CREW posts transcript of 1988 Hastings impeachment proceedings
posted at 1:44 pm on November 24, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Conyers is the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee so it’s his statement you’re looking for. It starts on numbered page 12 and runs through page 18. Highlights: all the new evidence that came to light after Hastings’s acquittal at trial at the top of page 14; the not-at-all suspicious escape from Washington towards the bottom of page 15; and his openness to the possibility that the charges against Hastings were trumped up for racial reasons — until he looked at the facts and realized the guy was guilty as sin. From the bottom of page 17, the race card is trumped:
Although it has been suggested that the decision in this matter may adversely affect that struggle [for racial equality], I do not believe that to be the case. A black public official must be held to the same standard as every other public official. A lower standard would be patronizing. A higher standard would be racist. Just as race should never disqualify a person from office, race should never insulate a person from the consequences of wrongful conduct.
Exit question: where is the sinister, omnipresent hand of Malkin in all this?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages:
She must have borrowed Ann Coulter’s time machine.
MamaAJ on November 24, 2006 at 1:50 PM
Oh the powerful ubiquitous (and timeless) spirits of our lovely Michelle, who also carries many decks of cards…. Play your hand, you will lose either way.
shooter on November 24, 2006 at 1:54 PM
McFLY!
The Monster on November 24, 2006 at 1:54 PM
I think Conyers got one thing wrong. A lower standard for blacks is not only patronizing but racist as well. And it’s a truly evil policy. Let’s take race out of it for a moment and consider this scenario:
Consider identical twin sons, Walter and Brian. For some inexplicable reason, they are raised them in different ways. Walter is consistently told what high standards of behavior you expect of him; when he fails to meet those standards, his parents punish him accordingly; they reward him when he exceeds the standards. Brian, however, is allowed to behave in whatever way he wishes, and only suffers negative consequences for his bad behavior when the behavior is so immediately self-destructive that his (s)mother is unable to shelter him from it (his father is absent from his life, and only has time for Walter). In that case, she assures Brian that the reason for his predicament is that Walter has somehow caused it, not because of anything Brian may have done to himself.
Imagine how these young men will grow up.
Not only can Walter and Brian be Whites and Blacks, but Jews and Moslems, Men and Womyn, or any other pairing of Evil Oppressors and their Victims.
The Monster on November 24, 2006 at 2:21 PM
…let this ring from the mountain-tops…let it be heard amid the pealings of bells…let the children learn this in their cradles…let the plowman sing this at the blow and the weaver at his shuttle.
…OK, that last was the Bible, but I’m on a roll here….
If we are equal, we are *EQUAL*, not just for the good. Proof of equality *ISN’T* the “first black whatsit” or the “first black female whosits”, it’s holding blacks equally accountable for their citizenship…no more, and certainly no less.
There is no “remedial citizenship”. Justice demands who people who haven’t suffered are our equals, and not allowed to swing from the women’s tee, are allowed to do their pushups from their knees, while the rest of us have to gut it out as adults. Anything less is denying these “junior citizens” full responsiblity, which is what you do with “junior humans…children.
Who *ARE* these black Americans who can’t keep up? Who *ARE* these “other” Americans for whom the entire train has to be slowed down so’s they can hitch a ride? When, if ever, will we then signal to the engineer to get up an adult head of steam? Are we to ground the whole mess to a halt until *EVERYONE* can limp, crawl, slither or step onto the beast to ride on together?
If so, sell the engine for scrap, because we’ll *NEVER* have everyone up to speed. We, as individuals, can reach out for the halt, the bewildered, the frightened, but the train has to travel on.
If he’s allowed to slide by, Mr. Hastings will be another of those dreary “first black thingamajigs”…the first black mistake to head a vitally important Congressional oversight committee. We’ll have him forced down the national throat. It will be proof that you don’t have to be good enough…you only need to be black enough.
That’s as bad as attacking people with fire hoses.
Puritan1648 on November 24, 2006 at 2:27 PM
WooHoo!!!
It’s nice to see CREW doing the heavy lifting.
The Blogosphere’s got this one by the tail and should hammer it home with the aid of FNC.
Jack.
Jack Deth on November 24, 2006 at 3:06 PM
My favorite:
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 24, 2006 at 3:22 PM
Heavy lifting? More like heavy GRIFTING. Don’t be thinking that CREW is on our side, or nonpartisan, or even bipartisan.
