Alcee Hastings - Now They Tell Us

The NY Times exhorts Nancy Pelosi to oppose corruption (Bold!) but also chimes in with support for Jane Harman, who may be passed over for the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee in favor of impeached former Federal judge Alcee Hastings:

...Republicans have to be given a role in the legislative process, and the Democratic rank and file must be shown that agreeing with the Republicans on particular issues is not a capital sin.

She can send a good signal, for instance, by appointing Representative Jane Harman of California as head of the Intelligence Committee. Ms. Harman has been the ranking Democrat, and she has, in general, done her job well. But some of her fellow members regard her as insufficiently aggressive when it comes to criticizing the Bush administration. Ms. Pelosi, who does not get along well with Ms. Harman, is said to be considering Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida, a former federal judge who was impeached on bribery charges and removed from the bench. If she wanted to put her wrong foot forward, that would be a good way to do it.

Now they tell us!  The only Times coverage of this prior to the election was this article from Oct. 24 which put the Hastings speculation in paragraphs six and seven and did not even include a comment (or a no-comment) from Ms. Pelosi's office to confirm or reject the speculation.

Whatever - this is the House Intelligence Committee, after all.   My guess is that for a big chunk of Pelosi's caucus, the key role of the Intel Chairman will be to re-examine the intel failures of 2001-2003.  For that role Ms. Harman's expertise will be irrelevant unless she is sufficiently partisan.  Folks who would hope that the House Intel Chairman could advance the nation's effort in the war on terror starting with a focus on January 2007 and looking forward need to get with the program.

TCS also blasts Hastings.  FWIW, this is all good for the other person mentioned as the Harman alternative, Silvestre Reyes of Texas.   

UPDATE:  They know its a story now!  Mark Mazzetti gets an article in the Nov 10 edition:

Choice for Intelligence Panel Poses Early Test for Pelosi

By MARK MAZZETTI     

WASHINGTON, Nov. 9 — Her boss may want her gone, but Representative Jane Harman happens to think she is good at her job. And she has no intention of leaving it without a fight.

Ms. Harman argues that her role as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee makes her the logical candidate to become chairman when the new Congress begins in January.

Representative Nancy Pelosi, the party’s leader and presumptive House speaker in the next Congress, has indicated she has other plans.

...

Ms. Pelosi has told colleagues she plans to replace Ms. Harman on the Intelligence Committee, possibly with Representative Alcee Hastings of Florida, although she has given no public indication of her choice for the post since the election.

Many Democrats are closely watching the decision for signs of two things: how the speaker-in-waiting will chart her party’s course on national security issues and how she will handle her first postelection test in dealing with the often fractious Democratic caucus.

“This is the battle that nobody wanted,” one senior Democratic strategist said. “For Nancy to start off her speakership with a fight is a great shame.”

... The selection of Mr. Hastings, a black member of the committee, would win Ms. Pelosi support from the powerful Congressional Black Caucus. But his past could provide ammunition for Republicans: Mr. Hastings was impeached and removed by the Senate from a federal judgeship in 1989 on a bribery charge. (He was acquitted in the related criminal case.)

Wait a second!  "Ammunition for Republicans"?  Aren't there real national security issues that might actually transcend the politics (Geez, listen to me...).  The Times tackles this in the next paragraph, but my morning coffee has already been spilled.

Some leading Democrats said that choosing Mr. Hastings over Ms. Harman would send exactly the wrong message at a time when Democrats were struggling to prove their bona fides on national security.

“A lot of people would be astonished,” said Leslie H. Gelb, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a State Department official in the Carter administration. “I think it would send a signal that Democrats are not going to be as serious about national security as they need to be.”

Representative Silvestre Reyes. Democrat of Texas and also a committee member, has emerged as a possible compromise candidate. But Ms. Pelosi has also told colleagues that she could select someone who is not currently on the committee.

