Video: Newt condemns Hastings, Colmes defends on count of no conviction

posted at 5:41 pm on November 21, 2006 by Ian


Speaker Gingrich condemned Pelosi for considering impeached former Judge and now Congressman Alcee Hastings on last night’s Hannity & Colmes. Liberal co-host Alan Colmes defended Hastings because he was never convicted in a criminal court.

Let’s use Alan’s “argument” (and I use that term very loosely) in action with a conservative. Although Mark Foley resigned, he has yet to be convicted. What if, God forbid, he was re-elected at one point and he was appointed as chairman of the Missing and Exploited Children committee? Would Alan be okay with that? I mean, he just resigned over allegations, he was never convicted. I imagine Alan would have no problem with it, only if Foley had a (D) by his name.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

A basic tenant of liberalism is to have no shame.

urbancenturion on November 21, 2006 at 5:48 PM

Gingrich against Colmes is almost child abuse. He has no shame since he has no clue.

JammieWearingFool on November 21, 2006 at 5:51 PM

Didn’t Alcee Hastings run for office under the slogan “Often Indicted, Never Convicted”?

ReubenJCogburn on November 21, 2006 at 5:52 PM

Once Clinton got the impeachment mojo working for him it no longer means a thing.

bbz123 on November 21, 2006 at 5:54 PM

What’s with the second sound track?

urbancenturion on November 21, 2006 at 5:54 PM

Shamelessness doesn’t pay rent. (Spelling Nazi alert.)

Besides, in order to have shame, you have to believe in a code of morality that holds certain actions to be shameful. Since leftists claim that morality is arbitrary and relative, and that nothing is objectively shameful. Other than disagreeing with them, of course.

The Monster on November 21, 2006 at 5:56 PM

I held a Top Secret security clearance with bells and whistles for thirteen or so years. Try and get one of those puppies some time, I dare ya…and mine was granted in sleepy peacetime.

We’re at war, and they want to give Alcee Hastings a key to the magic kingdom! They’re going to have a disgraced former judge oversight over the most *SENSITIVE* aspect of national defense.

Colmes is a moron. That goes without saying…but you’d think that even a moron would have survival insticts sufficiently robust to recognize that giving this guy a clearance, much less the uber-clearances he’d need to do the intel oversight job, would be about as wise as letting CAIR sit in on cabinet meetings.

Somebody needs to speak up: the guy’s got seniority because he’s in a safe seat. He’s not qualified by character or personal history to have access to *ANY* classified information. He’s a security risk par excellence, not only from any possible blackmail — the opportunities there must be staggering — but from leaks from his own d*mned mouth!

Betcha Pelosi’s gonna use this one to try to get a bit of her own back for the Murtha/Hoyer thing…to the detriment of the country. Then again, what does she care for the detriment of the country. Apart from designer shoe stores and the opportunity to lord it over he plebs that she’s Da Speakeress, she could care less for the country.

The Dems…the party of Leaky Leahy…now, the party of Unindicted Alcee. Excellent….

Puritan1648 on November 21, 2006 at 5:56 PM

What’s up with Kramer trying to apologize on H&C

jdpaz on November 21, 2006 at 5:57 PM

Gingrich handles liberals exactly as all conservatives should when debating. Laugh at them.

Gregor on November 21, 2006 at 6:07 PM

Alan Colmes: sick in the body, sick in the head, sick in the soul.

jaleach on November 21, 2006 at 6:08 PM

And Alan was wrong when he said Hastings was ‘not convicted’…

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The House impeaches, and the Senate convicts. Hastings was acquitted in the criminal court, but convicted by the Senate, in a near-unanimous vote.

The Monster on November 21, 2006 at 6:14 PM

Well here’s a fun question:

Did Alan Colmes defend O.J.? Cuz he wasn’t convicted either…

Mike the Marine on November 21, 2006 at 6:15 PM

What’s up with Kramer trying to apologize on H&C

jdpaz

Yeah I had that happen too. I also had the sound on Kramer’s apology overlap itself when I listened to it here today.

Is that happening to everyone or perhaps just Firefox users?

Benaiah on November 21, 2006 at 6:17 PM

Colmes lives in a leftist fog where reality is completely distorted and truth is an unattainable goal. He could only be convincing to another of his ilk.

rplat on November 21, 2006 at 6:22 PM

i really feel sorry for Sean Hanity to sit next to a terrorist & open borders supporter 5 days a week.

Starblazer on November 21, 2006 at 6:25 PM

If Colmes were just a little more stupid, he could replace Brian Kilmeade on the morning program.

RedWinged Blackbird on November 21, 2006 at 6:28 PM

Once the audio overlap started in, I just gave up because I couldn’t make anything out.

I’d like to know why this problem only seems to occur whenever Ian posts something… what gives?

Watcher on November 21, 2006 at 6:33 PM

Kramer: Ghost in the machine.

Not just Firefox, either.

Reaps on November 21, 2006 at 6:36 PM

Yeah, the Kramer thing happened to me too, and I use the hated IE.

Anyway, I have to ask, does Colmes actually have a brain? Or does he just mindlessly take the opposite position of anyone who has ever been called a conservative? Obviously, his arguements (such as they are) lend credence to his lack of measurable intelligence.

Wolfman on November 21, 2006 at 6:55 PM

Alan Colmes also defended O.J. during the Mark Fuhrman
interview. He’s good at picking and sticking with
a losers point of view. after all they are the real
victims. . .Ain’t that right Alan ?

Texyank on November 21, 2006 at 6:58 PM

Try and get one of those puppies some time, I dare ya…and mine was granted in sleepy peacetime.

Puritan1648 on November 21, 2006 at 5:56 PM

Been there…done that. Twenty years, 38 countries, over half a million flight miles logged…lifetime NDA. Targeted more than once. The closest they got was they being 10 seconds late with the explosives at an intersection ambush and slitting the guards throats at a safe house while I was -out-.

Regarding Hastings..and Rangel too..there should be a challenge to their taking the Oath of Office for seating in the House. They don’t get a seat without taking the Oath and they can be challenged. I believe the Oath supplants the need for a security clearance.

News2Use on November 21, 2006 at 7:12 PM

Alan wants Hastings because ALL of our intelligence will then end up on the front page of the NY Times. As our enemies learn how to defeat us, it will just be one more thing to blame President Bush for.

PinkyBigglesworth on November 21, 2006 at 7:23 PM

Audio is messed up… includes audio of Michael Richards on David Letterman

bigbeas on November 21, 2006 at 7:24 PM

Puritan and News2Use – You guys are rock stars! The closest I’ve come to any secret, life-threatening information is knowing the calorie count of the muffins at Starbucks (my ‘Bucks was next to a Weight Watchers….those women can be vicious).

You guys may tire of hearing it, but it can’t be said enough. Thank you for everything you’ve done to protect this great country.

JadeNYU on November 21, 2006 at 7:26 PM

I think you could replace Alan Colmes with a Magic 8 ball and it would make as much sense as Alan often does. Has anyone but me noticed that Alan often has to dig – I mean, really dig – to uncover opposing viewpoints? What else could explain his bizzare defense of Alcee Hastings?

thedecider on November 21, 2006 at 7:43 PM

I would be very interested to know more about Alcee Hastings conduct as a member of Congress since 1993.

We know he was impeached as a Judge.

What has his position been on corruption and ethics since he was elected to Congress?

Has he opposed any tightening of ethics for elected officials? Has he opposed sunshine issues? What was his position on the $90,000 found in Representative Jefferson’s refridgerator? Meaning did he support or oppose the FBI’s raid on this guys office? Did he support or oppose the removal of Jefferson from a House committe?

