I really like Alcee Hastings, however, he is not right for Intel Chairman

[CatWoman]

Pelosi's compulsion

The speaker-elect should avoid embarrassment -- and honor her promise to clean up Congress -- and not pick compromised Alcee Hastings as intelligence chairman.


Nov. 24, 2006 | Whatever urge impels Nancy Pelosi to consider replacing Jane Harman with Alcee Hastings as chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence must be extraordinarily powerful. Some say that Speaker-elect Pelosi harbors a personal grudge against her fellow Californian; some say that she feels Harman has been too accommodating to the White House and Republicans as the ranking Democrat on the committee, known as HPSCI (or "hip-see").

Yet neither of those motives seems sufficient to explain why Pelosi would choose to pass over Harman in favor of Hastings, whose elevation can only cause the most severe embarrassment to the speaker-elect and the Democrats she leads. It won't be easy for them to justify entrusting a position of such enormous sensitivity to someone whom Pelosi -- and many of her Democratic colleagues -- once voted to impeach and remove from the federal bench as a corrupt perjurer.

In 1988, the House approved 17 articles of impeachment against Hastings, who was then a federal district judge sitting in the Southern District of Florida. The congressional impeachment stemmed from his unsuccessful 1981 federal prosecution on charges that a lawyer named William Borders had solicited a $150,000 bribe on his behalf from Frank and Thomas Romano, two brothers convicted of racketeering whose sentencing came before Hastings. Borders, a longtime Hastings friend and a prominent African-American attorney, was found guilty and sent to prison.

Although a Miami jury acquitted Hastings of the bribery, despite much circumstantial evidence of his guilt, outraged judges in the 11th Circuit initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. They commissioned a special report on the Hastings case by former assistant attorney general John Doar, who found substantial evidence of his participation in the bribery scheme with Borders as well as reason to believe that he had subsequently lied under oath at his trial.

Hastings has always insisted that he was the innocent victim of a scheme by Borders to profit from the misuse of his name. When Borders was apprehended by an FBI undercover operation in Washington, however, Hastings abruptly fled town before the agents could question him. Over the past two decades, Borders has gone to jail twice on contempt charges rather than testify to the innocence of his friend Hastings.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2006/11/24/alcee_hastings/

[jaysunb]

1. You and many others ( including me ) feel that way.

I just wish she ( Pelosi ) would go ahead and name Reyes NOW and squash this shit before it takes on a life of it's own.

Both Harmon and Hastings are compromised in one form or the other, so rather than give the MSM a chance to throw up more subterfuge, JUST DO IT !

BTW I've met and interacted with both Harmon and Hastings. She is a DINO who probably should have not been re-elected, Hastings on the other hand is a principled progressive with some murky baggage, and a " good Brother" to boot. But like Conyers, I like the man personally, but the stakes are too high at this point and time.

Carry on....:evilgrin:

[acmavm]

2. Yep, we can't afford to look like the crowd that we just go rid of.

[Solo_in_MD]

3. Hastings is an embarrasment to the party

We are either a clean house or we are not. Hastings should never have been nominated or elected due to his being impeached by Dems.

[bigriver]

4. No he isn't!

He was duely acquitted. In this country, you are still innocent until proven guilty.

Alcee Hastings is duely elected. He's a good dem. I'm not embarrassed by him.

[Solo_in_MD]

5. So a judge who was impeached and removed from the bench

is your idea of a representative of the Democratic Party?

[bigriver]

8. A president who was impeached IS representative of the Democratic Party.

We all know impeachments are political lynchings. Let's not kid ourselves.

[Nite Owl]

12. That's my point about Hastings too

Wouldn't we all love to vote for Clinton again? He was impeached. He wasn't convicted of anything and an impeachment should not be held against him.

The thing that bothers me about Hastings though is the debt he owes, over a million. Would seem that maybe that isn't a good thing, however I do not like Harman either.
Rush Holt(NJ) has been mentioned, he has a military intelligence background, is onto the WH schemes and might be a good third choice that all can compromise on.

[BlueManDude]

6. agreed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

7. Comma splice

I really like Alcee Hastings; however, he is not right for Intel Chairman.