Appearing Wednesday on CNN, Ms. Pelosi said that it was her prerogative to select an entirely new Intelligence Committee at the beginning of each Congress, and that it is the one committee on which seniority rules are not recognized.

Leslie Gelb and the NY Times editors have checked in - we await developments.  Meanwhile, here is Wolf Blitzer's question and Nancy Pelosi's duck and cover:

BLITZER:  What about the Intelligence Committee?

PELOSI:  What about it?

BLITZER:  Do you think Jane Harman would be the appropriate chair, Alcee Hastings would be the appropriate chairman?

PELOSI: What you have to understand about the Intelligence Committee is the speaker of the House and the minority leader, on the first day of Congress, appoint a whole new Intelligence Committee each term. Sometimes they reappoint the same people. Sometimes they don't, but there is no seniority on the Intelligence Committee.

I stand by my earlier call - we ought to start researching Silvestre Reyes (to whom we wish a Happy Birthday, and what a thoughtful present a chairmanship would be).

I see that Mr. Reyes is Hispanic, which for Ms. Pelosi's purposes might be almost as good as being black.  He also has something resembling qualifications:

After serving his country in Vietnam, Reyes decided to devote his life to public service. In 1969, he began his career with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the U.S. Border Patrol.

He left the INS after being elected to Congress in 1996.

Comments

[Jane]

This is the deal she has made with the black caucus in consideration for their support for her as speaker. Unless she has figured out how to finesse it, she goes down if Hastings doesn't get the chairmanship.

[Enlightened]

The MSM is really showing it's true colors. SFGate is literally falling over itself in admiration of the "Turnaround of GWB". Try that 2 weeks ago.

And the election illustrated clearly that the minions lap this tripe up with nary a thought as to the veracity of the report.

I have this gnawing feeling that the MSM powerbrokers are just laughing their asses off as they play with the marionettes behind the curtain.

[champagnekissesandcaviardreams]

With Biden on Foreign Affairs it's not like there will be much media oxygen left for Hastings or Harman or, well, anyone else.

[Jon Black]

I think this week will help to improve W's "standing" with a large chunk of the democratic party. To my mind, the biggest issue that the dems had with Bush is that he never lost. No matter how stupid they claimed him to be, he kept pummeling them on election day. Now that they finally got over on him, I think a lot of the BDS falls away.

[The Unbeliever]

Bush already improved his political standing with Rumsfeld's resignation. The only substantial plan the Dems had for Iraq was to scream for Rumsfeld's head; now that Bush has robbed them of a months-long, public, camera-chasing struggle to please their base... what are the Democrats going to do about Iraq?

[lurker]

Shows how smart Bush is. Read Ron Kessler's article about Bush over at Newsmax.

Bush Policies Will Not Change

[r flanagan]

Oh come on. Who doesn't know about Alcie
Hasting's past ? Should the Times have carried a daily box reminding people ? What other daily boxes should they have carried?
A reminder of Henry Hyde's affair with his best friend's wife? Or Barney Frank's gay lover?It can't be expected to repeat every day every one of the many misdeeds of the many politicians.

[lurker]

All of a sudden it's new "news" to this newspaper.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Did you all know that the only District in the entire huge state of California that DID NOT PASS THE JESSICA'S LAW PROPOSITION is Pelosi's home district. The next time she says she cares about kids, remember it. Hers is also the District that thinks we should do away with a military all together. Why would anyone trust a dem? And now we are going to have Levin at Armed Services. Gawd help the military. Leahy at Judiciary. Gawd help the the legal system. And that's just the Senate. The House is not so bad because most of the members tossed out were one issue wonders who refused to compromise rather than pout and trash the President. In their place are a whole host of moderate/conservative Democrats who have no more in common with Pelosi and the far left than they have with the far right. Hopefull those of us who advocate for the middle and taking the best from both sides for the good of the country can find a voice in their somewhere.