EFG on November 21, 2006 at 7:49 PM

Maybe Alcee Hastings could get OJ to write a book for him. The Senate had the option to forbid Hastings from ever seeking federal office again when it removed him, but did not do so. http://www.answers.com/topic/alcee-hastings
http://grades.betterimmigration.com/testgrades.php3?District=FL23&VIPID=204
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/h000324/votes/
http://www.alceehastings.blogspot.com/

Rustyw on November 21, 2006 at 8:04 PM

I saw this last night. I was quite amused at Newt saying it was a great defense to say Hastings is not a felon.

Colmes could have some credibility if he didn’t continually try to defend the indefensible. He has done that too many times.

INC on November 21, 2006 at 8:07 PM

Hubris, pure and simple.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 21, 2006 at 8:10 PM

He has no shame since he has no clue.

JammieWearingFool on November 21, 2006 at 5:51 PM

I’d like to nominate Jammie for the best summation of the year.

BacaDog on November 21, 2006 at 8:39 PM

When are we going to stop saying “the war on terror”? It’s like saying the war against gernades.

I want Noooot to run in 08 but I don’t think he’s gonna. He would mop the intellectual floor with Hillary.

Mojave Mark on November 21, 2006 at 11:08 PM

whoops, I mean grenades. Sorry.

Mojave Mark on November 21, 2006 at 11:09 PM

You guys may tire of hearing it, but it can’t be said enough. Thank you for everything you’ve done to protect this great country. — JadeNYU

…you same me, and I must be honest with you.

The closest I ever came in 16 years to protecting anything was the month or so that I slept in our battalion’s operations tent while our group was over in Turkey, the guys downrange herding Kurds outta the hills. It was a metaphor for my entire time as a soldier. I slept there, in case anyone needed a command decision. I was woken up once. I think that I signed for a routine message or something…I can’t remember. For all I know, I authorized the commo guys to order a pizza.

I served under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush. My service was sort of like fire insurance. We didn’t have any fires of any significance between about 1972 and 1991, except for two blips that they didn’t send my unit to. So, for my part, I just sat there, being potentially heroic…which, if you’re too stupid to know how very grubby being heroic can be is like someone wishing for open-heart surgery so’s he can swan around afterwards, showing off the scar.

Meet someone who’s ever *ACTUALLY* “seen the elephant” — and we’ve a fine, brave crop of ‘em now, the ages of my sons — and you’ll notice a distinct hesitance in accepting gratitude. They did what they were expected to do.

We old peacetime soldiers can only look on ‘em proudly, and be honest about our own more pacific service.

But, as I said earlier in the thread, I did hold a clearance, and it wasn’t and should be easy to get.

I don’t know about the oath of office for congressmen superceding a clearance. It’d be sad if it did. Yet another perk we hand them, our faux-aristocrats.

Puritan1648 on November 22, 2006 at 12:08 AM

Puritan1648 and News2Use, to do what you did, for so long, and then to be so modest and practical about it, while giving praise to today’s heroes, is indeed laudable. Great, indeed! Comparably Mr. Kerry comes to mind.

Entelechy on November 22, 2006 at 12:34 AM

Ent…I don’t know where or how News served. I can only speak for myself.

The citizens of this country bore and raised and guided the young men and women we have fighting over there today…every day they rise up and make America work. They make the stuff we buy, they move it, the sell it, and they pay the taxes, so’s those men and women will have the beans and bullets they need.

That is laudable. That is praiseworthy.

The home front is the front every youngster over there is defending. They deserve our praise and our prayers.

Myself…I was went in unemployed, learned a job, and got a paycheck for 16 years. I was a place-holder, keeping the Army running between the generation who were lied about in Vietnam, and these kids who’re bein’ lied about in Iraq and Afganistan. We trained as privates and shave-tails some of the senior NCOs and field grade officers who’re running things over there. That wasnt much. We had to do something to justify the paychecks. We had it pretty easy, all things considered.

Turn your praise to the kids fighting today. *THAT* is laudable.

Puritan1648 on November 22, 2006 at 12:44 AM

Puritan, you’re just a wee bairn; I’m older than you; Jay-sus Mary & Joseph, I’m probably older than everyone on this site.

