Skip to main content

Understanding Constitutional Law: Civic 101
Disclaimer- I am not an Attorney only a Scholar.

I want to take a moment and explain what powers where granted by Our Constitution and How they can be used. You have been Mislead.

The Congress never Voted on Hastings Guilt!
The Congress does not have the Power to convict. They only have the power to indict. In many ways they act as The District Attorneys of the Federal Government. "The House Committee hear from form Prosecutor (remember Star?) if they feel there is enough evidence the hand down (impeachment) indictments and the whole body Votes: if the Majority Agrees the House send the indictments to the Senate.

The House elects "House Managers" who work with the prosecution, appear before the bar of the Senate to ague their case and report back to the Congress and give updates.


The Senate conducts the trial. They act as both Judge and Jury. The House Managers acts as The Prosecutor’s argue their case and present exhibits and face the accused.

"The House Managers" Hastings
Rep. J. Brooks, Rep. J. Bryant, Rep. M. Synar, Rep. H. Fish, Jr. and Rep. J. Conyers.

So all of those Great quote Using John Conyers are Misleading- At the time Rep. Conyers was working As The Prosecutor, he was no stating his opinion, then the D.A. is when they are at trial.  

Oh, another nifty Fact that few felt the need to write about that F.B.I. Agent: That went undercover and entraped Mr. Boarders'and Hastings was later convicted murder...  
Boston Herald
More about the F.B.I. Agent: H. Paul Rico

Here are some quotes you can look up other at Thomas Library  of Congress Search 101 (1989) Senate

"Sting cases border on illegal entrapment and are subject to abuse, so the FBI must take every precaution to nail down real evidence.

In this case, the FBI did not obtain real evidence. They could have waited and proved clearly that Judge Hastings would or would not have taken the bribe, but they did not wait. They didn't prove their case.

My message to the FBI is that if you are going to carry out a sting operation, you had better leave the stinger in the victim."

"The impeachment trial of federal Judge Alcee Hastings represents a landmark in our constitutional history. In the 202 years since the adoption of the Constitution, this is the first time that any federal official has been impeached after being tried and acquitted by a jury. In essence, the House's 1988 impeachment of Judge Hastings asks the Senate in 1989--eight years after the events in question, and six years after the jury verdict--to reconsider a jury decision on charges and evidence that, if not identical to those before the jury, certainly are substantially the same. The case thus presents the Senate with unsettled issues touching on the applicability in an impeachment trial of legal concepts such as double jeopardy, collateral estoppel and undue delay.

The question before the Senate on article I, and on each of the other articles as well, is not which version of events--that offered by the House or that offered by Judge Hastings--is more plausible. The question instead is whether the evidence presented by the House satisfied its burden of proof to the satisfaction of two-thirds of the Members of this body. For my part, it does not."

"Now this guy sounds Steven Colbert"
Perhaps Colbert plays this WY Senator?

"Simply put, he fabricated the testimony that sprung him, and I think in our gut --we all know that. And now it is time to follow our head and our gut and defrock this fraud on the Federal judicial system. He fully deserves the fate of impeachment."

Ouch, this just hurt to say... Sen. Hatch said it best, oh noooooo

Sen. HATCH. Mr. President, today we are at the final stages of one of a handful of unique governmental processes in which a single U.S. citizen can find him or herself battling, essentially alone, against the entire fabric of the Federal Government. There are only a few such procedures, and we do not invoke them very often, but when we do, these activities can produce dire consequences for the individual and his or her family. An independent counsel investigation is one such example. The impeachment before us today is probably the ultimate in such processes.

In Judge Hastings' case, we find an individual who truly has `battled' against the entire Government. He has endured an exhaustive investigation by the executive branch of the Government, and the results of that investigation have been reviewed not once, not twice, but eventually four times by the other two branches of the Government. First there was a jury trial, in which he was acquitted. Then, there was an inquiry by his judicial peers. The judge next appeared before the House of Representatives, and finally he finds himself here for a trial by the Senate. Before we convict him and remove him from office, we need to be convinced he merits that severe sanction.

As has already been noted before this body, this is, in a sense, a case of first impression. While a handful of judges have been impeached in the past, this is the first instance in which the judge has first been acquitted by a jury in a trial based on essentially the same charges. In my review of these earlier impeachments, I am for the most part satisfied that the Senate reached a correct decision. I am, however, concerned that this time, our consideration of this matter may produce the wrong result.

Earlier this year, this body debated charges that this impeachment process should have been barred by the fifth amendment's double jeopardy clause. I am still of the opinion, as I was then, that the double jeopardy clause is irrelevant to impeachment proceedings. I also agree with several of my colleagues who have expressed their opinion that the Senate is not bound by any previous jury or court verdict with respect to a government official facing impeachment. If the Senate were simply to follow the results of a judicial proceeding in reaching a decision on an issue as important as an impeachment, we would be doing a serious disservice to the principles underlying our Constitution and we would severely trample the rights of those facing impeachment. We would also render the impeachment process superfluous in those cases covering charges already adjudicated in the third branch of Government. That seemed to be the prevailing understanding during the Claiborne impeachment, and I think it is equally applicable today.

