Finally, Dennis Hastert has responded to the revelation by Vanity Fair in September, 2005 that wiretaps of Turkish nationals from 1997-2002 translated by FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds revealed that agents of the Turkish government and private Turkish citizens had claimed to secretly funnel money to Hastert's congressional campaigns over several years. (According to the original article, "An Inconvenient Patriot", the Turks being wiretapped talked about sending bundled unitemized contributions of $200 or less to Hastert for Congress in exchange for political favors to benefit the nation of Turkey.) Unfortunately for Hastert, Edmonds has used Brad Blog to show how his attorney's response has actually weakened the Speaker's claims of innocence.
Hastert's response came through his personal ethics counsel, Randy Evans, in the form of a Letter to the Editor in the current issue of Vanity Fair. Interjected with each point Evans makes, I will show Sibel Edmonds' response, as posted on Brad Blog:
Evans: "An Inconvenient Patriot" (September) by David Rose, contains references to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert which could suggest that accusations in a wiretap concerning unaccounted-for contributions were credible and possibly true; those references were themselves unfounded. Unlike many public officials, Speaker Hastert retains information on the identity and residence of contributors, including those contributing less than $200.
Edmonds:"Why is Hastert refusing to declare all donations? Why doesn't Hastert disclose all the contributions (those under $200), to all his PACs (he has several) for the years between 1997 and 2001? Many congressman do just that; why not come clean & show us yours Mr. Hastert?"
Evans: Those records indicate that there was no basis for suggesting that there were numerous unaccounted-for contributions, much less hundreds of thousands of them. The facts are: the data regarding contributions of less than $200 provide the identity of the donors of Speaker Hastert's un-itemized contributions, confirming that none were of questionable origin or legality.
Edmonds: Why did Hastert's office refuse to provide Vanity Fair with information refuting the claims prior to the article being published despite many attempts by VF?
Evans: In fact, less than $9,200 (not $500,000, or even tens of thousands of dollars) was donated in October 2000,
Edmonds: The article correctly establishes the timeline (Hastert receiving illegal donations) as 1996 to 2002. Why did Randy Evans pick only October 2000 for his letter in response to the article on Hastert by VF?
Evans: ...and only five contributors (whose donations amounted to less than $1,000 total) were from somewhere other than Illinois."
Edmonds: Nothing in the VF article suggested that questionable donations only came from OUTSIDE Illinois. It is likely that many (most) came from within Illinois - after all - Chicago is certainly in Illinois.
Ms.Edmonds rebuttal to the letter of Randy Evans shows there are still very serious questions as to whether the Speaker of the House of Representatives was compromised by a foreign power. Mr. Hastert is arguably the most powerful member of Congress and it is up to all of us to demand that he fully disclose all campaign contributions under $200.