Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pelosi wants to pick Alcee Hastings for Intel char? Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Proud2BAmurkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 11:52 PM
Original message
Pelosi wants to pick Alcee Hastings for Intel char? Are you FUCKING KIDDING ME?
Just heard a blip about this. Did I hear right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-23-06 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. He's the ranking member
and she would have to change the rules to pick someone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:05 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. I thought Jane Harmon was the ranking member
Not sure about this though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:09 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. Ok, the story is, Pelosi wants to remove Harman from the whole cmte
because Harmon is a war cheerleader even though she's spoken out against SOME, I repeat, SOME of the worst of the intel manipulation.

Removing Harmon would obviously leave Hastings the ranking member...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. can she remove both Harman and Hastings from the committee ?
that might be the best thing to do if possible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. That would be best.
Bring in Rush Holt, U.S. Representative from New Jersey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 02:43 AM
Response to Reply #19
26. Any reason she couldn't bring in Dennis Kucinich?
That would be rich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #26
42. Sanity? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #42
49. .
:rofl: MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. I was being slightly facetious about DK- but really, why the hell not?
Edited on Fri Nov-24-06 06:35 PM by impeachdubya
If you've got any ideas beyond laughing smiley faces to contribute here, I'm all ears.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #53
54.  You're right, it was a knee jerk laugh. I respect Congressman Kucinich greatly.
Edited on Fri Nov-24-06 07:05 PM by BleedingHeartPatriot
Pelosi naming him as her choice for Intel Chair, at this moment, I think would be a strategic blunder. He is the embodiment of core liberal values (which I love about him), and he would be a lightening rod, attacked 24/7 in the MSM. Unfortunately, since a significant majority of American citizens don't know him, he would be defined by the rabid MSM, before Congress even starts their session.

So, for me, until the Dems actually have the power of the majority they have zero leverage to influence the message. And, Kucinich, right now, is under the radar of MSM definition. Once Dems are in power, he will, finally, be someone considered worthy of a forum, by that same MSM. And, he will be defined on his own terms.

And I really hope Madame Speaker keeps him squarely in mind for other committee chairs,(hearings, anyone?) after the new Congress is actually in session. MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #54
56. So even when we're the majority party, we're going to act out of fear...
...of what they'll say, when we know they'll lie about us no matter what we do?

If this is going to be the way it goes, why the fuck should we even bother?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #56
57. OK, I give up. Kucinich for Intel chair, yeah!
:hi: MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #57
62. Hey, he gets my vote.
I mean, he was right on the intelligence about the 'threat' since before the war began; we could do much, much worse.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #54
59. My biggest priority/concern in this thread is, I have to wonder why the M$M is stumping so hard
for Harman to stay in that position. Kucinich was an off the cuff suggestion. Rush Holt, who I think is in line after Hastings (?) is probably a more realistic choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #42
52. Okay, Jack. I don't honestly think Kunich is going to get the job. But lets hear YOUR ideas.
Edited on Fri Nov-24-06 06:39 PM by impeachdubya
Because, frankly, WHOEVER is in that chair has to be someone who is willing to ask, if not the tough questions of this Administration, at the very least, the painfully obvious one. Namely:

"The FISA courts are a rubber stamp that will also issue warrants 72 hours retroactively. What kind of spying (and on whom) was so critical and 'sensitive' that it required extra-constitutional powers and not even the most minimal kind of oversight?"

Do you really think Harman's going to do that? I don't. I realize it's fun for some people to get a hearty hyuk hyuk at Dennis Kucinich, :eyes: but at least he's been consistent on Iraq. The American people didn't elect democrats so pro-Iraq war Hawks (like Harman) could continue running the show and maintain the status quo.

While you're busy laughin', there's actual important shit at stake, here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #42
55. Yeah, why put someone who was right about the war from BEFORE it started on it?
Sometimes some of you make no fucking sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 07:52 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. Hey Zhade: Here's Rush Holt on Iraq-
http://holt.house.gov/Iraq.shtml

As you may know, I voted against the Congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq, primarily because there was no evidence of an Iraq connection to 9/11, because there was no evidence that Saddam posed an immediate threat to us with WMD, and because I believed the President's new-found enthusiasm for a "preemptive war" doctrine was both unconstitutional and dangerous. Further, if we did not know clearly why we were going to war in Iraq, how would we ever know when it was time to bring our solders home?

