Full Version: Former Impeached Judge to Head Intelligence Committee?
Now I know that GOP.com is obviously not an unbiased source, but in this case, it does quote its source - The Los Angeles Times - as saying:
(this is of couse assuming the Democrats win tomorrow's election)
More recent corroboration of this is found in this Washington Post article:
Just to provide some background on Congressman Hastings, according to Wikipedia:
So the questions for debate:
1. When someone who was impeached and removed from office for bribery heads up any intelligence committee, what implications does that have for our national security?
2. What does this say about the Democrats' - particularly Pelosi's - constant invocation of the phrase "culture of corruption" in attacking Republicans?
3. Why would the Congressional Black Caucus want to be getting behind disgraced members of Congress just because of the color of their skin? Wouldn't that harm the image that one would think they'd want to promote?
QUOTE
"Pelosi Has Informed Colleagues That She Intends To Force Harman To Step Down, Replacing Her With Rep. Alcee L. Hastings Of Florida, The Second Most Senior Democrat On The Intelligence Panel." (Greg Miller and Richard Simon, "Harman Resists Push Off Spy Panel," Los Angeles Times, 5/18/06)
(this is of couse assuming the Democrats win tomorrow's election)
More recent corroboration of this is found in this Washington Post article:
QUOTE
Hastings would be next in line, but conservative Democrats are adamantly opposed. Skipping over him would be problematic, however. Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) was the last black lawmaker in line for the sensitive committee chairmanship. But to lure Harman out of retirement in 2000, Pelosi and then-House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) promised she would get the top Democratic slot on the panel. Bishop was eased off the committee with a plum seat on the appropriations panel.
In light of that history, skipping over Hastings might cause a real rupture with the Congressional Black Caucus, Pelosi aides fear. Tensions between Pelosi and the caucus flared earlier this year when she successfully pushed to remove the ethically tainted William J. Jefferson (D-La.) from the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Jefferson is under federal investigation as part of a bribery and corruption case.
In light of that history, skipping over Hastings might cause a real rupture with the Congressional Black Caucus, Pelosi aides fear. Tensions between Pelosi and the caucus flared earlier this year when she successfully pushed to remove the ethically tainted William J. Jefferson (D-La.) from the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Jefferson is under federal investigation as part of a bribery and corruption case.
Just to provide some background on Congressman Hastings, according to Wikipedia:
QUOTE
In 1989, Hastings was impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives for bribery and perjury. The Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Judge Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and of perjury in his testimony about the case. He became only the sixth Judge in the history of impeachment in the United States to be removed from office by the United States Senate.
So the questions for debate:
1. When someone who was impeached and removed from office for bribery heads up any intelligence committee, what implications does that have for our national security?
2. What does this say about the Democrats' - particularly Pelosi's - constant invocation of the phrase "culture of corruption" in attacking Republicans?
3. Why would the Congressional Black Caucus want to be getting behind disgraced members of Congress just because of the color of their skin? Wouldn't that harm the image that one would think they'd want to promote?
Isn't this thread just a wee bit premature since the Democrats haven't regained control of the House of Representatives?
What if the Republicans hold on to the House after the elections? Isn't this kind of "woulda/shoulda/coulda" type of speculation (complete with ideological land mines posing as debate questions) postulating over something that hasn't happened and might not happen at all?
An example of Blackstone's loaded questions is revealed in his attempted character assassination of Congressman Alcee Hastings. Hastings was convicted when he was a judge, not as a congressman. Additionally, there has been no attempt by the U.S. Senate to deny Hastings his seat.
Hastings, on the other hand, had been found not guilty in a criminal trial, so Sporkin ruled he had a right to trial by the full Senate and not just by a committee. Sporkin stayed his ruling pending Supreme Court review. The jurisdictional issue prevailed on appeal, and Hastings' impeachment and removal were reinstated.
The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again when it removed him, but did not do so. (emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings
Nice example of a hasty generalization, Blackstone.
