Judge to stay on Hastert case despite political donations

Lawyers on both sides have agreed to allow U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin to preside over former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s trial despite the fact that the judge had previously donated to the former lawmaker’s congressional campaign. 

Durkin temporarily recused himself from Hastert’s case on alleged hush money after a Tuesday hearing, giving lawyers two days to decide whether to waive his disqualification. Court documents show that both sides agreed that the disqualification was unnecessary.

{mosads}The judge said Tuesday that he had donated because Hastert’s son had worked with him at the Mayor Brown law firm before he took his judgeship, according to NBC News Chicago. He added that he does not believe that he’s met Hastert before. 

“I have no doubt I can be impartial in this matter,” Durkin said, according to the network. 

Federal Election Commission data show that he donated a total of $1,500 to Hastert’s campaign over two separate donations. 

Hastert pleaded not guilty on Tuesday to charges of violating banking laws in order to pay $3.5 million in hush money to an unnamed victim of “prior misdeeds.” He is also accused of lying to federal investigators about why he withdrew $1.7 million in structured bank withdrawals meant to evade reporting requirements. 

If Hastert’s lawyers do not negotiate a plea deal, a public trial could air allegations of sexual misconduct that have bubbled up since the news of his indictment. The court documents do not specify what Hastert wanted to hide and the recipient of the payments is only identified as “Individual A.”

But the Los Angeles Times and other news organizations reported that the “misdeeds” were sexual misconduct against a former student from Yorkville, Ill., where he worked as a teacher and wrestling coach from 1965-1981.

Publicly available court documents also include a Freedom of Information Act request from the National Anti-Corruption Policy Institute asking the court to publish the identities of all those involved in the investigation, including “Individual A.”