Sounds good to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. I support him, too.
Plus he's for fixing the voting machine problem, like DK.

Either would be great.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-25-06 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #55
69. Because Kucinich is a fucking idiot when it comes to administration.
Edited on Sat Nov-25-06 01:20 AM by yibbehobba
Look, I grew up in that part of the country. His tenure as mayor of Cleveland was, let me say, not that great. He has good ideas. But his execution is crap. And being a chairman is all about the execution. He is just not cut from the right cloth to be a chairman. Some people are good at it. Some people aren't. He... really, really isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
digno dave Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #26
50. that's funny n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:56 AM
Response to Reply #6
22. With 76% of her campaign contributions from weapons manufacturers...
...aka death merchants, it's not surprising she's a hawk - it's a conflict of interest on her part.

I couldn't vote for her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
28. Thanks for filling me in!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
2. what specifically do you have against him?
I'm curious.




Cher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #2
43. from what I've read
he's been impeached from a judgeship. If that's true, in my book that disqualifies him for ANY leadership position.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomInTib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
4. effin' crook
fuck 'im.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:06 AM
Response to Original message
5. For those to whom the truth matters...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Question.
Was Hastings removed, or was this the only impeachment of him and the impeachment resulted in an acquittal?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Impeached AND removed
by a democratic congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Then on what charges? This isn't the first time I've seen the TPM link
Edited on Fri Nov-24-06 12:24 AM by Kagemusha
but that link doesn't specify.. (edit: OK, it DOES specify and I missed it, but it's written in a way that it's easy to miss. Darnit.) if he wasn't removed on that specific grounds, what grounds WAS he removed on?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. From the article
Edited on Fri Nov-24-06 12:21 AM by hughee99
"When the House impeached federal judge Alcee Hastings in 1989, 16 of the 17 counts had to do with a bribery allegation dating to 1981, as we detailed yesterday. But one count was different, the National Review's Byron York noted a few days ago, and it cuts to the very core of whether Hastings is suitable to chair the House intelligence committee."

This story is about the 1 count, but the other 16 bribery counts held up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Thank you, much appreciated. We mustn't ignore the 16 counts.
Saying, "Oh, but he was acquitted unanimously on the 17th on weak evidence"... good lord.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hughee99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. I agree. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. Well at least I understand the angle now. They say it's all a big setup
And um, yeah, maybe, I can't say it's not. But this is an important position and it's not one Hastings has an inalienable right to. After all, his innocence depends on an argument that says, a 2/3rds+ majority of US senators were chumps and tools regarding Hastings' case. Besides, judges are held to such a high standard that impeachment is only for removal, and there's separate, reasonable doubt criminal trials to which all citizens are (used to be..) entitled to.

I guess the bottom line is, the Senate said this stunk too much to ignore, no matter what could be proved or not in court. Can the House ignore the scent today?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
10. I think the real question is, can Harman the hawk do the tough legwork required
regarding the Bush Administration's PATENTLY ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPYING AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES?

If the answer is no, then someone else needs that job. Maybe not Hastings, but definitely not Harman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:40 AM
Response to Reply #10
16. definitely not Harman
don't let her near any where near
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:42 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. So what I want to know is, why is the M$M rushing around in terror that she may not get the gig?
That's the curious thing. Look, Hastings may not be the guy for the job. But then it's time for a fresh face. How about Lynn Woolsey?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
savemefromdumbya Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:46 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. yes bring someone else
there's plenty of good people
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lindisfarne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
15. A ranking member who has been impeached on charges which make
questionable his ability to do the job means he's not next in line for the job. Or one would think. I've never liked Pelosi.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #15
23. If they do this, we're hypocrites.
Are they determined to MAKE us think they're as corrupt as Republicans? Shit!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 02:40 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. No, I think something else entirely is going on here, Zhade. And it smells funny to me.
We talked about Murtha plenty in the past year or so- so did the media. He was the "war hero turned anti-Iraq war activist". Now, all of a sudden, when he's within striking distance of a major, important House power position, the media does a 180 and we're all supposed to understand that he's ethically "damaged goods" because he was NOT charged in ABSCAM.