George Bush has shown what a class act he really is.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Clarice, interesting article you have today at AT about the feelings of the VIPs. This is what I meant in my comment the other day about Gates knowing where all the "leaker" bodies are buried at the CIA.

I remember Gates' CIA Director confirmation hearings and I knew as soon as I heard the President nominate him that there were going to be a lot of people, like Larry Johnson, going into overtime.

Here is some rank speculation for everyone to chew on. Gates, like I said, knows from the inside out, and we have all these rumors about the intense investigations on the leaks of the last couple of years coming out of both Defense and the CIA. Not being one who believes in coincidence, it does seem extraordinary that Bush would turn to Gates, the one man around who has headed that agency and come up thru the ranks of that agency and let him loose in Defense. Gates is tough, so amazingly smart it is almost scary and he is beholden to no one. Is this coincidence? Inquiring minds want to know.

Also, I do not think it is any accident that Baker is coming back on the scene in a more active role. He is another one who knows where the bodies are buried at State.

Many around the blogosphere are mocking Bush for turning to Daddy and his cronies, but I don't see it that way. I see it more as GWB knowing his resources and having no qualms about tapping the right ones when he needs them, whether that be elder statesmen or new young up and comers.

When you think Gates, think more in line with an Ollie North philosophy, not a Brent Scowcroft philosophy.

[Sue]

Should the Times have carried a daily box reminding people ? What other daily boxes should they have carried?

I can't tell if you are using sarcasm or being serious.

[richard mcenroe]

Just curious, how is Alcie Hastings going to get a security clearance?

[Pat A]

My impression of Harman over the years was that she was a straight shooter and told it like it was. My respect for her took a steep downhill slide over the last few months when it became obvious she was toeing the party line and making crap up. Her ethics turn out to be no better than any other career politician. A shame.

[lurker]

Good question, Richard McEnroe.

Perhaps Nancy Pelosi will make sure Alcee Hasting will get it.

[Enlightened]

Just curious, why is it that today, after the election, the MSM decides to give us the Iraq Body Count that have been killed by "insurgents"???

Ya know, everything has just become so rosy I can hardly stand the glow of the halo's.

[Actual]

I have the same thought as the poster above. How can a felony conviction be overlooked when one is being considered for this position ?

I mean, what can you say? The other guy did it?

[lurker]

Another possibility is that Nancy Pelosi will remove the Security Clearance requirement for Aclee.

Saw that 150,000 killed by the insurgents.

Wonder how much more data the Liberal MSM has and plan to release in order to paint a bigger picture in favor of the Democrats?

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Anyone else in here actually remember the Hastings impeachment trial? I watched it on CSPAN. I barely remember it, but I do remember that when all was said and done, I thought the charges against him were bogus. One vivid memory was watching the FBI stumble thru their testimony. No notes, take our word for it. No transcripts of wire taps, just their word for it that what they say was on those taps was actually on them. It was the first time in my life that I began to question the competence and trustworthiness of the FBI.

I don't know anything about Hastings politics, but I wouldn't trash him over the impeachment. Apparently the constituents of his district feel the same way.

He would already have a clearance now. Why would he need another one?

[Bruce Hayden]

My understanding is that Hastings was not convicted in his criminal trial, due to the refusal of a key witness to testify against him (and who later apparently was pardoned by Bill Clinton). But there was enough evidence against him that the votes in the two houses of Congress were close to unanimous.

[Jane]

Great article on Hastings:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=110906D

[JM Hanes]

Enlightened:

Ace has thread up full of hysterically funny comments on the miraculous improvement in post-election conditions.

[lurker]

Frankly, based on what I've been reading at various forums...

this polarization is going to get worse...not better.

[lurker]

Hastings was still impeached, wasn't he? That's the latest going around of late.

[lurker]

I still wouldn't trust Alcee Hastings to lead the Intelligence Committee.

[lurker]

Hastings was still impeached, wasn't he? That's the latest going around of late.

[lurker]

30 foreign fighters a day as opposed to 200 previously!

