Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

I'm getting quite irritated at the immediate reaction among white male liberal DC kewl kidz (and Maureen Dowd) to discern catty motives on the part of Nancy Pelosi.  Digby's noted it before, but it's not stopping.  Look at the first two paragraphs in an email that Josh Marshall reprints on Pelosi and the Intelligence Committee from a reader called 'RY'.

Don't assume that there's a strategic logic, however inept, behind the delay in the selection of the Committee Chair. If she knew what to do, she would do it. The problem is: a) She hates Harman; 2)Hastings is blatantly inappropriate (and thus will not be selected, no matter how much the CBC squawks); 3) alternative selections to Harman seem strained.

Therefore, she will likely select Harman anyway--appeasing at least two factions, the Blue Dogs, and the MSM, who will praise her for being centrist and pragmatic, rather than vindictive and "ideological." But she just can't stand the thought of it--thus the delay.

Left out of the whole nasty and myopic rant is any possibility that Nancy Pelosi might want someone who can chair the Intelligence Committee who can do a good job running the Intelligence Committee. Is it so unbelievable that Pelosi might think that Jane Harman is unfit to serve as a check on this President's misuse of intelligence?  Harman did after all vaguely support prosecution of the New York Times for revealing the existence of the eavesdropping program.  And that Pelosi is 'waiting' so long couldn't have anything to do with the fact that she has to organize the entire House of Representatives, could it?  Pelosi has given every indication that she wants the House to function; she's calling the House into session and keeping it in session throughout January so members can get to work.

This smearfest smacks of a combination of stupid good government types and rumor mongering right-wing jerks, all swimming in a sea of shallow idiocy where governing is irrelevant and everything is about 'optics', which is what the kewl kidz call gossip so it doesn't sound so petty and superficial.  I'm with Glenn.

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.

Glenn is right.  This Beltway dreck is snide nastiness dressed as commentary.  TPM's email concludes with this paragraph.

Btw, if Pelosi does decide to screw Harman, Holt would be a smart political choice, too, not just on the merits, because this high profile position sets him up nicely to replace octengenarian Frank Lautenberg for the Party's Senate nomination in 2008 (many New Jersey politicos think that Corzine should have picked Holt this time around, rather than the scandal tainted Menendez).

How embarrassing.  While chastising Pelosi for being catty because she has so far prevented Harman from chairing the committee, the reader engages in precisely the emotionally vapid and bitchy characterizations he so laments in Pelosi.  If Harman doesn't get the chairmanship it's because she was 'screwed', not because she is unfit to serve, because Intelligence Committee memberships rotate and Harman's time is up, or because Harman lost a political battle.  

For good measure, this email throws mud at Bob Menendez for being 'scandal tainted', even though there is actually, well, no scandal, and Menendez was just soundly elected by voters who know exactly what they are getting.  Honestly, this is just a suburban white liberal version of bigotry.  I don't mean the rejection of Hastings, because substantively he's a cipher on Intelligence matters and that's reason enough to find someone more suitable to hold this critical post.  I mean the way he's being insulted by the punditocracy.  It's not an unusual situation to have a black man wrongfully accused of a crime in this country, and to so callously throw Hastings aside as tainted, even though he was acquitted of the charges and chosen repeatedly by voters to hold public office, looks insensitive at first, but when you combine this with the needless dig at Menendez, it looks a lot to me like a whole lot of brown people are considered tainted with no evidence whatsoever.  The people of New Jersey elected Menendez and the people of Florida elected Hastings, so attacking them represents precisely that insulting antidemocratic impulse so common in Washington DC courtier culture.  According to this culture, reigning over all must be Speaker Pelosi, who is bitchy and can't possibly want to govern because governing is for silly people, right?

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.

Oh, and by the way RY, a lot of people in New Jersey think Corzine should have picked their friend to be Senator and not Bob Menendez.  But he didn't pick their friend.  He picked Bob Menendez.  And Menendez stomped Tom Kean Jr into the ground. Gossip-as-evidence against women and minorities seems to be a stock in trade these days, doesn't it?

Update: It actually looks a bit worse for the Pelosi-bashers.

Both Harman and Hoyer belong to the moderate Blue Dog Coalition, which gained at least nine members in the last election and was seen as successfully flexing its muscles during the majority leader tussle. But only 18 members, about half of the coalition’s current total, signed a November 15 letter to Pelosi urging her to make Harman the chair of the House Intelligence Committee.

...

“She’s trying to stay on, and I know she’s called a lot of people to generate news articles and a lot of pressure on Ms. Pelosi,” said Waxman, who represents a district adjacent to Harman’s on the heavily Jewish west side of Los Angeles. He added, “The Democratic rules have been that the head of that panel is rotated off after a certain period of time… [and] the idea behind it was that we didn’t want members serving on the intelligence committee permanently; we wanted to give other members a chance to serve on it.”

So not only is Harman not actually supported by the Blue Dog caucus (which requires more than half of members to support something before it becomes a caucus position), Henry Waxman is openly accusing her of orchestrating a campaign of public pressure on Pelosi. That's ridiculous.

