APPRECIATE IT IT.
>> THANK YOU.
TO CAROL MARIN AND A CLOSER LOOK
AT THE CHARGES AGAINST DENNIS
HASTERT.
>> Reporter: PHIL, THANK YOU.
THURSDAY MORNING THE FORMER
SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES
HOUSE, DENNIS HASTERT WILL WALK
TO THE DIRKSEN FEDERAL BUILDING
TO FACE FELONY CHARGES.
THIS CASE ALLEGEDLY INVOLVES THE
PAYMENT OF HUSH MONEY FOR SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT THAT REPORTEDLY
OCCURRED THAT OR THE REPORTEDLY
HAPPENED LONG BEFORE HE ENTERED
PUBLIC OFFICE.
TWO COUNTS INVOLVE BANK FRAUD
AND LYING TO THE FBI AND EFFORTS
TO CONCEAL PAYMENTINGS.
QUESTIONS FAR OUTNUMBER ANY
ANSWERS OFFERED IN THE
INDICTMENT AND HASTERT HAS SAID
NOTHING SO FAR.
WE TURN FOR A CLOSER TO LOOK TO
PEOPLE WHO KNOW A LOT ABOUT THE
FEDERAL SYSTEM.
FORMER ASSISTANTS U.S. ATTORNEY,
WHO IS THE PROSECUTOR IN THE
CASE AGAINST GEORGE RYAN AND NEW
PARTNER IN A LAW FIRM.
AND MATTHEW CROWL A FORMER U.S.
ASSISTANTS ATTORNEY, SERVED AS
FIRST DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF
UNDER RICHARD M.DALEY.
WELCOME TO "CHICAGO TONIGHT".
YOU HAVE READ INDICTMENTS MORE
THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THIS ROOM.
DOES THIS INDICTMENT LOOK TO YOU
AS IF A DEAL HAS BEEN STRUCK,
BECAUSE IT IS ONLY TWO COUNTS?
>> THAT IS NOT THE WAY I READ
IT.
THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME
DISCUSSIONS BUT NOT A DEAL IN
PLACE.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO CUT A DEAL
ON THIS, YOU WOULD DO IT BEFORE
INDICTMENT, AND YOU DO WHAT IS
CALLED, SIGNALING AN AGREEMENT
IN PLACE.
I DON'T READ IT AS AN INDICTMENT
WHERE THINGS HAVE BEEN DECIDED.
>> AND MATTHEW CROWL, HASTERT IS
SUCH A BIG NAME.
BUT NO PRESS CONFERENCE AT THE
DIRKSEN FEDERAL BUILDING.
OFTEN THIS IS WHERE THE U.S.
ATTORNEY STANDS UP WITH THE
GOVERNMENT ON ONE SIDE AND
ANNOUNCE IT.
WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE NOT?
>> IT IS A PLAIN VANILLA
INDICTMENT.
TWO CRIMES, THAT ALTHOUGH THEY
RELATE TO A VERY HIGH PROFILE
PUBLIC FIGURE, PROBABLY CAME TO
THE FBI, AND THEY DON'T RELATE
TO HIS WORK IN POLITICAL OFFICE.
AND IT'S SAD ALL AROUND.
AND FRANKLY THE INDICTMENT
DOESN'T SAY A WHOLE LONG.
STRUCTURING IS A VERY SIMPLE
CRIME, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE AT
THAT TIME MONEY COME FROM AN
ILLEGAL SOURCE.
AND LYING TO THE FBI...
>> STRUCTURING, IF I WANT TO GO
TO MY BANK AND PULL OUT MORE
THAN $10,000, AND GIVE TO IT
PATRICK OFF HERE, IS THAT A
PROBLEM IF I TRY TO DO IT IN
SMALLER INCREMENTS INSTEAD?
>> IT IS A CRIME IF YOU DO IT IN
SMALLER INCREMENTS, SO THAT THE
BANK WON'T REPORT IT.
IF YOU DID IT ONCE, THE FEDS
WOULDN'T PROSECUTE YOU.
BUT HERE, A HARD INDICTMENT TO
DEFEND BECAUSE HE DID IT FIVE L
FIFTEEN TIMES AND WAS TOLD IF HE
TOOK OUT $50,000, AND BY THE WAY
WE HAVE TO REPORT THIS.
AND HE STARTED TO DO IT, ANOTHER
HUNDRED TIMES LESS THAN $10,000.
IT IS VERY CLEAR WHAT THE INTENT
IS IF THE ALLEGATIONS IS TRUE.
THAT IS THE CRIME.
>> GOOD IDEA, PATRICK COLLINS
THAT HE TALKED TO THE FBI BY
HIMSELF?
>> IT IS IF YOU TELL THE TRUTH.