Seems there are more spooks here than at a Yorktown High School reunion ( inside joke )

Janos Hunyadi on November 22, 2006 at 1:27 AM

I don’t know if anything has changed recently, but as of March, all that is needed for one of these snakes to get their hands on classified information is just a couple of taqiyya oaths. Here’s a sound proposal to change that: http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/in04_buyer/SecurityClearance.html . That’s tough medicine, but peoples’ lives are at stake.

Thanks from me too, Puritan1648 and News2Use.

pedestrian on November 22, 2006 at 1:28 AM

IAN,

Any way to fix the audio? Its a bit distracting to have two audio clips going at once.

Centurion68 on November 22, 2006 at 6:42 AM

Shamelessness doesn’t pay rent. (Spelling Nazi alert.)

;-)

RD on November 22, 2006 at 7:44 AM

We don’t currently issue clearances to elected officials. In case anyone here was unclear on that. I would love for that to change. The problem is that the current requirement for clearances already far exceeds the manpower available to do it, causing a major backlog.

As for people defending Hastings, I find it despicable. I fully understand that we don’t get the best of the best in an elected system, but to appoint an individual who was impeached from any government position, to any intelligence position, is just plain stupid.

aelhues on November 22, 2006 at 8:08 AM

“Hastings was never convicted.”

Nor was Ted Kennedy; therefore, Mary Jo Kopechne must not have really drowned in his car! However, Ms. Kopechne is curiously not available for comment.

crushliberalism on November 22, 2006 at 8:15 AM

I held a Top Secret security clearance with bells and whistles for thirteen or so years. Try and get one of those puppies some time, I dare ya…and mine was granted in sleepy peacetime. — Puritan1648

Amen Puritan. Never pursued the “wierd” bars – vanilla red was adequate for my situation – but was braced for it. Some of my “colleagues” have the scars that went w/the extra bars tho’.

BTW don’t know if you’ve always had posting privs. or were only able to land them more recently, but I’m definitely glad you’re here.

Been there…done that. Twenty years, 38 countries, over half a million flight miles logged…lifetime NDA. Targeted more than once. The closest they got was they being 10 seconds late with the explosives at an intersection ambush and slitting the guards throats at a safe house while I was -out-. — News2Use

Holy COW!! (Bastards… ;-))

RD on November 22, 2006 at 8:15 AM

… and this while Speaker Botox is promising us “the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.”

Bang-up job so far Nancy.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on November 22, 2006 at 8:30 AM

Mary Jo Kopechne was unavailable for comment

Wade on November 22, 2006 at 10:07 AM

Amen Puritan. Never pursued the “wierd” bars – vanilla red was adequate for my situation – but was braced for it. Some of my “colleagues” have the scars that went w/the extra bars tho’.

…unclassified story: I was all impressed with all the access I had. I was sent to NSA one time, and one day played hookey from the *BORING* thing I was sent to look at, deciding instead to find info on stuff more atuned to the assignment that had sent me there on “vacation”.

I found a guy through another guy who worked in another part of the building, and got his invite and his extension to call and visit sometime. Eager, I called a couple of days later, and arranged to visit him at his cubicle.

I showed up at the door he directed me to (you find your way in that building as in many other offices, by door number incorporating floor, placement in the building, etc.), and called him from a nearby secretary’s desk in the hallway. He came to the door and escorted me to this desk. He showed me the stuff of interest, and we must’ve talked for 5-10 minutes. He was the sort of geek you’d expect worked there, but was a happy and engaging geek…not like the bitter and self-important geeks all too common in the commissary there.

The thing is that, when I was there that time, you were not allowed to wear your fatigue (civilian: combat dress) uniform in the building. Even the military there were “business casual” with ties four days a week, dress or half-dress uniform on Fridays. Wearing Army Class B khaki uniform was “dress down Friday”.

I and the other guys from my unit wore our cammies (Vienam era leaf-pattern cammo cotton fatigues, worn by Marines then, and us). I didn’t think it right to be at work in civvies, and I did like wearing a tie. I stood out like a sore thumb. My ensemble, once it was noticed (I received a few disapproving stares coming into this guy’s lair), screamed “THIS GUY DOESN’T BELONG HERE”.

