The battle of Hastings: should the impeached judge head the House Intel Committee?

IN the summer of 1988, the House of Representatives considered articles of impeachment against Alcee Hastings, a federal judge in Florida accused of conspiring to take bribes. It was only the tenth time in U.S. history that a judge had faced impeachment, and Michigan Democratic congressman John Conyers took to the floor to suggest that some of the allegations against Hastings, the first black to serve on the federal bench in Florida, might be racially motivated. Nevertheless, Conyers said, the case had to be judged on its merits, and on those merits--as chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice that investigated the matter, he knew the case backward and forward--he had decided to vote for impeachment.

In his speech, Conyers harked back to civil-rights days, when corrupt judges some times twisted and ignored the law. "We did not wage that civil-rights struggle merely to replace one form of judicial corruption with another," Conyers told his fellow lawmakers. "The principle of equality requires that a black public official be held to the same standard that other public officials are held to. Just as race should never disqualify a person from office, race should never insulate a person from the consequences of wrongful conduct."

Conyers's argument prevailed: On August 3, 1988, Hastings was impeached by a vote of 413 to 3. And Conyers, a cosponsor of the impeachment resolution, went on to serve as one of the House managers who argued for impeachment in Hastings's Senate trial. There, on October 20, 1989, Hastings was convicted and removed from the bench.

One might expect such a verdict to end a career, but Hastings was more resilient than that. In 1992, he rebounded from his impeachment to win election to Congress from the 23rd district of Florida. (The terms of his conviction didn't bar him from holding future public office.) Hastings has served in the House ever since, and has accumulated a good deal of seniority.

His troubles in the 1980s would be ancient history but for the fact that Democrats won control of the House on November 7. As a result, Hastings is now in line to become the next chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. (By rights, that spot should go to Rep. Jane Harman, but a feud with speaker Nancy Pelosi has bumped her out of the running.) Now Pelosi has to decide whether a man who was impeached for bribery and convicted in the Senate is qualified for one of the most sensitive posts in Congress. Before she makes her decision, Pelosi will undoubtedly give Hastings's case a close look. When she does, here's what she'll find:

Hastings was a prominent South Florida attorney when he was appointed to the federal bench in 1979 by Jimmy Carter. His problems began in 1981 with the case of two brothers, Frank and Thomas Romano, who had been accused of stealing $1 million from a union pension fund. The men were tried and convicted in Hastings's court. While they were awaiting sentencing, a man named William Dredge--a longtime criminal who at the time was facing drug charges--got in touch with the FBI and said that Hastings had solicited a bribe in an ongoing criminal case.

Dredge said that a close friend of Hastings, a D.C. lawyer named William Borders, was the go-between: Borders's job was to collect the bribe money and pass it on to Hastings. In addition, Dredge said that Borders was interested in soliciting a bribe for Hastings from the Romano brothers. He said that Borders had asked him, Dredge, to see if the brothers were interested in paying Hastings $150,000 in exchange for no jail time and having their ill-gotten gains, which had been confiscated, returned to them.

After interviewing Dredge several times, the FBI designed a sting operation. An agent posing as Frank Romano approached Borders to say that yes, the Romanos were interested in paying off Hastings in return for light treatment. Borders said it could be done. The undercover agent then indicated that he wanted to go ahead with the deal but had some questions: How do I know you really speak for Hastings? Can you arrange some sort of sign to show that Hastings is on board?

Sure, Borders said--how about I have Hastings show up at a time and place of your choosing? That will show that we're working together. Borders and the FBI agent posing as Romano agreed that Hastings could give the signal by coming to the dining room of the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami at 8 P.M. on September 16, 1981. If he did--all he had to do was show up--then everyone would know he was part of the deal.

When the time came, FBI agents had the hotel under surveillance. And, sure enough, Hastings showed up for dinner at 8. (The FBI did extensive investigation to determine whether Hastings might have gone to the Fontainebleau by chance, or whether Borders, who on that night was in Las Vegas watching a prizefight, might have tricked Hastings into it. They found nothing to support either theory.) The signal was sent; Hastings was on board.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

A deal was struck. In a meeting at the Miami Airport, the FBI agent gave Borders $25,000 as a down payment. In return, Hastings was to throw out the forfeiture judgment against the Romanos. After that, the remaining $125,000 would be paid.

Hastings did indeed throw out the judgment. A short time later, a pickup date for the full payoff was set. On October 9, 1981, while in Washington to be honored by the National Bar Association (the nation's largest black legal group), Borders got a call to meet "Frank" at a local hotel. Borders showed up and met with the FBI agent he thought was Frank Romano. The agent had brought the $125,000. When the money changed hands, Borders was immediately arrested.

Hastings was also in Washington that day to attend the dinner honoring his friend Borders. When he heard that Borders had been nabbed, and that the FBI wanted to talk to him, Hastings quickly changed his plans. He left his hotel without even waiting to check out. Instead of going to National Airport in Washington, a short drive from his hotel, Hastings took a long, expensive cab ride to Baltimore/Washington Airport. Once there, he called his girlfriend in Florida from a pay phone and arranged for her to call him back at another pay phone. Then he caught a plane south. The FBI found him late that night at his girlfriend's house.

Hastings was indicted in December 1981, charged with conspiring with Borders to solicit a bribe from the Romanos. Borders was also indicted. At trial, Hastings pleaded not guilty and claimed Borders was lying about the whole thing. He also claimed the prosecution was racially motivated. He was acquitted; Borders was convicted.

The verdict was too much for the judges on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Florida. They hired John Doar, the legendary Kennedy Justice Department lawyer, to investigate. Doar came back with an extensive report suggesting that Hastings was not only guilty in the bribery case but had also lied repeatedly under oath at his trial. The report led two Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee to advocate impeachment proceedings. The Democratic majority agreed, and Conyers was placed in charge of the subcommittee investigation. While Conyers was extraordinarily protective of Hastings's rights, he also became convinced that Hastings was guilty. Impeachment and Senate conviction followed.

Hastings has always maintained his innocence. But the record is what it is, and it's fair to say that most people who have studied the case believe Hastings was guilty. Now, of course, the question is, Should a man who was found guilty of impeachable offenses be entrusted with the nation's most sensitive intelligence secrets? It's a question Nancy Pelosi would undoubtedly prefer not to answer. But it's not going away.