So -- the Hastert case solidifies precedent that the govt. has a legitimate interest in monitoring what people do with legally-acquired cash
-
-
-
Withdrawing cash in a certain manner may be legitimately assumed by the govt. to indicate something "nefarious" afoot, as the judge put it.
-
These rationalizations / precedents will inevitably be marshaled against people with far less power than Hastert. It's not even a question.
-
Thus the inherent danger in cheering when dubiously-accrued state power is brought to bear on people/defendants you happen to dislike.
- 6 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.