How is that for a failed policy of the Iraqi war??

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Bruce, at the time of the Hastings Impeachment, I was totally apolitical. I watched the hearings for the rarity of such an event from an historical perspective. All I know is that my feeling when all was said and done was that it was a total railroad and a bogus underlying charge against him. I had no political dog in the hunt. And these are just my take on something I watched as an interested history buff. You had to take the FBI at their word 100% to convict. Unfortunately, in that day and age, the FBI had not gone thru its exposures of falsifying evidence and scandalous tactics and they were considered more like Gods. I was like that myself, but never again after those hearings.

I'm not advocating for Hastings, I don't know anything else about him. But, I wouldn't be against him because of the impeachment and underlying charges.

I believe he is already on the committee so I think the point about a clearance would be moot.

[clarice]

Sara, should I ever find myself representing someone truly guilty--like Hastings or OJ--I want you on that jury. OTOH if my client is innocent--lioke the Duke defendants--get outa there.

You certainly have singular notions of the law and evidence.

OTOH, I'm feeling good about Gates. I think the Rumsfeld jujitsu thru the braying hounds off their scent. Rummy will be in that spot for several more months, enough to accomplish what remains undone on his agenda. The longer and stupider the Gates confirmation hearings go on, the better. I hope McGovern and Johnson do their magic--In fact, I'm thinking of telling them to go under oath--bring Cannistraro with them and Joe Wilson, too. It's their moment in the sun--stretch it out to June if they want.

[clarice]

***thre, not thru**

[clarice]

***sigh**one more time:THREW, not THRU

[SunnyDay]

OH that ACE contest is a side splitter!!

[MayBee]

Pelosi promised the most ethical Congress in the history of the world. Allowing Hastings to be chair of Intelligence would put an obvious lie to her vow. It would open the Dems up to charges that they aren't responsible leaders and would indicate a general lack of seriousness.
The NYTs worked hard to get Dems elected, and they aren't about to watch Pelosi screw it up so early.

[lurker]

Honestly, I never watched the Hastings hearings so I lack the historical background on him but Clarice, you say that Hastings is guilty in spite of Sara saying that the whole thing was a total railroad and a bogus underlying charge against him as well as the lack of sufficient FBI evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

So in spite of the FBI evidence, Hastings was still guilty? Why? And of what?

Do you have enough trust in Hastings having access to the intelligence data?

[lurker]

Heh...

Pelosi and the likes do not recognize right from wrong.

[MayBee]

In fact, I'm thinking of telling them to go under oath--bring Cannistraro with them and Joe Wilson, too. It's their moment in the sun--stretch it out to June if they want.

Oh, Brilliant! Come out of the basement, dear VIPS. Perhaps Conyers can throw the witness list together.

[lurker]

Clarice, hopefully, these hearings will be aired on C-Span.

Or they will do what they did with the SSCI Part 2 book.

[mariposa]

I don't have a clue whether or not Hastings was actually guilty. But the fact that the question looms at all should eliminate him from chairing the Intelligence Cmte. As lurker says, it's an issue of trust.

[SunnyDay]

Please, these comments about Alcee are so partisan. We need to work together.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

I don't know why the slam Clarice. I was giving my impression. The testimony from the FBI was without any notes or transcripts, it was all based on a couple of agents who stumbled through with vague answers that boiled down to trust me. I, like millions of others, thought the FBI was some super duper place and I was shocked to watch this performance. In the end, as I recall, my attitude was that a Federally appointed judge probably shouldn't be on the bench even if he was innocent just because of the appearance that the Impeachment painted. I didn't think he could go back to the bench and be effective.

As to OJ, I watched every minute of the trial from gavel to gavel and all extra hearings and downloaded tons and tons of the evidence as it was posted. I made my decision on what I saw and heard and it was identical to 175 of the 177 on our cyber jury. Perhaps when you actually watch something rather than rely on media reports you get a different impression, as all but 2 of us did. An advantage of watching is being able to see body language and hear inflections that you don't get from the written word or someone else's summary report.

