Fmr House Speaker Indicted, DOJ Probe of Policing Practices

GWEN IFILL: A former House speaker indicted, a major city police department under

scrutiny, and the 2016 presidential race expands yet again, tonight on Washington Week.

Three-and-a-half million dollars allegedly devoted to blackmail ensnares a former

speaker of the House.

What will become of Dennis Hastert?

MARCHERS: (From video.)

We can't wait.

We can't wait.

We can't wait.

GWEN IFILL: And in Cleveland, will a Justice Department settlement provide a blueprint

for other cities to reduce excessive force by police?

CLEVELAND MAYOR FRANK JACKSON (D): (From video.)

Today, May 26th, 2015, marks a new

way of policing in the city of Cleveland.

GWEN IFILL: Plus, on the campaign trail, if running for president doesn't work once

try, try again.

FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA): (From video.)

I just looked at the field, good

people - a lot of really good people, but I felt we offered something different.

GWEN IFILL: Or, try for the first time.

FORMER NEW YORK GOVERNOR GEORGE PATAKI (R): (From video.)

We are the party of the

middle class, unless by middle class they mean someone who left the White House dead

broke and 10 years later had a $100 million.

(Laughter, applause.)

GWEN IFILL: As Democrats prepare to deny Hillary Clinton an unimpeded march to the

nomination.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): (From video.)

Well, I think it's hard not to

acknowledge that Hillary Clinton is part of the establishment.

I mean, that's hard not to acknowledge.

GWEN IFILL: Covering the week, John Harwood, chief Washington correspondent for CNBC;

Carrie Johnson, justice correspondent for NPR; and John Dickerson, political director for

CBS News.

ANNOUNCER: Award-winning reporting and analysis.

Covering history as it happens.

Live from our nation's capital, this is Washington Week with Gwen Ifill.

Once again, live from Washington, moderator Gwen Ifill.

GWEN IFILL: Good evening.

The one thing we can tell you for sure on the curious case of Dennis Hastert is that

almost no one saw it coming.

He was the guy without any skeletons in his closet, the man who rescued his party from

scandal, the lawmaker no one could say a bad thing about.

That ended with yesterday's detailed, and yet mysterious, indictment, alleging that he

has been systematically making payoffs to an undisclosed person, apparently hush money

because of some previously undisclosed behavior.

What do and don't we know about all of this tonight, John?

JOHN HARWOOD: What we found out today, Gwen, was that law enforcement officials began

telling reporters that the individual in question was a male who had been a student at

Yorkville High School and that the conduct that he had been soliciting money to keep

quiet from former Speaker Hastert was sexual misconduct.

We don't know any more detail than that.

And I've got to say, as you indicated in your introduction, the one word you heard

across the board from everybody in Washington was "sad."

Everybody liked Dennis Hastert.

He was a calming force in the House.

He was the prototypical nice guy, made it into Congress.

Not especially articulate, not especially dashing, you know, like some figures in

politics, but somebody who was a reassuring figure.

And everyone that I have talked to is shocked by this.

And that's what John Boehner said.

It's what Nancy Pelosi said this afternoon.

GWEN IFILL: Dennis Hastert became speaker of the House in the wake of scandal.

And he was - they turned to him - I was covering Capitol Hill at the time - because he

was the guy they knew would have no skeletons in his closet.

And for the record, during his time in public life, he didn't have any.

JOHN HARWOOD: And in fact, the prosecutors are saying that none of the conduct - either

the financial misconduct and the structuring of payments to avoid suspicion of

regulators, or the misconduct that occurred with this individual - occurred during his

period of public service.

It was before when he was a teacher and then after when he became a lobbyist and began

making a lot of money that this individual came to him and began soliciting money.

He was meting it out in amounts that drew the attention of the bank, drew the attention

of regulators because federal law requires that transactions of more than $10,000 be

reported.

He then, according to the indictment, restructured those to avoid the reporting

requirements.

That, in itself, is a crime.

And then when he was asked about it by the FBI, he indicated this was only for his own

purposes.

And they've changed him with lying there.