Yes, I am a douchebag. :crazy:

[CatWoman]

13. *grr*

:hi:

[Hidden Stillness]

9. Harman is Qualified, Whether You Agree With Her or Not

I tend to agree. Whether anybody likes it or not, Harman has a real Intelligence background, understands it, and she has earned the right to move up on that Committee and take over. As the ranking member now, this shouldn't even be an issue. If she is too conservative with us in charge, she should be talked to by other Democrats. I have even read on DU where people have referred to the Senator from my own State of Michigan, Carl Leven, as a "neo-con," which is asinine and ignorant. Make sure that she is balanced on that Committee by more liberal Democrats, express disagreement if she supports Bush/Cheney, etc., but other than that, she is qualified because of her understanding of things.

[w4rma]

14. Harmon is not qualified. And Hastings is an embarassment. The 3rd in line will likely get it. (nt)

[BlueCaliDem]

10. Hastings mistake was *then*, Jane Harmon is NOW, and she was the one...

...who did a piss-poor job questioning the Intel that swept American into Bush's Iraq War, remember?

Harmon also has strong ties with AIPAC that wanted war not only in Iraq but wants war in the entire ME.

How many of you here would deny that had a member of the Black Caucus been the ranking Democrat in the Intelligence Commission, we wouldn't have been so easily fooled to rush to war in Iraq?

How many of us here remember that it was the Black Caucus that defied the SCOTUS theft of the presidency for Bush*, and our party's Senators, to denounce the Bush/Cheney "win", and like it or not, it's a public secret that the Black Caucus are the most progressive members of our party, and are the most defiant of Republican policies that hurt America.

The Black Caucus, often dismissed by our more powerful "white" Democratic politicians, stand behind Hastings, and I believe we should too.

I like Hastings who came right out to defend Al Gore before, during and after the Florida debacle, and I was disappointed in Harmon for her weak-kneed stance against Bush's Iraq war policies.

I say Nancy Pelosi's smart in wanting Hastings for Chair of the intelligence committee---unless, of course, you haven't been reading the writing on the wall that Bush staunchly intends to invade Iran now as he's busy building a massive military presence around that country (according to Seymour Hersch)---like he did before he had the U.S. invade Iraq.

Yes, Hastings had been impeached, and removed by REPUBLICANS as justice, but how does that affect his decisions on intelligence regarding war?

On the other hand, with Harmon's strong ties to a militant AIPAC, this is troublesome, and should be troublesome for ALL anti-war Americans.

My vote is for Hastings, and I stand with Speaker-Elect Pelosi on this choice.

[cali]

15. Wrong.

Hastings wasn't impeached by repukes. He was impeached by a dem Congress, and overwhelmingly at that. Conyers and Pelosi, amoung others voted to impeach him. As for your proposition that had he been ranking member prior to the war, you're delusional if you think it would have made any difference. In addition, yes the CBC has many fine Progressives in its ranks, but they are not anymore progressive than those in the Progressive Caucus.

It would be a huge miscalculation for Pelosi to elevate Hastings to committee chair after her emphasis on cleaning up the House, particularly in light of her vote to impeach him. It would cause real damage.

[BlueCaliDem]

16. What I actually MEANT to post was: Hastings' impeachment was *advocated* by House Republics...

...TWO, to be exact, who sat on the House Judiciary Committee.

Yes, Democratic controlled Congress voted overwhelmingly to impeach Hastings but Conyers, who was charged with the subcommitte investigation, like Nancy Pelosi today, is showing signs he might've made a mistake nineteen years ago, according to Byron York of National Review:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjhiODMwNDA0ZGEwMGI3ZGExOGFjYmIzNzQzZjhjYjc= scroll down:

Given all that, will Hastings make it to the chairman’s seat? It’s not clear. When National Review got in touch with Rep. Conyers’s office to ask whether Conyers believes today, as he did in 1988 and 1989, that Hastings was guilty, a spokesman made no comment except to send along two newspaper articles from the late 1990s about problems and irregularities at the FBI laboratory. One of those problems concerned an FBI agent who allegedly testified falsely about some peripheral evidence in the Hastings case. The stories quoted then-FBI Director Lewis Freeh saying he would support re-opening the Hastings impeachment matter.

