Breaking: Rangel Found Guilty Of Ethics Violations

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

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

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

He should not have run for re-election.

Not good for such a long term congressman.

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.

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

And all while he was under charges.

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

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.

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

These are NOT criminal charges

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

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

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

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

Your post insults his district.

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.

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

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.

"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.

... have a nice day!

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

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.

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.

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.)

Repubs never do.

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

Will you defend him , as well?

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.

He was just overwhelmingly reelected by the people he represents.

do you defend his shenanigans?

in his own high tech lynching.

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

"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.

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.

I'm sorry that you were offended.

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.

:(

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

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

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

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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

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

WTF!?!?

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

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

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

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.

I wasn't attempting to draw a parallel

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.

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.

Wait... No he won't.

You mean he's STILL in Congress?

How did I miss that?

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

Bass turds!

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:

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

Wonder which one will get media coverage?

Well, no...not funny.

Sad...

...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).

Nobody cares.

...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.

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.

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

But he doesn't deserve his place in Congress.

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.....