By Mark Rhoads -
It is very difficult to separate the issue of child abuse from the issue of violation of banking regulations and lying to federal agents in the sentencing phase of the case against former Speaker Dennis Hastert. But it is still necessary for Judge Thomas Durkin to try to keep the issues separate.
The reason is that Hastert was never charged with child abuse of four former students and he did not plead guilty to charges like that even though covering up the abuse was the reason Hastert agreed to pay money to Individual A who was a victim of abuse many years ago. Hastert did plead guilty to the felony of violating banking regulations and that is what he is being sentenced for.
In a normal criminal trial in a lesser court or under even in federal rules of evidence, a defendant's "prior bad acts" may not be introduced in evidence unless they directly bear on the current charge. In the case of Hastert, the connection is indirect and the prior bad acts were only spelled out by prosecutors to explain the motive of Hastert for his banking crimes.
Hastert claimed to be the victim of blackmail but prosecutors say that is not true. But common sense tells us that when money is paid to keep a crime a secret, the payments certainly have the appearance of payment of blackmail. Individual A has just sued Hastert for "breach of contract" for failure to pay the balance of an agreed 3.5 million dollars, but of course there is no written contract and normally contracts for illegal purposes are not enforceable.
What a mess! In court Hastert has pled guilty to violating currency regulations and that is what his sentence must be for. But in a wider court of public opinion, Hastert's history of child abuse many years ago has been revealed.
But as despicable as child abuse is, a defendant still has the right to be sentenced only for the crime he was actually charged with.
