T Nation

Pelosi Cans Hastings!

Nancy passed over Alcee for the job of Chairman of the Intell Committee.

From the NY Times:

"Mr. Hastings said in a statement he was ?disappointed? with Mrs. Pelosi?s decision and promised to work with her. He also took a shot at people who had publicly opposed his candidacy.

?Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet,? he said."

Maybe he didn’t offer her a big enough percent of his take…the greedy bastard!!

Is this the best you can do after your lunatic ravings about how evil he was and what a danger it was that he be the committee chair - when he’s been on the committee for ages now?

No retraction? Idiot.

Wise move by Pelosi.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Maybe he didn’t offer her a big enough percent of his take…the greedy bastard!![/quote]

And maybe you should seek medical attention for your Cranial-Rectal Inversion.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Is this the best you can do after your lunatic ravings about how evil he was and what a danger it was that he be the committee chair - when he’s been on the committee for ages now?

No retraction? Idiot.[/quote]

Vroom, the dude solicited a $150,000 bribe. Would you want him in charge of YOUR intell committee?

The fact that he was even considered for the post makes the whole lot of them beneath contempt. I especially hold the CBC in contempt for backing people just because they are black, no matter what crimes or vile shit they tried to do. That is simply evil. It is also racist.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Vroom, the dude solicited a $150,000 bribe. Would you want him in charge of YOUR intell committee?
[/quote]

Again, you went from him being accused of soliciting a bribe to him being automatically guilty of it. Have you seen any evidence that all of Congress hasn’t seen? Doubtful. It would be all over the internet if it existed just for crazy people like you. If he was guilty, why isn’t he in jail? Oh, that’s right, he was found not guilty. If he was guilty, how is he able to serve in public office, in Congress no less, when they all know his history? Oh, that’s right, he was found not guilty. If he was guilty, then how has he been a part of the very same committee that he was considered for leadership for several years. Oh, that’s right, HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY!

Man, you really are seriously unhinged, extremely partisan and I am starting to believe racist as well! You seem to take great pleasure at attacking non-republican minorities with public personas. You did it with MLK and you are doing it now with Hastings and the whole CBC. In fact, your pattern has been consistent for a while. If the people are white, republican, heterosexual, Christian males that do wrong, you say NOTHING at all about them. If they are not, then all bets are off. I bet if he fit the above criteria, this wouldn’t even been a topic for you to bring up. Psycho!

Please don’t bother to respond, because you’ll just take it to a whole new level of crazy and no one wants to see that.

AL,

He may have been found not guilty by a jury, but the guy is far from cleared.

From an article in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112800937_pf.html

EXCERPT:

[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]BostonBarrister wrote:
AL,

He may have been found not guilty by a jury, but the guy is far from cleared.

From an article in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/28/AR2006112800937_pf.html

EXCERPT:

[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.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:

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.[/quote]

Yes, as a general matter I think they tend to have a liberal slant, but it would be a logical fallacy to apply that to any particular situation without justification. And I think the Post is much better than the NYT, also an aside…

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Anyway, the statement The original case against Florida’s first black federal trial judge was circumstantial indicates that the trial started off as a theory (circumstantial) and that theory was disproved in a court of law.[/quote]

Sorry, I’m going to have to disagree with you there, on a couple of points.

Firstly, all cases are originally circumstantial unless there is a confession or a picture/videotape of the crime occurring. So that’s not a good line of demarcation.

Secondly, the fact that he wasn’t found guilty in a criminal court doesn’t disprove anything. What it means is that the jury believed that the prosecution hadn’t proved it’s theory beyond a reasonable doubt – which, when you think about it, is starkly different from the defense disproving the theory.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
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.[/quote]

That five judge panel came to the conclusion he did it - and that he lied to the jury (which very much affected his acquital in the criminal trial). The House of Representatives thought he was guilty – over 99% of them did. And the Senate convicted him in an impeachment trial, based on those same counts.

I’m not a big one for conspiracies, and in my opinion you’d have to be particularly prone to overlooking probabilities to think that the conspiracy against Hastings went through a five-judge federal appellate judge panel, through the entire House and then throught he entire Senate.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
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. [/quote]

Having not followed the other thread, I’m not in a position to comment on HH’s positions. However, Hastings was found guilty – by the Senate, in his impeachment trial. He was acquited only in his criminal trial.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
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. [/quote]

No one was paying any attention to him before this whole thing on the leadership of the committee came up. It may be that some people are political opportunists and have known about him all along – I hadn’t heard of him myself before I read a story about Pelosi wanting to pass up Harmon for the intelligence committee. So I give most people the benefit of assuming their ignorance of Hastings and his past misdeeds before this brouhaha arose. And the story fit in with the election theme of corruption, so I’m sure that’s given it legs as well, now that it’s out there.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
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.[/quote]

You might be right on that point, though I suppose we’ll never know.

What’s really funny is that this guy has been serving on the committee for years.

The real issue is that he was being considered to lead the committee.

Now, everyone crawls out of the woodwork to make all kinds of whackass claims and fearmongering.

Frankly, because there is a shadow of doubt, I’m fine with denying the guy leadership positions for the rest of his life… but there really had better be something there.

There is way too much of a culture of destroying people and their careers by creating the appearance of a problem without there actually being a problem.

However, where the apology from Nuthunter is needed, is for previously condemning Pelosi for appointing Hasting’s to lead the committee as if it were a done deal.

In reality, because of this guys experience on this committee, he might have been the best guy for the job. He is certainly under enough scrutiny that I don’t think he’d get away with anything shady - and because of the event long ago in his past he’s probably smart enough not to try to get away with anything.

So, yes, let’s all cheer that the guy most likely to not lie, cheat and steal while in office has been removed from consideration.

You guys think about surface issues too much and are way too gullible and/or controlled by unfounded fears. You need to ask what the real issues here are, because the emotional dangers you are reacting to don’t seem to warrant the size of the reaction.

Is it possible that this is all just strategic moves in an attempt to start painting the democrats as corrupt?

Something is under this, anyway.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
Again, you went from him being accused of soliciting a bribe to him being automatically guilty of it. Have you seen any evidence that all of Congress hasn’t seen? Doubtful. It would be all over the internet if it existed just for crazy people like you. If he was guilty, why isn’t he in jail? Oh, that’s right, he was found not guilty. If he was guilty, how is he able to serve in public office, in Congress no less, when they all know his history? Oh, that’s right, he was found not guilty. If he was guilty, then how has he been a part of the very same committee that he was considered for leadership for several years. Oh, that’s right, HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY!

[/quote]

Al,

Congress voted 413 to 3 to impreach the prick! He escaped the criminal portion on a technicality.

Quit defended a guy just because he’s your skin color. That’s racist. And the CBC sucks donkey balls because they defend these bastards, like Jefferson (filmed accepting a bribe and storing the money in his freezer, which was found on a raid!)

The fact that you defend these cretins because of their skin color says a lot about you, dude. Accusing others of racism, the guy who outs these bastards here…fucking hilarious!!

Time for you to just STFU.

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
In fact, your pattern has been consistent for a while. If the people are white, republican, heterosexual, Christian males that do wrong, you say NOTHING at all about them. If they are not, then all bets are off. I bet if he fit the above criteria, this wouldn’t even been a topic for you to bring up. Psycho!

[/quote]

Wrong again! I’ve ripped Foley, Bush, Kennedy, you name it. You are just plain wrong! Do you understand the word ‘Homework’?

I fail to see why the US needs a judicial system at all. Nuthunter can just declare everyone guilty unless proven innocent and we can be done with all legal issues.

[quote]vroom wrote:

In reality, because of this guys experience on this committee, he might have been the best guy for the job. He is certainly under enough scrutiny that I don’t think he’d get away with anything shady - and because of the event long ago in his past he’s probably smart enough not to try to get away with anything.

[/quote]

LOL! Vacuum, you are a loo-loo!!

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Anyway, the statement The original case against Florida’s first black federal trial judge was circumstantial indicates that the trial started off as a theory (circumstantial) and that theory was disproved in a court of law.

Sorry, I’m going to have to disagree with you there, on a couple of points.

Firstly, all cases are originally circumstantial unless there is a confession or a picture/videotape of the crime occurring. So that’s not a good line of demarcation.

Secondly, the fact that he wasn’t found guilty in a criminal court doesn’t disprove anything. What it means is that the jury believed that the prosecution hadn’t proved it’s theory beyond a reasonable doubt – which, when you think about it, is starkly different from the defense disproving the theory.
[/quote]

Help me out here. If the theory has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, wouldn’t that mean that the theory didn’t hold up. If the theory didn’t hold up, then hasn’t it been disproved. At least that’s how it works in the scientific community. However, as I said before, I’m not a lawyer and I have a feeling that this is more lawyer-speak than anything else. Your area of expertise, not mine.

The five judge panel, the House and Senate wouldn’t have gotten involved if it wasn’t for the two judges that filed their complaint. Their complaint was based on them not liking how the trial was run and the verdict. I’m not talking conspiracies. I am simply saying that the man had his day in court in 1983 and won and some people didn’t like that. They took 5-6 years (1988-1989) to investigate and dig into his life further, after the man was found not guilty, and finally created a situation to impeach him. He may have been just as dirty as the impeachment trial said he was, however, I was always under the impression that if he had his day in court and was found not guilty, that should be it. Obviously, that is not the case.

That’s my fault. I made the assumption that since you were replying to something that I sent to HH, you were aware of his track record. For the record, I have always said that he was acquitted in his criminal trial only to be impeached by the Senate. HH never mentions that he was acquitted in the criminal trial and always goes to the impeachment and makes it look like the criminal trial never happened. My feeling is that if there was doubt in one case, what makes anyone so certain that there wasn’t any doubt in the other.