Okay, well, that battle's over- whatever. But, again, as Pelosi moves to consolidate some changes in the House leadership, and bring strong anti-war voices who might pose a real threat to the administration into positions where they can actually have some effect, Lo and Behold! alarm whistles are "all of a sudden" going off in the Mainstream Media. Sort of like the minute Kevin Shelley started making loud noises about Diebold, "all of a sudden" the San Francisco Chronicle decided -with no evidence to back it up- that he had committed massive ethical violations of his job... then, when that case started to fall apart, they ran full page stories on how he was a "mean boss" who may have thrown a cell phone once.

Maybe I've been wearing this tin foil too long, or maybe the powers-that-be want to make sure that the "right" democrats, the "controllable" democrats are in the positions where others might call bullshit on the Administration's potentially illegal and/or impeachable offenses.

Do you want someone like Harman, someone who has indicated she will "play ball" with the Administration's demand that they have a total, extra-constitutional right to spy on whoever they want, under any circumstances, with ZERO oversight? I don't. I'd like some answers on why FISA -with its rubber stamp approval of wiretaps and its 72 hour retroactive warrants- is too much of a "pain in the ass" for this administration's spying purposes. I trust Pelosi enough to think she knows what she's doing structuring the house the way she wants, and I don't think (as the M$M media is reporting) her problems with Harman or Hoyer have to do with "Jealousy" or "bad blood". Bullshit. But the level with which the media is squealing over this shit makes me think that whatever she's trying to do, it threatens to REALLY step on someone or something's toes.

Maybe Harman will change her tune and start demanding real answers. Or maybe not.

I don't think Hastings is necessarily the guy for the job, either. I think it's time for someone new to be brought in. How about Dennis Kucinich?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 04:13 AM
Response to Reply #24
30. DK? I think I love you.
You make some damn good points, especially with regards to Shelley - I'm still outraged over that one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #30
35. Yeah, wouldn't that be cool?
Just the sound of the right wing punditry's collective head 'splodin' would be priceless. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kagemusha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #24
41. To be fair, Murtha's rep was that he was an earmark king
And people were kinda shocked when he turned against Iraq because he's considered a rather conservative Democrat to begin with. Except for his war stance, he's not the Hill's first candidate to come to mind when a liberal is mentioned. (OTOH, Pelosi fits that a lot more by their standards.)

I'll be blunt, though. I wasn't thrilled by the idea of, for example, having Rangel straddling the aorta of government as Chair of Ways and Means, like the Republicans were scaring people about. This batch of Democrats elected to the House is by no means perfect. It's just that besides slanting left, I, and many others, viewed the Republicans there as just SO horrible that it didn't matter that the Democrats would not be perfect - the Republicans just had to go and the damage they could inflict, severely curtailed by minority status.

We can only hope that the people getting positions like House intel chair aren't a complete drag. Fortunately, a Democratic majority in the Senate means that the Senate has committees to pick up the slack in some cases, possibly on Intel issues, but, well, holding hearings was never going to get THAT much done anyway, in and of itself, unfortunately. Not under this President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #41
47. I disagree. I think with the right person in the Intel chair, we could at the very least DEMAND some
answers. Some honest answers. And if the WH won't provide them, then at least we're on the record for asking.

Again- it's very simple: The FISA courts are a historic rubber stamp of absurd proportions, and warrants for FISA spying can be issued 72 hours retroactively. So what, precisely, has the administration been up to where they consider FISA too much of a pain in the ass? And if they're not spying on Osama's "friends and family" network (The Carlylye Group would be an excellent place to start) but rather subverting the constitution to spy on, say, journalists and political opponents... well, I should think that impeachment being "off the table" could change very quickly with revelations like that.