WHAT IS ODD, SO MANY ODDITIES
BUT IF HE TALKSES TO THE
GOVERNMENT AND SAID I HAD THIS
MISCONDUCT SITUATION AND I WILL
PAY THIS INDIVIDUAL A TO
COMPENSATE HIM OR HER NOR
WRONGDOING I COMMITTED ON HIM,
30 YEARS AGO.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL CRIME OR
STRUCTURING IF HE WRITES A
CHECK.
THERE IS NO FEDERAL CRIME OF
LYING, IF YOU TELL THE TRUTH.
WHAT HAPPENED HERE, TWO KINDS OF
COVERUP AND IN THE A CRIME OF
SUBSTANCE.
THAT IS NOT TO BELITTLE WHAT
HAPPENED, BUT IT IS PRETTY CLEAR
THERE WAS PROBABLY A STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ISSUE AND DEFENSE
COULDN'T GET THAT, AND REALLY A
CRIME THAT ALMOST MR. HAS TERLT
BROUGHT UPON HIMSELF BY THE WAY
HE MADE THE PAYMENTS.
>> WHAT ELSE DO YOU THINK IS ODD
ABOUT THE CASE?
>> IT IS ODD THAT THE CONDUCT
APPEARS, HE IS A PUBLIC
OFFICIAL, THE PAYMENT
CONVERSATIONS DO NOT HAPPEN
UNTIL AFTER HE'S A PUBLIC
OFFICIAL.
THE VALUE OF THE EXTORTION OR
BLACK MAIL F THAT THAT IS THAT
IT WAS, WHY WOULD YOU PAY $3.5
MILLION TO JOE SMITH FOR THAT.
SO VERY ODD, WHY DOES HE NOT
HOLD A PRESS CONFERENCE, HE IS
ASKED YOU A THE QUESTIONS THAT
YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IN.
INDIVIDUAL A DOES INDIVIDUAL A
GET THE KEEP THE MONEY AND DOES
INDIVIDUAL A NOT GET CHARGED
WITH ANYTHING IN THIS?
>> I THINK A CORDING TO THE
ALLEGATIONS INDIVIDUAL A COULD
BE CHARGED WITH EXTORTION AND HE
MAY BE CHARGED WITH EXTORTION,
AND IT COULD BE UNDER SEAL ABOUT
I WAS SURPRISED BY THAT.
DOESN'T GET TO KEEP THE MONEY.
PROCEEDS OF A CRIME, AND THE ODD
THINGS ABOUT THIS CASE IN
ADDITION IS IT IS VERY STRANGE
FROM THE VICTIM BECOMES THE
PERPETRATOR AND PERPETRATOR
BECOMES THE VICTIM.
ALLEGEDLY THIS KID WAS
VICTIMIZED WHEN HE WAS YOUNG,
AND NOW BECOMES THE EXTORTER,
AND DENNY HASTERT WAS THE
PERPETRATOR AND NOW THE VICTIM.
U.S. ATTORNEYS OFFICE HAS TO
HAVE STRUCK A DEAL WITH
INDIVIDUAL A.
BECAUSE THE INDICTMENT IS AT
LEAST RICH ENOUGH THAT
INFORMATION IS COMING FROM
SOMEONE, PROBABLY THAT PERSON.
>> I WOULD BE SURPRISED, I AGREE
WITH MATE, THEY CUT A DEAL,
COULD BE IMMUNITY AND IT IS
CLEAR, THEY TALKED TO INDIVIDUAL
A AND GOT THE STORY.
BUT WHETHER INDIVIDUAL A WILL BE
CHARGED PARTICULARLY IF THE
MISCONDUCT IS WHAT IS SPECULATED
I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF THEY
CHARGED INDIVIDUAL A
SUBSTANTIVELY.
LEAKS FROM THE FEDERAL BUILDING
ARE TROUBLING ABOUT...
>> THAT IS INTERESTING, THE
LEAKS BASICALLY CONFIRMED RIGHT
AWAY THAT IT WAS A SEXUAL
MISCONDUCT CASE.
SOMETHING NOT WRITTEN IN THE
INDICTMENT ITSELF.
>> THAT IS TROUBLING.
THERE IS A SOURCE TO FEDERAL
OFFICIALS WHICH IS VERY TROUBLE
BECAUSE A LOT GOES INTO AN
INDICTMENT TO STRUCTURE IT A
CERTAIN WAY.
IT HAD THE WORD MISCONDUCT AND
DIDN'T SAY SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
AND FOR SOMEONE TO SAY WITHIN 24
HOURS SO SAY IT WAS SEXUAL AND
THERE WAS SECOND VICTIM, THAT IS
NOT THE WAY IT SHOULD WORK.
>> THE SON OF DENNIS HASTERT AND
THE LAW FIRM, WHERE THE JUDGE,
TOM DURKIN WAS A PARTNER, A GOOD
IDEA FOR HIS SON IF HE CONTINUES
TO BE REPRESENTED?
