Here’s Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) statement before the senate (Oct. 18th, 1989) at the impeachment trial of then-federal Judge Alcee Hastings. (For background on what we’re talking about, see this post from earlier today.) Conyers was the head of the House Judiciary subcommittee which invesitgated the Hastings matter and then served as an impeachment manager (i.e., part of a team of prosecutors) at the senate trial …
Representative Conyers will now conclude the opening argument on the part of the House.
Mr. Manager CONYERS. Mr. President, Mr. Majority Leader, Mr. Minority Leader, Members of this distinguished body, when I came to the Congress 25 years ago, to this body from the civil rights movement, in part, from local activity, I think I was one of four black Members of the House. My agenda focused then, as it does today, on increasing access to political power for African-Americans and members of other minority groups who for so long have been excluded from positions of influence and authority in American life. I have seen some progress in this past quarter of a century and I also know, as you do, that we still have a long way to go.
As a lawyer who occasionally got into courtrooms, I have been before my share of hostile judges, racist judges, in the North and the South. I found nothing more satisfying, in the course of my congressional career, than to help the development of a capable and vigorous bar of African-American lawyers, men and women, and the elevation of some of its more outstanding practitioners to the prestigious position of Federal judge where they can serve, not merely as dispensers of equal justice under the law, but as models for their community and for the Nation.
So, I am saddened to come before you today to urge the removal of one of the handful of black judges who presently occupy the Federal bench. I am not happy to come here to argue that Alcee L. Hastings has forfeited his right to one of the most honored places in this American political system. But we did not wage the civil rights struggle in order to substitute one form of judicial corruption for another.
I do not question that Alcee Hastings is a man of extraordinary accomplishment who once contributed much to his community and to the Nation. But that recognition only saddens me all the more because his conduct of the last 9 years does not diminish his former accomplishments any more than his former accomplishments excuse his more recent misdeeds. It is precisely because he betrayed his trust and betrayed those who looked to him for leadership, the possibility of a fairer, better system, that our obligation to face the truth as we see it in this matter before us is so great.
This man has been a role model for all who want to see justice administered, administered with fairness and compassion, without regard to race or wealth. Instead, we argue that he must be removed from office, so that he may not teach others that justice may be sold and that our system of justice may be beaten by continuous outrageous prevarication; by blaming others and the system for one’s own transgressions.
I cannot explain or have any claim to understand what caused the metamorphosis of this man. I can only deal with my impression of the facts, and they lead me to the indisputable conclusion that he has betrayed his office and is no longer fit to wield the power and authority that has been bestowed upon him.
No one could have been more skeptical than I at the start of this process. No one more anxious to ensure that this man be neither penalized for his race or insulated by his race, from the consequences of wrongful conduct. No one was more predisposed to believe the best of Judge Hastings and his case and to doubt his accusers. I said so.
I was also sympathetic to the notion that the jury verdict should have settled the matter. We had a delegate speaking on that with supposedly great authority just yesterday.
As chairman of the subcommittee that held the evidentiary hearings in the Congress, however, I began to reacquaint myself with the law in this matter. I may have had more to do with impeachment proceedings than anybody around here. And I heard some evidence that forced me to reevaluate my position, the evidence presented, not only in my subcommittee but over here as a manger. I have heard this thing twice. And what I have seen and heard and studied and listened to and reread and argued with my staff counsel and back and forth has only matured my conclusion that, measured by any standard, Judge Hastings’ guilt has been established and Congress has an obligation to protect the integrity of the judiciary.
Whether, as for me, the conclusion of guilt tears at your soul, and it used to do that for me, should not deter you from making a decision that you will have to make. A few years ago the Congress grappled with the very question of what the standard of proof should be in an impeachment trial. Currently we choose to leave it to the decision of each Member, as it should be. So the House does not ask you to reach your decision lightly or based just on what we did or even just what your committee did.
Each of you have to review this yourself. But what we do ask is that when you weigh the evidence, you take into account the nature of the competing interests, for that is what is reflected in the concept of the standard of truth. It is the balancing of the interests of the public against those of any civil officer facing impeachment charges that is recognized by the standard of proof you adopt. So whether or not the particular catchwords make any real difference in your factfinding, the choice does have constitutional significance. In an impeachment trial, nothing short of our very liberty is at stake. For a free society cannot endure if it permits the corrupt to govern others. And that issue here is the public trust and the confidence in the officials who constitute our Government.
The penalty upon conviction is not a sentence of imprisonment. It is not a criminal adjudication; it is the removal from office. As you all know, it so happens to be the only way you can remove a judge from office. Thus, the public interests are clearly predominant over the interests of the respondent.
In American jurisprudence, the degree of certainty required for a verdict varies according to the weight of the competing interest of the parties. In criminal proceedings, it is one thing; in civil proceedings, it is another. But Judge Hastings has suggested that the strictest standard be applied. That will make it tough to arrive at the conclusions that we already arrived at, and his lawyer’s reasoning flies in the face of precedent and logic. It is very interesting. They cite a Supreme Court case, Addington versus Texas, that says no such thing. Look it up.
This case started off complicated. There is no such thing. The facts are garden variety stuff. The law started off complicated. No such thing. We just do not handle impeachment measures that often in the Congress. Once you examine the precedent and the history, it is not that difficult at all by the standards of the work that we discharge every single day of the week.
The purpose, traditionally at least in modern times where officials have been accused of more than one act of misconduct, the House has included, the Senate has accepted, an omnibus article of impeachment. The purpose is not only to permit the Senate to consider whether the acts of misconduct constitute impeachable conduct in combination rather than individually. It is also a recognition of the devastating effect that a pattern of such misconduct has upon the institution, the judiciary, upon which this respondent serves. Accordingly, I urge you to conclude that Judge Hastings be convicted on article 17 as well.
You do have to study the record carefully, and you have. There is an enormous amount of evidence that makes no sense at all unless Judge Hastings conspired with William Borders and lied at the trial. It is the mass of evidence that makes the case, but it may be just one of the undisputed facts that convinces you that Judge Hastings is not to be believed on this and many, many other facts made both in and outside of this legal process.
Can anyone study this document and really believe that the judge was expecting Borders at the Fontainebleau Hotel even though when he was seated at a table for four, he watched the extra place settings removed? Everybody knows that Borders was a fight fan that night and anybody who knew, including the judge, knew exactly where he was.
Is it credible that the judge insisted that the Romano forfeiture order be mailed out immediately on October 6 because he was worried his law clerk was going to leave 4 weeks later? What about the judges’ inexplicable behavior in leaving Washington upon learning of Borders’ arrest and his gratuitous and discredited tales of telephone calls from L’Enfant Plaza to persuade the jury that some innocent reason, the concern for his mother, compelled his hurried departure?
Does it make sense that on the evening of Borders’ arrest, the judge, if he were innocent, would tell Ms. Williams to leave her home and go to a pay phone to call him? Does it ring true that the judge and Borders spent months working on a strategy to help their mutual friend, Hemphill Pride, poor guy, and that their months of talking and writing culminated in absolutely no action at all? Is there any plausible source for Borders’ insight or knowledge of the Romano case, other than Judge Hastings himself? Is this tough, difficult fact?
Is it plausible that the judge could draft six pages of handwritten letters while simultaneously trying cases without a single mistake or crossout? Those letters for Hemp are fakes, never shown to the judge’s secretary or to his original legal representative, for that matter, written after October 5 to explain the coded telephone conversation that was sure going to get him in a lot of hot water.
What about Borders’ choice of imprisonment rather than testify here? One Senator pointed out Borders’ explicit assumption that he was being called by the Senate to testify against a friend. That is his assumption; certainly not ours.
The incriminating evidence cannot be ignored, and it is compelling. But the most compelling testimony of all came from his former best friend, quiet, unwilling, reluctant witness who did not want to say what he had to say about Judge Hastings. Yes, Judge Hastings says he was not conspiring with Bill Borders to sell justice. He and Borders were just working out a plan to help their good buddy Hemp. They were always working out details to send letters to the South Carolina bar to get Hemp readmitted.
The only thing was Hemp did not know anything about it. The only thing was that when he found out about it, he said:
Do not do it because in South Carolina they do not like you guys advising us who should be practicing law.
And following the indictment, the judge told Hemp that he needed Hemp’s testimony to support his alibi.
And you read what Hemphill Pride told the judge.
And he did this no matter how much he loved and admired or probably used to love and admire Judge Hastings.
Judge Hastings said Pride was wrong when he said that he, the judge, made no calls from L’Enfant Plaza after they learned of Borders’ arrest, wrong again when he said that they never discussed Hemphill’s letters while driving to the airport in Columbia, SC. Well, who are you going to believe?
