Hastert to plead guilty, avoiding trial that would expose what he really did wrong

Everything about this stinks, including the manner in which the government got wise to Hastert's alleged payments of hush money to "Individual A," whoever that is. I can understand why the government might want to monitor bank withdrawals from suspected terrorists for suspicious patterns, but there's no justification to their doing it to ordinary citizens.

---

Even so, there is certainly no justification for the pattern of sexual abuse now linked to Hastert from his previous career as a high school wrestling coach, and the fact that this guy went on to be two heartbeats from the presidency is horrifying. What were the details of the apparent crimes in Hastert's past? It doesn't sound like we'll ever know, as Hastert's guilty plea to charges of breaking banking laws will avoid a trial and the testimony that would tell us why he was paying the hush money in the first place. So the hush continues:

Neither Gallo nor prosecutors offered details about any possible deal, including which counts Hastert would plead guilty to or whether the man who was once second in the line of succession for the presidency would go to prison. Hastert did not attend Thursday’s hearing. He faces one count of breaking banking laws and one count of lying to the FBI about agreeing to pay $3.5 million to someone referred to in the indictment only as “Individual A.” The money was supposedly to hide claims of unspecified past misconduct. A plea deal would mean that Individual A, who has never been identified, would not have to testify about receiving any of the money.

---

---

The Associated Press and other media, citing anonymous sources, have reported that the payments were meant to conceal claims of sexual misconduct.

Hastert also committed a crime against the American people, which was to be an absolutely terrible Speaker of the House. You think John Boehner's bad? Actually so do I, but Hastert made Boehner look like a triumphant conservative firebrand - presiding over a Republican majority that actually had a Republican in the White House and could have done many good things, but was more interested in gaming the system for its own benefit. You might recall that Hastert's own demise as House Speaker was hastened by the revelation that Republican Congressman Mark Foley had engaged in creepy behavior with teenage pages - all of which was going on under Hastert's nose, and about which Hastert did nothing. I wrote at the time on the old North Star Writers Group site that any reason for Hastert's demise was fine with me:

With a GOP Senate and a Republican in the White House, conservatives have had an unprecedented opportunity for the past six years to reorder the nation’s policies. Hastert should have been a leader in this effort. But Hastert is a man who prefers the path of least resistance. Impeaching a Democratic president is one thing. That forces Democrats to defend perjury and obstruction of justice, and that means seat pickups. But angering the senior lobby or Families USA is just too risky. So when a pervert congressman is found to be running wild with teen-in-tow trips to Dairy Queen, why should Hastert do anything when he can find a way not to? We now learn that the page community put the word out early and often: Watch out for the weird Republican from Florida who will probably be asking you out for ice cream shortly after meeting you. Ever since Foley came into Congress with the huge freshman Republican class of 1994, pages started figuring him out. Perhaps it took awhile for the leadership to get the word, but we know that Hastert dithered for at least three years. Once Foley’s creepiness became public, he was quickly forced to resign, which is all well and good. And some pointed out, with a degree of legitimacy, that the most famous Democrat to prey on pages – Massachusetts Rep. Gerry Studds – not only was protected by his party but was re-elected six times thereafter. But so what? If Hastert only takes action against wrongdoing when the light of public scrutiny leaves him with no choice, it is a pretty weak defense that Democrats would not even do that much. Then again, that’s basically Hastert’s campaign theme this year. You think I’m bad? Nancy Pelosi would be even worse! Indeed she would, but perhaps the Foley scandal will finally give the Democrats a chance to land a big fish and take Hastert down, which would leave voters with a choice of Pelosi or – dare to dream – a Republican who might actually try to do something worthwhile in the position of Speaker.

I'm not blaming the voters of his district or his House colleagues for making a sexual abuser Speaker of the House, as there's no way they could have known at the time about the things Hastert had done. But I do blame them for taking a man of no courage, no conviction and no principle and making him Speaker of the House. A lot of people look at the federal spending levels during the Bush presidency and they write Bush off as a big-government Republican. What people forget is that Congress allocates the money. Bush spent a lot of money on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but he was very willing to bring discretionary domestic spending under control. The Hastert-led Republican House wanted no part of that, just as they wanted no part of the Social Security reform Bush tried to bring about in 2005. So Republicans squandered an opportunity a decade ago, and now we know that the chief squanderer was far worse than just an ineffectual legislator. I'm honestly not sure what lesson anyone can take from this. It just stinks, every which way.

---