The Democrats haven't won anything yet and already you're playing Paul Revere to warn us of dire consequences if they take control of Congress.
What if the Republicans hold on to the House after the elections? Isn't this kind of "woulda/shoulda/coulda" type of speculation (complete with ideological land mines posing as debate questions) postulating over something that hasn't happened and might not happen at all?
An example of Blackstone's loaded questions is revealed in his attempted character assassination of Congressman Alcee Hastings. Hastings was convicted when he was a judge, not as a congressman. Additionally, there has been no attempt by the U.S. Senate to deny Hastings his seat.
Hastings, on the other hand, had been found not guilty in a criminal trial, so Sporkin ruled he had a right to trial by the full Senate and not just by a committee. Sporkin stayed his ruling pending Supreme Court review. The jurisdictional issue prevailed on appeal, and Hastings' impeachment and removal were reinstated.
The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again when it removed him, but did not do so. (emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings
Nice example of a hasty generalization, Blackstone.
The Democrats haven't won anything yet and already you're playing Paul Revere to warn us of dire consequences if they take control of Congress.
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 6 2006, 07:24 PM) 
What if the Republicans hold on to the House after the elections?
Feel free to start a topic dealing with that.
QUOTE
An example of Blackstone's loaded questions is revealed in his attempted character assassination of Congressman Alcee Hastings. Hastings was convicted when he was a judge, not as a congressman.
You're right, that makes it all better.
QUOTE
Additionally, there has been no attempt by the U.S. Senate to deny Hastings his seat.
OK, so you've established that that *ahem* fine, upstanding organization has seen fit to keep him on as a member. I'm not sure what I'm really supposed to conclude from that, though.
QUOTE
Hastings, on the other hand, had been found not guilty in a criminal trial, so Sporkin ruled he had a right to trial by the full Senate and not just by a committee. Sporkin stayed his ruling pending Supreme Court review. The jurisdictional issue prevailed on appeal, and Hastings' impeachment and removal were reinstated.
The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again when it removed him, but did not do so. (emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings
The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again when it removed him, but did not do so. (emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings
I don't understand exactly what you're getting at here. The fact that he had first been acquitted doesn't make his subsequent impeachment conviction by 2/3 of a Democratic-controlled Senate any less damning.
QUOTE
Nice example of a hasty generalization, Blackstone.
A hasty generalization would be to say that Hastings is corrupt, therefore Democrats are corrupt, or therefore the Congressional Black Caucus is corrupt. Or that Mark Foley was a pedophile, therefore Republicans are hypocrites.
QUOTE
The Democrats haven't won anything yet and already you're playing Paul Revere to warn us of dire consequences if they take control of Congress.
Thank you for the comparison. I like it.
QUOTE(Blackstone @ Nov 6 2006, 07:41 PM)
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 6 2006, 07:24 PM)
What if the Republicans hold on to the House after the elections?
Feel free to start a topic dealing with that.
Pass. One thread dealing with a hypothetical is quite enough.
QUOTE
QUOTE
An example of Blackstone's loaded questions is revealed in his attempted character assassination of Congressman Alcee Hastings. Hastings was convicted when he was a judge, not as a congressman.
You're right, that makes it all better.
No. It just makes it clear. Something you could have done but chose not to.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Additionally, there has been no attempt by the U.S. Senate to deny Hastings his seat.
OK, so you've established that that *ahem* fine, upstanding organization has seen fit to keep him on as a member. I'm not sure what I'm really supposed to conclude from that, though.
Let me see if I can help you. If the Republican-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House didn't kick Hastings out of his seat when they clearly had the authority to do so, what makes you think a (hypothetical) Democratic-controlled House would?
QUOTE
QUOTE
Hastings, on the other hand, had been found not guilty in a criminal trial, so Sporkin ruled he had a right to trial by the full Senate and not just by a committee. Sporkin stayed his ruling pending Supreme Court review. The jurisdictional issue prevailed on appeal, and Hastings' impeachment and removal were reinstated.
