Federal prosecutors filed a motion Friday asking a judge to place “sensitive information” in the case against former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) under seal, including the identity of the individual with whom Hastert allegedly struck an agreement to pay out $3.5 million in hush money for reported sexual abuse.
“The discovery to be provided by the Government in this case includes sensitive information, the unrestricted dissemination of which could adversely affect law enforcement interests and the privacy interests of third parties,” prosecutors said in the motion, which they said was unopposed by Hastert’s legal team.
The text of the proposed order also states that once Hastert’s case is closed any materials submitted during discovery will be destroyed, returned to the government or retained in the defense attorneys’ case file.
The text of the order does not make reference to “Individual A,” the person against whom Hastert committed some “prior misconduct” years before the alleged hush money agreement was struck in 2010. But the identity of that person would certainly be protected under seal as “sensitive information” — even after the case concludes — if Judge Thomas M. Durkin grants the motion.
Anonymous federal law enforcement sources told multiple news outlets that “Individual A” was a male student at a high school in Yorkville, Illinois, where Hastert was a teacher and wrestling coach prior to his election to Congress. The “prior misconduct” on Hastert’s part was sexual abuse, the sources alleged.
Hastert was not charged with sexual abuse, though. He was indicted last month on charges of structuring bank withdrawals to avoid federal reporting requirements and lying to the FBI about those withdrawals. Hastert pleaded not guilty to both charges in his first court appearance last week.
A hearing on the motion was scheduled for Thursday in U.S. district court in Chicago.
Read the motion below:
This should result in some amusing hypocrisy from the Teatroll peanut gallery:
Duggar daughters: “The media victimized them by interviewing them!!! The report should never have been released!!! The MSM is using them for profit and making them relive these horrible experiences!!!”
Individual A: “How dare they keep this secret!!! Obama’s administration is the least transparent in history!!! This just proves that it’s all a hit-job on Hastert for political reasons!!! Outrage conspiracy coverup OUTRAGE!!!”
They just don’t want to put a human face on Hastert’s victim. His wickedness is easier to deny in the abstract.
I do sense something else going on here with the Feds protecting the innocent. I wonder if they are doing so, rightfully, to protect the informant but also to entice others to still come forward. Keep in mind that the statute of limitations has expired on the high school encounter. But, Hastert must have had many opportunities to troll for young men, say the House’s unpaid staffers, aka pages. That or they have yet to find others who also asked for money. Bringing forth a current minor who would testify against Hastert would seal the deal…and send him behind bars for a long time. Bring-it-on!
Shades of Jerry Sandusky!
I do criminal law in federal court and routinely file motions to seal for obvious reasons. However, where I practice the motion also has to include an averment that sealing will not harm the public’s first amendment right to know what is going on in the courts. How can they credibly make that claim here when there has been no official acknowledgment of why the payments were being made. I can understand not disclosing the victim’s name, but not disclosing Hastert’s conduct when since 2012 people who have been convicted of just downloading child pornography face the prospect of being placed for life on a Megan’s law registry where their whereabouts and crimes are disclosed to anyone with a web browser just gob smacks me. Hastert is no less dangerous to the public than Jerry Sandusky. Washington log rolling at its best— no matter if you are R or D, if you are one of us, then but for the grace of God go I.
Disgusting!
Either that, or he is a deeply unsympathetic character with an arrest record.