It’s no surprise, Texas and Florida lead the way when it comes to the handful of impeachments against Federal Judges, as archived in the history of the United States of America. In the Southern District of Florida, there’s been 3 judges impeached, with 2 of them being removed from office.

Only Congress has the authority to remove an Article III judge. This is done through a vote of impeachment by the House and a trial and conviction by the Senate. As of September 2017, only 15 federal judges have been impeached, and only eight have been convicted.

This article discusses the last judge to be removed, a colorful character by the name of Hastings. In the United Kingdom, history recorded the famous Battle of Hastings and it was a bloody war too.

What’s more concerning, however, is how more judges are avoiding impeachment. It appears the outlaws in robes have elected to join together in unison – to ensure the majority of their crimes are hidden from the public.

LIT reviewed the impeachments and most are kickstarted by external agencies, e.g. FBI.  Judges judgin’ judges has to stop and Sen. Grassley has attempted to start this via the proposed Judicial Transparency and Ethics Enhancement Act of 2017. However, he’s been trying to get this amended bill passed for years without success – most likely torpedoed by the Federalist Society at large.

Procedural Issues and Precedents

First official impeached on the recommendation of the Judicial Conference, acting under PL 96-458 giving the judiciary a process for investigating complaints against members, taking some limited disciplinary action and/or recommending impeachment proceedings to the House.

First time official was impeached and tried after being acquitted in criminal court.

Second time the Senate referred case to a Senate Impeachment Trial Committee, authorized by impeachment rule XI.

Second impeached official (first was Charles Swayne, 1905) to ask for Senate funds to mount a defense. The Senate again rejected the request.

Articles of Impeachment

ARTICLE 1. From some time in the first half of 1981 and continuing through October 9, 1981, Judge Hastings and William Borders, then a Washington, D.C. attorney, engaged in a corrupt conspiracy to obtain $150,000 from defendants in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings, in return for the imposition of sentences which would not require incarceration of the defendants.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 2. From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings and William Borders, of Washington, D.C., never made any agreement to solicit a bribe from defendants in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 3. From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings never agreed with William Borders, of Washington, D.C., to modify the sentences of defendants in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings, from a term in the Federal penitentiary to probation in return for a bribe from those defendants.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 4. From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings never agreed with William Borders, of Washington, D.C., in connection with a payment on a bribe, to enter, within ten days of that payment, an order returning a substantial amount of property to the defendants in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings. Judge Hastings had previously ordered that property forfeited.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offence warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 5. From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings’ appearance at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida, on September 16, 1981, was not part of a plan to demonstrate his participation in a bribery scheme with William Borders of Washington, D.C., concerning United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings, and that Judge Hastings expected to meet Mr. Borders at that place and on that occasion.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 6.  From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to his oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings did not expect William Borders, of Washington, D.C., to appear at Judge Hastings’ room in the Sheraton Hotel in Washington, D.C., on September 12, 1981.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 7.  From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to his oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement concerned Judge Hastings’ motive for instructing a law clerk, Jeffrey Miller, to prepare an order on October 5, 1981, in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings, returning a substantial portion of property previously ordered forfeited by Judge Hastings. Judge Hastings stated in substance that he so instructed Mr. Miller primarily because Judge Hastings was concerned that the order would not be completed before Mr. Miller’s scheduled departure, when in fact the instruction on October 5, 1981, to prepare such order was in furtherance of a bribery scheme concerning that case.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 8.  From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to his oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trial of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that Judge Hastings’ October 5, 1981, telephone conversation with William Borders, of Washington, D.C., was in fact about writing letters to solicit assistance for Hemphill Pride of Columbia, South Carolina, when in fact it was a coded conversation in furtherance of a conspiracy with Mr. Borders to solicit a bribe from defendants in United States v. Romano, a case tried before Judge Hastings.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 9.  From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to his oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that three documents that purported to be drafts of letters to assist Hemphill Pride, of Columbia, South Carolina, had been written by Judge Hastings on October 5, 1981, and were the letters referred to by Judge Hastings in his October 5, 1981, telephone conversation with William Borders, of Washington, D.C.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 10.  From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath, make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that on May 5, 1981, Judge Hastings talked to Hemphill Pride by placing a telephone call to 803-758-8825 in Columbia, South Carolina.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 11.  From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that on August 2, 1981, Judge Hastings talked to Hemphill Pride by placing a telephone call to 803-782-9387 in Columbia, South Carolina.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 12.  From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that on September 2, 1981, Judge Hastings talked to Hemphill Pride by placing a telephone call to 803-758-8825 in Columbia, South Carolina.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 13.  From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that 803-777-7716 was a telephone number at a place where Hemphill Pride could be contacted in July 1981.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 14.  From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact.

