This goes back a little ways. You may recall that after the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives last fall, there was discussion over who would become chair of the House Intelligence Committee. Representative Jane Harman was in line for it, but she had quarreled with Speaker Pelosi and so was denied the position. By multiple reports, Speaker Pelosi was prepared to name Alcee Hastings as the new chair–even though he had been impeached and removed as a federal judge. Eventually–it was reported—she relented. Now Congressman Hastings has done an interview with Congressional Quarterly in which he says that no, Speaker Pelosi was not going to deny him the chairmanship; he withdrew his own name. What led him to do such a thing? A chat with Bill Clinton:
By virtue of seniority, with Harman cast aside, Hastings was in line to take over the Intelligence panel.
But the Democrats panicked, and conservative activists loudly chortled, over the prospect of Hastings ascending to the committee chair…
Bill Clinton wanted it to go away.
Late in November, he placed a call to the self-made former trial lawyer, who earned a juris doctor degree from Florida A&M in 1963, when segregation was the way of the land.
“We talked to close to an hour and forty minutes,” said the would-be chairman, who added that the affair still “stings.”
“And he was saying, among other things, that, you know, I would force a rift in the party if I was to force the issue. And that sometimes you come out better if you can accommodate the parties that have a direct interest – meaning, specifically, that if you could find a way to say, ‘Fine, pass over me, choose someone else,’ then I would come across better, and be thought better of by Democratic functionaries…”
Hastings then called Pelosi and asked for a meeting.
On Nov. 28, he went to the new speaker’s ornate chambers in the Capitol.
“We talked very frankly for all of 40 or 45 minutes,” Hastings recalled. “And I suggested that she pass over me and select someone else, because the party would benefit more without having to live with all the negativity that was going to be surrounding this situation.”
It’s entirely possible that Mr. Hastings’ story is nothing more than sour grapes. Having been denied the chairmanship, he might have decided to make it look as if it was his choice. But then why invent the intercession of Bill Clinton? If Hastings’ tale is true, then we cannot credit Nancy Pelosi with having recognized that a Hastings chairmanship would have been at odds with the Democrats’ ethics promises. Rather, it would mean that she just got lucky.