As to Duke. I don't know how many times I've said that if the prosecutor can't prove his case, I'll accept the verdict of not guilty. If you think I have any love for prosecutors, you don't know me, so believe me I'll be looking for the reasonable doubt. But, I don't make decisions on press releases of the defense any more than I convict someone on pre-trial releases by the police or prosecutor. Do I have a builtin bias on this one particular case? Yes and I made an early disclaimer and I've stayed out of the discussions. I'm getting a little tired of being mocked for having an opinion about fraternity age boys who have consumed a lot of alcohol and have a history of problems at that house just because my opinion is less than favorable.

[Bruce Hayden]

Sara,

Agreed, Hastings does have access to a lot of classified information already, but if he becomes Chair, he will have access to more. For example, the details of the NSA TSP were apparently disclosed to just the top person from each of the two parties of the two intelligence committees, and not to the rest of the members of the two committees. My understanding is that there are other places where that is also true. Harmon, being Ranking Member, has had that more extensive access without any indication of abuse (as compared to Sen. Rockefeller who apparenlty left the Senate Intelligence Committee because he apparently disclosed classified information).

[clarice]

Sara, the committee had the evidence..It was a Democratic House and Senate and they impeached him.

[clarice]

They impeached him almost unanimously, I should add.

As to what to do if he's appointed chair of the intel committee. I'd deny him a security clearance and refuse to give him a shred of classified material. Period.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Bruce, that's true. Really, my only point was that I know nothing about his politics and since he has been elected by the people in his District, I would rather not use the Impeachment as a reason not to want him in that position. I am not all that enamored of Harman and without knowing Hastings politics, I have no idea if he would be better or worse as chairman. The fact that he is Pelosi's choice is more of strike against him in my mind than having been impeached.

[MayBee]

I think the better argument is that he shouldn't be on the intelligence committee at all.
His constituents may be foolish enough to support him, but the Dem leadership doesn't need to allow him such a plum assignment.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Clarice, I guess as far as your concerned I can't have an impression of befuddled FBI agents. I don't care one way or the other whether he was or was not really guilty. My impression was that everyone was going thru the motions on something that had already been agreed on in the smoke-filled back room. I wasn't at all impressed with the whole fiasco anymore than I was with the failed Clinton impeachment or that Judge in Nevada who was impeached. Show trials just aren't all that impressive, even if the person is guilty. The government always comes away looking inept and stupid.

But like I just told Bruce, it is Hastings politics that count here. I don't know if he might not be a better choice than Harman, although as Pelosi's choice that is unlikely. I just don't know enough yet.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Maybee, that would be the better option and solve the problem. I don't think it really matters anyway as long as Rockefeller has access in the Senate.

[clarice]

You certainly are entitled to your own impressions, Sara, but when after a Congressional Committee investigated the charges and instituted impeachment proceedings a virtually unanimous Dem majority Senate impeached him, and I regard that as more definitive a judgment.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Clarice, I made no judgment on his guilt, I gave an impression of the proceedings and how they appeared to someone who knew nothing about the procedure. I understand much better now, many years later that these are political trials not necessarily criminal trials. I hold his politics to be more important in the context of the discussion, but only because his constituents have elected him and they are the better judge of the man than I am. If you had some personal involvement, I meant no offense.

Look at it this way, if the FBI testimony during the Libby trial is anything like the Hastings testimony, Libby will be in great shape.

[MayBee]

only because his constituents have elected him and they are the better judge of the man than I am.

They are horrible judges of character. Period.

[Sara (Squiggler)]

Isn't it the impression around these parts that the FBI and the Prosecutor jumped to conclusions and have been working from a false premise leading to some wrong conclusions? We've been talking about it for months. And that was my impression during Hastings, although back then I couldn't have put a name to it. It just didn't seem right and/or convincing.