Tags: Alcee Hastings, Black Leadership Forum, Blue Dogs, CIA, HIC Chair, House Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, NAACP, Nancy Pelosi, National Urban League, Pelosi, Robert Novak (all tags)

Comments

73 Comments

Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Matt,

Thanks. Sound arguments and I second them.  I am quite impressed with Pelosi's start here and I would like to give her the benefit of the doubt.  

by lynnallen 2006-11-24 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Are you kidding? she has created a nightmare! Harman is the RANKING Dem., she is perfectly qualified. Hastings? great guy, undeniable track-record(oh-oh),house attendance (oops), Pelosi liked him as a judge so much she VOTED to impeach him. He takes the chair,it will be ugly in the press. Defend his past, and look at his no votes. Good grief, we are ready to rule and this is the agenda? Pelosi do the right thing. You put him in and you will be history for anything other than ninkumpoop(?)

by riverdan1900 2006-11-24 10:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

When Bush wanted to appoint a Republican Congressman as director of the CIA, Jane Harman said it wasn't the right time to fight Bush.  When did she ever lead a fight against the national security state?

by darrow 2006-11-25 03:08PM | 0 recs
Speaker Pelosi do the right thing

Dont listen to pundits,  just do the right thing, not what pundits think is popular, centrist or moderate.

by jasmine 2006-11-24 02:58PM | 0 recs
You Talk About A Bad Hair Day

Try to top FBI hair-and-fiber expert Michael Malone's bad hair day.  He found the blanket in the back of a van owned by a man accused of kidnapping, raping and strangling a young woman had hairs matching those of the young woman.

Trouble is the defendant's defense counsel stumbled on the fact that Michael Malone was given the wrong blanket.

Michael Malone said though, in his own defense, that the hairs matched.  They always matched for Michael Malone.  Even when other experts didn't seem to be able to see those matches.

Michael Malone was also called on to prove the jury was wrong for exonerating Alcee Hastings.  You could always count on Michael.  He did it again.  Had to make up some stuff but he came through like always.  John Conyers was mighty impressed.  John Conyers, former prosecutor, was always impressed by evidence an FBI expert like Michael Malone made up.

Tobin mentioned getting heartburn when he saw Malone manipulate evidence in the Hastings case.

"Forensic prostitution," Tobin called it.

Whitehurst was floored. He had worked next door to Malone for three years and never heard anything bad about him.

"Some people in the lab were real testosterone tyrants," Whitehurst recalls. "They were going to make a case for prosecutors no matter what. Malone didn't strike me that way."

Shortly after that conversation, Whitehurst was suspended for a week. His offense: Without first notifying prosecutors, he told a defense expert in a San Francisco bomb-trafficking case that another agent had misstated forensic evidence.

http://truthinjustice.org/good-cop.htm

Naughty, naughty.

Whitehurst was later fired and Malone promoted.

Anybody can have a bad hair day now and then.

Thanks, Matt.

Pelosi is going to be tested for sure.  My guess is she is going to be found wanting in this case.  After all you know how those African-Americans are.  Kind of like those Latinos like Menendez.  Maybe even worse.

Can't say I will fault her too much frankly. But I do so hope she stands tall against the lynch mob.  She will look like a giant to me.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-24 03:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Left out of the whole nasty and myopic rant is any possibility that Nancy Pelosi might want someone who can chair the Intelligence Committee who can do a good job running the Intelligence Committee.

It would seem to me she already knows. She's been around long enough to know the strengths and weaknesses of House members.

Organizing the entire House of Representatives is probably the larger factor.

by SPIIDERWEB 2006-11-24 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

The people of New Jersey elected both Menendez and Hastings, so attacking them represents precisely that insulting antidemocratic impulse so common in Washington DC courtier culture.

Slight adjustment there, Alcee Hastings represents Florida's 23rd Congressional District, he's not from New Jersey.

by RyeGuy5555 2006-11-24 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi
Hastings is from Florida not New Jersey.
by robliberal 2006-11-24 03:36PM | 0 recs
Is another scenario possible...
Is there any possibility she could make a deal with Harman and Hastings and move them to other committees and give them some type of chairmanship there?
by robliberal 2006-11-24 03:40PM | 0 recs
No room, I think

Unfortunately, Pelosi has boxed herself in rather.

Pretty much all the ranking members have pencilled themselves in to move in the chair of their committees. There may be one or two subcommittees sufficiently juicy to be considered equivalent to a full committee (Murtha on defense apps has a little goldmine), but even there, ranking members will want their spoils.

(Ford's and Case's assignments are up for grabs, if that's any use...)

So - if Harman gets kicked off the HIC, and gets nothing elsewhere, the Blue Dogs and their friends kick up a fuss; if Hastings doesn't get the HIC chair, the CBC goes bananas; if Reyes isn't next in line, the CHC joins in the fun.

There is no good outcome here politically.

Rush Holt (NJ-12 - that's the only NJ connection here, I think!) is the dark horse choice of some pundits - including Josh Marshall, I vaguely remember.

Desperation? Inspiration? Either way, he should be prepared for the call, I reckon!

by skeptic06 2006-11-24 04:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Are we for ethics or aren't we?

Hastings was impeached as a judge.
I don't care if was acquitted; that is a legal burden, not an ethical one.  Tom Delay may very be acquitted; it doesn't mean he is ethical.  And he got elected repeatedly.

We gained control in part to combat the culture of corruption.  I respect Pelosi, but this pettiness is getting ridiculous (anybody remember her recruitment of Tim Roemer as a DNC candidate simply to oppose Martin Frost, who had the nerve to contest the minority leader position in 2002 when it was open?).

It's time to stop finding excuses for those like Hastings who haven't measured up ethically -- unless we want to return to the minority.

Props to TPM, once again, for their great insight

by v2aggie2 2006-11-24 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Are we for ethics or aren't we?

I think ethics are good to have.  

Heckfire I even think ethnics are fine.  Even George Allen likes those.

How about you?

Hastings was impeached as a judge.

Jesus Christ was crucified between two thieves.  Doesn't necessarily mean He was a bad guy.  Makes some people wonder I suppose.

How about you?

I think it all depends on the evidence.

I don't care if was acquitted; that is a legal burden, not an ethical one.

I guess the evidence doesn't matter to you.

Did you mean the burden was an "ethnical" one rather than "ethical?"

There are disturbing reports that Jesus Christ was a Jew too.  People been killing Jews ever since.  Did it even before that.  George Allen could tell you all about that.

I wonder if Hastings is a Jew.  Sure a lot of people trying to crucify him too.

Maybe you could explain why.  I don't get it.

