Dem who wrote unfair impeachment rules has girlfriend working on staff, in violation of House rules

One of the cocky Democrats responsible for writing the party’s widely-criticized, “unfair” impeachment rules that were voted on this week is reportedly a habitual rule breaker who’s been caught employing his own girlfriend in his congressional office.

That Democrat is House Rules Committee vice-chair Alcee Hastings of Florida, who this week joined his fellow equally cocky Democrats in stonewalling efforts by Republicans to install just a modicum of fairness in their otherwise unfair and unjust impeachment rules.

Cocky Dems stonewall GOP over unfair impeachment rules during contentious meeting https://t.co/6puPuUlcpO

According to an investigation by The Palm Beach Post, this top-ranking Democrat rule-maker has himself been violating House rules by allegedly maintaining a relationship and even cohabitating with one of his staffers.

“Hastings, 83, has employed a disbarred lawyer, Patricia Williams, on his congressional staff since at least 2000. She has been paid nearly $3 million in taxpayer-funded salary since that time,” the outlet reported Thursday.

“Property records show Williams and Hastings bought a $700,000 house together near Boynton Beach in 2017.”

When questioned about this incredible purchase, Hastings seemed to dismiss the Post’s concerns about potential ethics violations.

“However it looks, it’s been looking like that for 25 years,” he reportedly said.

It’s not clear whether there’s ever before in American history been a case of a congressman and his staffer purchasing a home together.

What’s known is that last year the then-GOP-led House-passed “new rules barring members of Congress from having a sexual relationship with a member of his or her staff” and decreed that anyone who violated the new rules could face potential expulsion.

“A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not engage in a sexual relationship with any employee of the House who works under the supervision of the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, or who is an employee of a committee on which the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner serves,” the House’s updated code of conduct reads.

The only exception is for married couples. Hastings and his alleged paramour are not married.

The Post’s report comes only days after disgraced former freshman California Rep. Katie Hill announced her resignation from office over her own violations of these rules.

The allegations against Hill involved her first having an illicit affair with a campaign staffer during the midterms last year, and then having yet another affair — this time with a congressional aide — after her inauguration into office this past January.

The allegations against Hastings, a 26-year congressional veteran, meanwhile, extend beyond the latest matter involving his staffer. Nine years ago, a congressional staffer who worked on the U.S. Helsinki Commission accusing then-commission chairman Hastings of sexual harassment.

“[The victim] alleged that she ‘was forced to endure’ repeated ‘unwelcome sexual advances, crude sexual comments and unwelcome touching’ by Hastings,” NBC News revealed in a report on sexual harassment two years ago.

“In describing the incidents, [she] alleged that Hastings had hugged her multiple times, sometimes in front of witnesses at public events, pressing his whole body against her, and his face to her face. [She] also claimed that after she complained to the commission’s staff director, she was subject to threats of retaliation by both the director and Hastings himself, including ‘threats of termination.'”

Three years later, Congress used taxpayer funds to provide the victim with a $220,000 settlement payment.

✔️Yvette Clarke wrote off $120,000 ✔️Alcee Hastings’ $220,000 settlement ✔️Millions paid to criminal Imran Awan family#TaxCutsandJobsAct #TuesdayThoughts

But as horrific as this sounds, it’s not the worst of the congressman’s antics. Prior to joining Congress in 2013, he worked for ten years as a district judge – up until he was impeached from office in 1989 for having accepted a $150,000 bribe.

Here’s the kicker: The attorney who represented him during the impeachment hearings was Williams, i.e., his current alleged girlfriend.

“Before she was disbarred for misusing client funds, Williams represented Hastings in the 1980s when Hastings was impeached and removed from his position as a U.S. District Court judge,” the Post confirmed. “After he won a seat in the House in 1992, he hired Williams, who is listed by LegiStorm as his deputy district director.”

What with the congressman’s sordid history, one would think that Rules Committee chair Ted Deutch might think it proper to open an investigation into him. Especially given that he, Deutch, was one of the co-sponsors of the House’s new rules pertaining to relationships. But according to the Post, he just doesn’t seem interested in the matter.

