Breaking: Rangel Found Guilty Of Ethics Violations

[Hissyspit]

Source: Associated Press

Rangel Found Guilty Of Ethics Violations
Published: November 16, 2010
by The Associated Press

A House ethics panel has found Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York guilty on 11 counts of breaking House rules.

The full ethics committee will next conduct a hearing on the appropriate punishment for the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The committee will then make a recommendation to the House.

Possible punishments include a House vote deploring Rangel's conduct, a fine and denial of privileges.

The eight-member ethics panel had sat as a jury to judge Rangel's conduct. The 80-year-old congressman from Harlem was charged with 13 counts of financial and fundraising wrongdoing.

Read more: http://m.npr.org/news/front/131358044?url=%2F2010%2F11%2F16%2F131358044%2Frangel-found-guilty-of-ethics-violations

[gateley]

1. Convicted on 11 of 13 counts. nt

[helderheid]

2. link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40190465

[MrDelawho]

3. He should now resign.

We do not need the albatross that he has now become.

[Indianademocrat91]

6. He will never do that

He's not likely to get expelled from Congress just a reprimand so its just like everyone else, getting off with a slap on the wrist and thinking he's above the law. Sad

[MrDelawho]

13. Yup.

He should not have run for re-election.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. well he did and he WON by a landslide...the people wanted him

[MrDelawho]

21. He got a bare majority in the primary.

Not good for such a long term congressman.

[No Elephants]

34. LOL. Five other candidates were in that primary--and none of them were under 13 charges. Plus, he

won the election very handily "garnering 81% of the vote with most of the precincts in his Upper Manhattan district reporting." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/03/rangel-easily-wins-re-election/


And that was while he was under a cloud.

[MrDelawho]

37. < 51%

Past primaries, he received >70% (when he had a challenger.)

[No Elephants]

48. Again, he ran against FIVE other candidates in primary, not one. And got over 80% in the general.

And all while he was under charges.

P.S. Repeating your prior post after I've already responded to it is pointless.

[MrDelawho]

50. When you defend all that is "D", you do the party an injustice.

[No Elephants]

59. Um, you made a misleading comment and I responded to that.

When you make misleading posts, you do your fellow posters--and yourself--an injustice.

You've minimized Rangel's primary and victories. If he won AT all over even 1 challenger while under a cloud placed upon him by his own Party, that would show his constituents really wanted him, but he won over 5 challengers AND went on to take 81% of the general votes. How you can honestly keep arguing that his constituents don't really want him is beyond me.

As for my allegedly defending Rangel, you misread and/or misrepresented my posts (intentionally or unintentionally). I have yet to defend (or attack) Rangel. All I did was post FACTS about the primary and the election without buying into your spin (intentional or unintentional). I have yet to defend (or attack) Rangel. If I had done either, trust me, it would be a lot more than simply stating election results.

[JudyInTheHeartland]

24. "Rule of Law" means that being elected by the people doesn't confer immunity

Not saying that Rangel is a criminal. But I am saying that there are other standards than just popularity for public officials.

[Steerpike]

30. FYI

These are NOT criminal charges

[JudyInTheHeartland]

36. obviously you didn't read my comment

[Steerpike]

40. sorry

if i misinterpreted your comment about you "not calling him a criminal BUT..."

[FBaggins]

53. Which does not mean that none of his actions were criminal.

The House has no power to bring criminal charges against him.

[MrDelawho]

38. Or, there should be.

[MattyGroves]

39. And the election results show what the people wanted across the country

it doesn't mean that the people showed good judgement or that the people they voted in are fit for office.

[BlueDemKev]

44. He's from HARLEM....

...what we're they going to do, elect some right-wing teabagger who claims Obama is not an American citizen?

[No Elephants]

51. He had five Democrats challenging him in the primary.

Your post insults his district.

[MrDelawho]

52. Your posts, in my opinion, insult the Democratic Party.

Again, your defense of all that is "D", makes it hard to make a point....when you really have one. Your screed of " he was elected in a landslide" is irrelevant. I do NOT advocate removing him from office. That said, I DO feel he should resign for the good of the party. At this point , it is only his pride that is in the way. HE should take the high road and give up his seat. Another Democrat can represent Harlem.The party does not need this.

[No Elephants]

65. No, mentioning facts doesn't insult the Democratic Party. See Replies 59 and 64.

Your insistence that my mentioning relevant facts about Rangel's primary and election = defending all things D" is off the wall.

[MrDelawho]

68. I stand by my assesment...

your propensity to defend Mr. Rangel, despite his conviction in a "friendly" hearing, points to the fact that you are raising said defense only because he is a Democrat. IMO Democrats should not follow the lead of the Republicans, (as you advocate), but take a higher moral path.To do otherwise puts one (you) at the same level as Mr. Vitter.Now, you may continue your tact of .."...I am not defending...." blah, blah ,blah.

[No Elephants]

75. Um, how did I "defend" Rangel?

"IMO Democrats should not follow the lead of the Republicans, (as you advocate), "

Um, I never advocated that. Other posters did, not I.

"To do otherwise puts one (you) at the same level as Mr. Vitter"


Your reasoning is as impaired as your ability to keep posters straight.

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

71. Relevent Facts Trump Conjecture...

... have a nice day!

[FBaggins]

55. You keep repeating that...

... are you unaware of the fact that it's easier for an incumbent to run against multiple primary opponents rather than just one?

[No Elephants]

64. Let's see why.

ElsewheresDaughter posted "....his constituents want him."

Mr. Delawho replied, saying Rangel got only a little over 50% of primary votes. However, Mr. Delawho did not mention that it was a very crowded primary--and Mr. Rangel had won the election by 81%--both of which facts seemed very relevant to the issue of whether Rangel's constituents want him, as ElsewheresDaughter had claimed So, I mentioned them. (Then, Mr Delawho repeated himself, still omitting relevant info, so I repeated myself.)




BlueDemKev also replied to ElsewheresDaughter. His post was as follows:


"He's from HARLEM....
...what we're they going to do, elect some right-wing teabagger who claims Obama is not an American citizen?"


My point in mentioning the primary when replying to him was to negate his implication that people in Rangel's district had no alternative whatever to Rangel, except a teabagger and/or a birther. That was simply not the case, unless one pretends Rangel went unchallenged in the primary. In reality, his constituents had many choices beyond simply Rangel or a teabagger.

[FBaggins]

70. Sorry... I'm not sure that you addressed my concern.

It's easier to run against five opponents in a primary (particularly non-name opponents with little to no funding) than it is to run against one opponent who represents an actual alternative to the incumbent. So pointing out that he had five opponents (there were actually closer to fifty who received votes - including write-ins for the likes of "anybody by Rangel") doesn't demonstrate that they had a real alternative. You can easily be effectively unchallenged.

He received a tad over 25,000 primary votes. That's hardly evidence that his constituents overwhelmingly supported him.

More importantly, the guy is obviously crooked. I couldn't care much less what his constituents think. Trafficant used to get reelected too.

[No Elephants]

73. What IS your specific concern about My posts?

I've explained exactly why I mentioned the primary.

Are you saying mentioning it was not relevant to put Mr. Delawho's post in context? Or not relevant to put BlueDemKev's post in context? Or are you really taking issue with Elsewhere's Daughters' post, not mine?




"I couldn't care much less what his constituents think."

Fair enough--and honest enough--BUT the topic of the sub-thread begun by Elsewhere's Daughters' post was whether his constituents wanted him. (Btw, I never said anything about overwhelming support, or guilt or innocence, etc. My posts were narrow in scope and drew no conclusions.)

[Hissyspit]

9. Why?

Repubs never do.

[MrDelawho]

12. That's why.

[Hissyspit]

47. Yeah, that'll teach them!

Give into every political witch hunt they throw at us. We'll get so much respect!

[MrDelawho]

54. This was as much a "witch hunt" as the William Jefferson case.

Will you defend him , as well?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Disagree

Even the "prosecutor" said it was sloppiness and not intent or ethical lapse. He be censured (means nothing) and made to repay or otherwise set right what was done improperly. He will not get a chairmanship any time soon.

[bergie321]

18. Why?

He was just overwhelmingly reelected by the people he represents.

[MrDelawho]

25. Why.......

do you defend his shenanigans?

[auntAgonist]

4. msnbc link inside.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40190465/ns/politics-more_politics/

[Roma]

5. Good on Mr. Rangel for walking out of and not participating

in his own high tech lynching.

It's about time that a Democrat showed some backbone.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. He conceded that facts some time ago. Also note that even the

"prosecutor" clearly stated it was sloppiness not self enrichment or other ethical issue. He will be censured and be required to repay or otherwise make things right. He will retain his seat.

Next is Maxine Waters turn...in that case your words may be prophetic.

[No Elephants]

19. Please do not quote Clarence Thomas's (or Poppy's) shameful phrase.

Using "lynching" for hearings involving a Congressional Rep or a Supreme Court nominee really dilutes the term. And televising a hearing does not make anything high tech.

[Roma]

58. If anyone was offended by my remarks

I'm sorry that you were offended.

[No Elephants]

72. I'm sorry Clarence Thomas didn't get the diffference between a Supreme Court

nominee and a victim of a lynching, or the difference between a camera and high tech.

http://www.americanlynching.com/pic20.htm

As my earlier post implied, I don't think Thomas came up with the phrase on his own. I think some jerk in Poppy's administration fed it to him. Disrespecting victims of lynching and their families, just to play the race card so fat perv wouldn't have to answer any specific questions. Glib, heinous and out of touch, all at the same time.

Reminds me of Poppy marveling at the scanner when he was out "shopping" for a pair of socks to show Americans how to get the country out of the Republicon recession. However, Thomas was dumbass enough to repeat it, so I hold him responsible. Meh. what do I expect from that dolt? At least he keeps his mouth shut most of the time in court.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. ...

:(

[Steerpike]

8. What a load of crap

with all the criminal misconduct going on with Repugs...we do our best to defame one of the great liberals of our time...ask yourself before you spout shit about Mr Rangel...

where is tom delay

[No Elephants]

23. On trial?

[Steerpike]

35. Dancing with the stars

now for a few YEARS now...good thing we had a speedy trial for the Democrat!

[No Elephants]

66. Not lately. He handed off the Republicon klutz flag to Bristol Palin.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Under investigation, and on trial still.

Still rooting for some jail time there. Might happen too.

[Old and In the Way]

10. I look forward to the equal application of the ethics law to ALL House members.

If nothing else, this shows that Democrats do their caucus accountable....I won't hold my breath waiting to see Republicans do the same with their caucus come January.

[No Elephants]

45. "I look forward to the equal application of the ethics law to ALL House members." And Senate.

I have to believe members of Congress have done worse than use letterhead to fund raise for a school, run a campaign from a residence and neglect to report rent from a vacation home in another country. (No story ever says the dollar amount, so I'm guessing it was chicken feed.) So, I have to wonder what this is really about.

[notesdev]

11. possible punishments...

"Possible punishments include a House vote deploring Rangel's conduct, a fine and denial of privileges."

LOL maybe there's a wrist slap or two in their punishment quiver too. Regardless of whether Rangel is in truth guilty or innocent, with consequences like these I can't think of any good reason why any Congressman would care about adhering to ethics rules at all.

[Midwestern Democrat]

81. Well, Rangel's lost a lot of power. He may well remain a sitting

congressman, but he's not going to be THE Charlie Rangel anymore. He has effectively lost all of his seniority - he will never be a committee chairman or a ranking member again; candidates will no longer seek his endorsement; he'll never be invited to high profile junkets any longer.

Rangel right now probably ranks at the very bottom of the Democratic caucus in terms of clout, whereas before this whole mess - he was probably the third most powerful House Democrat.

[florida08]

15. really?

We have the GOP Chamber of Commerce accused of money laundering and fraud but Rangel is more important? WTG

2010 Complaint
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Chamber_of_Commerce

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. exactly like Dan Coats and Cooper Industries...that's what needs investigating!

[florida08]

32. oh man

that one makes me seethe. Senator-->lobbyist-->Senator..but hey the benefits are grrrrrrrrreat :banghead:

[ElsewheresDaughter]

46. and he will not recuse himself on the finance committee votes on issue that he handled as a lobbyist

WTF!?!?

[florida08]

60. well you know

he's above questions of ethics :popcorn: aren't these gopstoppers just priceless..well no..they do come with a price,but you know what I mean

[hughee99]

43. How exactly does the house ethics committee deal with the Chamber of Commerce?

Which house Rep. is responsible for the actions of the CoC?

[florida08]

62. The CoC is a lobbying group

You remember them..they wanted the taxpayers to help pay for the BP mess. Nice group of businessmen like Goldman and Chevron.
They have many locations around the country. They just sent a board game title "This way to the jobs" to lawmakers. It really laughs at them and us.


Watchdog groups have asked the IRS to investigate them. You can read about it at the sourcewatch link

[florida08]

63. here's one link

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/16/us-chamber-commerce-sends-board-game-lawmakers-part-ad-campaign

[hughee99]

67. I understand that, but as the House Ethics committee really only has control

over the actions of the house members, and not the activities of external lobbying groups, I'm not sure they would be the group to be looking into any of this, anyway. This would be more the IRS or FEC.

[florida08]

69. why yes

I wasn't attempting to draw a parallel

[madfloridian]

20. And Karl Rove is running around winning elections for the GOP

and laughing up his sleeve at us. He has always kept records on Democrats to be pulled out at convenient times, yet our party has let Siegelman suffer and let people who lied us to war go free.

Not even a slap on the wrist for the enablers of torture techniques.

[Iliyah]

28. So flpping what!

Look at all the GOP criminals still walking around and paying for elections. This country is corrupt. The governor of Florida is a crook. I'm glad Conyers showed some balls. Yes he was wrong, but at this point so what.

[Tippy]

80. This has Roves paw prints all over it......

[saracat]

26. This saddens me deeply.

[onehandle]

27. Tom Delay will get his.

Wait... No he won't.

[FBaggins]

56. He won't?

You mean he's STILL in Congress?

How did I miss that?

[Can of Whoop-ass]

29. I would

guess Cheney's next... ah... he gets a pass, Shotgun Dick keeps it loaded.

[RoccoR5955]

31. Nice of them, considering he didn't have a lawyer to defend him

Bass turds!

[bongbong]

33. Time for some spine, Democrats

At this point in the Vitter diaper case, the repigs passed a resolution expressing their support & admiration for Vitter.

Who wants to bet me the Dems will do the same thing for Rangel? :sarcasm:

[MrDelawho]

61. I hope they do not.

[activa8tr]

74. I hope they don't either. Ethics violations are no small blemish.

He should leave, he's 81 for god's sake!

[KansDem]

41. Funny. Rangel found guilty of ethics violation; Bush accused of lying and plagiarizing in his book.

Wonder which one will get media coverage?

Well, no...not funny.

Sad...

[BlueDemKev]

42. He needs to GO....

...Rangel must resign now. His staying on will only hurt the Democratic Party. I think Obama should pressure him to go--doing so may even help him win back some independent voters).

[closeupready]

76. Oh, please. Clinton perjured himself, and left office with an 80% approval rating.

Nobody cares.

[BlueDemKev]

82. This guy is NOT Clinton...

...he is an annoying, far-left liberal with a scratchy-as-hell voice that makes people cringe. The Teapublicans will use him against the Democrats saying "see what they're like?" Just the same way we used Tom DeLay against them. Rangel needs to go and NOW.

[hughee99]

49. What is the world coming to

when you can't hide 600K in assets and income, raise money from people with interest before your committee, and use rent controlled apartments that are supposed to be used for someone to live in as offices? Congressman Rangel will now have to suffer the pains of a sternly worded letter and a slap on the wrist, which he had already spent $2 million in hopes of avoiding.

And in the end, this "Guilty" verdict just means that the charges go to the full Ethics panel, which then has to send this to the full house, not that he's officially guilty of anything yet.

[UrbScotty]

77. He needs to be expelled. He is a stain on our Party and the country.

I mean, I presume he WON'T be expelled.

But he doesn't deserve his place in Congress.

[Tippy]

79. I must strongly....disagree

[Tippy]

78. For the life of me I don't understand why Rangel didn't fight this

He seems to have admitted to a lot...But.....Check it out for your self.....

Adjudicatory Hearing in the Matter of Representative Charles B. Rangel

Opening Statement by Chair Zoe Lofgren

Opening Statement by Ranking Member McCaul

Rangel Motion and Affirmation

Rangel Exhibits Part 1

Rangel Exhibits Part 2

Rangel Exhibits Part 3

Rangel Exhibits Part 4

Rangel Exhibits Part 5

Rangel Exhibits Part 6

Rangel Exhibits Part 7

Rangel Exhibits Part 8

Rangel Exhibits Part 9

Rangel Exhibits Part 10

Rangel Exhibits Part 11

Rangel Exhibits Part 12

Representative Bobby Scott Statement

http://ethics.house.gov/News/Read.aspx?id=170

At best I see him getting a formal dressing dowm.....