Nevertheless, I believe that the findings of a jury should be accorded some weight. In Judge Hastings case, the jury heard much of the same evidence that was pesented before the Senate Impeachment Committee. That panel reviewed these facts when they were much fresher and when some of the key figures were still available to present testimony. In addition to all of the other information that has been placed before this body, that is a fact that I think we should include in our consideration.

The case against Judge Hastings is based primarily upon circumstantial evidence. The evidence admittedly raises troubling questions and casts suspicion on the Judge's conduct. But for each scenario painted by the House managers with respect to given fact situations, the judge, either through his testimony, or the testimony of other witnesses, has provided a plausible explanation that, in turn, casts doubt on the proper interpretation of the facts.

For example, the House relies heavily on contracts between Judge Hastings and Mr. Borders surrounding significant events in the bribery scheme. While the House managers have urged that their explanation of these facts can be the only explanation, I find many of the judge's explanations to have plausibility. We are, after all, talking about two men who had been close friends for most of their lives. There were undoubtedly many events that brought them into contact or required some form of communication. If we were to rely on some of the impressions left in the record, these key events would be viewed as the only times that they contacted each other. However, if we had a record of every contact that occurred between these two men before, during, and in between these key events, I would not be surprised to find that the frequency of their contacts does not show much fluctuation.

The prosecution also stresses such facts as Mr. Borders' inside knowledge of the Romano brothers' case. While such knowledge may have come from the judge, it is equally plausible to believe that the knowledge came from outside, even underworld, sources, as Judge Hastings has suggested. It is also within reason to believe that the judge was manipulated into making the infamous appearance at the restaurant, once the bribery scheme was under way. The judge's account of that event is not inherently unbelievable.

Also, with respect to the restaurant event, much is made of the exactness of Mr. Border's prediction that the judge would appear. Judge Hastings would like us to focus with equal interest on the fact that Mr. Borders was way off on his prediction as to when the order regarding the forfeited property would be issued. Instead, we are again urged by the House managers to focus on the contacts between the judge and Borders between the predicted date and the actual date of issue of the order. In response, the judge refers us to the explanation that he offered in his testimony, that he was drafting letters, at Mr. Border's request, on behalf of Hemphill Pride. Again, both explanations are believable.

At this point, however, I must express my discomfort with the House manager's heavy reliance on the so-called `coded' telephone conversation regarding the letters. Frankly, I find Judge Hasting's explanation for this recorded phone call as believable as the interpretation expressed by the House managers. It is not unreasonable to believe that the judge and Mr. Borders were talking about actual letters and that Mr. Borders was not exactly truthful when he told the judge that he had spoken to Mr. Pride about the letters or their content. After all, we are talking about a person for whom there was direct evidence that he was involved in the bribery scheme. If he was willing to deceive his friend the judge with respect to the bribery scheme, it is not unreasonable to believe that he may have not been totally truthful with his friend in other matters.

Let me turn to the judge's actions after the arrest of Mr. Borders, which the Judge learned about while in a Washington hotel room. I can only say that again, the House asks us to rely heavily on circumstantial evidence in drawing the conclusion that the judge's actions prove that he was a part of the bribery scheme. I, too, am troubled by his conduct. Judge Hastings has testified that his actions were probably a mistake on his part. But I can understand how a person learning that a close friend had been arrested, that the FBI wanted to talk to him, and suspicious of the FBI, rightly or wrongly, would make a panicky reaction. I think it is fair to say that the FBI has not had a totally spotless record over the years. And the Judge certainly did not seek to hide out from the FBI. We are left with deciding whether to believe the conjecture of the House as to why the judge returned to Florida or to believe the explanation offered by the judge. Since the FBI agents in the case did not `let the money run,' we are left with only circumstantial evidence.

Finally, with respect to the charge of the wiretap leak, as best as I can understand, we are left to decide between the testimony of two witnesses--Mayor Clark, to whom the information was supposedly leaked, or Judge Hastings, who maintains that Mayor Clark is simply lying. And again, I would note for my colleagues that we are given two equally plausible explanations as to what actually happened.

Given the degree to which the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence; and I would also note that there is little, if any, direct evidence; and given the fact that Judge Hastings has provided, in my view, plausible explanations for each of the fact situations presented by the House managers, I believe that the benefit of the doubt must be given to Judge Hastings. I do not believe that the House managers have met their burden of proof, regardles of whatever standard of proof my colleagues might wish to apply.

