He may have been found not guilty by a jury, but the guy is far from cleared.
From an article in the Washington Post:
[i]In recent days, Hastings and his allies had launched a spirited campaign to clear his name from the stigma of his impeachment. Hastings distributed to Democratic colleagues six documents totaling 70 pages, including court testimony, letters from Republican and Democratic senators questioning his treatment, and a five-page letter from Hastings excoriating "the noise and misleading, poorly informed, misinformed, and sometimes venomous attacks on my integrity and character by pundits, politicians, and editors screaming the word ‘impeachment.’ "
He pointed repeatedly to his 1983 acquittal by a Miami jury and wrote that it is “amazing how little importance” his critics give that verdict. The events that followed that trial, he said, “are so convoluted, voluminous, complex and mundane that it would boggle the mind.”
In fact, there is a certain simplicity in the conclusion drawn by an investigating committee of five eminent federal judges, each with strong civil rights credentials. Those judges, and later more than three dozen others, concluded that Hastings lied to the Miami jury as many as 15 times to win acquittal.
The original case against Florida’s first black federal trial judge was circumstantial. A federal grand jury charged Hastings with conspiring with Washington lawyer William A. Borders Jr. to sell a lenient sentence to two convicted Florida racketeers for $150,000.
A sequence of meetings, telephone calls, judicial actions and taped conversations in 1981 convinced federal investigators that Hastings was on the take. But after 17 1/2 hours of deliberations at the end of a three-week trial, jurors voted not guilty.
Two federal judges soon filed an administrative complaint, accusing Hastings of conduct prejudicial to the courts, which led to the judicial investigation. John Doar, the chief House Watergate counsel, and a panel of judges investigating the matter said they uncovered substantial new evidence that convinced them that Hastings joined the bribery conspiracy and then fabricated a defense to hoodwink the jury.
In one example, they focused on Hastings’s testimony about telephone calls. The issue was a taped conversation with Borders that prosecutors considered coded talk about a bribe. Hastings said it was an innocent discussion about helping a friend, Hemphill Pride, regain his law license.
Pride said that he knew of no such effort, that he would have rejected one and that he was not even eligible for reinstatement. He told the panel that Hastings, while under indictment, had urged him to remember details that, as far as Pride recalled, had never happened.
On the witness stand in Miami, however, Hastings showed the jury records of several telephone calls and confidently declared that he had made them to Pride. In fact, the Doar investigation revealed, the numbers called belonged to other people with no connection to Pride.
“Judge Hastings’ conduct was premeditated, deliberate and contrived,” wrote the committee, whose most prominent member was U.S. District Judge Frank M. Johnson Jr., famous for rulings integrating Alabama’s public institutions.
When the Hastings case reached the House, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), skeptical about the evidence, investigated further. In time, Conyers, an African American, became so certain of Hastings’s guilt that he delivered an impassioned speech about race and justice – and made an opening statement during the Senate proceedings, which ended with Hastings’s conviction on 11 counts, including seven counts of making false statements.
“We did not wage that civil rights battle merely to replace one form of judicial corruption for another,” Conyers said in the House, which voted 413 to 3 to impeach Hastings.[/i][/quote]
Aren’t you one of the people that doubts the validity, accuracy and the slant of the Washington Post? That’s just an aside and really has nothing to do with this.
Anyway, the statement [quote] The original case against Florida’s first black federal trial judge was circumstantial [/quote] indicates that the trial started off as a theory (circumstantial) and that theory was disproved in a court of law. When that happened, some people didn’t like way it was done and the outcome, so they went after him further to ruin him. This is how it looks, but I’m not a lawyer, so I can’t be sure.
I’m not saying that he did or didn’t do it. I’m saying that he was found not guilty and still has a dark cloud over him to this day because some people didn’t like the verdict. People like HH latch on to this and rules that he was found guilty, which is not telling the truth. Ironically, he only does this when it comes to people that are not republican, white, Christian, heterosexual males. If he did it to everyone, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but he doesn’t. He shows himself to be full of it when he does do it.
You are absolutely right that he will never be cleared and Pelosi was politically right in her move in not choosing him because of her pledge to remove corruption from Congress. It wouldn’t look right. However, no one, not even when it was a Republican controlled-Congress, had any issue with him serving in Congress, nor one with him serving on the very same committee that he was considered for leading. It was a non-issue before. All of a sudden, now almost 20 years later, its being brought back up.
In a twisted way, he actually would be better for the role because he knows he would be under the microscope because of his past. There is no guarantee with anyone else that is chosen. I’m not recommending or endorsing him, I’m just saying that since he knows people are keeping an extra eye on him, we have more control over his actions.