Rep. Alcee Hastings (Democrat) Faces Sexual Harassment Charges

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Rep. Alcee Hastings (Democrat) Faces Sexual Harassment Charges

Written By : William Teach

Waiting for the usual liberal women’s groups to demand he resign in 3….2…..2…..2….

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.) is being investigated by the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) for allegations that he sexually harassed a female staff member, according to a news report.

The investigation stems from a lawsuit filed by the conservative Judicial Watch group earlier this year on behalf of Winsome Packer, a policy adviser with the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).

For two years, while Hastings served as co-chairman of the CSCE, Packer alleges she received “unwelcome sexual advances, crude sexual comments and unwelcome touching by Mr. Hastings,” according to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

I’m sure feminist Nancy Pelosi will jump right in and declare that Hastings should resign for the good of the People.

(PS: yes, I did pull my story on the atheists whining about the 9/11 firefighters “Heaven” sign. I noticed that John had done the same story before I posted mine)

gfchicago

Why does this not surprise me?

Nancy only calls investigations on Dems with names that are associated with a phallic symbol, because of the jokes that come along with it.
Anonymous

” This whole thing reeks of racism”

/99.9% of liberals.
Anonymous

Is anyone really surprised? This is the same guy who was impeached and thrown off the federal bench,and then the Dem-idiots elect him to Congress. I’m shoched I say…Shocked

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Yeah exactly, he was thrown out of his job as a federal judge for taking bribes… THEN THEY ELECT HIM TO CONGRESS??

Anonymous

Heh. I searched NOW/NOW PAC’s websites and, just as you’d expect, there wasn’t a single mention of this story anywhere.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.

gfchicago

LOL too funny!

Ok Slow Joe, here’s your chance go bash Reagan & Bush again. Twerp

Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Anonymous

I’m sure our resident liberals will be along shortly to condemn him.

/by “him” I mean Bush of course, or possibly Reagan.
Martin Hale

As much as I’d like to see Mr. Hastings take a fall, and as much as I think he’s perfectly capable of being a sleazy tool, there are things about this story which seem strange to me.

1. Ms. Packer has a novel titled A Personal Agenda in which the plot line includes a very similar circumstance. It may just be coincidence, but it seems a little too convenient and contrived to me. Maybe I’m just jaded.

2. Ms. Packer apparently filed an internal complaint which apparently triggered retaliation. But usually retaliation is cause for another internal complaint and investigation and there’s no mention of that. I’ve handled a bunch of harassment investigations, and the timeline of this one seems strange to me. Also, some of the claims in the suit say that she was harassed in public in front of other people – that should be fairly easy to verify. If the previous internal investigation turned that evidence up and there was further harassment/retaliation, the finding of the internal investigation on the retaliation should have been a slam dunk. I’m not saying she’s lying, but the whole story seems “off”.

3. Ms. Packer’s lawsuit was filed on her behalf by a third party. Why? A potentially juicy case against a high-profile defendant should have been like chum in the water with the contingency case crowd – affordability of a legal action really shouldn’t have been an issue for Ms. Packer. Again, something’s just “off” about the story as it’s being told.

Maybe further details will settle my “Spidey sense” on this one, but for now, I”m sceptical that there’s a case here. Which not to imply in any way that Mr. Hastings is an honourable individual.

http://www.wordaroundthenet.com Christopher Taylor

Oh I don’t trust that this case is valid, I’m almost always skeptical of sexual harassment cases these days. But Hastings is crooked scum.

Martin Hale

Agreed – he has to look up to the slime that forms around your toilet base if you don’t scrub well enough. No doubt about that.

Based on what I’ve read about this one, though, there’s something which just doesn’t add up. Something in my gut tells me that we’re about to see two equally sleazy hustlers duke it out.

gfchicago

Martin you are probably right in this instance.

However, it would kinda be like the O.J. Simpson saga. He wasn’t convicted on murder charges, however he’s in jail now.

So perhaps this will bring down Mr. Hastings as he probably so richly deserves.