Connect with us

News

Dem Who Was Impeached for Taking Bribes As Federal Judge Sets Rules For Trump Impeachment

Wait…what is happening now!?

John Salvatore

Published

on

Some of you may know the story of Democrat Rep. Alcee Hastings (FL), but there’s a decent chance that most don’t. Before being elected as a Congressman, Hastings was a federal judge.

Alcee accepted a bribe. He was subsequently impeached and removed from office. It begs the question, how in the world did the public trust this man enough to then elect him to public office? Craziness.

In 1998, Hastings voted against impeaching President Bill Clinton. Go figure. Now, Dems have tasked Alcee with basically setting the rules for the impeachment of President Trump.

Trending: Tokyo Woke No Mo’: IOC Bans BLM Apparel for Olympics

You can’t make this stuff up.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Derek Chauvin Receive Proper Due Process?

  • Did Derek Chauvin Receive Proper Due Process?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Here’s something you don’t see every day: Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge impeached and removed from the bench for taking bribes, participating in a House hearing that sets the rules for an impeachment. (Yes, Florida man strikes again…)

Here’s the historical document, from the Senate:

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.

Continued:

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). On two articles (6, 17) the vote fell short of the required majority to convict. On article 11, the Senate voted 95 not guilty to 0 guilty. 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.

Let’s hear your thoughts in the comment section…

News

CDC Readies Cruises, Complete with Human Guinea Pigs

Fingers crossed!

Published

on

As the world prepares for its grand reopening, there are a number of high value industries that are eagerly awaiting permission from medical authorities to resume operations. First and foremost, there are the service industries:  Places like restaurants, bars, music venues, and sports arenas whose entire livelihood depends on whether or not people are being allowed to gather in public.  While many of these venues are now beginning to ramp up their capacity, there are issues bringing some of these workers back into the fold thanks to the enhanced unemployment benefits provided by the federal government. And then there’s the tourism industry, whose regulatory structure is far more susceptible to interference by government agencies. Now, after over a year of stagnation, it appears as though at least one facet of this wide-ranging corporate amalgam will be given a chance to sail on. Cruise lines can soon begin trial voyages in U.S. waters with volunteer passengers helping test whether the ships can sail safely during a pandemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gave ship operators final technical guidelines Wednesday for the trial runs. The CDC action is a step toward resuming cruises in U.S. waters, possibly by July, for the first time since March 2020. A spokeswoman for the cruise industry’s trade group said the group was reviewing the CDC instructions. So, how will this work? Each practice cruise — they’ll run two to seven days — must have enough passengers to meet at least 10% of the ship’s capacity. Volunteers must be 18 or older and either fully vaccinated or free of medical conditions that would put them at high risk for severe COVID-19. The ship operator must tell passengers that they are simulating untested safety measures “and that sailing during a pandemic is an inherently risky activity,” the…

Continue Reading

News

Strange New Correlation Discovered Between COVID and Bald Men

This strain of coronavirus just keeps getting weirder.

Published

on

From the very onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the medical community appeared stumped.  Sure, this was a novel virus and, as such, came complete with a number of strange and unknown consequences. There were your “long-haulers”; folks who seemed to continually have issues recovering from the illness.  Others lost their senses of taste and smell, sometimes for months on end.  There were even reports of so-called “COVID toes” – an ailment that affected the coloration of the skin on toes and fingers of a small percentage of patients. Now, in another odd correlation within the coronavirus spectrum, it appears that men who’d gone bald are at particular risk for certain side effects of COVID-19. New research suggests they spend up to twice as long in hospital with Covid than those who still have a full head of hair. Science seems to have at least some idea of why this is. They are also admitted to intensive care in higher numbers. Scientists say men’s Covid vulnerability largely comes down to male sex hormones called androgens. Men who are genetically more sensitive to androgens appear to be more likely to suffer severe Covid. They are also more likely to have hair loss, called androgenetic alopecia, which affects around half of men over the age of 50. The science seemed to back this up. A team of US doctors measured men’s sensitivity to androgens by counting a chemical called CAG. High levels indicate that a man is more likely to have hair loss. Of 65 men hospitalised with the infection, those with high CAG levels had worse Covid outcomes in the 60 days following their hospitlisation. They spent 47 days in hospital, on average, and 70.6 per cent were admitted to ICU. For comparison, those with low CAG levels spent an average of 25 days…

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Best of the Week