It's time to stop finding excuses for those like Hastings who haven't measured up ethically -- unless we want to return to the minority.

Got to watch those ethnic minorities all right.

Then again we all are.

Doesn't make it right, of course.  You got me there.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-24 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Well, I'm an Indian-American, so I guess I'm out get other ethnic minorities such as myself then, based on your logic

by v2aggie2 2006-11-24 06:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Well, I'm an Indian-American, so I guess I'm out get other ethnic minorities such as myself then, based on your logic

My logic?

Not everyone is terribly concerned if a fellow minority is a macaca (you should pardon the expression) though some seem to be.  We Saamis don't always worry a whole lot if ignorant folk use the Laplander slur.  Probably would be as pleased as Mr. Sidarth was when he became a Great American hero.

It's simply awful not even being recognized as a minority.  

Like George Allen's mother, my mother never told me by the way though my aunt and uncle told me we weren't those people.  Which is how I found out.

If you come across another Saami-American, please, please let me know.  Never met one except my brother and sisters and they don't even care.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-25 05:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Charming

by bedobe 2006-11-25 06:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Even worse, Harman is DLC which you only sign up for if you want to be bribed by corporations.

by Bob Brigham 2006-11-24 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcee_Hasti ngs

Well, take this for what it was worth, but Hastings was impeached by a vote of 413-3.

Voters to impeach included Reps. Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers and Charles Rangel.

Hastings is one of only 6 judges to be removed by the US Senate.  Not exactly a large group

by v2aggie2 2006-11-24 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi
Another factor is this all took place 25 years ago. I do not know all of the facts of the case but it is bothersome that a court acquitted him but Congress still voted to impeach him. If ever in American history there was a need for the impeachment process to be used the argument could be made that it should have been used in the past 6 years against a number of people but that has not happened. In our society and especially in the Democratic Party we do believe in a sense of fairness and rehabilitation of individuals who do things wrong at some point in their life.
by robliberal 2006-11-24 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

True, it was 25 years ago, and people deserve 2nd chances -- which Hastings has received.

It appears, per the Wikipedia article, that a co-defendent, who did go to jail refused to testify against Hastings.  I don't know if that is a positive or negative for Hastings from a perception standpoint.

Still, ethics is a big deal for me, no matter how long ago a transgression may have occurred.  And it should be a major factor for committee chairmanships.  I have hated the last 12 years immensely from the Congressional ethics standpoint, and feel that any thing that even smacks of not promoting ethics needs to be avoided at all costs.  It's only a start but it needs to be done

by v2aggie2 2006-11-25 11:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Props to TPM, once again, for their great insight

Did you actually read what TPM posted or did you just take what others said and loved the dirty parts like George Allen reading Jim Webb's novels about a war George Allen liked living vicariously:

Try this:

Alcee and the Leak

By Justin Rood - November 22, 2006, 3:43 PM

-

When the House impeached federal judge Alcee Hastings in 1989, 16 of the 17 counts had to do with a bribery allegation dating to 1981, as we detailed yesterday. But one count was different...

It was an accusation that in 1985, he leaked secret government information that ruined three FBI probes.

The House voted to impeach Hastings on that count, known as "Article XVI," but the Senate unanimously voted to acquit, blasting the House prosecutors for using "weak" evidence, leaving "gaping holes" in their proof and "fail[ing]. . . to identify any credible motive" for Hastings to leak the information.

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002 028.php

This is the way Digg reported that:

Can Alcee Hastings be trusted with our National Secrets? Just the possibility that Hastings is being considered for such a sensitive post speaks volumes about how Washington puts politics first over the welfare of the people. In 1985, he leaked secret government information that ruined three FBI probes.

http://digg.com/search?s=hastings

No wonder Bush is fixing to dump Karl Rove according to reports.  Karl is a raw amateur compared to some "progressives" in the lynch mob here.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-25 02:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Yes, I did read it

by v2aggie2 2006-11-25 11:29AM | 0 recs
Speaker Pelosi
One way to gauge the excessive scrutiny and criticism of Pelosi's leadership is to look back at media coverage of the installation of Denny Hastert as Speaker of the House.  There's already been more hot air and bullshit written about Pelosi than there was in Hastert's entire term.
And she hasn't even picked up the gavel yet.
by global yokel 2006-11-24 03:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi
this is how it always goes once the dems have a little power.  
I think part of it is not all just gop asslicking.  I do think some of it stems from not understanding the nature of democrats.
The MSM are use to the strict discipline of the gop and the strict ways of them with the MSM.  They are use to assholes and being treated like garbage.
Along comes the dems who are open and they distrust this and go overboard.  They are confused by the lack of discipline and our independent bent.  Our need to speak up even if to buck the party.
But, truthfully, I still feel like reaching in and yelling at them to quit trashing Pelosi.  Quit saying she is not good.  How would they know.  They never came to her press confrences over the summer or talked to her.
by vwcat 2006-11-24 04:21PM | 0 recs
Not really logical

The fact that the process was abused once (or this once in particular) doesn't mean it was abused every time someone was impeached.

Nixon's impeachment (if it had gone through) wouldn't have made Clinton's any less abusive, nor vice versa.

by skeptic06 2006-11-24 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

I really wish I had some handle as to whether anyone, anywhere really cares what the MSM says. Maybe the Bush administration has given us the gift of "We care what you do, not what you or anyone else says about it."

by justfrank 2006-11-24 04:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

It may be that little politics will trump big Politics here. Let's hope not.
We need the Intel chairs in both chambers to pick up the FISA issue again and how. Harman is Bush's girl on this issue, and if Nancy is being petty for not wanting someone closer to Dubya's position than that of her own caucus as Intel chair, then I'm down with petty.
In all seriousness, Dems who fought tooth and nail for the November results deserve two things:

  • A government that works
  • A fix for what went wrong

Jane won't do anything for #2, IMHO.

by Josalo 2006-11-24 05:00PM | 0 recs
Kick ass and take names

Pelosi's like the new kid in school who has to bloody a few noses before he's accepted.

The scumbags you're talking about admire "The  Hammer" and "The Boy Genius" because of their perceived toughness.

Pelosi's got to make her bones. And there's no better way than by seating Jennings in FL-13 and laughing at the Republicans when they whine and bitch.

She'll probably make the cover of Time with Joe Klein oohing and ahhing at her boldness.

by stevehigh 2006-11-24 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Until this the decision is made, it's all noise. The people making all of that noise serve to remind - those who know, don't talk - those who don't know, talk.

by Michael Bersin 2006-11-24 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Harman would be horrible choice.  During the whole torture debate a while back Harman called a press conference(broadcast on C-span) to announce her solution to the problem.  She suggested legislation, as near as I can remember, that made it legal for the president to engage in some types of torture during what she described as "limited extraordinary circumstances" as long as the president informed a few select congressmen on the intelligence committee in private that it had done so.  Oh, and the president was going to be the arbiter of what exactly extraordinary circumstances meant and what type of torture was okay.  The whole crowd at the press conference looked aghast and the questions were very skeptical.  Thankfully, the legislation seems to have gone no where.

by Contrariwise 2006-11-24 05:35PM | 0 recs
You Talk About Your Kids Leaving Dirty Handprints

Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania - The Old Jail

The Old Jail was in use until the mid-late 1970s as the Carbon County Jail. It's now open for tours. The tour operator does a great job of showing you all the different areas in the jail from the regular cellblocks to the solitary confinement areas in the basement to the famous Cell 17, where a man, convicted of conspiracy to murder, left his handprint on the wall as he was being led to the gallows. He said that the handprint would remain for all time to prove his innocence, and it's survived being cleaned, being painted over, being concreted over and having a new wall put in. You figure it out. [Rich Hurd, 10/27/2002]

http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tips/getA ttraction.php3?tip_AttractionNo==6815

You can get a photocopy of the print for a buck or something.  Don't see how the handprint of Alec Campbell that they have tried to scrub off, whitewash over, paint over without luck proves he was innocent.  The crowd loved seeing him hang by the way, along with the others.  They had to open the prison doors so the huge crowd could see justice from the street.

seven men where hanged inside the jail, accused of being Molly Maguires. The Molly Maguires was a secret organization, composed mainly of Irish Catholics, that started one of the first labor movements in the country. Since the Irish were not well regarded by many facets of society at the time, one of the only jobs they could get was working in the coal mines.

What with leaving their dirty fingerprints on things, is it any wonder the English mine owner would want to hang those ethnics?  Had to kill one of his supervisors to do it, the story goes but at least the mine owner saved on the supervisor's wages.  If they had hanged them all, Sirhan Sirhan wouldn't have had to do such a half-ass job of cleaning up a loose end in another century and get in trouble for it yet.

Now, does anybody want to talk about Michael Malone, FBI hair-and-fiber expert, making up evidence to convict people, guilty or innocent?  Or do we just say, hang 'em?  

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-24 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

These words are almost impossible for me to type, but Newt Gingrich actually had the right idea. He wanted to start moving away from seniority in determining committee chairs and towards actual merit, on the Parliamentary model. In a Parliamentary system, choosing cabinet ministers among your oldest members would be considered lunacy. The fact that out of over two hundred members, including many with absolutely stellar backgrounds in military and security matters, the choice comes down to these two is a sorry comment not about Pelosi or the Democrats, or any faction therein, but about the unwritten (yet somehow unquestionable) traditions of the congress.

by thesleepthief 2006-11-24 05:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

The fact that out of over two hundred members, including many with absolutely stellar backgrounds in military and security matters, the choice comes down to these two is a sorry comment

From my experience in working in intelligence in Vietnam, I can't think of a finer choice than Alcee Hastings anwhere to chair Intelligence (HPSCI)?

Perhaps you could help us out with the name of someone you think better suited to safeguard us from those who are willing in pursuit of intelligence to disregard fundamental liberties than a civil libertarian?

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-24 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Perhaps a civil libertarian who hasn't accepted bribes or suborned perjury?

by taliesin 2006-11-24 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Perhaps a civil libertarian who hasn't accepted bribes or suborned perjury?

You have evidence of such or doesn't evidence matter to you?

It seems few care when slinging mud. Mudballs are a lot of fun huh?

Everybody else is doing it you say?  Why can't you?

Why indeed.

You can.  You just did in fact.

Make you feel good did it?

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-25 01:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Do I have evidence? Are you actually serious? The man was impeached and convicted of such by a Democratic Congress! Even if you think the charges were "trumped up," as you seem to, it's clear that in any case there is ample evidence to support such charges. I happen to believe that in the case of corruption of public officials, most of the time where there's smoke, there's fire. YMMV.

However, if anyone here is engaging in fact-free discourse, it is certainly you. What evidence have you offered that Hastings was in fact innocent?

by taliesin 2006-11-29 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

The right wing noise machine just can't wait to rip apart the demos. on everything or anything they try to do that deviates one inch from Bu$hworld. I'm ignoring most of what their saying because it mostly amounts to SORELOSERMAN whinning. OHHH that felt so good to say. Fuck them if they can't take a joke. Maybe, they should just GET OVER IT and MOVE ON.

by Blutodog 2006-11-24 05:58PM | 0 recs
After all that midterm fight, same old, same old?

It was never "just Lieberman"! There's a whole state within a state out there with the members harbouring "dual citizenship"!

Harman = AIPAC, i.e. NOT the USA!

For heaven's sake, Wake Up, People! Your country needs you!

by Freedom 2006-11-24 06:16PM | 0 recs
The distinction is...

...Hastings was not just impeached but convicted and removed from office.  Not slamming you; prior comments should have made that clear.

by lonemorriscodem 2006-11-24 06:27PM | 0 recs
The distinction is...

...Hastings was not just impeached but convicted and removed from office.  Not slamming you; prior comments should have made that clear.

by lonemorriscodem 2006-11-24 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

The Clinton impeachment was a witch hunt dealing with a consensual relationship unrelated to Clinton's job as president.

Hastings impeachment was related to activities directly related to his position as a judge.

There is a big difference

by v2aggie2 2006-11-24 06:47PM | 0 recs
Just For The Hell of It, Let's Look

at what has happened on Jane Harman's watch while she was defending Bush and minions:

The Saudis, in particular, are alarmed at Iran's spreading influence in Lebanon. "There has been a serious increase in (Iranian and Syrian) activity in the rearming of HIzballah," says Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi security advisor who is managing director of the Riyadh-based Saudi National Security Assessment Project, a consulting group that advises the Saudi government. Obaid contends that "a huge stream of trucks" has been crossing the border from Syria into Lebanon, ferrying thinly disguised shipments of arms.

Moreover, Obaid says, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Iran's Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) are using the Iranian embassies in Damascus and Beirut as command and control centers -- an allegation that was also confirmed to TIME by Israeli military sources. Obaid says there appear to be direct communications links between the Iranians and Hizballah, via Hizballah officers working inside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, and Iranian officers in the field with Hizballah fighters; in the past, some Middle East analysts have rejected the popular notion that Hizballah takes direct orders from Iran.

Iran's apparent efforts to destabilize Lebanon and to expand Shi'ite influence in Iraq and throughout the region are of major concern to the Saudi government

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0 ,8599,1562890,00.htm?cnn=yes

The most effective counterbalance to Iranian Shiites was Saddam Hussein.  Jane Harman apparently agreed it was a mighty fine idea to have a terrorist government in Baghdad instead of the Butcher of Baghdad.  So she went along with the play acting.  Or did she?  Was she "out of the loop" or right in the middle of the action?  Either way she don't look so hot to me.

Whoever is chosen is not likely to be a former spook.  Not terribly likely anyone in the House of ill repute has a technical background.  Geopolitical knowledge seems verboten in Jim Baker's advisory group, in the White House and in Congress.  Silvestre Reyes as a former border patrol agent has experience in law enforcement but what particular credibility does he have in espionage or counterintellegence?

Folks here talk about choices.  Somebody got some ideas about anyone better than Hastings to watch these birds?

I agree with the poster who said we were just wasting our time.  Pelosi will decide whatever is to be decided.  True enough but there is a lot of bandwidth available to be wasted.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-24 06:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Once again, MyDD hits the ball out of the park.  Superb post.

I have stopped visiting Marshall's site.  It's Drudge with make-up.

by Ethelred 2006-11-24 07:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Great Post, Matt -- minor correction. You wrote:

The people of New Jersey elected both Menendez and Hastings

It should read:

The people of New Jersey elected Menendez and the people of Florida HD-23 elected Hastings . . .

by ck 2006-11-24 07:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

I agree with Matt 100%, how dare people accuse Robert Menendez of corruption! Don't they know he isnt white? (racists!)

It's the same thing they did against the supposedly corrupt Sharpe James, and instead the white liberals supported their favorite son Corey Booker (the white candidate). What racism!

Now you have these racist white liberals at MyDD.com trying to smear William Jefferson & lead a coup against him. I guess he's just too black for them , and would instead like their own white folks ringer candidate to do their bidding. (racists!)

It's not that I disagree with you Matt (although you can give your huffy puffy "anyone accusing a non-melanin deficient human being of corruption or impropriety is de facto racism), but give the self righteous race baiting a rest. Or at least, you know, let us hear it from someone who may actually know something about racism (like Jill Tubman) and not wealthy, prep school, Ivy League white males yourself, who don't.  

by DRR7799 2006-11-24 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

I guess I could be offended and annoyed, but that would be as boring as your comment.  No, I'm not wealthy, and yes, I went to an Ivy League school.  And yes, I'm white.

What is remarkable is how you don't even realize that being white isn't THE mainstream, but is in fact a racial identify as freighted with baggage as being black or brown.  It's not the same experience, obviously, but to say that I can't discuss racism because I can't understand it is your boring standard attempt to shut off a real dialogue about race.

by Matt Stoller 2006-11-24 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

People don't like William Jefferson because he's black?  Have you ever read up on this guy?  

The greatest American of the 20th Century asked that I not judge people by the color of their skin: if I must, that I judge them by the content of their character.  I think that's a pretty good idea.

I don't like Jefferson because he is a crook.

by markt 2006-11-25 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

I think you missed the joke

by v2aggie2 2006-11-25 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Matt, great post!  What the hell is up with TPM?   And, why should progressives have to defend the democratic decisions of any particular district?  

by jncamane 2006-11-24 09:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi
How about Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee?
- She's very smart -
_ She's very tough -
- She's very black -
And she's a Texan (just to prove dem.s aren't prejudiced) - She reminds me of Barbara Jordan, maybe not as eloquent, but very articulate and forceful.
by john in california 2006-11-24 10:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

How about Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee?
- She's very smart -
_ She's very tough -
- She's very black -
And she's a Texan

How nice.

She know anything about the spy business or does that matter along with all those stupendous credentials like reputedly being black?

Wouldn't it be helpful to know something about intelligence?

Of course we could have Jane Harman (though she isn't "black," who says she just didn't know about all that bad stuff that was going on though they told her.

Maybe Sheila Jackson Lee will listen or maybe she won't.  

One guy that did was Hastings.

No wonder folks hate him worse than poison.  

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-25 02:11AM | 0 recs
Taegaerd Goddard's PoliticalWire Reports In

TPM Muckraker makes a persuasive case that one of the articles of impeachment "cuts to the very core of whether Hastings is suitable to chair the House intelligence committee."

