When former House Speaker Dennis Hastert appears for his initial arraignment in federal court this Thursday in Chicago, his case will be heard by Judge Thomas Durkin, who was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2012. Judge Durkin's brother, Jim Durkin is the Republican Minority Leader in the Illinois House of Representatives where Hastert once served.
It gets better. Judge Durkin has contributed $1,500 to Hastert's campaign committee in the past, including a $500 contribution in 2002 and a $1,000 contribution in 2004. Judge Thomas made those contributions while he was a partner at the Chicago law firm of Mayer Brown. That's also the same law firm where Hastert's son, Ethan, is a partner. Ethan has personally defended his father in civil litigation brought by a former business partner of his father, J. David John.
A prominent legal expert told Politico he didn't believe Judge Durkin faced a conflict that would warrant his recusal. “I don’t think it’s a problem, but I’m all favor of disclosure,” said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers. “Donating $2000 to a political campaign is a not a basis to question the judge’s impartiality when a candidate becomes a defendant.” I disagree.
More reason why I hate the State and all the evil it generates.
I hate these obstruction of justice type charges and lying to the fbi type charges. That was what happened to Martha Stewart. They couldn’t convict her of any underlying crime like insider trading, so they just get her for lying to investigators. Since when is it a crime to assert your innocence. Lawyers do it every day on behalf of their clients when they plead not guilty but know they are guilty. But tell a federal agent you’re innocent and they throw you in jail even though they can’t get you on any underlying crime. I don’t know if the statutes of limitations have run on Hastert’s underage sex adventure. But I don’t think it ought to be a crime to deny it. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Unless the feds catch in you in a lie; then go to jail anyway for the horrendous crime of asserting your innocence to a federal agent. I don’t give a crap about Hastert one way or another. But if they can’t convict him of a sex crime, it ought to end there. Maybe they ought to prosecute the guy blackmailing him for millions.
Hastert gets away by Durkin off?
How about this theory, the Hastert case is a smokescreen to throw off Hillery Clinton's cash for speeches and the Clinton Foundation!
Post a Comment