Committee investigator Chisam and Committee member Rep. Scott don't think Rep. Rangel's corrupt

____Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who also served on the investigatory subcommittee that authored the 13 violations of House rules Rangel (D-N.Y.) allegedly committed, said that the Harlem lawmaker did not act in a corrupt or self-serving manner and should be served only with a letter of reproval from the House.

"I do not condone improper conduct by any member of the House but the circumstances of this case are not consistent with the precedents of the Standards Committee where a member has received or the committee has recommended a reprimand," Scott wrote in a letter dated Aug. 12.

Scott (in a 65 page dissent) disputed the committee's recommendation that Rangel be formally reprimanded by the House, saying that a lesser penalty (a letter of reproval) would better fit his violations and bring an end to the saga more quickly.

"There is no evidence that Representative Rangel attempted to conceal a conflict of interest or engaged in any of the corrupt conduct that has traditionally warranted a reprimand," Scott wrote. "Representative Rangel's conduct is the result of good faith mistakes and misunderstandings of legal standards and the scope of his official duties. His violations of House rules were caused by his sloppy and careless record-keeping, but were not corrupt."

read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/129237-rangel-investigator-disagrees-with-charges


____ There was a key exchange between Rep. G.K. Butterfield (R-NC) and Blake Chisam, the chief counsel for the Committee that suggested the violations were not as intentional as previously thought.

“Do you see any evidence of personal financial benefit or corruption?” asked Butterfield.

“I see no evidence of corruption,” answered a clearly reluctant Chisam. “It’s hard to answer the question of personal financial benefit. Do I believe, based on this record, that Congressman Rangel took steps to enrich himself based on his position in Congress? I don’t. I believe that the congressman, quite frankly, was overzealous in many of the things that he did, and at least sloppy in his financial — his personal finances.”

read more: http://politic365.com/2010/11/16/house-ethics-counsel-on-rangel-i-see-no-evidence-of-corruption/