By Michael Tarm
Associated Press
CHICAGO (AP) - The hush-money case of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert returns to federal court Thursday, when both sides are expected to tell the judge how plea talks are going.
The Illinois Republican's lawyers disclosed last month they are negotiating a possible deal - one that would avert a trial and keep potentially embarrassing details about Hastert secret. The 73-year-old has pleaded not guilty to charges that he broke banking laws and lied to the FBI in efforts to pay someone $3.5 million to hide claims of past misconduct. The Associated Press and other media, citing anonymous sources, have reported the payments were meant to conceal claims of sexual misconduct decades ago.
A few key questions and answers about the Hastert case:
-----
Q: ARE THERE SIGNS PLEA TALKS ARE GOING WELL?
A: Yes. Legal observers say the fact that Hastert's legal team let a Tuesday deadline pass without filing any pretrial paperwork strongly suggests negotiations are progressing and that his attorneys do not anticipate going to trial. If Hastert's attorneys doubted that a favorable plea deal was within their grasp, they probably would have filed multiple legal requests, possibly including ones barring certain witnesses from testifying at trial, said lawyer Darryl Goldberg, a Chicago-based lawyer with no link to the case.
"That there were none sends the signal ... that this will all be resolved short of a trial," he said. Former Illinois prosecutor Terry Sullivan adds that if talks are going well, filing pretrial motions might only "ruffle prosecutors' feathers" and hurt Hastert's chances for a good deal.
-----
Q: WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL STICKING POINTS IN TALKS?
A: Just because the sides appear to be making progress doesn't mean talks are easy, said Jeff Cramer, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Chicago. He said the aim of Hastert's lawyers would be not only to ensure details are never divulged in a trial, but that no details or even clues appear in the plea deal, sentencing memos or any other legal document.
Another detail defense lawyers might be particularly insistent about leaving out: any mention of motive.
"Hastert may have no problem saying, 'I restructured withdrawals to avoid detection,'" Cramer said. "But he doesn't want to say why he did it." The recommended sentence could also be a point of contention. The defense would probably seek probation, while prosecutors might insist on at least some time behind bars on the grounds that a man who was once second in the line of succession for the presidency should have known better.
-----
Q: WHAT ELSE WOULD HASTERT AND PROSECUTORS GET OUT OF A DEAL?
A: One of Hastert's main motivations for agreeing to change his plea to guilty would be to forestall any chance the government will present evidence in open court to jurors, members of the public and the media. At any trial, prosecutors would likely want to provide jurors with at least some background about the alleged misconduct and could even call "Individual A," the person the indictment alleges Hastert agreed to pay, as a witness.
Judges are also far more inclined to show some mercy when a defendant agrees to accept responsibility in a plea deal.
For prosecutors, a plea guarantees a conviction in a high-profile case and avoids a costly, time-consuming trial.
"This case is a classic case where it is in everybody's interest to reach a plea," Andrew Herman, a prominent Washington-based attorney who has represented clients targeted by ethics investigations in Congress, has said.
-----
Q: WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC CHARGES AND POTENTIAL PENALTIES?
A: Hastert is accused of evading federal banking reporting requirements by carefully structuring his withdrawals of hundreds of thousands of dollars in increments of less than $10,000. He then allegedly lied to the FBI about the reason for the withdrawals, telling them he did it simply because he didn't trust banks and preferred stashing some cash at home. If convicted, he faces up to five years in prison and a maximum $250,000 fine on each of those two counts. He has pleaded not guilty.
-----
Q: WHAT WAS THE MONEY FOR?
A: The May 28 indictment says Hastert agreed in 2010 to pay $3.5 million to a person identified only as "Individual A" to "compensate for and conceal" Hastert's "prior misconduct" against that person. The indictment itself does not specify the misconduct, though it says the other party "has known Hastert for most of Individual A's life." The first paragraphs of the indictment note that Hastert was a high school teacher and wrestling coach from 1965 to 1981 in Yorkville, west of Chicago. That suggests the charges are linked to that history without saying exactly how.
A person familiar with the allegations told The Associated Press that the payments were intended to conceal claims that Hastert sexually molested someone decades ago. The person spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.
Published: Fri, Oct 16, 2015