The false statement was, in substance, that on the afternoon of October 9, 1981, Judge Hastings called his mother and Patricia Williams from his hotel room at the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 15.  From January 18, 1983, until February 4, 1983, Judge Hastings was a defendant in a criminal case in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In the course of the trial of that case, Judge Hastings, while under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, did knowingly and contrary to that oath make a false statement which was intended to mislead the trier of fact;

concerning his motives for taking a plane on October 9, 1981, from Baltimore-Washington International Airport rather than from Washington National Airport.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 16.  From July 15, 1985, to September 15, 1985, Judge Hastings was the supervising judge of a wiretap instituted under chapter 119 of title 18, United States Code (added by title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968). The wiretap was part of certain investigations then being conducted by law enforcement agents of the United States.

As supervising judge, Judge Hastings learned highly confidential information obtained through the wiretap. The documents disclosing this information, presented to Judge Hastings as the supervising judge, were Judge Hastings’ sole source of the highly confidential information.

On September 6, 1985, Judge Hastings revealed highly confidential information that he learned as the supervising judge of the wiretap, as follows: On the morning of September 6, 1985, Judge Hastings told Stephen Clark, the Mayor of Dade County, Florida, to stay away from Kevin “Waxy” Gordon, who was “hot” and was using the Mayor’s name in Hialeah, Florida.

As a result of this improper disclosure, certain investigations then being conducted by law enforcement agents of the United States were thwarted and ultimately terminated.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

ARTICLE 17.  Judge Hastings, who as a Federal judge is required to enforce and obey the Constitution and laws of the United States, to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety, and to perform the duties of his office impartially, did through–

(1) a corrupt relationship with William Borders of Washington, D.C.;
(2) repeated false testimony under oath at Judge Hastings’ criminal trial;
(3) fabrication of false documents which were submitted as evidence at his criminal trial; and
(4) improper disclosure of confidential information acquired by him as supervisory judge of a wiretap; undermine confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and betray the trust of the people of the United States, thereby bringing disrepute on the Federal courts and the administration of justice by the Federal courts.

Wherefore, Judge Alcee L. Hastings is guilty of an impeachable offense warranting removal from office.

Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., is among the 19 federal officials in American history who have been impeached by the House of Representatives.

Now, he wants to cast a vote to impeach No. 20: President Trump. Three decades ago, Hastings was impeached and removed from the federal bench when he was a U.S. District judge in Miami.

But then he rebooted his career by becoming a Florida congressman.

Now in his 14th term, he serves as vice chairman of the House Rules Committee, which on Tuesday debated the parameters for Wednesday’s full House vote on impeachment.

Hastings’ own past, as well as the fact that he was involved intimately in President Bill Clinton’s impeachment, which he voted against, gives him a unique position this time around as an advocate of impeaching Trump.

On the one hand, conservative critics point to what they see as the hypocrisy of an impeached judge with an ethical cloud looming over him being among those setting the rules for Trump’s impeachment in the House.

But on the other, legal experts say, constructive insights could come from Hastings, who is now 83 and was Florida’s first black federal judge.

“Ethically, I don’t think Hastings has anything personal to gain that would influence his vote or that would suggest that he should abstain from voting,” said Aubrey Jewett, a politics professor at the University of Central Florida.

“Hasting’s record certainly gives him more first-hand direct experience with the issue of impeachment than any other member of the House,” Jewett said.

Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, viewed Hastings’ involvement similarly.

“On balance, I think Hastings’ unique, and potentially valuable, perspectives should outweigh concerns about conflicts of interest or ethics,” he said.

Another thing experts agree on: Hastings stands alone in American political history, expected to become the first member of Congress to vote in support of impeachment after being impeached himself.

Back in 1988, when Hastings was a Miami-based federal judge, he was impeached by the House. He was accused of accepting a $150,000 bribe in return for going easy on two mob-connected defendants who had a case in his courtroom in the early 1980s.

In a nearly-unanimous vote of 413-3, the House adopted a resolution approving 17 articles of impeachment against Hastings, including bribery, perjury and falsifying documents.

It was the most articles of impeachment the House has ever filed, according to federal officials.

Defiant in the face of the House’s action, Hastings vowed in a report that aired on NPR in August 1989 that he would be acquitted in the Senate.

“I said that I would win, and I will win. And how I will do so is with the help of our Lord and with right on my side as I have had continuously,” Hastings said. “I’ll put this Mickey Mouse horror show behind me.”

But he was wrong.

Two months later, the Senate convicted Hastings for conspiring to solicit cash in return for a light sentence and for making false statements.

His actions, Senate lawmakers said, “undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary” and “betrayed the trust of the people of the United States.”

His Senate conviction put an end to his career as a federal judge, which is usually a lifetime appointment.

It was a twisted turn of events, because the same bribe scandal had gotten him indicted years earlier, but he beat those charges when a jury, in 1983, acquitted him.

Prosecutors said a middle man had tried to make a bribe down payment of $25,000 before being caught with bags of $100 bills totaling $125,000, which authorities said was intended to pay Hastings for helping out two racketeers who investigators said had opened a channel of communication with the then-judge. Authorities recorded a call in which they said Hastings was talking in code about the bribery deal.

Hastings maintains that he never knew about the scheme, saying the others involved attached conditions to the money that were made up.

His legal team, which included his fiancée at the time, argued that the prosecution of Hastings had nothing to do with ferreting out corruption and instead was motivated by his race and his vocal opposition to the Reagan administration.

The jury bought that defense, unanimously clearing him of any wrongdoing.

But then suspicions arose that Hastings lied and falsified evidence during his trial, leading a special committee of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, to recommend that Hastings be impeached.

On Oct. 20, 1989, the Senate voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment, ultimately convicting him of eight articles.

Watching his judgeship go down in flames did not deflate Hastings. If anything, it appeared to have emboldened him.

The same day he was convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by the Senate, Hastings announced his next move: running to be the governor of Florida.

Being convicted and removed from his judicial post did not disqualify him from holding future public office, and he planned on capitalizing on that.

“I think not only can I be elected, I think I will, because I think Floridians are tired of ordinariness,” Hastings told reporters the same day he was kicked off the bench by the Senate.

He did not win his bid for the governor’s office.

So he kicked off a campaign to become Florida’s secretary of state, a race he also lost. It was an outcome that was starting to become familiar, having sought and lost eight attempts at political office across his lifetime.

Hastings, though, was nothing if not tenacious.

In 1992, he set his sights on a congressional seat in Florida. For him, the ninth time was a charm.

He won, joining the same elected body that had impeached him just three years before.

“He was a phoenix, rising from the ashes of his judicial career to begin a new one in Congress,” wrote The Palm Beach Post in a series published this year looking back at Hasting’s long and turbulent political career.

Voters in Florida have reelected him 13 times, typically by overwhelming margins.

Hastings’ biography on his congressional website makes no mention of his impeachment saga, but does nod to his past life on the federal bench.

“Known to many as ‘Judge,’ Alcee Hastings has distinguished himself as an attorney, civil rights activist, judge, and now Member of Congress,” according to the House of Representatives’ website.

Hastings declined NPR’s interview request.

But speaking to The Palm Beach Post, Hastings said while Trump “has degraded and debased the presidency,” he scoffs at the notion that impeachment can be an apolitical process.

“Impeachment is as partisan as hell,” he said. “I know it because I’ve lived it.”