JOHN DICKERSON: So if he's being caught for lying, what about the guy who was bribing

him - or seeking these payments?

What happens to him?

JOHN HARWOOD: Well, you would think - in some circumstances similar to this you have

extortion or blackmail charges being leveled against the person seeking the money.

In this case, what prosecutors have said is that the - this arrangement appeared to be

consensual between - that is, the financial arrangement - consensual between Hastert and

the individual.

Hastert was not strongly resisting and therefore they had agreed on this plan.

CARRIE JOHNSON: John, what happens next to Denny Hastert?

And is he speaking out in defense of himself or his actions in any -

JOHN HARWOOD: He's not.

His family members are.

A nephew put out a statement tonight saying this wasn't the Denny Hastert that I know.

I think he's innocent.

I think this is trumped-up politics.

Hastert has not been arrested.

He's not considered a flight risk by prosecutors.

GWEN IFILL: He signed a $4,500 bail.

JOHN HARWOOD: Right.

And he will - there will be a court appearance where he will have to formally answer the

charges.

It is possible that this ends in a plea agreement of some kind, but we don't yet know

what that next chapter is going - GWEN IFILL: OK, so explain something.

He is not being investigated for anything he - for any kind of public malfeasance that

we're aware of?

JOHN HARWOOD: Not public corruption.

GWEN IFILL: Not public corruption.

He is spending his own money, presumably, to make these statements.

JOHN HARWOOD: Mmm hmm.

GWEN IFILL: So the only thing that he is being investigated about, so far as we know,

is the way he structured those payments?

If he had just written a check and not withdrawn it in chunks, none of this would have

come up.

JOHN HARWOOD: That's right.

It's two things.

It's structuring the payments to avoid the federal requirements and lying to the FBI.

He's also not being charged with sexual abuse of another person.

This conduct occurred before 1981, when he went into public life.

It was back when he was a teacher and wrestling coach.

The statute of limitations would have long since expired on that.

JOHN DICKERSON: How does he have that much money?

I mean, does - is this money - I mean, he was in the Congress, he was - when we covered

him there was talk about he'd kind of go home to a kind of humble life.

That's one of the reasons people said it was so sad, is these stories of kind of a

regular Joe kind of guy.

JOHN HARWOOD: Well, he certainly has a regular Joe vibe about him.

But he was also running the public policy practice of a major Washington law firm.

And a lot of money - you can make a lot of money in that business.

He had agreed to pay, according to the indictment, $3 1/2 million.

Of that, he had paid about half - 1.7 million (dollars).

And if you're talking about payments over the course of five years, for somebody who is

a major lobbyist with that kind of resume that they can bring to the game, they can make

an awful lot of money.

GWEN IFILL: Do we know anything about the timing of this indictment?

It seems an odd, interesting, out of the blue time to hear about this.

JOHN HARWOOD: We don't.

And we don't know whether this case is arising because of legal trouble that the

individual in question, the person who is receiving the money from him - he may have

gotten into legal trouble and therefore began telling this story as a way to get out of

his own problems.

So again, we haven't heard from Hastert on the conduct - the underlying conduct itself.

We haven't heard him on the charges of lying and restructuring.

And we simply don't know the circumstances under which this investigation itself arose.

GWEN IFILL: But the word "sad" does keep coming up.

JOHN HARWOOD: That's right.

GWEN IFILL: Thank you, John.

Well, the Department of Justice had to be the busiest Cabinet department in town this

week, with indictments and investigations ranging from Yorkville, Illinois to Zurich,

Switzerland to Cleveland, Ohio.

The settlement Justice reached in Cleveland, however, speaks directly to an open wound

many American cities are still struggling with: how to help communities interact more

effectively with the people they are sworn to protect.

Cleveland Police Chief Calvin Williams.

CLEVELAND POLICE CHIEF CALVIN WILLIAMS: (From video.)

What it - what it really comes

down to is, you know, we have to - I have to as chief - make sure that that community

policing philosophy is part of the DNA of the Cleveland Division of Police.

And that's what I intend to do.

