Talk:Alcee Hastings/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unclear wording

I removed the following text: and committing numerous acts of perjury at his own trial. The sentence was originally worded:

The Democratic-controlled Senate convicted Judge Hastings of accepting a $150,000 bribe in 1981 in exchange for a lenient sentence and committing numerous acts of perjury at his own trial.

Does this mean that the Senate reduced his sentence if he agreed to perjure himself at his trial? Even the sentence that still remains doesn't make any sense. They convicted him in exchange for a lenient sentence??? What was exchanged? Why did they give him a lenient sentence? Is it because he pled guilty? Ufwuct 11:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment question

Was Hastings acquitted in the criminal trial before or after he was impeached? The current article suggests the latter, but a quote from an article in the New Republic (admittedly a far from NPOV source) seems to suggest the former: "Ordinarily, few people would take Hastings seriously for such an important job. In 1981, Hastings was a federal judge in Miami. He was accused of conspiring with a friend to take a $150,000 bribe in exchange for issuing light sentences to a pair of mobsters. A Miami jury acquitted Hastings (while convicting the friend), but three different federal judicial panels later referred him to Congress for impeachment. "Judge Hastings attempted to corruptly use his office for personal gain. Such conduct cannot be excused or condoned even after Judge Hastings has been acquitted of the criminal charge," concluded one panel, composed of five circuit court judges. . . ." [1]. --NeuronExMachina 17:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

He was acquitted in the criminal trial first, then impeached and removed by the Senate. Here's a Washington Post article with more info. MorrisGregorian 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the page (at the time you posted this) suggested he was acquitted after his impeachment. But I do think your rewrite is much better than what was there. I removed the clause "Despite the acquittal," though, as this implies that there is, or should be, some connection between acquittal/conviction and impeachment. Pudge 03:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Alcee Lamar Hastings was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

POV template

While many of Hastings' political positions and actions are repulsive in my eyes, I've tagged this article for a lack of NPOV because of the disproportionately negative coverage between the "U.S. House of Representatives" header and the "Committee assignments" subheader: most of this talks about corruption and other issues without providing his response to the charges and without presenting anything positive. Nyttend (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it may be the result of some not being updated. I added the result of the sexual harassment and will continue to check out the rest in the future. Looks like a lot of it has been changed since when this was noted as well. Kingtwist (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Impeachment conviction by the Senate

"The Senate, in two hours of roll calls, voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment. It convicted Hastings of eight of the 11 articles. The vote on the first article was 69 for and 26 opposed."

Then later the article says "Hastings filed suit in federal court claiming that his impeachment trial was invalid because he was tried by a Senate committee, not in front of the full Senate ..."

If Hastings was convicted on the first article of impeachment on a vote totaling 95 votes, this must have been "in front of the full Senate". If the Senate met as a Committee of the Whole for the impeachment trial, this ought to be clarified. Otherwise Hastings' claim of being tried by a Senate "committee" makes no sense. The Senate has no committee of 95 members other than a "Committee of the Whole", which is by definition the "full Senate". Milkunderwood (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alcee Hastings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141014033603/http://www.citizensforethics.org:80/page/-/PDFs/Reports/Family_Affair_House_2012_CREW.pdf?nocdn=1 to http://www.citizensforethics.org/page/-/PDFs/Reports/Family_Affair_House_2012_CREW.pdf?nocdn=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:32, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Election?

Hello, since we already have a column for Alcee's participation in the 2014 election. Can someone make a column for the 2016 election, so I can find out if he won? Thank you. 2602:306:CD9B:E9A0:5560:1889:FD95:84E (talk) ES —Preceding undated comment added 02:00, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Citation problem

Citation 4, to law.com does not get to a useful place either from the link or the archivelink.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Helsinki Commission is irrelevant

The linked source has no confirmation for the claim that "the Helsinki Commission" was ever a co-defendant in Hastings's sexual harassment lawsuit. What is this even about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.22.230 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does, if you mean the link that is currently there [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.183.141 (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Personal life

I realize that it may not be relevant to his political career but it seems odd that there is zero information here about his family and personal life. It's included in the bios of most politicians who are generally not that private about their home life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Unbalanced template

I've added an unbalanced template, as per the consensus on WP:ITN/C for 'RD: Alcee Hastings'. I'll copy and paste what I said there: There's a lot of detail about his impeachment, finance problems, etc,(the negative stuff), which all seems fair and well-phrased, but nothing about what he actually did in his career at that time (the positive and neutral side of things). Uses x (talk • contribs) 07:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)