Charlie Rangel guilty on 11 counts....

MobBoss

Off-Topic Overlord
Joined
Oct 28, 2005
Messages
46,853
Location
In Perpetual Motion
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ntinues-deliberations-rangel/?test=latestnews

WASHINGTON -- New York Rep. Charles Rangel, a longtime power in the U.S. House, violated its rules with financial misconduct, brought it discredit and will be punished, fellow lawmakers sitting as jurors ruled on Tuesday.

Protesting the enduring stain on his four-decade congressional career, the 80-year-old Democrat said he was treated unfairly for "good faith mistakes." His statement reflected the bitterness of an eight-month career slide, starting with an unrelated ethics ruling that forced him from his coveted chairmanship of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.

The conduct often cited by critics was his failure to report income to the IRS from a unit he owned in a Dominican Republic resort -- showing the chairman in charge of tax
legislation shortchanged the IRS.

Rangel, a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, remains a political kingpin in New York's famed Harlem neighborhood and is unlikely to resign. He won re-election earlier this month.

Convicted on 11 of 13 charges of rules violations, his ordeal isn't finished.

Nov. 15: Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. appears on Capitol Hill in Washington before the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's adjudicatory hearing into his alleged ethics violations.
Related Video


'I'm Going to Have to Excuse Myself'

Rangel walks out of ethics hearing

The eight-member ethics panel that convicted him -- four Democrats and four Republicans -- now will write what is likely to be a stinging report to amplify its findings. Then, the full House ethics committee will conduct a hearing Thursday on the appropriate punishment for Rangel, the silver-haired, gravelly voiced and sartorially flashy veteran of 20 terms in Congress.

Rangel can waive his right to the hearing and ask the committee to go straight to deliberations on possible sanctions.

Possible sanctions include a House vote deploring his conduct, a fine and denial of certain privileges.

Rangel's downfall, in part, came in the way he solicited money for a New York college center designed as a monument to himself. There also was his decade of misleading annual disclosures of his income and assets and his use of a subsidized New York apartment -- designated for residential use -- as a campaign office.

The panel deliberated over two days before its chairman, Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, made a bare-bones statement announcing the findings -- leaving a full explanation for the upcoming written report.

The conviction was a fresh setback for Democrats who lost control of the House to the GOP in the midterm elections, support for Republican candidates' assertions of bad conduct.

At his one-day trial on Monday, Rangel was reduced to pleading for a postponement -- arguing that his lawyers abandoned him after he paid them some $2 million but could afford no more. The panel rejected his request, and Rangel walked out of the proceeding.

"How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the ethics subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room?" Rangel complained on Tuesday. "I can only hope that the full committee will treat me more fairly and take into account my entire 40 years of service to the Congress before making any decisions on sanctions."

He called the panel's findings "unprecedented" because there was no rebuttal evidence. He complained that the rejection of his appeal for more time violated "the basic constitutional right to counsel."

Rangel, echoing a statement he made in August in a speech to the House, added, "Any failings in my conduct were the result of good faith mistakes." He said they were caused by "sloppy and careless record keeping but were not criminal or corrupt."

New York Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat who attended Rangel's fundraiser in August while campaigning to clean up New York politics, said, "It's obviously a sad situation to experience."

"It's important that people have full faith in the integrity in public service, so it's painful to watch," Cuomo said Tuesday at a press event near Rochester. "But we'll see what happens at the end of the process."

The eight-member jury panel was unanimous on most charges against Rangel. Members split 4-4 on a charge that he violated a ban on gifts because he was to have an office -- and storage of his papers -- at the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.

Two counts charging him with misuse of Congress' free mail privilege were merged into one. And the panel voted 7-1 on a final charge that he had brought discredit on the House. No breakdown was given on who voted no.

The charges said the solicitation for the Rangel Center targeted foundations and businesses that were seeking official action from the House or had interests that might be substantially affected by Rangel's congressional conduct.

However, Rangel was not accused of using his influence to pass or defeat legislation.

During Monday's trial proceeding, the chief counsel for the House ethics committee, Blake Chisam, told the jury that Rangel could have received permission to solicit nonprofit foundations. However, he could not have used congressional stationery and staff as he was found to have done.

Rangel had previously acknowledged some of the charges, including submission of 10 years' worth of incomplete and inaccurate annual statements disclosing his assets and income.

He also admitted he initially did not report his rental income from a unit he owned at the Punta Cana resort in the Dominican Republic.

An apartment in Harlem's Lennox Terrace complex housed the Rangel for Congress and National Leadership PAC political committees, although the lease terms said the unit was for living purposes only.

Chisam had told the jury that other tenants were evicted at an increasing rate for violating the same lease terms.

Well, I waited all day and no one mentioned this that I could see, so here it is.

Do you think his comments about being treated unfairly have merit? Is he as pure as the driven snow as he alleges? Or was the panel right in its findings?

Now that this has occurred....what next? He would never ever resign, although he should and even President Obama has asked him to resign.

Personally, I think he should be removed from congress. Although thats probably not going to happen, although Pelosi did promise to 'clean up' congress when she first became speaker. He will probably get a slap on the wrist, and continue in his wallowing hypocrisy.

What do you think should be done to him? Removal? Censure?

Discuss.
 
I think he should become a canvasser so he can apologize to his constituents one by one. Same with all politicians who violate the public's trust.
 
I think he should be drafted. We have to get those back taxes out of him ;)

This wouldn't be such a big deal if he wasn't such a sanctimonious poser all the time, its funny watching his normal shtick fail him.
 
He should be tossed out of Congress, but I doubt that will be the outcome, especially since he was re-elected for another term. It's likely that he will be admonished in some form, then spend his remaining time in Congress as a somewhat respected, though far less powerful, senior member.
 
What Yankee said. Congress will handle him with kid gloves because a fair number of them have done similar, so taking a hard line will make you unpopular with your colleagues.
 
He should be tossed out of Congress, but I doubt that will be the outcome, especially since he was re-elected for another term. It's likely that he will be admonished in some form, then spend his remaining time in Congress as a somewhat respected, though far less powerful, senior member.

This.

Plus, lets face it, unless you royally f up like Michael Myers(representative/I will slap anyone who makes a Michael Myers joke) or James Traficant, you will get a slap on the wrist, simply because the rest of the congress does not want to make it easier to expell members from congress lest they screw up like Rangel(which many probably have)
 
According to The Daily Show, which roasted Rangel because he is a Republican prominent topic, he will likely be reprimanded and possibly even face a fine. Jon Stewart pointed out that his real punishment will come in the form of the wrath of his constituents, who reelected him by over 80%. USA! USA!

Of course, this isn't going to sit well with those who have double standards and want Rangel to be held more accountable than similar Republicans who were caught in ethics breaches, such as Speaker of the House Newt Ginrich or Ted Stevens. They will likely try to claim that the ethics violations never occurred or weren't as severe, especially in the case of Stevens who coincidently became quite rich during his tenure as a prominent Senator. Instead, they will focus on the fact that the prosecution screwed the pooch by being overzealous while ignoring that he is clearly one of the most corrupt polticians in recent memory. That new charges weren't brought against him due to his age and that he was no longer a senator.

I guess the real question is which congressmen aren't guilty of at least some ethics violations? Should we throw out all but the ones who are pure as the driven snow, no matter how few that might actually be?
 
One down, 534 to go.
 
Bleh, I hate Rangel.

Incidentally, how's that whole racial gerrymandering thing working out for Republicans now they can't knock off an easy target because he's in a ghetto district?
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ntinues-deliberations-rangel/?test=latestnews



Well, I waited all day and no one mentioned this that I could see, so here it is.

Do you think his comments about being treated unfairly have merit? Is he as pure as the driven snow as he alleges? Or was the panel right in its findings?

Now that this has occurred....what next? He would never ever resign, although he should and even President Obama has asked him to resign.

Personally, I think he should be removed from congress. Although thats probably not going to happen, although Pelosi did promise to 'clean up' congress when she first became speaker. He will probably get a slap on the wrist, and continue in his wallowing hypocrisy.

What do you think should be done to him? Removal? Censure?

Discuss.
He should be removed right after David Vitter.
 
If anyone besides Charlie Rangel [or substitute your favorite member of Congress] did this, they'd be in prison.
 
White collar crime in general goes largely unpunished, especially corruption. Just look at the GWB administration corruption poster boy, Dick Cheney, both before and after he took office.
 
If people are going to offer other examples of what they think is corruption, could we at least limit it to congress, and even further by official verdicts/indictments?

I dont mind other examples of previous incidents in congress, but everything else is just too far OT and quibbling to be honest.
 
If people are going to offer other examples of what they think is corruption, could we at least limit it to congress, and even further by official verdicts/indictments?

I dont mind other examples of previous incidents in congress, but everything else is just too far OT and quibbling to be honest.
This is a global war on corruption - no need to limit the battlefield.
 
After all, how important is the integrity of a Vice President anyway? And everybody knows that if you weren't convicted that it couldn't possibly have happened. :rolleyes:
 
Of course, this isn't going to sit well with those who have double standards and want Rangel to be held more accountable than similar Republicans who were caught in ethics breaches, such as Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich or Ted Stevens. They will likely try to claim that the ethics violations never occurred or weren't as severe, especially in the case of Stevens who coincidentally became quite rich during his tenure as a prominent Senator. Instead, they will focus on the fact that the prosecution screwed the pooch by being overzealous while ignoring that he is clearly one of the most corrupt politicians in recent memory. That new charges weren't brought against him due to his age and that he was no longer a senator.
Isn't this where Bill O walks in and asks how pointing toward what you see as the bad behavior of others excuses the bad behavior of Rangel?
 
Bleh, I hate Rangel.

Incidentally, how's that whole racial gerrymandering thing working out for Republicans now they can't knock off an easy target because he's in a ghetto district?
I'm unaware of the GOP being in control of the NY legislature. If your beef is with racial gerrymandering in general I would be all for a repeal of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
 
Back
Top Bottom