>> A BAD IDEA TO REPRESENT YOUR
DAD.
VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE A
PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT AND
DISTANCE.
BUT I'M SURE THAT ETHAN HASTERT
WOULDN'T DO IT ALONE THEY WOULD
BE PART OF THE PRACTICE, A BIT
WHILE COLLAR PRACTICE, AND HE'S
REPRESENTING HIS FATHER IT IS
PART OF A TEAM, I'M SURE.
>> CAN TOM DURKIN RECUSE HIMSELF
AS A JUDGINGS BECAUSE HE GAVE A
CONTRIBUTION YEARS AGO TO THEN
CONGRESSMAN DENNIS HASTERT?
>> I KNOW HE IS AN HONORABLE
PERSON AND HE WILL DO THE RIGHT
THING.
I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THE JUDGE
WOULD BE FAIR.
IF I WAS CRIMINAL DEFENDANT,
SOME JUDGES IN THE BUILDING
WHETHER YOU ARE A DEFENDANT OR
PROSECUTOR, YOU ARE GLAD TO HAVE
THAT DRAW BECAUSE YOU YOU KNOW
THEY ARE FAIR.
AND I WOULD PUT THAT JUDGE IN
THAT BOOK.
WHETHER HE FEELS HE NEEDS TO DO
SOMETHING, THAT IS HIS CALL.
>> IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT
DENNIS HASTERT WILL NOT,
ASSUMING HE PLEADS GUILTY OR IS
FOUND GUILTY HAVE TO DO PRISON
TIME?
>> THERE IS A POSSIBILITY.
IF YOU LOOK FOR SENTENCING GAID
LINES AND WORK THE GUIDELINES,
IT WOULD PROBABLY BE A TWO-YEAR
SENTENCE BUT A LOT OF LENIENCY
THAT A JUDGE CAN GIVE IF IT
DOESN'T INVOLVE CRIMINAL
ACTIVITY, THE ACTUAL PAYMENT
ITSELF.
AND THEN THE GAID LINES ARE NOT
BIND ANYTHING MORE AND FEDERAL
JUDGE HAS TREMENDOUS LENIENCY.
>> IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE AN
ARGUMENT, AND YOU ARE A FINE
LAWYER SO YOU WOULD KNOW THE
ANSWER TO THIS.
SO TAKE LOOK, THERE IS
MITIGATION HERE, HASTERT FELT
HORRIBLE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT
HAPPENED IN HIS PAST AND TRIED
TO MAKE IT RIGHT.
HE WAS PANICKED ABOUT IT BECAUSE
OF WHAT KIND OF STAIN IT COULD
PUT ON HIM BUT WASN'T DOING
ANYTHING PURPOSELY ILLEGAL.
JUST TRYING TO DO IT QUIETLY.
COULD YOU MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IN
COURT?
>> I THAT I LAWYER WILL MAKE
SOME OF THAT ARGUMENT AND IF
THERE IS A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT
WHERE MR. HASTERT ACKNOWLEDGES
CERTAIN WRONGDOING TO SAY IT HAD
NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS ROLE AS A
PUBLIC SERVANT.
FOR 30 YEARS A GREAT PUBLIC
SERVANT BUT BRACKETED BY
MISTAKES.
THE REALITY IS THAT MR. HASTERT
BECAUSE HE LIED AND BECAUSE HE
STRUCTURED IN SUCH AN OBVIOUS
WAY, I THINK A JUDGE WOULD HAVE
TO THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT IT.
BUT HE IS 73 AND THAT PLAYS IN
TO THE NARRATIVE IN THE FEDERAL
BUILDINGS AND MITIGATION IS
SOMETHING HE COULD GRANT.
IF THIS HAPPENS QUICKLY THERE IS
A BETTER ARGUMENT THAN THIS.
>> SOME PEOPLE THINK IT IS
IRONIC THERE IS NO STATUTE OF
LIMITATIONS ON MURDER BUT THERE
IS ON THE MOLESTATION OF MURDER.
MURDER IS THE ONLY THING FOR
WHICH THERE IS NO STATUTE.
>> I BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE.
THERE ARE LOTS OF DIFFERENT
CRIMES WHEN YOU THINK WHAT
DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE, IF YOU
ARE CAN PROVE IT, IT SHOULD BE
BROUGHT.
BUT THAT IS A DECISION FOR THE
ILLINOIS LEGISLATOR TO MAKE AND
THEY HAVE OTHER THINGS ON THEIR
PLATE RATSZ THAN CHANGING
STATUTES OF LIMITATION.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE ON
"CHICAGO TONIGHT".
CPS BARBARA BYRD-BENNETT CALLS
IT QUITS AMID A FEDERAL