And this is part of what TPM Muckraker reported about that article of impeachment as above:

the Senate unanimously voted to acquit, blasting the House prosecutors for using "weak" evidence, leaving "gaping holes" in their proof and "fail[ing]. . . to identify any credible motive" for Hastings to leak the information.

Persuasive?

Move over, Drudge.  You ain't got what these progressive have in the dirtball business.  Take some notes, pilgrim.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-25 02:32AM | 0 recs
Hanging Sam They Called Him

General Sam Williams was a tough guy.  At least he shouted awful loud and man oh man could he shout. He got the appelation Hanging Sam from being a judge at Nuremberg.  

Hanging Sam was Da Top Boss in Vietnam when I was there and nobody much had heard of Vietnam.

One day Hanging Sam got all his intelligence officers together and yelled at them even louder than usual.  "I can get sergeants to do what I tell them to do," shouted Hanging Sam.

There was one phrase in one sentence in one long report that seemed to suggest that we might not be winning against the terrorists.

That was against policy.  No wonder Sam was fit to hang somebody.  And Sam had demonstrated he was more than willing.

Many years later LBJ told reporters, after he was no longer president, that the president had all those intelligence reports that other people didn't have and knew all that stuff other people didn't.

LBJ forgot to mention that the intelligence reports told him what he wanted to hear.

Kind of like the things folks usually read.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-25 02:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

"And that Pelosi is 'waiting' so long couldn't have anything to do with the fact that she has to organize the entire House of Representatives, could it?"

She should have already had some idea of who would  do what.  Her problem is making good on her ethics requirements.  

Finding the gray areas harder to sort into black and white is nothing new.  Gingrich had the same problem: allies once the good solid trooper now have the taint of scandal and corruption wafting about, and the enemy is going to spend time and money to make that stink stick, even if they created it in the first place.

And THAT'S taking a while.  There's plenty of hacks willing to take the position and clearly prove that they are not qualified to hold the seat.  What Pelosi must do is find the best person, and then convince her colleagues it's in their best interests, as a whole, for the next election cycle 2 years from now to support her decision.  

I know he doesn't have any direct link to the process, but Dean needs to be in this up to his elbows.  Decisions made now effect his efforts too.

by markt 2006-11-25 03:44AM | 0 recs
Assuming Blue Dogs are 'sleeping dogs'?

Pelosi has, by leaks, let it be known, publicly and repeatedly, that she does not want Harman as HIC chair.

Pelosi is the Speaker-Presumptive of the first Dem-controlled House in 12 years.

Those who put their heads above the parapet to challenge Pelosi had better know their ground pretty damned well.

So - Matt's linked Forward piece - public support from the Blue Dogs is a tad on the thin side? Perhaps (yay, Nancy!), that's a measure of the fear that she's engendered as lioness. They know they'll be seeking reelection from a Nancy-controlled House, and that is a marked disincentive to Nat Turnerize - at least, to do so too loudly, too soon.

Constrast Brer Hastings's supporters:

The Black Leadership Forum, an umbrella group that includes the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Urban League and other organizations, supported Hastings in a November 9 letter to Pelosi.

One of the reasons noised abroad for Pelosi's hostility to Harman was that (so twas said) Harman had primed a claque of supporters to lobby Pelosi for the HIC job.

Hmmm...

I hoping Pelosi is taking her time over this one!

by skeptic06 2006-11-25 04:11AM | 0 recs
Guess who's coming to support Hastings?

Saving the best till last. From the pen of Robert Novak - boo! hiss! - himself:

Senior CIA officials consider Harman a prima donna and say they dread the thought of dealing with her as chairman. They would much prefer Hastings, finding him consistently cooperative.

I leave to Hastings' sympathisers the parsing of consistently cooperative.

But - you have to marvel at exactly how much the GOP wants Hastings in the HIC hot seat. The love that dare not speak its name.

That plus Jefferson coming back to DC from LA-2 would be some kind of Christmas present. After a not-too-good November and all...

(Oh, yes, of course Novak may be lying. But - passes the plausibility test.)

by skeptic06 2006-11-25 04:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

I leave to Hastings' sympathisers the parsing of consistently cooperative.

Could you please find us just one?

I think Hastings would be a wonderful chair of Intelligence.  I think he has been badly used and misrepresented, falsely accused and wrongly convicted of impeachment based on fabricated evidence as shown to you.  You did read about Michael Malone did you not?

Is that what you call sympathy?  I have sympathy for you, my friend, but not for Hastings.  He needs none.  

That plus Jefferson coming back to DC from LA-2

Would you kindly explain what you believe the crook who stashes his loot in the freezer has to do with the wrongly accused judge from Florida?  Is it then your opinion that the color of one's skin is all that matters?

You might need a lot more sympathy than I can give if so.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-25 05:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

No to Hastings No to Harmen.

Yes to RUSH HOLT NJ who has the experience, the track record,the unquestioned integrity and the intellect for the task.

It would be nice to see a new face at the table...and one that could be trusted.

by sammy1 2006-11-25 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi
Terry, Why are you so dismissive? I'm just a citizen, get my news from cspan and the web,and  don't know any of these folks personally. But from that perspective, Shiela Jackson Lee looks very good, not 'nice', good. Sitting on a commitee may give one experience in issues and characters you are going to confront, but so does that multi million dollar staff that all of these guys rely on to do the heavy lifting (I bet even when the Rep.s get a chance to read the bills before voting, it wont be them doing the reading). And Hastings will still get to ask questions, so his expertise will not be lost. Lee is very smart and in no way a republican lite (Harman).  She woundn't give them the benifit of the doubt or gloss over problems. And being black (and very smart)is important. She would be in the news a lot. She would be speaking on the talk shows, dualing with the pundits. She would be a prominent national face of the democratic party. It's important for the country and it's important for the party that she is black (and w/o scandal).
I only vaguely remember Hastings' impeachment, but since his name has arisen for this chair, it is always appended w/ 'formerly impeached judge' ect. Just or not, that will always be the perception MSM will bring. Democrats have bigger fish to fry than one man's advancement, and Lee can do the frying.
by john in california 2006-11-25 07:42AM | 0 recs
john in california

Terry, Why are you so dismissive? I'm just a citizen, get my news from cspan and the web,and  don't know any of these folks personally.