Well, Conyers certainly knew about him as well as many others that were around at that time. It seems odd if you are impeached for bribery in politics but you weren’t banned from running for public office. I would think that if it was as bad as they say, he would have been banned for life and never allowed to run for a congressional seat and/or be a member of any important committees. Political opportunists? Definitely!

[quote]
ALDurr wrote:
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.

You might be right on that point, though I suppose we’ll never know.[/quote]

BB, as usual, it was a pleasure discussing this with you. As I said before, the law is your area of expertise, not mine. So it is greatly appreciated when you give input to cases. I may not agree with you on many things, but I do respect your knowledge in these areas.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
Again, you went from him being accused of soliciting a bribe to him being automatically guilty of it. Have you seen any evidence that all of Congress hasn’t seen? Doubtful. It would be all over the internet if it existed just for crazy people like you. If he was guilty, why isn’t he in jail? Oh, that’s right, he was found not guilty. If he was guilty, how is he able to serve in public office, in Congress no less, when they all know his history? Oh, that’s right, he was found not guilty. If he was guilty, then how has he been a part of the very same committee that he was considered for leadership for several years. Oh, that’s right, HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY!

Al,

Congress voted 413 to 3 to impreach the prick! He escaped the criminal portion on a technicality.

Quit defended a guy just because he’s your skin color. That’s racist. And the CBC sucks donkey balls because they defend these bastards, like Jefferson (filmed accepting a bribe and storing the money in his freezer, which was found on a raid!)

The fact that you defend these cretins because of their skin color says a lot about you, dude. Accusing others of racism, the guy who outs these bastards here…fucking hilarious!!

Time for you to just STFU.

[/quote]

I’m not defending him you blithering idiot! I’m am pointing out the parts of the story that you like to leave out! Learn the difference, Psycho! I was wrong to call you a racist. Racism is the wrong thing to call your level of insanity! I don’t believe a word has been invented for it yet!

That mental hospital you live in must have the easiest straight jackets to escape, because you keep managing to get to the computer to post your rantings. Then again, with the things you say, you are probably typing with your feet.

[quote]vroom wrote:
I fail to see why the US needs a judicial system at all. Nuthunter can just declare everyone guilty unless proven innocent and we can be done with all legal issues.[/quote]

LOL! Do you have some logical basis for this? Read the above, esp. BB’s post.

I know you are an American wannabe and you’re tired of your big bro (the USA) doing your fighting for you, but come on…!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ALDurr wrote:
In fact, your pattern has been consistent for a while. If the people are white, republican, heterosexual, Christian males that do wrong, you say NOTHING at all about them. If they are not, then all bets are off. I bet if he fit the above criteria, this wouldn’t even been a topic for you to bring up. Psycho!

Wrong again! I’ve ripped Foley, Bush, Kennedy, you name it. You are just plain wrong! Do you understand the word ‘Homework’?
[/quote]

Let’s see: Foley? Gay. Kennedy? Democrat. Martin Luther King? Black. Pelosi? Female Democrat. Murtha? Democrat. Kerry? Democrat (Although, he really deserves it). Gore? Democrat. Carter? Democrat, but at least he is a Christian. Bush? Well I would give you that one, but you did so much insane ranting and blatant cheerleading for him for the last several years you don’t get a pass for that one. It was only recently that you decided to jump the shark on that one. C’mon, give me some more of your glowing, unbiased analysis, you fruitcake!

So far, my ‘homework’ has been pretty accurate. How about yours, teach? Or do you just forget the bullshit that you spew forth regularly.

If anyone needs to STFU, it’s YOU.

(EDIT: How could I forget to add Bill and Hillary Clinton to the list? Let’s see that’s Democrat and Female Democrat. Yeah, you sure do rip everybody!)

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
LOL! Do you have some logical basis for this? Read the above, esp. BB’s post.

I know you are an American wannabe and you’re tired of your big bro (the USA) doing your fighting for you, but come on…![/quote]

You do have more than a few screws loose don’t you?

There is the concept of innocent until proven guilty in your country. Now, obviously you haven’t gotten the memo yet.

Anyway, perhaps you missed the point where I said I was happy that Hastings be denied all access to positions of power because of his past.

Can you read?

However, I do worry that it become enough in the US now to sling accusations, whether or not there be anything provable, to utterly ruin a persons public career.

The whole concept of someone growing and maturing over time, perhaps learning from their mistakes, has obviously been thrown out the window.

A person must now be “perfect” in order to be worthy. What a load of horseshit this entire direction leads us to. Everyone should be under scrutiny, and they should do their utmost to convict everyone who is guilty, but it needs to have the politics removed from it.

All of this bullshit is simply damaging the political system, by damaging the trust that citizens have in it. However, politicians are notorious for desiring short term personal gain at the expense of the nation’s best interests.

The public should spot those type of people and stop electing them. However, that would require that the public actually care about or pay attention to issues. That’s not likely to happen.

Hastings should play the “Born-again Christian” card, I hear it works quite well…