GWEN IFILL: Cleveland is only one of the cities that has come under federal scrutiny.

What else is brewing out there, Carrie?

CARRIE JOHNSON: Since the Obama administration took office, they've done about two

dozen investigations of police departments all over the country.

Gwen, these are investigations by the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department

under authority Justice got under a 1994 law Congress passed after the brutal beating of

Rodney King in Southern California.

It allows the Justice Department to go in, send teams to look at whether police are

engaging in unconstitutional actions - racially motivated traffic stops, for instance,

use of excessive force and other misconduct.

And under the tools Congress has granted the Justice Department, DOJ can come in, try to

negotiate a court-enforceable settlement with these police departments, require them to

get more training and to change the way that they use force.

That's exactly what has happened in Cleveland this week.

And this deal follows a scathing report Justice put out only five months ago about

Cleveland finding not only did officers excessively unholster their weapons and shoot

people, but they were using their service revolvers and pistols to beat people over the

head - even people who had already been handcuffed and were not presenting a threat.

This problem extended to the use of Tasers and pepper sprays, and extended to people who

were just mouthing off to cops, not doing anything wrong.

GWEN IFILL: Was there any coincidence that this announcement of the settlement came

just a couple days - maybe the day after - certainly the weekend - last weekend we heard

about the verdict in the Brelo case, where 137 bullets were fired into a windshield and

two unarmed black people were killed, and then all of a sudden Monday or Tuesday we hear

this announcement?

CARRIE JOHNSON: Both Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson and DOJ officials were asked about

the rather curious timing of this announcement.

They didn't reject it out of hand, and just reading between the lines here, clearly they

were trying to make sure that Cleveland did not remain on edge.

They wanted to demonstrate that the city understood there was a problem and the federal

Justice Department understood there was a problem and that they were taking steps to make

changes.

Those steps will include more reporting requirements.

Every time police unholster their weapons they're going to have to report that and fill

out a form.

They're supposed to promise not to use excessive force and actually give suspects the

right to surrender peacefully before whipping out a gun or a pistol or a Taser.

JOHN HARWOOD: Carrie, is there reason to think that because of the rising attention to

police-community issues that we've seen since Ferguson, Baltimore, whole range of cases -

Tamir Rice in Cleveland - that the administration is in a more comprehensive way using

the tools that you said that Congress has granted to try, before the president leaves

office, to touch as many local police departments as possible?

Or is this just a case-by-case thing as it comes up?

CARRIE JOHNSON: So what's going on here, John, is that there are 18,000 police agencies

all over the country.

Some are large departments, like Cleveland and New York and L.A., and some may have 10

officers.

The new U.S. attorney general, Loretta Lynch, has said

that we can't be everywhere at the Justice

Department.

We can't investigate all of these police departments.

What we can do is negotiate these kinds of settlements, as they did in Cleveland this

week, and try to demonstrate and publicize those as a model for best practices for others

around the country to follow, to the extent they have the resources and the will.

And if they don't have the resources and they don't have the will, John, then there's a

hammer hanging over their heads moving forward.

JOHN DICKERSON: What happens with the Tamir Rice case?

This is another one sitting out there in Cleveland.

How does that - does this lower the possible boil in terms of the tensions created by

that case?

GWEN IFILL: The 12-year old boy who was playing with an air gun and was shot.

CARRIE JOHNSON: Tamir Rice, shot and killed late last year.

The local investigation is ongoing there and the federal government is looking over the

shoulder of the local police and DAs on that.

There's also an outstanding investigation of a case of a mentally ill woman who was in

handcuffs and died in Cleveland police custody - both of those incidents still under

review.

It's possible that officers in those cases could still face charges, and if they don't

that the Justice Department will come in and possible charge and investigate those

officers too.

GWEN IFILL: One of the things I found most interesting about this settlement is - aside

from the fact that suddenly they're putting civilians in charge of internal police

investigations - it's also the notion that they said: We are in favor of community

policing.

We are in favor of de-escalating situations.

And I wonder why all that wasn't happening already.