I know none of them either.

Shiela Jackson Lee looks very good, not 'nice', good.

I really don't mean to be dismissive of the lady.  I know nothing at all about her.  She might be a wonderful choice to do most anything.

I regret most sincerely that I gave any such impression.

I only vaguely remember Hastings' impeachment, but since his name has arisen for this chair, it is always appended w/ 'formerly impeached judge' ect. Just or not, that will always be the perception MSM will bring.

But you see, John, that is precisely my problem.

If good people's integrity and character and qualifications can be impugned and they can be rejected for a position on little more than fabricated evidence and hate mongering, then we are all in trouble.

At least that is my way of thinking.

I have some small knowledge of intelligence from experience.  I have only read about Mr. Hastings and his qualifications.

I know only too well the horrendous damage a monster like FBI expert Michael Malone has done.  Not to me personally but to a friend who will likely never be free again though he is quite innocent in my opinion.  There is not the slightest doubt about fabricated evidence as in the case of Judge Hastings.

It bugs me, John, for very personal reasons.

I think it should bother the conscience of others but that is up to each to judge on their own.

I apologize again for seeming to have slighted Ms. Lee.  I meant no harm to the lady.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-25 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Terry, if you want to argue by simply burying the other side in an avalance of words, I would suggest you apply for Bill O'Reiley's job.  It's really damned annoying here.  Yes, we know you love Hastings (really, we get it).  Yes, we know you think anybody who has any questions about him is a racist.  Just shut up about it already.

by libdevil 2006-11-25 08:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Terry -'nough said - I'm going to see what info I can find on Hastings and make a more informed judgement ( although I doubt the MSM will) -

by john in california 2006-11-25 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Take

Wow- a lot of commentary- Matt- nice catch on the Menendez smear. Hastings: what I read in TPM is indeed troublesome- I have not heard an explanation on the wired call-certainly it is not enough  to convict him but nevertheless- I am curious to know what else was going on besides a bribery-anybody know? Has hastings specifically address the phone call? And isn't a judge not supposed to have ex parte communications with an attorney in a case? Harman- well what I have seen is that she does well on TV- however, why can't she just abide by the wishes of others- she is simply too controversial.

by RAULC 2006-11-25 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Take

what I read in TPM is indeed troublesome- I have not heard an explanation on the wired call

How about just reading what was said rather than imagining that there was some sort of secret code?

If you are determined to find what was not there, you can imagine all manner of things.  There was no mention of a purported bribery.  No one claims that Hastings was given any money as far as I know.  The entire case is concocted out of whole cloth just as with the "damning" phone call.

Even John Conyers wanted to reopen the case when the evidence of FBI misconduct surfaced.  The Republicans wouldn't have it and nothing was done.

So as it stands, Hastings is guilty only of being victimized by phony evidence.  That should be troubling to everyone I think besides Hastings.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-25 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

I agree -- thanks

by v2aggie2 2006-11-25 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Putting Hastings in as Chair would be giving ammunition to the Rethug slime machine.Rush Holt is the guy for the job.Jane Harman was much too supportive of the Administration on warrantless spying.

by Litvak36 2006-11-25 02:53PM | 0 recs
The Phone Call

This is how the phone call that proves Hastings was guilty of taking a bribe starts and the deep analysis.  [I am not making this up.]

Phone ringing:

(1) B: Yes, my brother.

(2) H: Hey, my man.

(3) B: Uh-huh...

And now the start of the analysis that convinced John Conyers and the House of ill repute that there was proof of bribery:

Lines 1 and 2 appear to be a standard greeting routine between two friends but in line 3 Borders gives a feedback marker, "uh-huh," that suggests a willingness to give up his turn of talk immediately. Oddly, there is no request to Hastings about why he is calling such as "What's up?" or "What's on your mind?" Nor did Borders seize the opportunity to assert his own agenda, such as "I'm glad you called because..."

No novelist could make up stuff this ludicrous.  You can find the full "analysis" @

https:/itre.cis.upenn.edu.proxy.cheri.s hyou.org~myl/languagelog/archives/00372 4.html

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-25 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Terry --

You know, I've been reading your comments for a while and I'm getting awfully tired of your bullying use of race. In this thread alone:

"After all you know how those African-Americans are.  Kind of like those Latinos like Menendez.  Maybe even worse."
"Did you mean the burden was an 'ethnical' one rather than 'ethical?'"
"Got to watch those ethnic minorities all right."
"Karl is a raw amateur compared to some 'progressives' in the lynch mob here."

You know what? That's a dumb and really ugly way of arguing your point. Those of us who are troubled by Hastings's record, and by the use of it that will be made by our opponents on the right, deserve greater courtesy than your patently false blanket assumption that we are moronic bigots motivated by our hatred of black people.

by syntag 2006-11-25 09:09PM | 0 recs
If The Shoe Fits...

I'm getting awfully tired of your bullying use of race.

Best way to end a problem is to recognize it and deal with it.

When Hastings is equated with Jefferson, there is a problem of bigotry.  When Hastings is selected for attack with fabricated evidence, there is a problem that needs an explanation. When John Conyers led off the prosecution by talking about not wanting to believe the evidence against Hastings because of his purported race, there is a race problem. (I deny by the way that ethnicity and race are at all the same thing. Science will verify that denial, if you wish to pursue it privately.)