For me, the circumstantial evidence that exists in this case does not provide the kind of clear and convincing proof which demonstrates that the judge should be removed from the bench.

I would also like to focus on a few other issues that have influenced my decision. First, there is the elapsed time between the events in question and this trial before the Senate. Granted, there are other impeachment cases which have occurred even later from the date of the events than this case. But here we are confronted with the lack of certain key witnesses, such as Mr. Borders and the Romano brothers, and missing evidence, such as conclusive reasons why the Judge and Borders spoke so frequently. As Judge Hasting's counsel noted in his closing remarks, not only are we being asked to look at a part of the donut and assume that there was a whole donut, but we are also asked, in some instances to look at a hole, and assume that there was a donut.

Mr. President, this is a very difficult matter. But just as the jury was not convinced that Judge Hastings was guilty of committing any crime, I am not convinced that Judge Hastings is guilty of committing an impeachable offense. I have carefully followed the Senate proceedings and feel comfortable with this decision. Based solely on the merits of this case, I will vote to acquit on each of the Articles of Impeachment.
Thomas Library
[Page: S13809]

I know you would never let Bush Get Way with anything!

The 19 lines - Dr. Birdwhistell
my diary

Thank you Sen Hastings For Voting
No on the War
No to The PATRIOT Act.
No to The PATRIOT Act Reauthorization
No to ‘Several Amendments To PATRIOT Act Reauthorization

Thanks for Calling The PATRIOT Act "Completely Unacceptable."
"Expansion Of Intelligence Gathering Powers" Raised "Serious Questions." Hastings
"Let a free press stand in this nation." Hastings
American Weekly

Thanks for Serving with Honor on ‘The House Intelligence Committee’ for the past 7 years

JTA: Reports Jewish-Lobby working on behalf Rep. Jane Harman, After Pelosi Drops Hastings

Thank You Hastings for all you have done and will do!!!

I really am Sorry.

Originally posted to npbeachfun on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:16 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Good-God Orrin G. Hatch Was Right? (0+ / 0-)

    Oh boy, I Never thought I would say that!
    Sen. Hatch voted to acquit.

    "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

    by npbeachfun on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:16:08 AM PST

    •  Whatever (2+ / 0-)

      Hastings was a corrupt federal judge who lied on the stand at his criminal trial.  And it was based on further investigation of his lies on the stand during his criminal trial that he was impeached by an overwhelming number.  John Conyers delivered the opening speech in favor of impeachment.  

      He's a crook, he's a liar, he shouldn't be in congress, and he certainly is not "owed" any important chairmanship.  

      The "hate" he gets is the only the disrespect he has earned.  

      •  I thought that.... (0+ / 0-)

        Then I looked into it and didnt like what I found?

        "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

        by npbeachfun on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 08:43:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  then post what else you looked at (0+ / 0-)

          because you got posted here is worthless and doesn't address any of the actual facts challenging Hastings's credibility or character.  

          Yes, an FBI guy got into trouble later on related to the investigation.  It does not address in any respect the reasons why Hastings got impeached.  

          •  By the way CREW is an attack dog for AIPAC (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            So when you ask me to get infromed and quote CREW you dont come across as informed to me!
            huffington post

            If you didnt know this google CREW, AIPAC, Melanie Sloan serves as CREW's Executive Director.

            Did you ever ask your self Why Liberals be against a Congress person that Voted Against: The War, The PATRIOT Act, Stood-Up for the Free Press

            and insteed go for a Congress woman: that voted for the war, said wire taps were fine and condemed the NY Times For leaking the Story?

            By the way....

            According to a recent report in a mainstream magazine, the alleged deal was that, in the event Democrats took control of Congress, AIPAC would lobby for Harman, now a member of the House Intelligence Committee, to become the chair of that committee. In return, she would be expected to press the White House and Justice Department to go easy on Keith Weisman and Steven Rosen, the two former AIPAC executives soon to be tried for espionage.
            American Free Press

            Looks like AIPAC is true ti its word

            "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

            by npbeachfun on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 01:35:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  wow (0+ / 0-)

              Playing a "jew" card are you?  Nice.  That says enough right there.  

              Plus, your little "theory" doesn't exactly square with the fact that Harman got rejected for the job too, does it?    

            •  Likud is 10% of Israelis (0+ / 0-)

              100% of the Israel-Pac in the US that have power and money- Nancy Pelosi, is not Happy about AIPAC- pushing out Murtha & Hastings...

              Look Maybe only a Black Person: can understand Hastings it was 1981, and the FBI had spy on M.L.K. The Black Pathers... And you know what, Hastings had a reason not to trust the FBI after all!

              PS I wont feel Free of the trader Harman until Pelosi picks her man/woman...

