(November 15, 2010 - Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images North America)
An adjudicatory subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee has ruled in favor of convicting Representative Charlie Rangel on 11 of the 13 counts of House ethics rules violations. The panel, which heard a summary of the facts and evidence accumulated against Rangel, ruled for summary judgment on the facts as undisputed and later applied the laws and rules of the House to said facts finding that all but two of the charges were of merit. The full House Ethics Committee will now determine punishment which could include an informal reprimand, censure, or even expulsion.
Having already turned down a deal for an informal reprimand in July, one would assume that the likely punishment would be censure or expulsion. That said, it would take a 2/3 vote of the full House for the latter, so censure (which requires only a majority vote) is probably the punishment awaiting Rep. Rangel.
In a bit of last minute maneuvering, Rangel appeared before the panel Monday morning and pleaded with his peers to delay the hearing until he could obtain counsel as his previous representation had chosen to part ways with the embattled Congressman. Receiving no such relief, Rangel chose to depart the hearing in protest.
Shortly after hearing the news of his “conviction” Tuesday, Rangel was asked for comment to which he replied, “Nope… None.”
He has since released an official statement on the matter. Via The Hill…
——————————
First of all, I love it when politicians play this card. Overlook what I have done, mitigate my punishment, and honor me rather than expelling me because I’ve been here for 40 years. All that says to me is that you have made a career of this kind of mischief and you now want to rely upon having not been caught for 40 years as evidence that you should be allowed to continue on.
I hate to admit it but I watched a great deal of the subcommittee hearing (pre-recorded of course) last evening, and I have to tell you that the whole scandal, controversy, or whatever you want to call it is nothing short of despicable. I can admit, after hearing some of the Q&A with Chief Counsel for the Committee Blake Chisam and perusing some of the evidence, that some of the allegations aren’t as heinous as I had previously thought. That said, I did choose the word “some.” Rangel was living in the distinctions in every aspect of his personal and public life. His defense and the defense made by some of his apologists on the panel was that Rangel was simply “sloppy” in his financial reporting and record keeping. Are you kidding me? In the case of his namesake library we’re talking millions of dollars of sloppiness. In the case of his failure to report income, it was absolutely fraudulent. His misuse of rent-controlled apartments was nothing short of a blatant abuse of his power and stature as a Congressman. His use of House materials and resources to solicit donations for any purpose was unethical.
The truth is this, I walked away from the hearings with two points frozen in my brain. First, Rangel is a dirty bastard. He plays this goofy old man of the people card, but he’s as Washington as they come. He worked every angel imaginable to increase his private wealth and public stature with no regard to anything even remotely related to ethics. Second, the whole damn system of “gift giving” in Congress is utterly despicable. The distinctions between 501(c)(3)’s and individuals or corporations is rather meaningless because on one hand you have countless non-profit’s with covert and overt political agendas and on the other you have corporations funneling money into them for the purpose of removing the appearance of impropriety. Heard on more than three occasions in the hearing was the opinion of the Chief Counsel stating that “gifts” could be received from entities with an interest before committees or subcommittees were acceptable – “as long as House rules were followed.” Are you kidding me? Its okay to be bought off as long as you report it? What happened to cleaning out the swamp Speaker Pelosi?
Charlie Rangel may have a point that he “did nothing wrong” if viewed through a forty-year prism of quasi-ethical behavior. After all, if one lives long enough with a pack of wolves, won’t he begin to act like said pack of wolves? Maybe Rep Rangel is just an innocent victim of business as usual in Washington. Maybe, just maybe, he’s just the target of a malicious prosecution and persecution aimed at stifling a “distinguished” and powerful Congressman from New York.
Or
He could just be a disgusting sack of garbage who has spent 40 years getting fat off the American People – who’s finally been caught with his hand in the cookie jar and needs to be thrown out on the streets with the rest of the trash?
——————
The Other McCain has an interesting point regarding Rangel’s claim to a lack of counsel and subsequently Due Process…
Ed Morrissey at HotAir discusses the unlikelihood of actual punishment…
The only real penalty would be expulsion, and don’t think for a moment that Rangel’s allies will allow that to happen. It’s too bad, really, because as his constituents demonstrated two weeks ago, that’s the only way Rangel will ever leave Congress.”
Michelle Malkin reminds us who those “allies” are…
…the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.
Charlie’s “angels” on the committee include Congressmen Ben Chandler of Kentucky, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and Peter Welch of Vermont. All have received donations from Rangel.
If we did any of the things that Rangel has done and been convicted
of doing….WE’D BE ON OUR WAY TO PRISON!
We don’t like this ‘slap on the hand’ on bit and we want you to
act like you were voted into office to do.
There is a limit to what crooks should be allowed to get away with.
This man has made a mockery of our entire government system.
Then, he had to audacity to flaunt it in our faces.
I couldn’t agree more Tess. He seems utterly unaffected by these charges. He appears resolute in his position that he has done nothing wrong. I am not sure if I am more offended by his actions or his attitude toward being caught. I do believe he thinks that he’s earned the right to be above the law.