One of my benefactor’s co-workers (may be a boss), toddled over and, without introducing himself, asked what level of clearance I had. I told him. Suddenly, everyone in earshot began diving on their desks, covering the stuff they were reading with their bodies as an infantryman would jump on a grenade. Fat ladies began standing in front of their workstations, trying with one hand to spread the black felt cloth they kept for this purpose over their workspaces.

I had cooties.

Turns out that I had the *MINIMUM* level of clearance to even be in the building, and that access to *EVERY OTHER* desk in that office space (maybe 2 dozen cubicles) was rated at “eschelons above the President”. This guy had this stuff that interested me on a desk in the exact geometric middle of an office even Dir NSA would have to be “read on” to enter…exaggeration, but not by much.

Anyway, I was led to the door…swiftly. The guy I’d met apologized for the necessity of my rapid exit, and seemed a bit miffed that I’d not let him know my status prior to our arranging this meeting. I hadn’t given him the “eschelons above the President” secret handshake, I guess.

I didn’t get in any trouble after I explained the issue to the section which was hosting me, and I hope that the guy who was so accomodating didn’t get in trouble. I never found out. Still, I will always remember with hilarity the sight of 40 and 50 year old career desk-jockies, as big as dairy cows some of ‘em, diving like teenagers over their desks.

They were probably defending with their sagging bodies the transcriptions of our intercepts of Martian cerebral activity…or something *REALLY* important.

As it is, I was supposed to be at NSA for 2 months, and left after one. I was bored to tears. I came back again the next year, to the same section, and they remembered me. I got a friendly but no-nonsense lecture about not going off the beaten track this time.

I wore cammies every day after that. Actually had an executive secretary call me over once to *YELL* at me for my attire. I left four to six weeks early this time, too…by my choice.

…fond memories….

BTW don’t know if you’ve always had posting privs. or were only able to land them more recently, but I’m definitely glad you’re here. — RD

…recent arrival. It’s one of the few places I’ve found where I can write…and get away with it.

There’re *LOTS* of informed people here, and regular updates of interesting subjects. The trolls, with one exception so far, have been informed also.

Overall, HotAir is a breath of FreshAir…and I’m definitely glad you and ever’body else is here.

Puritan1648 on November 22, 2006 at 1:22 PM

I didn’t get in any trouble after I explained the issue to the section which was hosting me, and I hope that the guy who was so accomodating didn’t get in trouble.

A security violation in his service record and if it was not the first one – he’s gone.

News2Use on November 22, 2006 at 2:29 PM

A security violation in his service record and if it was not the first one – he’s gone. — News2Use

…depends on whether it went official.

It *WAS* the unclassified version of the story, after all. Redacted a number of details.

Puritan1648 on November 22, 2006 at 3:22 PM

:-) The process of obtaining clearance (for me, in the early 90′s) was also the first inkling I got of just how deep the treachery goes from/by our “friends” the French.

RD on November 23, 2006 at 12:43 AM

Clearly, Allan Colmes has smoked, and OD’d on to much donkey dung. At times, he’s a total disaster.
 

byteshredder on November 23, 2006 at 12:54 AM

alcee hastings is my representative in congress. I’m gonna hate the next few years. He will be insufferable.

I’d like to say “howdy” to the ex-spooks on HotAir. Nice to know y’all are around here and not at kos.

tormod on November 23, 2006 at 8:29 AM

:-) The process of obtaining clearance (for me, in the early 90’s) was also the first inkling I got of just how deep the treachery goes from/by our “friends” the French.

RD on November 23, 2006 at 12:43 AM

Really…. There was an instance where I found all my luggage sitting in the hotel lobby because that country’s French supported central government was relocating from another city/town and had taken over two floors of the hotel, when they had lost territory to the opposition.

The opposition was supported by…..

the French.

Guess somebody didn’t get the memo.. :-)

News2Use on November 23, 2006 at 10:51 AM