              "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

              by npbeachfun on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:18:06 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Rico Busted Hastings (0+ / 0-)

          He went undercover and met with William Borders-
          The FBI didnt wait and watch Borders hand Hastings any money-
          When Rico went to the house... Congress, Thank him for his Great service for our country!

          If you think Hastings is GUILTY you should have read the 16 lines phone call. Thats all they had.

          my other diary

          "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

          by npbeachfun on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 09:08:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  you are factually wrong (0+ / 0-)


            Hastings is clearly a liar and a corrupt judge.  The fact that other sleazy characters are involved doesn't help him and their involvement is not related to the basis of the impeachment.  

            •  The House & Senate Have... (0+ / 0-)

              No overview powers of our courts!
              Had he resigned after being Found Not Guilt in a Court of Law.... There Never would have been an Impeachment.

              I learned a lot about you in the past few days: you could have just resigned your Judgeship after you were acquitted in 1983. You had to know that your trail had given a black eye to the FBI. You could have started your own law office and made a lot more money. I find it sad, that if you had done just that and then became a Congressman, no one could question your integrity today.

              "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

              by npbeachfun on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:23:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  By the way, (0+ / 0-)

              I can feel anyway I want-

              "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

              by npbeachfun on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:44:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  you are entitled to an opinion (0+ / 0-)

                but not to your own facts.

                When you say that the all boiled down to disputed interpretation of a 16 line phone call, that's factually wrong, and the text of the impeachment proceedings makes that clear - if you bothered to look into this issue.

                I don't get the point that if he had resigned there never would have been an impeachment proceeding.  Of course that's true, because the purpose of impeachment proceedings to is remove people from their office.  

                The quote part in block is wrong, because Hastings to into trouble in the impeachment for clearly lying during his criminal trial.  It's quite likely he was acquitted because he lied.  

                He deserved to be impeached, and it's a damn shame he's in congress now.  There should be no consideration of him having any kind of sensitive leadership role, because he's corrupt.  

  •   Looks at all the crooks Bush appointed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    npbeachfun, VolvoDrivingLiberal

    Elliot  Abrams was convicted in the Iran contra scandal ,he is running american middle  east policy,Robert Gates conspired with   Saddam in a bunch of illegal arm deal during the eightys,

    •  I know... (0+ / 0-)

      He keeps bring in the felons through the front door... and Nancy like OMG he T.P. houses when he was a teen, what to do...

      Trent Lot was welcome back.

      "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

      by npbeachfun on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 07:59:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'I tell you what I'm sorry about. (0+ / 0-)

    I'm sorry William Borders took the fall for him, and he isn't in jail, where he belongs.

    •  I dissagree (0+ / 0-)

      16 line of 1 phone call

      A fellon FBI who set up 4 guy for murder?
      1 of the guy fond guilt was not even in the state when it happened...2 guys die in jail- 2 spent 30 years before they we free

      Read about the I have a link-

      "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

      by npbeachfun on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 08:32:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  FBI Rico gave money to Borders (0+ / 0-)

      William Borders was a prominent Washington, D.C. lawyer
      Who took money from "FBIs Rico" He took the 5th not just for Hastings.

      Borders & Hastings were life long friends, there was a good case for William Borders and he was found Guilty.

      Hasting never met Rico and all the FBI had was that 16 line phone call.

      "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

      by npbeachfun on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 09:25:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  More than enough. (0+ / 0-)

        You're also omitting the fact that Borders promptly got pardoned by Clinton, assuring they'd never have to risk him getting tired of sitting in jail and decide to testify.

        •  You using Promptly/ Really? (0+ / 0-)

          How uniformed Are You? Hasting was impeached in 1989- Bush the First was pres then? William c was convicted of bribery conspiracy 1982 When Reagan was in Office- Clinton took office in 1992 & pardoned William Borders on Jan 20, 2001

          Say what you want, but decades dont qualify as "Prompt"

          Also, that was after "the FBI agent" that head-up the sting operation, that busted Borders Had been caught framing four innocent men in 1965 for a murder they had nothing to do with... after a congressman asked the G-Man don’t you feel bad...

          Rico sneered, "Whaddaya want from me, tears?"

          Two of the Innocent men died in prison the other two spent 30year behind bars. As far as Im concerned every person that was put away by that asshole should be free!

          When Officer that promise to up hold the law turn out to be Gangsters they lose all credibility and the DA needs to reopen or release EVERY person their testimony put away!

          "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

          by npbeachfun on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 12:57:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  William Borders Took the Money- (0+ / 0-)

      William was found Guilt By a Jury...
      If the FBI though Hasting was in on it why didnt they follow the Money?

      "My message to the FBI is that if you are going to carry out a sting operation, you had better leave the stinger in the victim."
      Sen. SANFORD

      "History is a race between education and catastrophe" H.G. Wells

      by npbeachfun on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 03:54:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site