Good, or bad, that Hastert may never actually go to trial on his charges?

I can already hear the rants and rages that will come about due to the word that one-time House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert is considering a “guilty” plea to the charges that claim he made financial payoffs to keep a one-time student of his quiet about alleged sexual misconduct.


HASTERT: May learn next month if trial required

For it seems that Hastert’s attorneys on Monday (Hastert himself wasn’t in court) told U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin that they wanted a continuance because they believed they were very close to negotiating a plea deal with the U.S. attorney’s office.

WHICH WOULD HAVE Hastert shift his “not guilty” pleas on at least part of the charges, in exchange for eliminating the need for a criminal trial at which time evidence would have to be presented about the alleged wrongdoing.

If there is never a trial, then the general public will never get more than the speculation that currently exists about what exactly it was that Hastert did wrong.

Federal prosecutors have said that Hastert, after he ceased being the House speaker, made an agreement with one of his former students back when he was a wrestling coach at Yorkville High School to pay some $3.5 million.

Prosecutors say he made withdrawals of his own money in ways that were meant to evade detection – which is a technical violation. Although one can argue that Hastert has the right to spend his money however he wants – no matter how strange it seems to pay it to a former student.

WHAT WE DON’T know specifically is why Hastert would want to do so. Although the Chicago Tribune reported claims that Hastert had taken advantage of the student in a sexual manner, and now wanted to make sure the one-time student kept his mouth shut.

But that is speculation. We don’t have that “on the record” in any way.

And there are people who are eager for that to come out publicly in the form of a trial. They want to know sordid details of whether Hastert really did do something wrong with one of his students.

Mostly for their own cheap titillation factor. Although I’m sure some political operatives will find ways to use the fact that a one-time House speaker who was Republican somehow reflects upon all of his GOP colleagues.

WHICH MAY WELL be why Hastert would consider entering a “guilty” plea, particularly if his legal counsel is capable of working out an agreement that would put the potential for incarceration at a minimum.

Perhaps even no prison time, but some sort of significant fine. I don’t know for sure what is being considered. Although I’m sure Hastert is most concerned with reducing his level of shame to the bare minimum – as in no more than he has already suffered.

While those people eager for a trial are most concerned with bolstering the shame level to the maximum – even if it means playing off the homophobic fears and thoughts that some in our society are determined to cling to.

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing this case go away – largely because the offenses that might be considered the most serious aren’t going to be the key to any criminal prosecution of Hastert. The statute of limitations on any acts committed against students is long past – they’re so old.

THIS WOULD TURN into a technical trial on financial matters that some will try to exaggerate into titillation for their own benefits.

There’s also the fact that Hastert is a retired politico – similar to Edward R. Vrdolyak when he was finally caught and wound up doing about one year at the federal prison in Terre Haute, Ind.

Is that going to be Hastert’s fate as well?

If so, we need to realize that it won’t change anything – people who back Hastert will continue to do so, while those who want his “head on a pike” so to speak will forevermore be displeased by the outcome of any legitimate trial.

  -30-

A sex scandal? How will it stick! How unfortunate that it will do so

The Los Angeles Times is a lot bolder than I am – reporting Friday that the activity former House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert was willing to pay so much to cover up was sexual in nature.

HASTERT: How quickly his life changed

The rumor-mongers had been trying to get me to believe this earlier. Although not with the level of detail that the Times offered up, nor from as high-level of sources as the newspaper seems to have.

ACCORDING TO THE Times, they have two federal law enforcement officials who say the person who was receiving money from Hastert was a man who was once a student back when Hastert was a high school teacher and wrestling coach.

“It was sex,” was the explanation given by that source as to why Hastert would have given the man some $1.7 million in recent years to not talk about what supposedly happened several decades ago. Although it is interesting to see the Chicago Tribune report that officials at Yorkville High School say they had no clue there was anything inappropriate about the way Hastert conducted himself while working there. But the Chicago Sun-Times hinted Friday there may be a second person involved in the case.

Most likely, the conduct was so long ago that any statute of limitations on such charges would have passed. So this is going to be a criminal case that focuses on financial details related to the payoff. Just like Al Capone getting busted on income tax evasion – rather than any of the illicit activity that made Chicago so vicious in the 1920s.

We’re probably never going to get total titillation about Hastert and one of his students – which may be for the best! I have trouble thinking of the possible student as a victim if his reaction was to resort to extortion.

WHAT ALL THIS actually reminds me of is the 2004 election cycle when Jack Ryan had his dreams of becoming a political persona squashed when details of his divorce from actress Jeri Ryan came out.

We wound up getting tales of Ryan trying to take his voluptuous semi-celebrity bride to sex clubs and try to get her to engage in acts some might call kinky.

