Colleagues deny Rangel's plea for delay in trial (Charlie walks out)

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – Rep. Charles Rangel walked out of his ethics trial Monday after a House ethics panel denied his request to delay it, and the ethics committee's top lawyer urged lawmakers to push toward a decision in the case.

The once-powerful 80-year-old congressman from Harlem had pleaded for a delay, arguing that he had run out of money to pay his previous lawyer after spending nearly $2 million. It would be unfair to continue the trial without giving him a chance to find a new defense lawyer, Rangel said. Chief House ethics counsel Blake Chisam, assuming the role of prosecutor at the rare public airing of in-House issues, played a video of a Rangel speech on the House floor in August.

Rangel, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, acknowledged in that presentation that he'd used House stationery to raise money for a college center named after him, and that he'd been tardy in filing taxes and financial disclosure statements. But he said he never intended to break any rules.

Chisam told an ethics panel of four Republicans and four Democrats that "there are no ... issues as to any material facts in this case. As a result the case is ripe for a decision." After Rangel stalked out, the proceeding — rare in the annals of the House — went on without him.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_rangel_ethics_trial

Then you can use the money for your criminal attorney.

Witch Hunt ... probably...

Is this the usual word for it?

It is the usual word for it. With procedures and a panel that serves as jury. They even mete out punishments. There are a few non-judicial kinds of trials held by the US government.

Note that impeachment and removal from office also has a "trial" in the middle: You impeach, which amounts to a bill of charges to serve as the basis of the trial with removal from office being the punishment.

Source: MSN

WASHINGTON — Rep. Charles Rangel walked out of his ethics trial Monday after a House ethics panel denied his request to delay it, and the ethics committee's top lawyer urged lawmakers to push toward a decision in the case.The once-powerful 80-year-old congressman from Harlem had pleaded for a delay, arguing that he had run out of money to pay his previous lawyer after spending nearly $2 million. It would be unfair to continue the trial without giving him a chance to find a new defense lawyer, Rangel said.
Chief House ethics counsel Blake Chisam, assuming the role of prosecutor at the rare public airing of in-House issues, played a video of a Rangel speech on the House floor in August. Rangel, former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, acknowledged in that presentation that he'd used House stationery to raise money for a college center named after him, and that he'd been tardy in filing taxes and financial disclosure statements. But he said he never intended to break any rules.
Chisam told an ethics panel of four Republicans and four Democrats that "there are no ... issues as to any material facts in this case. As a result the case is ripe for a decision."After Rangel stalked out, the proceeding — rare in the annals of the House — went on without him.
Chief counsel: Rangel 'sloppy' with finances
Chisam said he did not believe Rangel's conduct was corrupt, but rather, that the congressman, the former chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, was "overzealous" and "sloppy in his personal finances."Vermont Democratic Rep. Peter Welch said that no law firm should be "taking the money...and kicking their client by the side of the road." Chisam, then read aloud the 13 charges of alleged financial and fundraising wrongdoing that have been brought against Rangel.

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

I would love to know what it was spent on. I have been involved in litigation quite a few times on behalf of myself or companies, and I can't imagine what this money was spent on. The documents exist or they don't, and it shouldnt be more than a few hundred of the documents that a lawyer would need to go over.

Charlie Rangel is a war hero and much beloved by his constituants. He has committed no criminal acts and the worst he can get from this is a censure. All this is, is a way to drag a good man through the mud. The democrats involved in this are assholes and the republicans involved are...well...they're republicans...

Rangel has a history of solid liberalism as far back as the end of the 2nd world war. That anyone in the Democratic Party should be participating in throwing this man under the bus is a travesty.

... you think what Ted Stevens did was OK too? Because they are morally equivalent.

War hero or not you don't get to cheat. Rangel did despite your protestations. I have ZERO sympathy for him or ANY OTHER CORRUPT CONGRESSPERSON, which would probably be at least half of them.

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

Why do I get the feeling that a lot of folks in the House AND Senate (both sides) have done a lot worse and Rangel is being singled out for reasons having nothing to do with letterhead, late payments, etc.?

Heard the month part on the radio.

but i will admit to being highly biased