be false. Sure, I understand you didn't read the article at first when you were reflexively slamming him, but after having it pointed out to you several, several times that you were spreading an untruth, you kept going with it.

Going on downthread, you've done it again:
"After all, it was HASTERT who CREATED/PASSED the law that is now being used to bag him:
Greenwald doesn't mention that--but of course he HAD to know. I mean, he wasn't comatose when the Patriot Act was being passed."

Nope. Still a lie.

On to post 51: "No mention in the article of the law that was used to bag Hastert--his own PATRIOT ACT that he helped to pass."
And here's Greenwald's quote again, just to have the untrue and true versions next to one another:
"Hastert is about the least sympathetic figure one can imagine. Beyond his above-listed sins, he shepherded the 2001 enactment and 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act, whose banking provisions, in sweet irony, seemed to have played a key role in his detection and in creating the crime of which he stands accused."

Then you introduced your swansong, a brand new fucking theory that the article in question is actually a tweet, and has nothing to do with Greenwald or the Intercept, despite you arguing and spreading untruths with great gusto with regard to Greenwald and the Intercept up to this point:
"Well, let me 'correct an untruth'--the link you are whining about is to TWITTER. TWITTER--not anything "nefarious."
And the link at TWITTER is to Greenwald's article at FIRST LOOK.
So let's talk about untruths, shall we? You keep telling one about the link--you should stop doing that."

I have no idea what the hell you were trying to sell there, but no thanks. For the record, the tweet was only posted because the OP wanted to shield people from the actual title of Greenwald's article, which completely destroys the OP's vicious attempt to equate Greenwald with child predators. Whatever that garbled mess is above, you should know that The Intercept is a part of First Look Media. I still have no freaking idea what sort of accusation you were trying to make with your statement above, but you appear to not be aware that the two organizations are linked.

Let's look at post 71. The false statement is repeated, again:
"Third, and absent from the piece: Hastert created the law that ensnared him."

So of course I corrected the falsehood. I didn't do this for you--you're obviously a lost cause. I did it for those you're trying to hoodwink into believing something that is not true. Its' easy to scan a thread and form impressions from subject titles. I see that's your game. I intend to counter falsehoods when I see them, and if you tell 15 lies in one thread that I can counter with factual evidence, expect at least 15 replies from me. No, that's not stalking--that's trying to keep someone from being successful at perpetuating something they know to be a lie in order to damage Greenwald's reputation.

[MADem]

142. TL/DR. When the first word out of your mouth is "jury" I suspect you're trying to "get" me in some

fashion, and I don't appreciate that.

You have a nice day, now.

I'd invite your attention to the link at the OP--which is to a TWITTER link. But you keep ignoring that. So, whatever.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

145. When addressing a possible jury, I'm referring to myself, not to you. That's how this works.

I don't appreciate what you've done in this thread, for the record. I hope that I've helped to keep some people from believing words that are not true.

[woo me with science]

175. Thank you.

Thank you for taking the time to confront and publicly reject blatant dishonesty and smear. These sorts of ugly tactics have become far too common at DU and are far too often unchallenged.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

177. Thank you. This one made me personally angry.

Watching that poster KNOW that they had been caught saying something that wasn't true, and watching it continue, and then watching that poster try to change the subject and act like a goddamned right wing cable talking head pissed me off. I used to have this notion, long ago, that the Democrats were honest because we were on the right side of things, and so we had the truth on our side. These days, I'm semi-embarrassed to even type those words, because they're naive in the extreme, and a person can't un-know that once it's known.

[Chathamization]

134. Curious - if Greenwald's critics really think he's so horrible, how come they need to make things up

about him all the time rather than dealing with what he actually said? Or perhaps they never bother to read what he wrote and just start telling us how awful he is based on what they imagine he must have wrote.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

139. It's an excellent question, and I think I know the answer.

But since I'm probably being adjudicated by several juries right now, I think I'll just keep my thoughts to myself on this one.

[Doctor_J]

88. no thanks. no click from me. op is a Greenwald crazy

Thanks for sharing though

[MADem]

106. The link is to TWITTER. The twitter comment links to FIRST LOOK, where

Greenwald publishes his stories.

The suggestion that there are ads for guns and kooks at twitter is wrong. I don't read First Look often so I don't know what they advertise--I have an ad blocker, too, so I miss a lot of stuff.

[frylock]

57. Better luck tomorrow

[grasswire]

118. Heh!!!

well played, well played

[dsc]

68. It isn't taking up for a pedeophile to have a problem with being arrested for withdrawing ones own

money but the problem is that isn't what happened here. First, he directly lied to the FBI, which is well known to be a crime. Second, there was quite likely an element of tax evasion here. Either Hassert should have been paying gift taxes or the person he was paying the money too should have been paying taxes with Hassert filing a 1099 for him to be doing so.

[MADem]

71. Third, and absent from the piece: Hastert created the law that ensnared him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/28/dennis-hastert-patriot-act_n_7465780.html

That's the real "Big Finish" here. A tool of BushCo shoved a law through Congress to help BushCo control the masses, and that very law was used to bag him for misconduct.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

102. No. Your claim is still unture.

"Beyond his above-listed sins, he shepherded the 2001 enactment and 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act, whose banking provisions, in sweet irony, seemed to have played a key role in his detection and in creating the crime of which he stands accused." --Glenn Greenwald.

Every time I see you post what you KNOW to be a falsehood, I'll place that quote right below it. What's your game? Not into the truth?

[MADem]

110. Not the focus of the piece. The article paints a law-enabler as a "victim" of "Big Government."

Hastert has met the enemy....and it is HIM.

That's the story.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

121. Yes, but you've claimed 6 times that he failed to mention something. And you're wrong.

Do you want the quote again that DIRECTLY contradicts an untruth you've been spreading all over this thread? You know good and well that you're doing this, because I've shown you several times. And so you change the subject, or claim Greenwald may have edited, or darkly accuse me of stalking you (all in the same thread), or claim that this isn't the main point of the article. You're slipping all over the place. Do you believe this isn't visible to anyone who cares to look?

[Luminous Animal]

136. That is the idea. He is counting on people not caring to look.

[X_Digger]

147. "Third, and absent from the piece:" becomes "Not the focus of the piece." in two posts.

So your problem is that the irony wasn't prominent enough in the article?

And you hefted that goalpost PDQ, methinks.

[MADem]

153. He edited that piece, you know. He started out by changing "unsympathetic" to

"contemptible." https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/604281504936677376

Every time I looked at it, it got longer.

[X_Digger]

167. To ignore the rest of the article is.. willful misinterpretation, if I'm kind.

I don't step into all the poo-flinging pro/con Greenwald is a hero, Greenwald is an idiot, but your blatant disregard for the actual article is.. heroically obtuse.

[MADem]

171. He edited it. It kept getting longer with every read. nt

[jberryhill]

126. "Absent from the piece" is a lie

"Hastert is about the least sympathetic figure one can imagine. Beyond his above-listed sins, he shepherded the 2001 enactment and 2005 renewal of the Patriot Act, whose banking provisions, in sweet irony, seemed to have played a key role in his detection and in creating the crime of which he stands accused."

It is quite remarkable for you to assert it is "absent from the piece".

Did you read it?

Under what conceivable definition of "absent" is your statement true?

[Luminous Animal]

135. Because he says it is true and is counting on people to pass on reading the actual article

but rather go on faith (given he's pretty well respected by many here) that he is accurately describing the article and leave it at that. It is the equivalent of Fox News putting a (D) after Hastert's name. People who watch Fox News trust Fox News and now believe, erroneously, that a Democratic Speaker of the House has been indicted on felony charges and sexually assaulted a boy. I've gone through many rounds with MADem around similar issues.

[jberryhill]

150. I'm kind of shocked, personally

To be honest, I don't have much of a memory for "who posts what kind of stuff on DU". A lot of names become familiar over time, but I don't have any sort of scorecard. For example, I seem to recall you saying something atrocious about me at some time in the past, but I have no idea what, or much concern over it really. It's the Internet.

I'm also not terribly enthusiastic over the Greenwald stuff that goes on and, in general, am skeptical of his intentions and motivation.

But that kind of thing - questioning motivations - is toxic to discussions generally. It's unavoidable in internet discussions, but flagrantly and emphatically claiming that certain facts are "absent" from an article in which they are clearly present is surprising.

As I've said elsewhere in this thread, because of my occupation I've gone through these sorts of interrogations, and it is not as simple as, I guess, some people suppose. For example, being in a second marriage, I did not believe it was a good idea to make distinctions like "step" when referring to my wife's children as "daughter", and was very used to referring to my stepdaughter as "my daughter". My then-stepdaughter is now my son, incidentally.

So, during the course of one of these interrogations, where they go through lots of transactions and say "what was this for? What was that for?" I referred to a series of payments as an allowance I sent to my daughter when she was away at school. That answer attracted their interest, since they probably had a lot of background information on me, and knew I did not have a biological daughter. When they started to drill down on my answer to that question, I realized that my casual use of "daughter" to refer to my wife's child, whom I had not adopted and was not my biological child, was considered by them to be an "untrue" answer, and a violation of the law. To top it off, it was while she was transitioning, and no longer identifies as female. So, sure, it was "untrue" two ways! They figured they had a major felon on their hands.

That's how they work. It is demeaning and threatening. All over sending a regular payment to my wife's child from to help pay rent and expenses, and because I did not believe my family structure and children's gender identities were possibly relevant to whatever crimes in which they believed I was engaged.

Could they have spun this into "lying to investigators"? Sure. All over activity which is perfectly legal.

[Luminous Animal]

162. Your posts inspired me to contact a close friend who is also a lawyer. He experienced a similar

situation to yours. I, of course, won't go into the details but both of your stories are horrifying. Even without personal testimony, I've long believed what we do with our own money is no business of the Feds or the bankers (directed to act as narcs). Similarly, what we are reading is no business of the Feds or librarians (directed to act as narcs).

Personally, I think it was a great move on Greenwald's part to use the indictment of one the main boosters into our personal privacy. Privacy, free speech, and increased criminalization (thus, increased incarceration) are over-riding themes of his work. And Hastert, "contemptible" and "sleazy" has Greenwald describes him, is a poster boy of reaping what you sow.

I do appreciate that you've used your personal experiences to bolster the article's point. And this?..

"Could they have spun this into "lying to investigators"? Sure. All over activity which is perfectly legal."

Yep, absolutely.

[grasswire]

170. yeoman duty in this thread tonight, thanks.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

196. Thank you for saying that.

You're more eloquent than I am--I get angry and flustered when someone keeps repeating something that can be shown as untrue for all to see. It starts to feel like AM radio, where there's no objective standard of proof one can rest on, but instead, just endless spinning and subject changing and falsehoods. I can't keep engaging with people who have no objective standard for proof--that leads to crazy town in a real hurry. Anyway, thanks.

[still_one]

79. I think the molestation is a major part of this also

[riderinthestorm]

151. Lol! I love the smell of desperation in the evening

This is even more pathetic than most efforts...smh (still chuckling)

[grasswire]

180. thanks to all who worked very hard to maintain truth in this thread.

Good work.

[randome]

191. If anyone jumped the gun, it was, as usual big-mouth Greenwald.

Hastert Indictment Tied to Sex Abuse During Teaching Years

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/dennis-hastert-sexual-misconduct-report

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[DesMoinesDem]

203. All the usual anti-Greenwald, anti-Snowden, pro-NSA authoritarians looking desperate

and pathetic as usual, trying to spin something out of nothing. Don't you people ever get tired of looking foolish?

[treestar]

208. So it is pro-authoritarian to agree

that it's OK for government to request reports of transactions of 10K or more?

I'm sure rich Hastert will have his lawyers attack the law as unconstitutional in some way. Discrimination against the wealthy.

Some people are such fans of Glenn because of Eddie Snowden that they are letting themselves take libertarian anti-government positions.

[DesMoinesDem]

210. Did I say that? No. It's authoritarian to defend all government spying

and constantly attack anyone that exposes it, which is what the anti-Greenwald, anti-Snowden, pro-NSA authoritarians do.

[treestar]

211. What is it the authoritarians are trying to spin?

Do you think the reporting requirements are bad laws, too intrusive, just like NSA spying?

[whatchamacallit]

209. This is idiotic - Greenwald is not defending Hastert, he's defending us

He references the Hastert case, not to make excuses for DH's behavior, but as an example of the draconian nature of the law. Anyone with half a brain knows this.

[Jesus Malverde]

213. .

JM

[deurbano]

215. "Greenwald shills for a pederast"?! You are letting your loathing for Greenwald consume you.

It's bringing you down, not him. He has opinions you clearly don't share. Engage those.