“Questions The Post asked Deutch’s office about Hastings were directed to a staff member of the Ethics Committee, who would not comment,” the outlet reported.

“His flouting of the rules is legendary. This is open and shut. He is in violation,” Rep. Barbara Comstock of Virginia said about Hastings’ alleged violations.

Lateresa Jones, one of Hastings’ Republican challengers in the upcoming 2020 race, agreed with the sentiment, though she aimed her fury at Deutch instead.

“Congressman Ted Deutch needs to grow some (courage) and do the right thing by the people,” she said. “This behavior is not acceptable. Alcee Hastings is not above the law.”

The Impeachment Trial of Alcee L. Hastings (1989) U.S. District Judge, Florida

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Hastings.htm

Brief History of the Case

In 1981, a federal grand jury indicted Judge Alcee L. Hastings, appointed to the federal district court in 1979, along with his friend William A. Borders, a Washington, D.C. lawyer. Hastings was charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice for soliciting a $150,000 bribe in return for reducing the sentences of two mob-connected felons convicted in Hastings’ court. A year after Borders was convicted of conspiracy, the result of an FBI sting effort, Hastings’s case came before the criminal court. Despite Borders’ conviction, and the fact that Hastings had indeed reduced the sentences of the two felons, he was acquitted in a criminal court in 1983 and returned to his judicial post.

Subsequently, suspicions arose that Hastings had lied and falsified evidence during the trial in order to obtain an acquittal. A special committee of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals began a new probe into the Hastings case. The resulting three-year investigation ended with the panel concluding that Hastings did indeed commit perjury, tamper with evidence, and conspire to gain financially by accepting bribes. The panel recommended further action to the U.S. Judicial Conference, which, in turn, informed the House of Representatives on March 17, 1987, that Judge Alcee Hastings should be impeached and removed from office.

On August 3, 1988, following an investigation by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, the House of Representatives voted 413 to 3 to adopt H. Res. 499, approving 17 articles of impeachment against Hastings, the greatest number of articles in any impeachment proceeding to date. Charges included conspiracy, bribery, perjury, falsifying documents, thwarting a criminal investigation, and undermining the public confidence “in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” The Senate received the articles on August 9, 1988.

Following the precedent set in the 1986 Claiborne impeachment case, the Senate again chose to refer the matter to a special committee as authorized by impeachment rule XI. On March 16, 1989, the Senate rejected a motion by Hastings to dismiss the case, and adopted S. Res. 38, creating a 12-member trial committee to hear evidence and then report to the full Senate on contested and uncontested facts. The committee was not tasked with making a recommendation on guilt or innocence. Committee hearings continued from July 10, to August 3, 1989. Consisting of six Republicans and six Democrats, the committee heard evidence for and against Hastings, and took testimony from 55 witnesses, including Borders.

The House managers presented convincing evidence that Hastings had, indeed, conspired with Borders to solicit the bribe. Hastings, who appeared in his own defense, objected to the use of the committee, insisting that the full Senate should be required to hear evidence. His motion failed. Hastings also insisted that the Senate trial amounted, in legal terms, to “double jeopardy” since he had already been acquitted in a court of law.

The trial committee presented its report on October 2, 1989. Sixteen days later, the trial began in the U.S. Senate, with prosecution and defense given two hours to summarize their cases. The Senate deliberated in closed session on October 19, 1989. The following day, the Senate voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment, convicting Hastings, by the necessary two-thirds vote, on 8 articles (1-5, 7-9).

Having achieved the necessary majority vote to convict on 8 articles, the Senate’s president pro tempore (Robert C. Byrd) ordered Hastings removed from office. The Senate did not vote to disqualify him from holding future office.

Four years later, Hastings was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the term beginning January 3, 1993.

Alcee Hastings defense team for his impeachment as Disritrict Court judge:

Defense Team

Professor Terence J. Anderson, University of Miami School of Law, chief counsel

Patricia Williams, counsel

John W. Karr, attorney

William G. McLaine, attorney

Robert S. Catz, attorney

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.