It seems to me community policing - whatever that means anymore - has been widespread

and discussed every - in every community in America.

Yet, this was part of the conclusion, part of the deal?

CARRIE JOHNSON: So what community policing is, at its core, Gwen, is getting out of

your car and going into a community and knowing the names of people who live there,

especially children.

It's not that hard to do.

But when you have a mentality that you're under siege, you don't have enough resources,

you feel as an officer at risk yourself, you might want to stay in your car.

You want to be - the new idea is to be a guardian of - not a - not a warrior.

And what the president's Task Force on Policing has been arguing is that police need to

rethink their role in the community.

They are there to protect and serve, not to - not to abuse and over-police.

GWEN IFILL: And the police unions, as far as we know, have embraced this so far?

CARRIE JOHNSON: Gwen, in fact Cleveland police officials this week raised some big

doubts about the success of this consent decree.

They say they don't want officers overburdened with paperwork and they say this is going

to be a really, really expensive process.

GWEN IFILL: OK.

Thanks.

Over the years, running for president has become a sport, what with all the horse races

and photo finishes and all that.

But at the heart of every campaign are the individuals themselves.

Why do they run?

And when there are more than a dozen others competing for the same turn at bat, how does

one survive?

Well, you get onto debate stages, you try to steal the limelight from others and, most

of all, you come up with a plan to be the last man or woman standing.

Republican Rick Santorum, for example, says he's different from all the others.

FORMER SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA): (From video.)

We have experience that nobody has

on national security.

That's something that's critically important.

And I think going up against a former secretary of state with a candidate with really no

national experience is a really - it's a - it's a prescription for disaster for the

Republican Party when national security issues are going to be very, very important.

GWEN IFILL: And Democrat Bernie Sanders told John Harwood he is the Clinton - Hillary

Clinton alternative.

SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): (From video.)

John, let me say this: I fully concede

that I get into this race as a major underdog - no question about it.

As I've said before though, don't underestimate me.

I think we're going to do better than people think.

And I think we got a shot at this thing.

GWEN IFILL: OK, turn to the other John.

Is it too soon in all of this to discern what the strategy is behind candidates like

Rick Santorum and Bernie Sanders?

JOHN DICKERSON: Well, I think the strategy is, you know, what Mom used to say: Anybody

can be president.

And all - the people who are running now and getting in both this week and next week are

in that category.

They are - Bernie Sanders is kind of - it's a big long shot, as he just admitted.

Rick Santorum, though he came in second in the last - or won 11 contests, was considered

second against Mitt Romney, has a much tougher field.

And you heard him there trying to do what all these candidates are trying to do, which

is design an election where they are the only solution to the problem.

And so they all say, well, what the world needs -

GWEN IFILL: They define the problem too.

JOHN DICKERSON: Yes, they define the problem so that they are the inevitable solution.

Why are so many of them running?

Well, it's - you can get covered now in a way you couldn't before.

There aren't just three networks to kind of only cover the serious people.

You can get picked up.

You can run your own - your own advertisements on web pages.

A lot of them are - Bernie Sanders is a cause candidate.

And so while he doesn't have gobs of money - which is another reason Rick Santorum can

run.

If he has one person spending a lot of money on his super PAC, that can keep him alive,

where the donations you used to have to cobble together might not keep him alive.

But Bernie Sanders has people supporting him who really believe in him and who are

willing to really go out there and work hard for him, sort of like what Ron Paul had

going for him last time.

So the barriers to entry have lowered, and also there are those great historical stories

that they all cling too - Jimmy Carter in '76, Ronald Reagan in '76 almost takes down an

incumbent, you know, John McCain in 2000 in New Hampshire.

So as long as there's a narrative that they can kind of hook onto, they'll stick around

for the ride.

JOHN HARWOOD: How much importance do you attach to the idea, which has gotten

considerable discussion the last couple of cycles, that people run for president because

the speech fees go up, the book contracts come.

They're seen as larger people on the American stage because they're a former

presidential - GWEN IFILL: Is that a little cynical, John?

Is that a little cynical?