But no one is going to ask the tough questions if the important positions are staffed with "friendly" Democrats who are "willing to work with the Administration".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagingInMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 12:48 AM
Response to Original message
21. So much for the "cleanest Congress in history"
Edited on Fri Nov-24-06 12:56 AM by RagingInMiami
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shanti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. we're certainly
finding that out, aren't we? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Why don't we wait and see how things shake out before we bring out the tar and feathers?
Edited on Fri Nov-24-06 02:45 AM by impeachdubya
Doesn't anyone wonder why the M$$$$$$M is clearly cheerleading for Jane the Hawk Harman to remain in this position?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConsAreLiars Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 02:49 AM
Response to Original message
29. Good to know that the Con's talking points are being repeated on DU.
It would be a shame if all the power of the Corporate Media was being wasted. But you came through for them. Have you asked for your DittoHead Award yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 04:21 AM
Response to Reply #29
31. Yeah,
because Hastings wasn't impeached and removed from the federal judiciary by a dem congress. Look, it doesn't matter a whit whether he was innocent. Public perception counts, and installing him as chair would be a fucking disaster. It doesn't take much in the way of brains to figure that out, sherlock. Harman is also tainted, but Reyes is third in line and there's also Rush Holt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 04:42 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. As long as this isn't just about making sure Harman stays in charge
I'm good with it. I think a new face is needed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Proud2BAmurkin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #31
46. Bingo.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ninja Jordan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 04:25 AM
Response to Original message
32. Public perception COUNTS. Call Pelosi's office about this! We cannot allow this to stand.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 05:19 AM
Response to Original message
34. It's a great time to clean the mystery out of this mess. It'd be approriate to make the details
of the entire situation open from beginning to end, so the public can find out what it's all about, rather than subsisting on little orts of gossip from people who may know next to nothing, or people who are given to flights of slander and libel.

Why NOT open it all up? There's no way of keeping this secret. If all the facts are published, finally, and he looks bad, then steps should be taken to throw him outta there. Get it over with, so we can stop being prisoners to an uncomfortable secret or else a set-up on someone (which I doubt, probably).

Open it up, air it, get it over with, MOVE ON.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 05:31 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Love the phrase "little orts of gossip"
but this is out there, is a matter of public record, and although there may be some nuances involved that point toward mitigating factors, the public is never going to get beyond the FACT that Hastings was impeached and removed from the fed judiciary by Congress, and a dem congress at that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 05:55 AM
Response to Original message
37. Trying to understand this:
In 1981 Judge Hastings was charged with accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and a return of seized assets for 21 counts of racketeering by Frank and Thomas Romano, and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He was acquitted by a jury after his alleged co-conspirator, William Borders, refused to testify in court (resulting in a jail sentence for Borders).

In 1989, the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives took up the case, and Hastings was impeached for bribery and perjury by a vote of 413-3. Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel. He was then convicted by the United States Senate, becoming the sixth Judge in the history of the United States to be removed from office by the Senate. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again, but did not do so. Alleged co-conspirator William Borders went to jail again for refusing to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but was later given a full pardon by Bill Clinton during the end of his Presidency.

Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate, and that he had been acquitted in a criminal trial. Judge Stanley Sporkin ruled in favor of Hastings, remanding the case back to the Senate, but stayed his ruling pending the outcome of an appeal to the Supreme Court in a similar case regarding Judge Walter Nixon, who had also been impeached and removed.

more...



Congressman Hastings is a member of the powerful House Rules Committee and is a senior Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). On the HPSCI, Hastings is the Ranking Democratic Member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security. The Terrorism Subcommittee is the primary committee in Congress which has direct oversight of the programs and activities of the intelligence community that relate to U.S. homeland security and to counterterrorism, including capabilities, resources, policies and procedures.

link


My questions are: Why did Clinton pardon Borders? How did Hastings become a member of Congress four years after impeachment? How is it that he has been sitting on these committees for over a decade with no flap?

I'm sure there are a lot more questions, but there is no excuse for corruption.

I wonder if McCain's involvement with the Keating Five will come up as an issue when he runs for president!