Justice and the integrity of our Government depend on the importance of these impeachment proceedings, and they argue that the judge should be removed from the bench.
When he came to my subcommittee, he said:
I’m glad I’m here. Finally, we’re going to get a hearing. Let’s get it on with, ready to go. You got the right place.
He put on nothing, nobody. I even called the two judges that filed the impeachment action before my committee. I even allowed the judge to make an opening statement without being subject to cross examination. I allowed the judge to cross-examine his Federal colleagues that filed the complaint against him. Read what happened. He said, `Isn’t it true we disturbed the collegiality of the bench down there?’ Well, you bet we disturbed the collegiality of the bench. Not one remark about racism, which is what is going to be the subtly argued problem around here. `What’s a hundred white guys and women doing picking on this black judge. What do you know about it?’ And nobody in this country, save maybe Jesse Jackson, has fought harder to integrate this body than me. So he is going to say, `Well, look at the system.’ Well, like so many in our system he came to my committee and he wanted a fair hearing and he got one. That was when the trouble started.
And by the way, there are other black judges that have looked at this case. You do not hear much about them. The first black judge in Florida at the circuit level reviewed this matter. A distinguished member of the judiciary here in Washington reviewed this matter at the conference level. The Congressional Black Caucus reviewed this matter. The Hispanic Caucus reviewed this matter.
All of my friends that wanted to talk to me about it in the House of Representatives have discussed this matter with me to any point that they chose and that I could be available.
Circumstantial evidence. Well, there are so many lawyers here. What is wrong with circumstantial evidence?
And so I come to you to argue that this is not another case like Adam Powell. This is not another case like Clarence Mitchell. I happen to know something about those cases. This is not a case about Geronimo Pratt. This is the case of one Judge Alcee Hastings. There have been a lot of problems in our judicial system in which race has been involved. This is not one of them or I would be the first person in the Congress to tell you so.
I am on three committees that do mostly nothing but watch the FBI, and CIA, the Department of Justice, the criminal justice system, the corrections system, the courts. Police injustice, nobody in the Congress handles more cases than me. And so I am not here to downplay the impeachment process. I think it is an important one. It is very significant. So I join you to ask that you do what you have to do. I have done what I had to do. I have done it twice, as a matter of fact, and would do it again because I believe that this system can be made better than it is and that we are making it better than it is. So, ladies and gentlemen, do your duty.
There is, I hasten to point out, an epilogue to this story. In 1997, DOJ IG Michael Bromwich issued a 517-page report on FBI misconduct in a number of different cases. And he noted that the agent in the Hastings case, Michael Malone, had “engaged in very substantial misconduct” and in particular had lied to judges reviewing Hastings case about whether a particular forensic test had been done. Here’s a passage from Ed Henry’s May 21st, 1997 piece in the Palm Beach Post …
In a reversal that sets the stage for a racially tinged dispute on the House Judiciary Committee, a Michigan lawmaker is calling for a complete review of the 1989 impeachment proceedings that drove Rep. Alcee Hastings from the federal bench.
Rep. John Conyers, the Democrat who headed the House panel that investigated the bribery charges against then-U.S. District Judge Hastings and voted for his impeachment, said last week he was “very disturbed” by a whistle-blower’s contention that an FBI agent lied in order to nail Hastings, D-Miramar.
“So we’re pulling up the files and looking at the case – every aspect of it,” Conyers said of his staff. Conyers is the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.
While Conyers, himself the most senior member of the Black Caucus, has previously dismissed suggestions that race played a factor in the impeachment of Hastings, who is black, he suggested otherwise in an interview.
“Maybe there’s a Mark Fuhrman-type syndrome inside the FBI,” Conyers said, referring to the Los Angeles police officer accused of racism during the O.J. Simpson trial. “I mean, what am I supposed to believe? We caught (the FBI) in this lie.”
Misconduct on the part of investigators doesn’t necessarily imply innocence on the part of the accused, especially in a case like this where we’re not talking about criminal penalties but whether a particular individual is the best choice for a specific, highly-sensitive post.
To the best of my knowledge, the Republicans then leading the Judiciary Committee (circa 1997)refused to reopen the case. So it never happened.
We’re going to be looking into this in greater detail to try to discern whether anything that came up in 1997 should in any way throw into question what happened in 1989. My sense is that there was a lot more evidence than that specifically connected to this one FBI agent. But we’ll look into it and see.
