About Charlie Rangel and all politicians...

[Joe Fields]

I don't know about all of you, but as for me, I want my leadership in Washington, D.C., in the State house and in city hall to be held to the highest of ethical standards. They MUST be held to the highest standards, or else society, in general will only follow suit.

Charlie Rangel was convicted of 11 counts of unethical behavior. There is no excusing his behavior. AND, if I had anything to do with his punishment, he would be expelled immediately from congress.

As a personal aside; when I have ever been caught doing anything inappropriate or illegal, I have suffered the consequences, and have never cried foul.

We must expect at least that and more from the public servants who are elected to represent our interests.

[bigtree]

1. 'when I have ever been caught'

:rofl:

[Joe Fields]

3. No telling what else Rangel did that he wasn't caught doing.

And you have led a perfect life?

[bigtree]

6. I take every advantage I can, financially

Are we supposed to now pass judgment on what the congressman might have done wrong that we don't yet know about? Incredible.

[Joe Fields]

8. You seem to have done that with me.

I was just mirroring your response.

[jwirr]

2. It always makes me wonder what they were thinking. We Democrats

are forever yelling about corrupt repugs and rightly so. Why does any Democratic legislature think we would support corruption in our own party?

[FLyellowdog]

4. Agree. eom

[NeedleCast]

5. Totally Agree

No free passes because he's on our side of most issues.

[Catherina]

7. Agree. Rec'd n/t

[Joe Fields]

9. Hi, Catherina..

:hi:

I will also go so far as to say that, if any of congressman Rangel's behavior has stepped into the realm of illegality, he should be prosecuted, and have his day in court, like any other citizen.

[Catherina]

12. I agree. No special treatment

:hi:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

10. Remember Adam Clayton Powell? LISTEN to the 'prosecution': 'I see no evidence of corruption'

This thread has no links to FACTS about this case, which DID NOT by any stretch of the imagination uncover a "K Street Project" or ANY evidence of quid-pro-quo political corruption. IMO Rangel deserves mild Congressional censure for sloppiness in his personal finances and overzealousness in City College fundraising:

From http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/11/rep-charles-rangel-house-ethics-trial-/1 :

"Blake Chisam, the committee's staff director and lead prosecutor:

'I see no evidence of corruption. ...Do I believe (Rangel) took efforts to enrich himself? ... I do not. I think the congressman was overzealous ... and sloppy in his personal finances.'"

[Joe Fields]

11. Convicted on eleven counts. Really? You want to go with that defense?

And, by your words, even if it was just "sloppiness," on the part of the congressman, which it wasn't, btw, EVERY politician should take the utmost care in making sure that his house is in proper order, just to keep ANY accusations of improper behavior from arising.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

13. Eleven counts of WHAT is the issue here. At least list the specific charges against the man

before you equate him with Tom Delay. Why no link in your OP?

[ProgressiveEconomist]

18. "Just 'sloppiness' ... which it wasn't" I provided a LINK to the judgment of the lead 'prosecutor'

that it WAS just sloppiness and overzealous fundraising--see post #10 above. Where's your JUSTIFICATION for your statement? Please do some research before you post.

[Catherina]

17. Rangel is no angel, never was.

Here's a report from Crew, an organization that calls 'em like they see 'em, regardless of party affiliation:

http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/files/charles_rangel_most_corrupt.pdf

This is more than sloppiness.

Sloppiness doesn't cover neglecting to report $75,000 condo income on your taxes, getting interest-free real estate loans, improperly using 4, not 1 but 4, rent-stabilized apartments and getting them at 1/10 of their cost when his worth is over a cool million. Then we have bribes and what not.

I fully support prosecution.

[bigtree]

20. CREW has the same list of petty charges that everyone else has

At least one of the members of the Ethics Subcommittee (that you're hanging your own convictions on) disagrees with you that Rep. Rangel has been corrupt or was intentionally dishonest. "Good faith mistakes" and "sloppiness" are his quotes, I believe.

[Catherina]

21. If you want to excuse him, go ahead. I don't. n/t

[RoccoR5955]

14. Why not just hang him, because he was sloppy with his finances?

Chances are that if it was a RepubliCON, the Cons would be lauding him as some sort of hero.
He's been proven guilty of ignorance, and sloppy bookkeeping.
NOW LEAVE HIM ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Joe Fields]

15. L fuckinf OL!

Do your own homework, please!!

[KittyWampus]

27. Four rent-stablilized apartments isn't "sloppy". That said, a slap on the wrist will suffice.

Why he decided to pretend he wasn't using his position to get away with stuff is beyond me. Stupid move.

Actually, I do know his problem. It's hubris.

[Joe Fields]

16. People, this has been going on for over two years now.

If you don't know the facts, please don't fuck with me.

I am not in the mood. The ethics committee has rendered its decision, and there is a better than average chance that Rangel could face criminal charges.

And frankly, I don't give a shit what congressman Rangel has done in the past for ANYONE!!!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

19. "There is a better than average chance that Rangel could face criminal charges". Did you just

make that up? At least provide a link to Drudge or wherever you got that notion, if you didn't just make it up.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

28. KICK!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

29. KICK!

[ProgressiveEconomist]

61. KICK!

[SoCalDem]

22. oopsie a dupe

[Joe Fields]

44. so sorry. I usually try to keep that from happening.

But this whole Rangel thing, and the support he is getting from many members here just ticked me off to no end.

[closeupready]

23. Unrecced. Let freepers air our dirty laundry in public, not OUR SIDE.

n/t

[EFerrari]

34. Ditto. n/t

[Joe Fields]

40. do you even realize what you are saying?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

46. LOL.....

.....unreal.....

[SoCalDem]

24. This is why I support term limits.

Power corrupts..and the longer a person is in power, the more opportunities they have.

Congressional pay is and has been notoriously LOW, so it's not hard to see how a guy like Rangel who's used to wheeling & dealing all his life, could come to think that he's "owed" extra perks and deals.

Public SERVICE should be just that..serve for a while, and then go back to your "real" life.

There should also be no pensions for most of them.

I'd like to see:

senate ...two 6 yr terms MAX
house ...two 4 yr terms MAX

The ONLY way to get a pension would be to reach 20 consecutive years, which would REQUIRE service in BOTH houses..with NO losses..

Once OUT of office, no lobbying/tv show or thinktank work for FIVE years.

Think of the money we would save...and we'd probably get a better caliber of public servant too..

Lobbyists would be reluctant to dump shitloads of money into campaigns when they knew the person was not even running again.

[Catherina]

25. +1. Well said. n/t

[RoccoR5955]

35. There ARE term limits... It's called "the voting booth." n/t

[SoCalDem]

38. not working very well, eh?

:P

[Joe Fields]

41. wrong. Incumbents have a huge advantage, they also have

a long list of donors in place, they also have had the time in office to do favors for the right people, who in turn pay them back....

term limits, period.

[bluestate10]

57. Term Limits are better known as elections.

Rangel's constituents wanted him back. Likely because no ethical democrat in his district had the guts to run against Rangel and beat him. So the choice came down to Rangel or a republican, the answer could not be none of the above, the choice was bad or unthinkably bad.

[BlueCheese]

26. Agree completely.

If anything, we should have less tolerance for corruption on our side than on theirs. I don't want my party leaders--the visible face of the Democratic Party-- to flout the rules with impunity.

Remember how shameful it was when the Republicans were wallowing in corruption before the 2006 elections? When Tom DeLay was indicted, and the GOP House caucus changed their rules to allow him to maintain a leadership post? I remember thinking then that they had completely lost any sense of connection to the public, and thought of themselves as a ruling class then.

If a jury of Rangel's peers, half of whom are Democrats, find him guilty of eleven counts of corrupt behavior, then he has to accept the consequences. If we want to dismiss the charges because the guy is one of "ours", we're already way down a slippery slope to a cesspool.

[Joe Fields]

43. precisely.

[Lilith Velkor]

30. Charlie Rangel wanted to bring back conscription to help Bush with his war.

Fuck him right in the ear.

[Cleita]

32. That wasn't the reason.

He felt that if there is a draft, the sons and daughters of millionaires and millionaire Congressmen having to do their military duty would make them think twice before sending us to war.

Please get your facts right before you hurl unfounded accusations.

[EFerrari]

33. That's right. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

51. You seriously think there wouldn't be a way out for the elite?

That is fucking delusional, so good riddance to him.

[RoccoR5955]

36. That was a ploy to END the war.

You don't think that the public would be FOR a war, if they actually saw their kids going into it involuntarily?

[Lilith Velkor]

52. Yeah, I know...we can stop this meat grinder if only we feed enough kids into it.

Good luck with that.

[bluestate10]

59. Rangel wanted the draft back.

So that kids that now run around calling themselves conservative warriors would learn what it's like to be put in a position of legalized killing. That effort was one of Rangel's best moments of the last decade. Rangel wanted the draft with no deferments of the type that kept George Bush and Dick Cheney out of Vietnam. As a person that had an older sibling drafted, join the Marines, fight in Vietnam and die because of the lingering mental issues service in that war caused him, I welcomed Rangel's effort. When the children of powerful people are subject to what my sibling and parents endured, powerful people will think long and hard before unleashing the dogs of war.

[Cleita]

31. According to our laws every one is entitled to

legal representation. It seems Charlie was found guilty with no lawyers representing him. Why do Democrats get held to different standards than Republicans and how can this be legal if he didn't have legal representation? I'm confused.

[RoccoR5955]

37. I completely agree.

I don't understand why he was not allowed his Constitutional right to representation.

[BlueCheese]

39. My understanding is ...

First--this is a Congressional subcommittee, not a real court. They can't throw him in jail.

Second--Rangel had a lawyer before this. According to Rangel, his lawyer quit after he ran out of money, and so he asked for a delay while he found a new one. Apparently the committee wasn't going for that.

[hughee99]

53. In the end, Rangel's punishment probably won't be as bad

under this congress as it might have been under the next one. Charlie basically stipulated that the facts in this case were accurate, his defense was that it was an accident, oversight or sloppiness rather than intentional.

[Joe Fields]

42. It was his choice to walk out without representation.

This was an ethics committee, NOT a court of law. Big difference.

[AtomicKitten]

45. I agree. Thanks for your OP. nt

[U4ikLefty]

47. Your feelings on Bush/Cheney being tried for war crimes?

any thoughts?

[Joe Fields]

48. Yes, they should receive a fair trial, followed by a swift incarceration.

And yet, I wonder just what it is that you are implying by your question. Just come out and say what's on your mind. I don't bite....much.

[U4ikLefty]

49. Just looking for consistency.

I'm sure you have a history of holding Bush/Cheney's feet to the Hague's fire, right?

I'm not worried about biting...in fact a little nibble feels good from time-to-time.

[H2O Man]

58. Bush & Cheney

cannot be tried at the Hague; hence it would be impossible for anyone to hold their feet to that fire. However, it is possible for them to be prosecuted in the United States. It is important to know what courts have jurisdiction.

[U4ikLefty]

60. It was just a figure of speech. nt

[yurbud]

50. on NPR, the played a GOP rep asking prosecutor if Rangel had done anything that profited himself

and the prosecutor said no.

I think it's great to have all these rules, but if someone hasn't been enriching themselves or cronies, it does not rise to the level of a crime, especially when Washington turns a blind eye to epic corruption in the Iraq War, what amounted to racketeering and extortion with the Bush admin, Federal Reserve and Wall Street in the bailout, and any number of other crimes with profound, historic consequences.

Whatever Charlie Rangel did is the equivalent to forgetting to pick up your dog's poop when you take him for a walk by comparison.

[hughee99]

55. How does this one not profit one's self?

Failing to report rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic on his Federal income tax returns from 1998 to 2006.

Here's a full list of the charges.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20012179-503544.html

[H2O Man]

54. One of my best friends

used to work for Rangel. He used to have the utmost respect for the Congressman. That has certainly changed.

[bluestate10]

56. I agree.

Rangel must resign. If he does not, democrats should reduce him to nothing. If Waters of California is found to have violated public trust, she too must go or be relegated to nothing. Democrats must not allow themselves to get into ethical fixes. As a party, I believe that we are superior to republicans in all regards, ethics must be by far the most visible superiority.

[Hannah Bell]

62. this is penny-ante bullshit. i suspect you could find similar items in the lives of

90% of the folks in congress.

but only *some* get scrutinized.

why that is is my question.

[Angry Dragon]

63. I say go after them all

There should be a citizen commission that investigates congress
none of this buddy-buddy stuff or get the other side.

I volunteer

[Hannah Bell]

64. if they went after everyone (if every congressperson were held to the same standard)

i'd have no problem when rangel got dinged.

since it seems to me politically motivated & the "crimes" uncovered decidedly penny-ante (using the office stationery, remember that one?), i'm not as inclined to call for his head as the op.

remember rangel was a thorn in george bush's side & this investigation started in the bush wh.