Dennis Hastert in Chicago court: Will appearance shed light on his past?

Dennis Hastert is set to appear in court Tuesday. An indictment alleges the former US House speaker agreed to pay $3.5 million to someone from his days as high school teacher not to reveal a secret.

M. Spencer Green/AP/File
In 2006, House Speaker, Dennis Hastert walks away from the media after answering questions about ex-Rep. Mark Foley's involvement with former pages at a news conference in Aurora, Ill. The 73-year-old former Speaker is scheduled to make his first court appearance Federal Court Tuesday, June 9, 2015 in Chicago. A May 28 indictment said he agreed to pay $3.5 million to someone from his days as high school teacher and wrestling coach not to reveal a secret about past misconduct. He's charged with violating banking laws and lying to the FBI, with each of those two counts carrying a maximum five-year prison term.

Dennis Hastert is set to appear in court Tuesday for the first time since an indictment nearly two weeks ago alleged the former U.S. House speaker agreed to pay $3.5 million to someone from his days as high school teacher not to reveal a secret about past misconduct by the Illinois Republican.

Leading up to the arraignment in U.S. District Court in Chicago, the 73-year-old hasn't spoken publicly about the allegations that prompted questions about possible sexual abuse by a man once second in line to the U.S. presidency.

The politician-turned-lobbyist is expected to step before Judge Thomas M. Durkin and enter a plea to charges that he broke federal banking laws by withdrawing hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and lied about the hush money when questioned by the FBI.

When he goes into the courthouse, Hastert will likely have to stand in a security line, go through metal detectors and then walk past crowds of reporters and TV cameras awaiting his arrival.

Hastert's lead attorney is Washington, D.C.-based lawyer Thomas C. Green, who has represented clients in the Watergate, Iran-Contra and Whitewater cases; Chicago attorney John Gallo is also on Hastert's defense team. Steven Block is the lead U.S. prosecutor.

It's unclear whether prosecutors might shed more light on the secret Hastert allegedly sought to conceal by paying the person the indictment refers to as "Individual A." Prosecutors typically provide an overview of charges at arraignments and sometimes disclose new details.

A person familiar with the allegations told The Associated Press the payments were intended to conceal claims Hastert sexually molested someone decades ago. The person spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing.

Defendants in most cases enter not guilty pleas at arraignments, though defense lawyers will sometimes tell judges they are holding plea talks with the U.S. attorney's office.

Prosecutors haven't said if they'll ask Durkin to recuse himself after election records showed he donated $500 to the "Hastert for Congress" campaign in 2002, and $1,000 in 2004. The arraignment would give them the chance to make that request.

If convicted, Hastert faces a maximum five-year prison term on each of the two counts.

The indictment says Hastert agreed in 2010 to pay Individual A $3.5 million to "compensate for and conceal (Hastert's) prior misconduct" against that person; it says he paid $1.7 million before federal agents began scrutinizing the transactions.

He allegedly started by withdrawing $50,000 at a time and changed course when banks flagged those withdrawals. The indictment says he then began taking cash out in increments of less than $10,000 to skirt reporting rules primarily meant to thwart money laundering.


Associated Press writer Eric Tucker in Washington, D.C., contributed to this report. Follow Michael Tarm on Twitter at .

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to