CREW’s founder/ Executive Director is Melanie Sloan, a former staffer of both John Conyers and Chuckie Schemer. She was a regular guest on the Al Franken Show, and is allied with Joe Wilson.
Financing for CREW is brought to you in part by “Democracy Alliance,” a group of progressive donors including George Soros, Peter Lewis, and Rob Reiner. Its purpose: to counter conservative Judicial Watch.
These people have calculated that Hastings’ ouster had better be affected by their side than expose themselves to the huge political liability that Hastings represents.
RushBaby on November 24, 2006 at 3:44 PM
note that Hastings was not just impeached for bribery,as the MSM reports, but also for lying under oath at his trial and for disclosing the contents of a confidential court ordered wiretap that affected 2 ongoing criminal investigations.He’s going to be chair of the Intelligence committee?
beens21 on November 24, 2006 at 4:21 PM
My only real question which seems to really bother me is this, ” How does he get the security clearence he needs to hold this major post??” I would really like to know before I start firing off emails to my senators and congressmen. Thanks for any input and for HotAir.
bones47 on November 24, 2006 at 5:39 PM
…except that the bar’s been lowered to subterranian levels on the matter of “lying under oath”, thanks to Slippery William…and the whole “disclosing contents” of anything confidential has been compromised by the light treatment of Leaky Pat Leahy and several of the folks at the CIA who’ve picked and chosen which parts of their oaths they feel bound by.
The motto of the Democratic Party since Clinton: “Everybody does it.”
Puritan1648 on November 24, 2006 at 6:06 PM
Puritan,
Your rant at 2:27PM is completely right on. Allow me to comment on this portion:
That is exactly how socialists want it. They will always craft a “dependent” segment of society, and demand that the haves take more care of the have-nots. It is their channel to money and power. If each person were told (and believed)that they are and must be responsible for their own choices, outcomes, and consequences, the Marxists would lose their source of political pull. It is, and always has been, a massive shell game.
If it isn’t minorities, it’s women, or the handicapped, or the elderly, or college students, or immigrants, or the GLBT huddle, or the underemployed. And it’s ALWAYS “the chirren”.
You ask when? When people stop accepting the lies that it is the government form whom all blessings flow, in the form of taxes. America is the most benevolent, charitable nation on the face of the Earth. But when it is forced by taxation it is no longer charity, it is legalized theft under the Marxist motto of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need”.
The sooner Americans learn to abhor that concept and all of the actions that follow it, the sooner that train gets to open up full power.
The next two years will see that motto enforced more and more, with or without Alcee Hastings in a position of power.
Freelancer on November 24, 2006 at 7:28 PM
A question that needs to be answered is: Why is Soros opposed to Hastings?
georgej on November 25, 2006 at 5:47 AM
RushBaby, you nailed it…….but sometimes you take what you can get, as The Rolling Stones oldie says
Janos Hunyadi on November 25, 2006 at 8:45 PM
*Where* is the logic in thaaaat?
seejanemom on November 25, 2006 at 8:53 PM
A question that has popped up in these comments, and in other places, has been thus (and I’m not directly quoting anyone, here):
“With such a ripe opportunity for blackmail, how can Alcee Hastings get the security clearance necessary to hold such a sensitive position?”
The short answer: He doesn’t need it.
By virtue of the fact that he would chair the Select Intelligence Committee, Hastings would be entitled to eyes-only, top-secret intelligence information by virture of his job. Although I do not know necessarily from firsthand experience, I have known people that served as D.C.-bound pages and interns, and it is assumed that being elected makes one trustworthy enough to deal in such information.
Get the snorkel, John-John. Uncle Teddy’s going swimming again!
gryphon202 on November 26, 2006 at 2:38 AM
gryphon202:
The President is the final arbitor on who “deserves” a security clearance to do his job. Hastings is being foisted on us for political reasons, W can deny him his clearance for the same political reasons. It would then become a constitutional question, with open hearings on Mr. Hastings history and personal finances. Maybe the MSM would even report on some/all of his picadillos. Then again, this is such an egregious security risk, the Dems may be playing the race card here, expecting to be confronted, before selecting someone else.
FWIW, I don’t think W has the political will to confront the DEMs at this point.
I would hope that the congressional leaders would take a page from the DEMs playbook when organizing both house and boycot rule changes that don’t reflect the tie in the Senate
and minority power sharing in the House that have been enacted since 1994, including an even splits on the ethics committees.
enigma00825 on November 28, 2006 at 9:39 AM
Comment pages: