It may be a crime in the sense of what is called crimes these days but going back to AV's original point, there is no victim who can claim a damage from Hastert's lack of reporting. This has nothing to do with acts committed years ago which you agree above are not in play. In that sense, a lack of a physical person having been damaged by Hastert, not telling of his withdrawal is proof of this being a victimless crime IMO, a crime that Hastert in fact helped to create in the first place. In that sense I'm delighted he became the victim of the monster he created.
I also think your own thoughts in this case are purely driven by party politics rather than any real principle. I doubt you are even opposed to the over reach of the Patriot Act so there you go. This is another proof that on many issues I see little difference between yourself, Moreluck and Baba. You all three demonstrate a blind irrational reaction when it comes to blind defense of your party heroes while being a contradiction when it's the other party.
I am very much opposed to the Patriot Act. The whole idea of victimless crimes is a subject for endless debate. Is a prostitute who takes money for sex from a wiling patron a victim? Maybe, depending on the circumstances. Perhaps her pimp will kill her if she gets out of the business. It's all pretty circular.
Hastert's crime violates societal laws designed to keep order and sanity. This particular area of the Patriot Act actually makes sense, because it makes circumventing the law a crime, and makes it more difficult for terrorists and drug dealers to transact their business.
Hastert was Speaker of the House, and supposedly an example of someone who should follow laws, not break them. It also appears that because Hastert was an influential person, that he considered himself not responsible to play by the rules.
He should spend the rest of his life in prison. Perhaps he can get a cell next to Sandusky so they can swap stories about young boys.
