Oct. 16--So, no trial.
Will former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert go to prison -- and if so, will he take his dark secrets with him?
Hastert has reached a tentative agreement with federal prosecutors under which he will plead guilty Oct. 28 to violating federal banking laws, his attorneys told U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin on Thursday.
Details of the agreement weren't spelled out. But by admitting he broke the law to hide more than $1 million in cash withdrawals, Hastert likely seeks to avoid airing the underlying "misconduct" for which he has not been charged.
Federal prosecutors alleged in May that Hastert had made dozens of withdrawals -- just under the $10,000 reporting threshold -- to settle a $3.5 million hush money bargain with an unnamed "Individual A."
Some not-subtle hints contained in the indictment -- and subsequent leaks from law enforcement sources -- revealed that Hastert was accused of sexually abusing a student at Yorkville High School while Hastert was a history teacher and wrestling coach there from 1965 to 1981.
The indictment says Hastert had agreed to pay to conceal "prior misconduct" against Individual A. Sources confirmed that a second person, also a former student, had made similar allegations.
But Hastert wasn't charged with sexual abuse. He was charged with the far less salacious crimes of illegally structuring cash withdrawals and lying to the FBI about them. It's likely that he'll plead guilty to some of those charges in exchange for others being dropped, and will be given a lighter sentence for cooperating.
Hastert will be punished for manipulating cash transactions, not for the egregious misconduct that he hoped to cover up with that money. That's deeply troubling. It may, unfortunately, be the best outcome possible.
This isn't a case in which an alleged victim came forward complaining of a crime. Routine reporting by Hastert's bank led the FBI to question him about his transactions. He lied. The feds dug in. They kept digging, despite the likelihood that the statute of limitations would prevent them from prosecuting the alleged misdeeds they uncovered. They pursued the charges they could prove.
Their investigation unearthed some long-hidden secrets. It appears that Hastert's desire to keep those secrets from being exposed and explored in open court led him to accept a plea and, we assume, prison time.
Might a Hastert plea bargain close the books on a still unfolding story? We hope not. The details contained in the indictment -- and the media storm they unleashed -- should serve as notice to other alleged victims, if there are any, that the feds are all ears. If there are investigative threads left to unravel, federal and state prosecutors have to follow through.
We hope Judge Durkin won't sign off on a plea that discounts the full scope of Hastert's behavior.
This case is steeped in one man's prominence. But every accusation of sexual abuse merits full investigation of alleged crimes, and full assistance to anyone harmed. We don't know why Hastert was willing to pay millions of dollars to an acquaintance. But we hope Hastert's notoriety doesn't keep federal and local authorities from treating this allegation of abuse like any other. As in cases of clergy sexual abuse, the passage of time is irrelevant. Hastert deserves no less scrutiny than any other defendant, and his alleged victim deserves no less consideration than any other accuser.
We may never get a full accounting of Hastert's unforgivable betrayal. Long before he was second in line to the presidency, he was entrusted with the care and instruction of thousands of children. His disgrace isn't about pushing money around. It's about them.
