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