JOHN HARWOOD: Well, it is.

I'm not sure that all these people are doing it for that reason.

I just have never seen so many people who it's hard to envision a path to the finish

line getting in.

JOHN DICKERSON: There is no downside.

So it used to be, if the party was picking the people, they would say, this isn't your

turn, and if you don't wait your turn - if you try and go too fast too soon - we're going

to penalize you or we won't try and think of you next time when it is your turn.

So that structure has gone away.

The press has gone away which kind of used to make fun of a candidate who was a kind of

Harold Stassen type, although - well, we won't get into Stassen.

But you know, so the media can't make fun of you.

And now, because of the narrowcasting you can do, Bernie Sanders ends up running and

he's a hero when he comes out of this because - and Howard Dean had that a little bit.

The media made fun of him, but then he became the - you know, the progressive hero.

GWEN IFILL: He had a cause.

JOHN DICKERSON: He had a cause.

And that's certainly been the case on the Republican side.

CARRIE JOHNSON: John, but I've been hearing that they're going to limit the number of

candidate who can appear on the debate stage in terms of Republicans.

We're already passed that number.

How does - how is that going to work?

JOHN DICKERSON: That's right.

I mean, the number of Republican candidates is multiplying.

There may be a new one just during this broadcast.

(Laughter.)

So they've limited it to 10.

Fox News is just going to have 10.

CNN's going to have 10 and then a debate beforehand with the others, sort of a kids

table to the adults table.

It's interesting what the incentives will be here.

I mean, so if you're a candidate who's worried about 11, first of all, do you complain

about it?

Because, as one Republican official was saying, if you complain now, it's sort of like

saying, well, in two months in August when they make this determination, I'm still going

to be 11, which is sort of dooming yourself to a - to a rough spot.

But does it change the incentives for the way these candidates behave so that - because

the criteria is where you stand in the polls on basically early August to get in that -

in that Fox debate.

So are they going to act out and try and get themselves some coverage?

Then the question is, if you act out, do people say, oh, that was cute, but you know,

you're not a serious candidate?

How do you create a sustained kind of push that gets you into that top 10 -

GWEN IFILL: That's the Republican side.

How about the Democratic side?

You have - next week we're seeing - in fact, on Saturday we're going to see Martin

O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, step in.

We're going to see a couple more Republicans - Lindsey Graham and Rick Perry - and

another Democrat, Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island, get in.

We saw George Pataki get in this week.

When Hillary looks at this - Hillary Clinton, the presumed way-ahead front-runner

according to all the polls - what does she do?

JOHN DICKERSON: Well, right.

Just remember, 85 percent in the most recent CBS poll said they could consider voting

for Hillary Clinton.

That's a big number.

GWEN IFILL: Yeah.

JOHN DICKERSON: So the danger for Hillary Clinton with a Bernie Sanders or a Martin

O'Malley is not that they're going to beat hear, necessarily.

It's that they put enough pressure on her on one of these issues that it causes her to

stumble in a way that lasts and causes pain for the general election.

GWEN IFILL: Once again, you're just waiting for that one little opening and maybe you

can get through, and that's what we're watching them all for.

Thank you all very much.

We want to end a little early tonight because we have - it's a Pledge Week night.

But before we go, I'd like to send a word of salute to a colleague and fellow translator

of the world of Washington and politics, the great Bob Schieffer.

He retires this Sunday after 46 years at CBS News and nearly a quarter of a century as

host of Face the Nation.

Bob, we wish you and Pat the best.

I suspect TCU will be seeing a lot more of you.

We won't say goodbye, just so long.

And stepping into those big shoes beginning next Sunday will be our own John Dickerson.

We're not saying goodbye to you either, but certainly good luck.

Thanks for watching, everybody.

Stay online as we continue the conversation later tonight and all week long on the

Washington Week Webcast Extra at PBS.org/WashingtonWeek.

And keep track of daily developments every night with Judy Woodruff and me on the PBS

NewsHour, and we'll see you again right here next week on Washington Week.

Good night.

And good luck, sir.