There is also no excuse for double standards!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 08:54 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. Totally agree with your last three sentences
And if we're going to try to lead the charge against corruption, we need to be squeaky clean.

There's no "but they did it, too!". That won't cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #37
58. WTF? Pelosi wants to put in the guy she voted to impeach in the past?
WHAT?

That BETTER not be true. We didn't bust our ass to get this majority just to let corruption slide!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
38. Caesar's wife must be above suspicion. I support Rush Holt for chair
Democrats got into power in part because of their stand against Republican corruption. It seems to me that putting someone with a clouded past in charge of a major committee would be a big mistake.

Jane Harmon is perceived as an enabler of the Bush agenda. I'd also like to see her out the door since she didn't do the job when she was the Democrat's leader on that committee--how do you expect her to do the job as committee chair.

The Democrats need someone who is 1. Clean. 2.Clearly willing to stand up to Bush and 3.Qualified to do the job.

As David Corn pointed out the Democrats actually have the ideal candidate on the committee in Rush Holt, who is a physicist by profession and a former intelligence analyst who has spoken out and voted against this debacle in Iraq from the beginning.

This would ruffle some feathers but would also show that Pelosi is willing to play the game by new rules. It's probably not going to happen but it would be nice to see.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Love that idea! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #38
48. That sounds great.
Either that, or bring in someone new. Lynn Woolsey. Dennis Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
44. You Folks Do Know That The House Vote Was 399-3 Withn John Conyers Heading The Impeachment
And I think that committee is exempt from seniority rules...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 11:37 AM
Response to Reply #44
45. ???
the judiciary committee? I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GymGeekAus Donating Member (285 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 06:19 PM
Response to Original message
51. Harman showed poor judgement via her position and the war.
She had access to more intel than anyone else in the House. She dropped the ball, big time. Even if she was being lied to as badly as the rest of us, she still had more power than any other Democrat to actually find out the truth. She dropped the ball. A part of her trust, the trust Pelosi gave her by virtue of her position on the Intel committee, was to be a responsible consumer of that intelligence. She dropped the ball.

Not saying she's not smart, capable, or even the best pick for the job. Simply saying that she failed in her appointed task.

I do not want to be the party of cronyism, the party that rewards failure with promotion. Leave that to the GOP, thanks.

As for the selection of Hastings as her replacement, I'm open to any information the community has on him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigriver Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
61. NO more swiftboating of good dems.
We cannot left Foxnews dictate our agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
64. Harman is better suited and not just in my opinion...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Not just in your opinion... in the opinion of Jane Harman's website?
Edited on Fri Nov-24-06 09:07 PM by impeachdubya
I don't understand your post. In whose opinion? In the opinion of the Corporate Media? In the opinion of Administration and Iraq War apologists?

Here's an idea. How about NEITHER Harman or Hastings. How about getting them BOTH off there, putting some new faces on the committee (like I said. Dennis Kucinich. Lynn Woolsey. Etc. etc.) And how about letting Rush Holt, who is also in line for the chair, take the position?

Is this about corruption and Hastings, or is it about protecting the seniority of someone who has indicated they will "play ball" with the administration on illegal spying?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. i have no intention whatsoever, to lay out just whose opinions in every...
Edited on Fri Nov-24-06 09:09 PM by bridgit
detail & in a manner you are able to digest; my suggestion is that you simple look around
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warren DeMontague Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-24-06 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. Well, the construction of that post made it look like you were offering Harman's
website as a back up of your assertion.

That said, I'd really like to hear why she's automatically entitled to the gig, and whether or not we can really expect any action from her on WHY the Administration felt they needed to disregard the constitution and FISA with their spying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-25-06 01:12 AM
Response to Reply #67
68. experience, tenacity, a known rebuker of republican & bush admin...
notions in particular; she sits on Intel contemporaneously, deemed ranking as such http://intelligence.house.gov/Members.aspx?ID=5 and is easily if not already up to speed, she has been left-out-of-the-loop-by-republican-majority-design on a host of matters and so my sense is that she is teething the bit to make things right...and imo lighter baggage, but we'll see
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 15th 2019, 02:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC