Ex-Speaker Hastert also may be victim

On Tuesday, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert will be arraigned on one count of evading currency reporting requirements and one count of making a false statement to the FBI. He will not be arraigned for – because he has not been charged with – sexual misconduct toward a minor several decades ago.

Hastert’s seven-page indictment didn’t explain the alleged underlying conduct, but it didn’t take much to read between the lines. The very first sentence said: “From approximately 1965 to 1981, defendant John Dennis Hastert was a high school teacher and coach in Yorkville, Ill.” That’s a curious way to begin the biography of a man who served as speaker of the House. Further context came in a later sentence with regard to a victim of Hastert’s alleged misconduct:

“Individual A has been a resident of Yorkville, Ill., and has known defendant John Dennis Hastert most of Individual A’s life.”

Put both sentences together, and it seems obvious that prosecutors believe something went wrong when Hastert was a teacher and Individual A was a minor.

The indictment says that in 2010, Individual A met with Hastert and the two “discussed past misconduct by defendant against Individual A that had occurred years earlier.” Hastert then agreed to pay $3.5 million “in order to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct against Individual A.” Hastert allegedly withdrew approximately $1.7 million in cash from his own bank accounts and gave the money to Individual A.

His cash withdrawals of more than $10,000 triggered a Currency Transaction Report, from the bank to the U.S. Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The indictment alleges that Hastert withdrew $50,000 on 15 occasions, and then reduced the amounts after being questioned by his bank. The feds call that “structuring.”

Hastert’s explanation? When confronted by the FBI, he feigned distrust in the U.S. banking system.

There are two potential problems with this prosecution. First, Hastert himself could be a victim. It’s doubtful that in 2010, Individual A still had a cognizable legal claim for whatever happened between 1965 and 1981. Of course, another, more likely possibility, is that when Individual A met with Hastert in 2010, he threatened to expose the former House speaker unless he was paid millions. If Individual A made such a claim without legal justification, that would be extortion, and Individual A should be prosecuted.

The second problem is the invasive nature of the CTR. What business is it of the government whether Americans wish to withdraw their own money in any amount from their bank? And why should we all be presumed to be criminals for seeking access to our own currency? Americans whose rights are trampled in the process.

Tribune Content Agency