For Prosecutors, Two Questionable Calls

But another question, also legitimate, is whether this serves as the best use of scarce prosecutorial resources. White-collar cases such as this are complex and time-consuming. They win headlines, and future job prospects, for prosecutors. It's a reasonable question what they do for U.S. citizens who aren't rabid soccer fans.

The Hastert indictment strikes me as a significantly more questionable call. If Hastert sexually abused a student when he was a teacher and wrestling coach, that conduct is repugnant; it should have been reported and prosecuted decades ago.

Now, it is too late for that. Instead, Hastert was tripped up by bank reporting requirements intended to catch drug kingpins and organized crime bosses. His alleged crime is that he structured his hush money withdrawals to avoid triggering reporting rules and then -- seemingly on a single occasion -- lied to FBI agents about why he was making the withdrawals. Lying is bad. Lying to FBI agents is even worse.

But, really, wouldn't that have been your first instinct, too? I'd feel differently if Hastert had stuck with the lie, in a second interview after he'd had time to think it over, or before a grand jury. (And, yes, I'm thinking about President Clinton's impeachment here.)

Hastert did, it seems, a terrible thing. He is, or was, paying for it -- literally. He shelled out $1.7 million "to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct," the indictment says. He is at once perpetrator and victim of a shake-down scheme; his victim is both prey and blackmailer.

Yes, but he's also a former speaker of the House, two heartbeats away from the presidency. If this sordid scheme arose when Hastert were in office, not lobbying away, I might feel differently.

Now, though, I keep returning to the question: What, precisely, is the federal government's interest -- the public interest -- at this point in prosecution and humiliation?

========

Ruth Marcus' email address is ruthmarcus@washpost.com.