RYAN: His political reputation died just as quick

We never got the concept of “U.S. Sen. Jack Ryan, R-Ill.” because he dropped out of the campaign. His career ended before it could begin.

Hastert is just the opposite. None of this came out until after he left office and became a high-priced D.C. lobbyist. Although I suspect the effect on his public reputation will be just as dramatic.

SO WHAT SHOULD we think about all of this?

I found it interesting that people were digging up and sending Internet links to me of pieces published on the Daily Kos website back in 2006 under the headlines Is Dennis Hastert gay? and Is Hastert gay?

These pieces were motivated by the activity back then when Florida congressman Mark Foley was sending e-mails and instant messages to teenage boys he had known when they worked as pages in Congress. A lot of Republican officials got smeared by similar innuendo; including "Mr. Speaker" himself.

Although I’m not saying to have any knowledge of Hastert’s personal life or activity. IN fact, I’m inclined to think that the pieces are a bit of a stretch for the facts that purport to support them.

BUT I’M SURE others are going to feel compelled to spread the smut level – even if they don’t have any true titillation to back it up. We’re going to get a sex scandal that some will think just won’t amount to much.

But I’m sure others just won’t care. That may wind up being the biggest tragedy of this whole situation.

  -30-

DURKIN: Hastert's judge

EDITOR’S NOTE: Perhaps “All In the Family” is an appropriate title for government. Hastert’s criminal case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin – a Barack Obama appointee but also the brother of Illinois House Minority Leader James Durkin, R-Western Springs. Durkin (the judge) used to be a partner in the law firm of Mayer Brown – where Hastert’s son, Ethan, is now an attorney.

Rose, Ventra tops 1st gay marriage

I’m not surprised by the news judgment used by Chicago’s two metro newspapers on Tuesday.

Rose tops marriage, ...

The fact that the first legitimate marriage of a gay couple will take place sometime this week – about seven months prior to the date the new law goes into effect – made Page One of both the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times.

BUT IT WASN’T the lede story. In fact, if one didn’t pay close enough attention, you’d have missed the marriage story altogether.

For the record, the Sun-Times on Tuesday thought that the BIG DEAL of the news lineup came from the world of sports – specifically the fact that Derrick Rose has suffered an injury so severe that he’s going to miss the entire season.

As in again. It’s starting to appear as though the man that Chicago Bulls fans were counting on to be the big star of teams that would win a slew of championships will be nothing more than a “never was” – as in we’ll forevermore speculate about what could have been IF ONLY he hadn’t gotten hurt.

As for the Tribune, they gave a banner headline to the latest story about how messed up the Ventra card system is. Which appeals to the people who use the Chicago Transit Authority trains and buses on a regular basis.

BECAUSE IT WOULD seriously stink if one couldn’t get to work because their fare card didn’t function properly.

Yet the occurrence this week related to gay marriage is one of those bizarre moments that it is something we all ought to be interested in – particularly if you’re one of those people who wants to wish that the issue would just go away!

... as does Ventra

For the record, the General Assembly passed a bill making marriage a legitimate option for gay couples in such a way that it can’t take effect immediately.

There was no way that 60 percent of legislators were going to agree on this issue so as to allow it to take effect immediately. It had to settle for the bare majority (60 of 118 votes), which means the new law will take effect June 1, 2014.

EXCEPT THAT A federal judge (U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin, to be exact) issued a ruling Monday that requires the Cook County clerk’s office to issue a marriage license to a pair of women who wish to marry immediately.

Derrick Rose may be gone for good

The women are not a youthful couple, and it seems they have been together for five years and got a civil union in 2011. But one of them has breast cancer severe enough that they’re not sure she will survive long enough for the couple to have a June wedding.

County Clerk David Orr has always said he supports the idea of marriage being available for all; so much so that he didn’t even fight the lawsuit the couple filed last week.

He seemed to be pleased that Judge Durkin issued the order that forced him to issue the marriage license that took effect Tuesday (the couple says they’ll marry this week).

NOT THAT I’M really bothered by the fact that the couple will marry now, rather than later. I’m sure the fact that the law didn’t take effect immediately was one of the few “victories” the conservative ideologues were feeling these days.

But it does make me wonder about the long-term effect on the provisions of state law that require a higher level of support for bills passed after the General Assembly completes its spring session.

Some wish these cards would go away instead

I recall one time that Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, specifically thwarted the interests of firearms advocates by requiring one of their bills to get a 60 percent majority – a vote total they could not possibly achieve.

Officials say the ruling by Durkin is so narrow that it shouldn’t impact other cases – or other couples wanting to get married before June 1. But have we managed to undo some sense of our legal procedure? Yet another reason we’ll be confused in the future!

  -30-