The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again when it removed him, but did not do so. (emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings
The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again when it removed him, but did not do so. (emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hastings
I don't understand exactly what you're getting at here. The fact that he had first been acquitted doesn't make his subsequent impeachment conviction by 2/3 of a Democratic-controlled Senate any less damning.
The fact that the Republican-controlled Senate didn't have the stones to deny Hastings his seat is equally damning. Maybe they didn't want to bruise their image as a "big-tent party" openly trying to attract Blacks to consider voting Republican?
QUOTE(nighttimer @ Nov 6 2006, 08:17 PM)
One thread dealing with a hypothetical is quite enough.
Very strange that you consider it better not to consider the likely consequences of one's vote. I must say that's a rather interesting perspective.
QUOTE
QUOTE
QUOTE
Additionally, there has been no attempt by the U.S. Senate to deny Hastings his seat.
OK, so you've established that that *ahem* fine, upstanding organization has seen fit to keep him on as a member. I'm not sure what I'm really supposed to conclude from that, though.
Let me see if I can help you. If the Republican-controlled Senate and the Republican-controlled House didn't kick Hastings out of his seat when they clearly had the authority to do so, what makes you think a (hypothetical) Democratic-controlled House would?
Where did I suggest that a Democratic-controlled House would kick him out of his House seat? It would have been hard enough for the Republicans to do so, seeing as how it requires 2/3 of members to eject one of their own, and Republicans never controlled close to that fraction of the House. (and I have no idea why you're bringing up the Senate, because they have no authority over whether he's a Representative)
But there's a little bit of a difference between a corrupt Congressman who's merely a Congressman, and one who's actually in charge of the Intelligence Committee, don't you think?
Point of clarification- Hastings was aquited in a criminal trial, and he was NOT tried in front of the entire senate- but rather, a subcommitee, correct-
So, you have someone found NOT guilty in a criminal court of law- so why is he corrupt if he is innocent?
Hastings, on the other hand, had been found not guilty in a criminal trial, so Sporkin ruled he had a right to trial by the full Senate and not just by a committee. Sporkin stayed his ruling pending Supreme Court review.
the supreme court over-ruled, not on the merit's of the case- but rather, the jurisdiction.
Sounds like some white men trying to keep a brutha down to me-
So do you apply this burden of proof to ALL officials- or just dems, blacks and liberals?
Because- though Clinton was charged, he was NEVER convicted- and though folks in the GW admin may have been Indicted, some charges dropped, can we assume that they are guilty and corrupt as well?
Just want to see if you are being consistant here....
So, you have someone found NOT guilty in a criminal court of law- so why is he corrupt if he is innocent?
Hastings, on the other hand, had been found not guilty in a criminal trial, so Sporkin ruled he had a right to trial by the full Senate and not just by a committee. Sporkin stayed his ruling pending Supreme Court review.
the supreme court over-ruled, not on the merit's of the case- but rather, the jurisdiction.
Sounds like some white men trying to keep a brutha down to me-
So do you apply this burden of proof to ALL officials- or just dems, blacks and liberals?
Because- though Clinton was charged, he was NEVER convicted- and though folks in the GW admin may have been Indicted, some charges dropped, can we assume that they are guilty and corrupt as well?
Just want to see if you are being consistant here....
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Nov 7 2006, 02:03 PM)
Point of clarification- Hastings was aquited in a criminal trial, and he was NOT tried in front of the entire senate- but rather, a subcommitee, correct-
But it was the Senate (2/3 of them) that actually voted to convict him.
QUOTE
Because- though Clinton was charged, he was NEVER convicted- and though folks in the GW admin may have been Indicted, some charges dropped, can we assume that they are guilty and corrupt as well?
Not quite, because unlike Hastings, these others were, as you say, never convicted. That especially goes for the ones whose charges were dropped altogether.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.