Redstate

At the risk of sticking my neck out --- I kind of like Jane Harmon, and I think that for a Democrat, she's been doing her job fairly.

Pelosi's an idiot.

Well, where would Democrats be if they purged themselves of law breakers? Would they even have a party left?

Besides - it's not fair to discriminate against someone on the basis of criminal record, right?

Jane Harmon embarrassed herself during her run for governor (when you are a distant runner up to Gray Davis, look out) but she won tough elections in the 1990's. She could teach them some lessons.

Not to 'play the race card' but is this an attempt to shore up the party's pathetic image among African American voters?

could not be reached for comment.

Not that I've followed her career closely, but it seems to me than Jane Harman has done a pretty responsible job during her time on the committee. We're at war, and unlike many in her party, she seems to understand that the enemy is real.

Alcee Hastings, on the other hand, was impeached and removed after being convicted of taking bribes from drug dealers.

If you ever needed further proof that the Democratic Party isn't serious about national security, here it is.

The past few weeks have seen many events that show that the far left has consolidated its power over the dems and that the est elected desm have acquiesed and accepted the fact.

Bill's kerry-like issue proposals and history revisions 2 weeks ago. Bayh's vote on Toberts. hillary's meeting w/Cindy after she denounced her pro wa r record outside her office and after Hillary finished poorly in a DKos poll.

The money people that fund dem campaigns are almost exclusively fat cat libs. they are not going to hide anymore behind a Clinton mask. they resented kerry's equivocation.

These new leftists don't really care about winning. The party is a vanity trophy and a platform.

They will have their wish.

that's my take

we try

I can understand Pelosi feeling pressured to put a member of the CBC into an important position like that, but why Hastings?

Trying for a moment to think like a corrupt politician, he'd be far more likely to prefer a seat on Appropriations, where he can dole out the pork, than on Intelligence, where he might be able to give some patronage positions due to being the ranking member, but he has far less ability to accumulate clout.

And you'd think that if they had to find someone in the CBC to placate them, they'd find a better candidate. Sure, most CBC members come out of machines and are only really concerned with constituent services (like most urban Members, in fairness), making a slot on Intelligence a poor fit, but there are nearly 40 of them.

Ugh.

. . .a fun new center for a RNC campaign ad--reminding folks just who will be in charge should the Democrats win back either house of Congress in 2006.  Nothing like putting a miscreant like Hastings in charge of intelligence as far as House Democrats are concerned to remind swing voters why Democrats aren't to be taken seriously as far as national security goes.

Hastings was actually aquitted by a jury prior to his impeachment.  Not sure the merits of the actual bribery case, but regardless it's incorrect to say he has a criminal record.

Also, according to this Hasting's impeachment hearing was not voted on by the full Senate, nor did the vote to impeach receive a 2/3 majority-- which the (motion?) implies violates Constitutional procedure.  The (motion?) also claims many of those voting to impeach had not even bothered to view the hearings against Hastings before voting, and this claim apparently was not contested by the Senators in question.

Both parties should purge themselves of law-breakers, should they be convicted in court.  Keep your eye on Ohio, Kentucky, and Texas in the near future, as cases are reportedly developing on officials in each state.

The impeachment hearings were apparently controversial, the biggest reason being that Hastings was earlier put on trial for the same charges-- and a jury found him not guilty.

According to this one of the federal agents that served as a witness against Hastings (in his impeachment) was later found to have given blatently false testimony-- in this and at least one other case.

"    During Former U.S. District Court Judge (now U.S. Congressman) Alcee Hastings' 1985 impeachment hearing before a judicial committee of the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit, the IG report notes that former Hairs and Fibers Unit examiner Michael Malone falsely testified that he had performed a tensile test. Malone compounded that mistake by testifying beyond his area of expertise. Hastings was impeached as a result of that testimony. "

was found not guilty too.

Well, there's no DNA evidence against Hastings that I know of.  Oh, and there's also the small bit about a federal agent found to have given false testimony against Hastings in his impeachment hearings.  It looks as though he made up test results from thin air-- and was found to have given false testimony during a separate trial as well.

What is the evidence against Hastings that was overlooked by the jury?  Can you offer an explanation as to why the jury found him not guilty in spite of this evidence?  Or are you saying that we should never trust the results of any criminal trial by jury, since OJ was probably guilty?

You are correct that Hastings does not have a criminal record.  However you are incorrect in your reading of the judge's opinion.  It is a badly written paragraph when he suggests that the committee itself did not have a 2/3 vote, but that's not what is required.  The full senate has to have a 2/3 vote, and that apparently happened:

Nonetheless, enough senators who had not heard the evidence personally voted to convict to constitute the necessary two-thirds majority.

The judge was apparently upset that Senators didn't sit in the full Senate and hold a hearing and instead relegated the evidentiary hearing to go through a committee, in keeping with senate rules.  (see the end of the judge's order).

Just because this one judge didn't like the way the Senate handled the impeachment doesn't make it unconstitutional.  And the following year, the Supreme Court refused to intervene in an impeachment because of the separation of powers doctrine.  This makes the decision in the Hastings case moot.

The Senate does indeed have the ability to set its own rules on how to handle impeachment hearings.

Plues, let's not forget that this was in 1988 when the Dems were firmly in control of the House.  For a Democrat chairman of the House Judiciary committee to move forward articles of impeachment and the Democrat House Majority Leader and speaker of the House to allow at least a majority vote to impeach Hastings (can't find a roll call from back then, bad google bad google) seems to indicate that there was not any significant controversy in determining that Mr. Hastings should have been removed from the bench.

.....but on the other hand, first-time candidates who are career politicians rarely win statewide office on their first try. Pete Wilson got whipped his first time out.

Maybe Pelosi is trying to prod her into running for governor again since the current slate of potential foes to face Ahnold are somewhat more colorless than ole Jane.

the one rogue judge said, the Supreme Court said it was none of his business to interpret the Senate's rules.

I think I was pretty careful about equivocating in regards to Senate rules.  I'll take your word that the proceeding was in fact constitutional, despite whatever qualms this judge may have had.

Are you familiar with any of the evidence against Hastings?  It seems at least part of it was based on false testimony, but Google failed to come up with much more.  The IG post I linked to above implies that the brunt of the case against him focused on the fradulent testimony, which -- combined with his aquittal-- might help explain how he managed to get elected in FL.  

the man is a convicted cirminal, if I recall.

He is proven to have poor character and judgement.

I know that makes him a perfect democrat, but should he actually be involved with intel and security issues and above all, secrets that depend on good judgement and and adherence to rules?

any difference to you, but the hair/fiber evidence was tangential to the Hastings trial. The jury elected not to believe some wiretap conversations and a co-conspirator went to prison rather than testify.

I went out of my way to explain that I could not find anything about the other evidence against him on google, and relied on a Inspector General report on FBI incompetence for the alleged import of the false testimony. (I admittedly skipped over a newsmax article, because I don't believe them to be a credible source.)

I remain open-minded about his guilt, and there is that whole innocent until proven guilty thing that some here seem to value.  If you have a link to an article explaining this evidence, I'll be glad to hear it.

to say this any other way, but I don't come here to try to convince you guys of anything because I don't really care a whole lot if you're convinced or not. You guys are the "reality based community" after all.

You are welcome to defend Hastings all you wish.

Judge must be convicted of a crime in order to be rightfully impeached and removed from the bench?