Posted on 09/28/2015 10:28:24 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
CHICAGO — Former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s attorneys are talking with prosecutors about a possible plea deal in the Republican’s hush-money case, both sides told a federal judge Monday.
The disclosure came during a federal court hearing in Chicago, though details weren’t immediately released. Hastert didn’t attend the hearing.
A May indictment alleges that Hastert agreed to pay $3.5 million to someone identified only as “Individual A” to hide past misconduct. The Associated Press and other media, citing anonymous sources, have reported the payments were intended to conceal claims of sexual misconduct decades ago.
“We are seeing if we can resolve this case generally,” Hastert’s attorney, John Gallo, told U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin after the judge raised concerns about repeated requests for delays in the case.
Gallo characterized the talks as “linear and productive.” Prosecutor Steven Block also confirmed the discussions, saying: “This is not a situation where both sides are sitting on their hands.”
The judge set an Oct. 15 deadline for updates.
Hastert lives just west of Chicago, near Yorkville, where he was a teacher and coached high school wrestling until 1981.
Authorities allege that Hastert structured cash withdrawals in increments of just under $10,000 in an attempt to avoid reporting rules, and when questioned about it by the FBI, said he was taking the money out because he didn’t trust banks.
Hastert has pleaded not guilty to violating banking laws and lying to the FBI. He’s free on bond.
Defendants typically agree to change a plea to guilty in hopes of a more lenient sentence. It also avoids the stress and potential embarrassment of a trial. A deal would mean that “Individual A,” whose identity has never been made public, would not have to testify.
The indictment does not detail the alleged misconduct, and both prosecutors and defense attorneys have taken steps to keep the information confidential. Hastert and his lawyers have not commented on the allegations included in the indictment or the additional information provided to the media.
Hastert’s lead attorney, Thomas C. Green, argued that the allegations in the media of past sexual misconduct — which he blamed on government leaks — had presented a quandary for the defense. He said it could undermine Hastert’s right to a fair trial.
“The indictment has effectively been amended by leaks from the government,” Green said at a July hearing. “(It) is now an 800-pound gorilla in this case.”
Green, a nationally prominent Washington-based attorney, told the judge he was stumped about whether to ignore the sexual misconduct allegations as he prepared for trial.
It’s unclear if claims not in the indictment would have had any relevance at a trial, during which prosecutors would likely have focused narrowly on mundane aspects of U.S. banking law. But they could have been raised in testimony regarding motive.
Will Hastert ever be prosecuted for the Original dirty deed?
Statute of limitations ran out on the original dirty deed.
He is in trouble now for trying to hide the source of funds for the $3.5 million, or some similar issue regarding the money.
Maybe his best plan of action would be to switch parties.
If its true i want what he did totally exposed and whatever legal repurcussions he can be hammered with, hammered with.
Yes, he sold out America as Speaker due to his dark secret.
Tends to bolster the position of those who say our side is being blackmailed to sell us out.
And then there is the Hastert reminder should any of the other corral ponies get too frisky as Boehner is being put out to pasture.
Here’s the proffer: plead guilty now and we’ll see if we can get you a corner cell.
I agree. This shows the problem of electing somebody who can be blackmailed and why candidates background matter.
I thought it was only illegal to *receive* hush money but not to *pay* it.
It’s the money laundering statue designed to target drug dealers. Banks have to report cash transactions over $10,000.00. So folks started doing a lot of $9,000 transactions. But the banks also have to report those patterns.
The actual offense is ‘Structuring’ - multiple transactions designed to keep it under the automatic $10,000 reporting. And it’s really easy to prove.
The second charge is for lying to the feds. That’s what they nailed Martha Stewart on. Again, fairly easy to prove.
The thing is, the over $10,000 transaction, in itself, isn’t illegal. And while a SAR would be generated, it might not even be looked at, and even it it is, it can be explained away if legitimate.
Paying the money wasn’t illegal. What was illegal was the manner in which he took it out of the bank.
LOL!
The best humor, is a quip based on the truth
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.