« Digital Cameras: Instapundit Has The Answers | Main | A Dollar For Your Sarcasm »

In The Blog's-Eye: The Impeached Former Judge

To voters in Florida's 23rd District, Democrat Alcee Hastings is their representative in the House. They first elected him by 59 percent of the vote in 1992 and subsequently have returned him to Congress by margins ranging from 73 percent to 100 percent. He was just re-elected to an eighth term without opposition.

But to much of the rest of the world, and especially to bloggers, Hastings is, as the lead sentence of his biography says in the "Almanac of American Politics," "the only member of Congress ever to have been impeached and removed from office as a federal judge."

The Almanac goes on to say this about his past: "Hastings was charged with conspiring with a friend to take a $150,000 bribe and give two convicted swindlers light sentences. A Miami jury acquitted Hastings in 1983, but the friend was convicted. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals called for impeachment in 1987 and referred the case to Congress. Hastings was impeached by the House by a vote of 413-3 and convicted by the Senate, 69-26."

Hastings' history as a judge is significant now because he is being considered for the chairmanship of the House Intelligence Committee. Jane Harman of California has been the top Democrat on that panel in recent years, but Democrats regained control of the chamber in the Nov. 7 election and later elected Nancy Pelosi as the next House Speaker.

Pelosi reportedly is not fond of Harman, even though both are from California, and is not eager to elevate her to the Intelligence chairmanship. Despite his impeachment and removal from the judgeship, Hastings has the important backing of the Congressional Black Caucus to be named chairman instead.

The prospect of Hastings becoming chairman has prompted plenty of complaints in the blogosphere, even among Democrats. Stephen Kaus proclaimed Hastings "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" at The Huffington Post, and Justin Rood of TPMMuckraker did some thorough background reporting on the Hastings bribery case (go here, here and here).

Rood's employer, Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo, had this to say about the issue as well: "Given the centrality of intelligence work in our national policy debates today, the importance of secrecy in handling classified information, and how politicized and contentious intel debates have become, I don't see how you can have the chairman of the intel committee be someone about whom there is any serious question whether or not they accepted bribes as judges to subvert justice."

Marshall also suggested Rush Holt, D-N.J., as an alternative to both Harman and Hastings.

Blog criticism of Hastings has been persistent and harsh enough that he responded Nov. 20 by blasting "anonymous bloggers" in general and conservative Michelle Malkin in particular. "I hope that my fate is not determined by Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone, [Matt] Drudge, anonymous bloggers, and other assorted misinformed fools," he wrote in a five-page letter to House Democratic colleagues.

The letter may have done more harm than good to Hastings' cause, however, because Malkin answered in kind with a post that labeled Hastings a "fool" and his letter to colleagues an "unhinged rant." She included plenty of background links on the Hastings bribery case and current criticisms of his leadership bid.

"It isn't just right-wingers objecting to the possibility of a convicted judge for sale chairing the House Intelligence Committee," she wrote. "In peacetime, Washington can chalk up Hastings' resurrection to business as usual. In wartime, Washington has no business doing business as usual."

Posted by Danny | 12:10 PM

Comments

The guy was impeached by congress. What is he doing as a judge?
Oh. It's Florida. Isn't that the state that "elected" George Bush.
Florida: the new Chinatown.
Still doesn't change things: he got impeached. Umm, guys: that was 23 years ago. Do you have something at least a little fresher? That would really really help.

gberke | 11.27.06 03:21 PM

That's a good overview, but utilizing Malkin as a moral authority is like using Hannibal Lecter for dining tips.

Personally, I don't like seeing people chosen by seniority alone, no matter who the choices are. All committee chairs should have a level of tenure, but there should also be a consideration of the merits of each. Let all three seek the post and let the House Dems vote their minds.

Kevin Hayden | 11.27.06 04:09 PM

I think that if Pelosi insists on pushing Hastings for the job, there will be a motion (or two; it might have to be one to break him out of a group first) to get a roll-call vote on him as committee chair.

That motion should get the required 20 percent easily. So the question for the representatives is whether they're willing to have their name put down in the Congressional Record backing someone with Hastings' record.

The Monster | 11.27.06 04:35 PM

He was impeached as a judge...not as a member of Congress. I'd say being impeached as a federal Judge passes the "this isn't really fresh" test. Don't you think?

Tim | 11.27.06 04:46 PM

I vote for gberke as face for the Democrat party. "The most ethical and transparent congress ever" should start with an impeached and convicted. BTW, Pelosi voted to convict him, bribe-taker in a position of high responsibility.

It shows how much the Democrat party really cares about corruption.

moptop | 11.27.06 05:19 PM

Gee, Kevin I didn't know that Michelle Malkin was the issue here. How is Michelle's morality or lack thereof germane to this discussion? Having read her post, it is almost entirely a collection of established facts. Did you read her post or are you just shooting off insipid insults to amuse your liberal friends?

You do seem to be an authority on bad Hannibal Lecter jokes. There is no voting on committee chair selections. They are appointments made by the Speaker.

Hastings is a fool based on the facts and his written and spoken statements. He is also undeniably corrupt based on the facts.

But please, don't let facts get in the way of your bias.

trapeze | 11.27.06 08:11 PM

What exactly do you base your cheap shot at Michelle Malkin on? The fact that you disagree with her politics? I'm sure you thought that Hannibal Lecter blast was really clever.

So, you have no problem with an impeached federal judge who has a paid girlfriend on the staff being the head of the House Intel Committee?

Yeah, there's no danger of blackmail there! Close your eyes and say "Bush lied, kids died" three times and click your heels! It will all go away!

fugazi | 11.27.06 09:03 PM

"The guy was impeached by congress. What is he doing as a judge?"

Oh. He was appointed to the *federal* bench by Jimmy Carter. The President who responded to having our embassy invaded, taken over, and those inside being held hostage for over a year. Isn't that the same Jimmy Carter who invented the 'misery index' which promptly rose and rose under his administration?

The same Jimmy Carter who had more of his appointments to the federal bench removed than any other president in history? Democrats. The old Chinatown.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Umm, 23 years ago the guy was such a crook that the house voted about 420-3 to impeach him and a majority of Democrats in a Senate controlled by Democrats voted to remove him because he was such a crook?

Well, I'm sure that since he's a Democrat he's gone straight and is now trustworthy.

JorgXMcKie | 11.27.06 10:34 PM

Post a Comment