I could go on but if you refuse to see what is in front of you, that is your problem.

Let's get to the problem.  Hastings was impeached and convicted on the basis of fabricated evidence.  I think it hardly passes the giggle test to claim that the uh's and uh-huh's in a recorded phone conversation are a secret code proving that Hastings was bribed.  When the record of FBI expert Michael Malone in fabricating and falsifying evidence finally surfaced, John Conyers attempted to re-open the case.  The Republicans wouldn't have it.  Malone played a pivotal role in the impeachment and prosecution of Hastings as he had in other notorious cases.  

Instead you want to talk about race.

Talk about it then and don't go off track with more false accusations and defensive maneuvers.  I will be glad to listen.

Those of us who are troubled by Hastings's record

What record?  Most everyone seems to agree that Hastings' record is a most admirable one.  Perhaps you could post the record you find disturbing.

and by the use of it that will be made by our opponents on the right

Republicans and others have no problem at all fabricating evidence just as you are doing.

Your concern for basic courtesy is certainly shared by me. I would be delighted if you choose to exercise some rather than throwing out untoward accusations.

I could find reasons for casting doubt on Hastings appointment if I desired.  For all I really know, Hastings could be dirty as sin but I will not and cannot ever take fabricated evidence and false accusations as sufficient evidence to condemn anyone.  Why are you so willing?

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-25 10:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Take Your Time, Speaker Pelosi

Nice try, Terry.

"For all I really know, Hastings could be dirty as sin but I will not and cannot ever take fabricated evidence and false accusations as sufficient evidence to condemn anyone."

You have looked at the evidence against Hastings and decided that it is insufficient. That's a judgment call. Others have looked at the same evidence and decided that, at the very least, it raises serious questions as to Hastings' innocence -- questions that make him a poor choice to head up the Intelligence committee. That's a judgment call as well. And instead of accepting that some people simply disagree with you about the weight of the evidence or the strategic importance of presenting a clear contrast with republican corruption, you repeatedly and thuggishly accuse those who disagree with you of being bigots.

This is not just calling names; it's calling wolf. And it's a shrill, destructive way to go about an argument.

by syntag 2006-11-25 11:09PM | 0 recs
Fabrication of evidence

You have looked at the evidence against Hastings and decided that it is insufficient. That's a judgment call.

Bullshit.  No serious person denies Michael Malone's fabrications any longer.  One who called for a new look at the evidence because of fabrication was the very person who led the prosecution in the Senate, Representative Conyers.  The FBI was finally forced to give Malone "other duties" when he no longer had the slightest credibility. Josh Marshall came up with another dandy that the law is looking for and then retreated to his corner figuring that Hastings shouldn't be appointed because he was impeached and convicted.  Nevermind the facts.

If you want to seriously argue that the number of uh's in a recorded conversation constitutes a secret morse code be my guest but you will be a laughingstock to all but the black helicopter types.

In line 5, Hastings explains that he's drafted those letters for Hemp, to which Borders says only "uh-huh," accomplishing no more that giving up his turn again. Note that Hastings used the pause filler, "uh," three times in line 5. Pause fillers can accomplish at least three things: to prevent interruption, to provide assurance that more is coming, or to struggle to find the right word to use. In hastily constructed codes, one expects speakers to struggle to find the word that accomplishes the code. These pause fillers tend to occur in exactly those places where the potential code word is to follow:

(4) uh, uh letters

(4) uh, for Hemp

(6) uh, you hear from him

(14) uh, I communicate with him

This fine analysis by a code expert is hilarious.

Now would you care to argue coherently for your case or just continue to spew out accusations?

Up to you.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-26 12:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Fabrication of evidence

Nice try, again.

Take Malone and the purse out of the case entirely. Take the "phone code" analysis out of the case entirely. Very arguably, there's still enough there to support a great deal of suspicion of Hastings's conduct. But you are so dug into your hole of self-righteousness and ethnic paranoia that you simply refuse to accept that other people may simply see this issue differently from you without being knee-jerk bigots.

(May we assume you that also believe that O.J. should be treated as an innocent man because a) he was acquitted in criminal court, b) some of the evidence against him may have been sweetened and c) he was black?)

by syntag 2006-11-26 08:06AM | 0 recs
False Assumptions

(May we assume you that also believe that O.J. should be treated as an innocent man because a) he was acquitted in criminal court, b) some of the evidence against him may have been sweetened and c) he was black?)

No.

Any damn fool can see that OJ escaped justice because of much of the same kind of racist bigotry that pervades the Hastings case.

Interesting sidelight on race.  Forensic matching of hair is pretty much being obsoleted by DNA technology but it played a minor role in the OJ Injustice.  Hair is broadly categorized as caucasoid, negroid and mongoloid.  My postings on the matter have apparently been deleted on numerous occasions because of a terror that the "N-word" might have been used.  I assume that happened on Talkleft - which probably should be renamed Talkright.

When OJ left his cap at Brentwood along with his DNA, footprints and fibers along with a mountain of evidence he was guilty, the "negroid" hairs in OJ's cap were widely reported as being capable of being matched to any other African-American, including especially OJ's older son.  Trouble is OJ didn't have negroid hair.  

Such is the problem with blind racism which exonerates a multiple murderer and convicts an honest judge in spite of the evidence rather than because of it.

Best,  Terry

by terryhallinan 2006-11-26 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: False

I agree that the code analysis was a tad surreal. My only question is whether Hastings has addressed the wired call- yes or no- if yes- what did he say about them- a judge should not be dropping papers or having ex parte communications with one side alone when in litigation unless explictly waived by the prosecution.  It my mind, the actions are not enough to be criminally convicted but they create a preponderance that must be rebutted, and insinuations and mockery are not rebuttals- again, I repeat, does anyone know what Hastings said about the call? If he did not address the call- why not?  

by RAULC 2006-11-27 08:12AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads