Rep. Rangel: "How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the Ethics Subcommittee?"

[bigtree]

November 16, 2010 1:07 PM

Congressman Charles B. Rangel released the statement following the decision made by the Adjudicatory Subcommittee, on November 16, 2010:


Cites Committee Chief Counsel's Declaration That
There Was No Evidence of Corruption or Personal Gain

"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? 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.

I am disappointed by the unfortunate findings of the Ethics Subcommittee. The Committee's actions are unprecedented in view of the fact that they arrived at without rebuttal or counter evidence on my behalf.

While I am required to accept the findings of the Ethics Committee, I am compelled to state again the unfairness of its continuation without affording me the opportunity to obtain legal counsel as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.


This unfair decision is the inevitable result of the Committee's insistence on moving forward despite the absence of any legal representation on my behalf. The Committee elected to reject my appeal for additional time to secure new counsel and thus acted in violation of the basic constitutional right to counsel.

The Committee's findings are even more difficult to understand in view of yesterday's declaration by the Committee's chief counsel, Blake Chisam, that there was no evidence of corruption or personal gain in his findings.

From here forward, it is my hope that the full Ethics Committee will take into consideration the opinion of its chief counsel as well as the statement by Rep. Bobby Scott, a member of its investigatory subcommittee who said that any failings in my conduct were the result of "good faith mistakes" and were caused by "sloppy and careless recordkeeping, but were not criminal or corrupt."


http://rangel.house.gov/2010/11/rangel-deplores-ethics-committee-findings.html#more

[Angry Dragon]

1. I think average people should be on the Ethics Committee

and not members of Congress where there is a conflict of interest

[Joe Fields]

2. Sorry. wrong

An ethics committee is not a court of law.

You are afforded a fair trial, when charged with a crime, under the constitution, but a congressional ethics committee is a different ballgame.

Rangel had better hope that he isn't charged with any crime, which still may happen. But as for now, justice in the House prevailed. I hope that he is kicked out of the House of Representatives as soon as possible. We don't need those types of individuals leading our nation.

[bigtree]

3. he also better hope that the sky doesn't fall on him

. . . better chance of that happening.

"those types?" You mean the select few who are chose for 'prosecution' before the 'ethics' committee?

[Joe Fields]

9. No, I mean "those types" who are found guilty by an ethics committee.

[bigtree]

14. right

. . . the select few out of the cesspool who get chosen arbitrarily for 'prosecution' and investigation.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. He won't be leaving any time soon.

He did break the rules and will be told to clean the messes, make restitution etc. There was no finding of corruption, just extreme sloppiness. His rein as a major committee chair is over, he will not be the ranking minority member on any either. I can live with that. He will retire soon enough, he is a tough bird, but he can not live forever.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. The facts were not in dispute...he admitted to most of them on the House floor

Also the "prosecutor" said there was not evidence of personal gain or corruption, just sloppiness. They were still fairly serious rules violations, but its nothing that they will kick him out over. He will be ordered to clean up his messes, make restitution as needed etc and get some minor censure. He will also not chair anything or be the lead minority member on any committee. Considering how badly he screwed up, its light and IMO reasonable.

[bigtree]

7. well, the guy they found guilty certainly was disputing them

He'll get a light judgment, because the petty charges don't merit anything more than that.

You do realize that most of these committee chairmen can be similarly singled out and their own finances raked over to put them at odds with their opportunistic 'ethics' subcommittee? Who's next? I see that they chose to lead with two members of the CBC. I'm not the only one thinking these 'prosecutions' and investigations were politically motivated and arbitrary.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bigtree]

23. sez you

The overwhelming majority of voters in his district certainly must have thought so when they reelected him by a wide margin last election.

'Your' interpretation of 'ethics' means little to me.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. His press release was coyly worded

He was right there was no finding of corruption, but there was a lot of rule braking, and some of it was pretty flagrant. The charges were more than petty and he damn well should have known better. That is was considered sloppiness was in the eyes of some an out right gift. IIRC he has already worked it out with the IRS, so there is no threat from that quarter. He will have to clean it the messes, including restitution. Then life will continue, with no leadership role (the real penalty).

Maxine Waters is indeed next, and the charges there are more serious. I think its a safe bet she will not be quiet either.

[bigtree]

25. I think the case against Waters is even weaker

. . . but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

30. This case was a slam dunk given prior admissions. The Waters one will be more contentious

[EFerrari]

39. You're not the only one at all, bigtree.

I said when they put the Forrest Gump of CIA dirty tricks into the House Ethics Office as co-chair, there would be consequences.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3691214

[Catherina]

20. That's the outcome I see too. n/t

[tularetom]

6. I have no problem with the subcommittee's decision

If Rangel did what they claim he did he should have his peepee whacked. Figuratively of course.

I have a big problem however believing that Rep Rangel and Rep Maxine Waters are the only 2 out of 435 elected representatives that have committed such egregious acts as to have themselves hauled before this subcommittee.

[Renew Deal]

11. They chose the "trial"

They could have agreed to a lesser action. I think the case against Waters is weaker than the one against Rangel.

[Catherina]

15. It's actually over 30 who are being investigated

Published on Friday, October 30, 2009 by The Washington Post
Ethics Investigators Probe Dozens in Congress
by Ellen Nakashima and Paul Kane

WASHINGTON - House ethics investigators have been scrutinizing the activities of more than 30 lawmakers and several aides in inquiries about issues including defense lobbying and corporate influence peddling, according to a confidential House ethics committee report prepared in July.

The report appears to have been inadvertently placed on a publicly accessible computer network, and it was provided to The Washington Post by a source not connected to the congressional investigations. The committee said Thursday night that the document was released by a low-level staffer.

...

Shortly after 6 p.m. Thursday, the committee chairman, Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), interrupted a series of House votes to alert lawmakers about the breach. She cautioned that some of the panel's activities are preliminary and not a conclusive sign of inappropriate behavior.

...

The 22-page "Committee on Standards Weekly Summary Report" gives brief summaries of ethics panel investigations of the conduct of 19 lawmakers and a few staff members. It also outlines the work of the new Office of Congressional Ethics, a quasi-independent body that initiates investigations and provides recommendations to the ethics committee. The document indicated that the office was reviewing the activities of 14 other lawmakers. Some were under review by both ethics bodies.

...

Campaign contributions Many of the broad outlines of the cases cited in the July document are known - the committee announced over the summer that it was reviewing lawmakers with connections to the now-closed PMA Group, a lobbying firm. But the document indicates that the inquiry was broader than initially believed. It included a review of seven lawmakers on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee who have steered federal money to the firm's clients and have also received large campaign contributions.

...

More: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/10/30

[ProgressiveEconomist]

24. Until Boehner kills the OCE in January (according to the National Journal yesterday)

See http://nationaljournal.com/columns/rules-of-the-game/boehner-walks-tightrope-on-reform-20101115?print=true .

[Catherina]

27. That would be terrible. There are plenty of Republicans under investigation,

How convenient that would be.

[haifa lootin]

8. He wasn't denied counsel, he just didn't want to pay for a lawyer and he walked out of

the hearing. I've always liked old Charlie but face it, he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. The old adage about power corrupts once again reflects reality. He should be glad this was NOT a civil trial, he could very well have ended up going to the pokey.

[Renew Deal]

10. The committee should take his remarks into account when they decide on punishment

He chose to go down this road because he knew he was guilty. He has no one to blame but himself.

[Catherina]

12. How can anyone have confidence in a congressman who accepts a luxury vacation

paid for by major corporations like Citigroup, Pfizer and AT&T and who's been watched, for years, for exchanging legislative help for favors? Among other things.

[bigtree]

17. so, all congressfolk who accepted gift travel are prosecuted?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. Only those who accept it and do not report it outside of the rules

[KittyWampus]

22. and took FOUR apartments intended for those who needed them?

I live in NY. Rangel was given plenty of time to say his mea culpas and walk away with dignity.

[bigtree]

26. Instead, he's still standing with his constituents firmly behind him

. . . go figure.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

33. So re election is your standard for eithcal behavior?

[bigtree]

36. aren't voters able to make the same political judgments these congressfolks have made?

I think an argument can be made that the citizens' judgment is superior.

[KittyWampus]

41. true, but what does that have to do with the ethic committee, his wrong doin or his hubris??

I like the guy.

Don't like the way he handled this.

[EFerrari]

49. Where are people getting four apartments?

Bobby Scott says one in his letter to Zoe, not four.

ETA: And he points out, that doesn't violate any House rules.

[BlueCheese]

18. There were four Democrats on the subcommittee...

Anyone know who they are?

In any case, we should hold our elected officials to high standards of ethics, regardless of party. Part of the reason the Democrats were able to win the House in 2006 was because of ethics lapses involving Tom DeLay, Mark Foley, Randy Cunningham, and maybe some others.

[bigtree]

28. I know that at least one of them said his actions involved 'good faith mistakes'

. . . and sloppiness. I'm not going to set my hair on fire over that.

[Catherina]

31. This is the best I can find

Members of the
House Ethics Committee,
111th Congress

Democrats:
Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), Chairman
Ben Chandler (Ken.)
G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)
Kathy Castor (Fla.)
Peter Welch (Ver.)

Republicans:
Jo Bonner (Ala.), Ranking Member
Gresham Barrett (S.C.)
John Kline (Minn.)
Mike Conaway (Tex.)
Charlie Dent (Penn.)

[BlueCheese]

34. Thanks.

That's a little different than the list here--the Dems are the same but two of the GOP have changed. Of the Dems, it turns out all but Chandler were on the subcommittee. Conaway, Dent, and two others were the GOP people.

http://ethics.house.gov/About/Default.aspx?Section=5

[Catherina]

44. Let's go with your list, mine didn't have a date. Thanks for finding the right one. n/t

[KittyWampus]

21. Rangel should have just admitted what he did, apologize and accept a slap on the wrist.

I love the guy, but this is coming across as slightly unbalanced.

[bigtree]

29. he looks pretty steady to me

if that's love you're expressing . . .

[Catherina]

43. Kitty, you put it kindly. Rangel spent $64,000 on a portrait of himself,

$64,000 of PAC money or campaign contributions money.

I used to like the guy, then I started watching how some of his votes would change at the last minute and that really bothered me.

The $64,000 Entreaty for a Portrait of the Chairman

Rep. Charles Rangel wants a fine likeness. (By Nikki Kahn -- The Washington Post)

By Mary Ann Akers
Thursday, August 30, 2007

He's been chairman for only eight months, but already Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) is more than daydreaming about what his official Ways and Means Committee portrait will look like. He knows one thing: It'll be top of the line.

In perhaps the most thorough and earnest letter ever written on the subject of a member of Congress's portrait, Rangel's campaign attorney sent a letter to the Federal Election Commission asking permission to use either campaign or leadership political action committee money to pay for the chairman's grand portrait.

The lawyer, Phu Huynh, wrote, "The cost of commissioning the portrait of Representative Rangel is estimated by the artist to be $64,500, including the cost of a custom frame. . . . Portrait artists determine fees based largely upon reputation, but the size of the subject and detail required also factor heavily in the pricing."

And lest anyone have concerns, no nepotism rules will be violated in the painting of his portrait. "The artist receiving the commission payment is not a member of Representative Rangel's family," Huynh wrote.

So serious is Rangel about his portrait that he consulted an "art broker for eight museum-quality portrait artists" who advised that the cost is "consistent with other top portrait artists." Although the broker's Web site lists a base range of $30,000 to $50,000, "the estimated cost of $64,500 for Representative Rangel's portrait reflects a three-quarter body length size, important details and a custom frame," the letter said.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/29/AR2007082902136.html

He got the portrait. $64,000. The story always bugged me. Also that his leased car, a
Cadillac DeVille paid for by taxpayers, was one of the most expensive car rentals at nearly $1,000 a month. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002859977_carlease12.html

It's so unseemly, so perk-oriented. It makes it hard to complain about excesses on the Republican side when they can point to stuff like this. I'd like to see a house cleaning and term limits.

[sad sally]

Sorry, Mr. Rangel, I think you had some advance warning that

you'd need a lawyer; betcha' you even know more than one or two who would have been there for you.
Your claim of "sloppy and careless recordkeeping" cause some concern that this personal conduct might have carried over to Congressional business.
Too bad...you always were high on the list of one of the good guys. Now your friends on the other side of the isle can say, "see, it's not just us who do wrong things."

[BlueCheese]

32. Members of the subcommittee:

Democrats: Zoe Lofgren, CA (chair), G.K. Butterfield (NC), Kathy Castor (FL), Peter Welch (VT)
Republicans: Michael McCaul (TX) (ranking member), Mike Conaway (TX), Charles Dent (PA), Gregg Harper (MS)

Does anyone have reason to think that the four Democrats are wrong in their judgment on this case?

[EFerrari]

35. I don't know yet. First I'd like to see what penalties he gets.

I do think that members of the CBC wind up being the targets of these things disproportionately.

[BlueCheese]

37. From the Committee webpage...

... it looks like Rangel and Waters are the only two people with adjudicatory subcommittees listed.

On the other hand, I can think of a number of congresscritters who were drummed out of Congress entirely, either by election or by resignation, for ethics reasons. Traficant, DeLay, Cunningham, Foley, Jefferson. Of those, only Jefferson is black. Perhaps I missed some...

[EFerrari]

38. They tried to crucify Maxine last summer and that was over nada, zero, zip.

There have been other investigations but they don't come to mind immediately. Probably a search "CBC ethics" would bring them up.

[outerSanctum]

40. The swamp is getting drained....

n/t

[bigtree]

46. Rep. Rangel is standing on dry land

. . . watching the shitstream wash over and flow by him.

[spin]

42. Being in a position of power in Washington D.C...

may infect a person and eventually cause a bad case of corruption.

Perhaps that's why we should have term limits. Here is a man that is a war hero and has a long record of public service and yet a House panel of other members of the House of Representatives has found him guilty of 11 counts of violating ethics.

Rangel was born in Harlem in New York City and had a somewhat troubled childhood. He earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for his service in the United States Army during the Korean War, where he led a group of soldiers out of a deadly Chinese Army encirclement during the Battle of Kunu-ri in 1950. Rangel graduated from New York University in 1957 and St. John's University School of Law in 1960, then worked as a private lawyer, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and legal counsel during the early-mid 1960s. He served two terms in the New York State Assembly from 1967 to 1970, then defeated longtime incumbent Congressman Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. in a primary challenge on his way to being elected to the House of Representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_B._Rangel

I personally like Rep Rangel and I hope all turns out well for him.

I suspect it's the environment that cause politicians to leave the straight and narrow path and wander off on the side roads. It's like they are bitten by the god of power and influence and see no problem with enjoying misusing their position to violate the rules. Perhaps they believe that they are above the rules. It happens far too often. Good men go to Washington with the best intentions and the corruption that surrounds them eats into their soul.

[Tippy]

45. Rangle is not guilty....in the same way when it's republicans in the hot seat...

Rangle admintted to a lot of things that were not necesarilly violations please read Representative Bobby Scott Statement....they are trying to prove someting with this



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

[Catherina]

47. Thanks for the links but now I'm angry. $600,00 from Verizon? AIG?

After donating $600,000 to Rangel's center, Verizon sends "Many thanks to Charlie and to you for his support on final passage of the Bart-Rush Telecom bill"? Pg 19, http://docs.house.gov/ethics/RangelMotionandAccompanyingAffirmation.pdf

Barton-Rush Act of 2006
In 2006 Barton partnered with Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) to create the Communications Opportunity Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006. The COPE Act or "Barton-Rush" bill would allow major telephone companies to compete with cable television companies. It has also been widely critized for making net neutrality impossible, which could possibly lead to a multi-tiered Internet where some websites would move and load faster if they pay an additional fee to providers like Verizon and Comcast.<21>

The leading proponents of the COPE Act have been Verizon, Comcast, SBC Communications, Time Warner, and AT&T. Barton has a potential conflict of interest in that he stands to profit if SBC Communications makes money off of this bill, which it most likely will. Barton owns between $1,000 and $15,000 of dividends in SBC Communications according to his 2004 personal financial disclosure forms.<22>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Joe_Barton

Trump? Ford Foundation? 1 MILLION dollars from Nabors Oil and Drilling, one of the world's largest drilling companies, offshore too? Pg 32,33, http://docs.house.gov/ethics/RangelMotionandAccompanyingAffirmation.pdf

AIG on pg 37. Charlie Rangel! Sold to AIG for a cool $10 million, "Congressman wants whole $10 million for Rangel Center." "Congressman Rangel is a good friend and frequent visitor to AIG."


I'm not even halway through the third document and I'm revolted.

How is this not corrupt?

[EFerrari]

48. Right on Bobby Scott.

Thanks for the link.

What a farce.