Does that mean Conyers now believes the Hastings impeachment was illegitimate and should not play a role in evaluating Hastings for the Intelligence Committee chairmanship? Or that the impeachment case should be re-examined? Or that Hastings was innocent? A spokesman for Conyers did not answer NR’s inquiries.

As for your proposition that had he been ranking member prior to the war, you're delusional if you think it would have made any difference.

Nope. You're delusional to think he'd be as soft against Bush as Harman's been. Check out what Congressional Quarterly writes about him: http://public.cq.com/public/20061103_homeland.html scroll down to "Making Nice" and you'll get a picture why, in this Iraq debacle, he'd be a better Chair than AIPAC Harman's been so far. Even a few top Democratic aides have misgivings about Harman's "kid-glove" approach of Bush, and the Hoekstra committee.

It would be a huge miscalculation for Pelosi to elevate Hastings to committee chair after her emphasis on cleaning up the House, particularly in light of her vote to impeach him. It would cause real damage.

That would, of course, entail YOU having no confidence in Pelosi as a strong leader. Unlike you, apparently, I have confidence in Nancy Pelosi's choice, and now that Rep. Conyers has given a peek at his doubts regarding his former opinion of Hastings, perhaps we, as Democrats, should review whether we're going to believe Republic owned corporate media, or trust that Pelosi and Conyers might know more than we do.

"In a jury trial, the evidence is the only consideration," Hastings writes. "In an impeachment, politics is central."

What's disgusting was, that Congress impeached, and chased Hastings from the bench SIX YEARS after he was acquitted in a court of law. No wonder why repukes chortle that "democrats are weak". Our tendency to "eat our own" undoubtedly has something to do with that.

But do yourself a favor. Read his letter to Congress to get his side of the story here:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002026.php#more

You're welcome.

[butterfly77]

11. He was aquitted and...

he has been on the committee all of this time so why can't he be the chairman. Look at all of the crooks that are on the committee who are republicons who should have been brought up on charges. Harmon is a republiCON. I agree with Pelosi's choice...

[cali]

18. He was impeached and removed

from the judiciary by the House and Senate. He was acquitted in criminal court. Guess which one of the above will dominate the public discussion?
Installing Hastings as chairman would be the ultimate bonehead move. Also, please name all the republicans on the intel committee who should have been brought up on charges. Lastly it's not a binary choice. Pelosi can choose someone other than Harman or Hastings.

[kentuck]

17. I agree CatWoman....

This is Pelosi's first really big decision, imo. This is bigger than her choice of Murtha which was voted on by the whole House. This is her decision. I think she should not pick Hastings or Harman, but go with a new face.

[AnnInLa]

19. "Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi"

From Glenn Greenwald:

I'd like to see proof that Pelosi's opposition to Harman is purely or even principally personal. I keep hearing this from them, but what is it based on? Personally, I think Harman -- who was one of the most aggressive defenders of the President's warrantless eavesdropping program ("both legal and necessary," she repeatedly chimed) and is currently under investigation for her work on behalf of AIPAC -- would make a horrendous Chair (although Alcee Hastings is one of the few House members who might be less desirable). She has been far too sympathetic to the administration's excesses and far too eager to serve as a Democratic shield publicly defending the President.

How do these all-knowing analysts know that Pelosi's opposition to Harman isn't based on these obvious and compelling substantive grounds, as opposed to the bitchy personal "cat fights" they allegedly have had? They don't know, but they keep repeating it anyway, because it seems to fit comfortably with a picture they are very eager to paint.

From Matt Stoller:

Nonsense aside, the single most important thing Pelosi can do is find a a good Intelligence Chair and make sure he or she has the political capital to fix the mess this country is in. Doing so could require time to find a compromise candidate, or to work with the CBC or Blue Dogs to assuage egos or horse-trade other committee assignments. That's what leaders do. It doesn't always happen fast, and it doesn't always happen at the behest of temper tantrum prone Beltway gossip kidz. The new Congress doesn't start for a month, and the Committees will be operating for two years under very heavy political and media pressure. Pelosi should take her time making sure she picks the right person to do the job, and she should ignore these nasty and myopic people.

much more at:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/24/192130/05