More greatness from Washington -- The Rangle Files

[leroy]

Folks:_______________

I urge each of you to take the time to read this. I know it's hard to say "congressional" and "ethics" in the same sentence and they modify eachother; but this is worth reading. All this baloney symbolizes what is wrong on both sides of the aisle.

The upside is that the more publicity these chumps get; the more folks will learn about them. I predict this one will be great. My guess is that Rangel is guilty as sin and no amount of whitewash will cover this one up. It will demonstrate that Rangle (...and many other longtimers...) are nothing more than carpetbagging trash that have been pillaging the govt and pedding influence for over forty years (...in Rangle's case, anyway...).

More great stuff from the Demorat House of Representatives. I may be wrong; but i seem to remember the great House Speaker Pelosi saying: "...this congress will be the most ethical in history... . I cant wait to see how this one plays out.

Read and enjoy:

Link here: Dana Milbank - Charlie Rangel and the farce known as congressional ethics

Charlie Rangel and the farce known as congressional ethics

By Dana Milbank

Tuesday, November 16, 2010;

Charlie Rangel's trial began with an admonition from House ethics committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) that the matter should be conducted "with the dignity and decorum befitting any proceeding before the House of Representatives."

Talk about setting a low bar.

Within minutes of its opening Monday morning, the trial degenerated into exactly the level of dignity and decorum we have come to expect from our lawmakers.

Rangel immediately requested a postponement of the trial - never mind that the New York Democrat had spent the last three months demanding that the trial be expedited. The man who until recently had sway over hundreds of billions of dollars as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee was now claiming that he was too indigent to hire a lawyer. Half an hour into the public hearing he had demanded for so long, Rangel announced that he was leaving.

"I object to the proceedings, and I, with all due respect, since I don't have counsel to advise me, I'm going to have to excuse myself from these proceedings," he told his eight colleagues, who wore expressions of surprise and amusement.

Rangel, in his agitation, stepped away from his microphone as he berated the panel members. This forced the C-SPAN sound man to rush forward with a boom microphone, and caused problems for the stenography services, one of which transcribed the beginning of Rangel's diatribe this way: "RANGEL: (OFF-MIKE) On several occasions I've spoken with (inaudible). I've spoken with the chair. And I have (inaudible). . ."

After Rangel departed, he treated reporters who chased him down the hall to more of his treatise on fairness and justice. The committee members huddled in private, then decided to proceed with the trial of Rangel in absentia, as if they were a Hague tribunal judging an at-large war criminal.

This was but the latest act in the ongoing farce known as congressional ethics. Rules are so flexible, and enforcement so lax, that even instances that look like outright influence-buying don't get prosecuted. And there's no sign that the situation will improve, as key figures make noises about abolishing the new Office of Congressional Ethics, a semi-independent body designed to make ethics investigations more transparent.

Now comes Rangel, who seems determined to take down with him any remaining credibility of the ethics committee. "I am being denied a right to have a lawyer," he informed the committee with righteous indignation.

"You may hire whoever you wish as a lawyer," the chairwoman told him. "That is up to you."

There is some truth to Rangel's complaint. His law firm, Zuckerman Spaeder, withdrew from the case after his trial date was set, and after Rangel had paid them at least $1.4 million. (The firm says it "did not seek to terminate the relationship.")

Rangel, after a tough reelection campaign (and the loss of fundraising clout associated with his committee chairmanship), has little campaign money left to pay another lawyer, and House rules prevent him from accepting pro bono help. (Celebrated criminal lawyer Abbe Lowell, seated with Rangel's family in the hearing room Monday morning, was willing to take the case for a pittance.)

Still, it's difficult to feel sorry for Rangel. He could pay for lawyers by selling off his villa in the Dominican Republic (the one for which he's accused of avoiding taxes - one of the 13 charges against him). Or he could have maintained better relations with his legal team, rather than publicly rejecting their advice in a speech on the House floor.

Rangel sauntered into the hearing room - a chamber much less grand than his former Ways & Means lair - wearing a striped tie as loud as the TV test pattern. Rangel smiled as if arriving at a cocktail reception, then stood at attention at the defense table until the committee members walked in, five minutes later.

After opening statements, Lofgren asked Rangel, alone at the defense table, if he was represented by counsel. The 80-year-old lawmaker interpreted this as an invitation to make a speech. He delivered a lengthy complaint about the process and a reaffirmation of his innocence. After several minutes of this, the chairwoman interrupted. "Mr. Rangel?"

"If the chair is suggesting that I conclude my remarks," Rangel said - Lofgren nodded her agreement - "then I would do that." But not before he made another statement, this one invoking his wartime service and his work for the New York state legislature in the 1960s.

The prosecutor attempted to enter his 549 exhibits into the record. "Is there objection?" Lofgren asked.

Rangel took this as a cue to make another lengthy speech. Lofgren eventually interrupted. "Mr. Rangel, if you could be seated," she requested.

Rangel, ignoring the chairwoman, remained on his feet - the preferred position of a man about to stage a walkout.

danamilbank@washpost.com

Leroy

Edited November 16, 2010 by leroy

[greenego]

Charley may get fined and or a slap on the wrist. Dems. want this over. Republicans don't want to deal with it Same with Maxie Waters

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I saw on Drudgereport, yesterday, that Rangel used campaign funds to pay his lawyers

totalling close to two million dollars, and that those lawyers are backing away from him,

now. Ethics is everywhere. Maybe the wrong ethics.

For someone to have the most ethical, transparent congress, Pelosi has done wonders.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Ok. A few things. 1. Pelosi claimed they would fight corruption. Look at how many charges were pursued in previous Congresses, not chaired by Pelosi, there have been many more charges of late... Not that Pelosi should not be vilified for her other actions... And I do wonder if another had been in charge, would these charges seen the light of day?

2. R. Blake Chisam, the committee's chief counsel, told subcommittee members in a trial hearing Monday that there was no proof of corruption or evidence Rangel was trying "to personally enrich himself." But, Chisam said, Rangel "quite frankly was overzealous" in many instances and "at least sloppy in his personal finances." source: House Panel Finds Rangel Guilty Of Ethics Violations FYI: a more "fair" or "balanced" reading of the story than the one previously posted...

Hmm. No proof of corruption, or evidence he was attempting to enrich himself. Interesting statement. Means, if this were a criminal matter, there would be no charges...

3. He had no legal representation. He had a firm, paid them a huge amount, then they ditched him just before the hearing... Ouch. Makes one wonder why. Had this been a court proceeding, they would have delayed.

4. Greenego's point is valid. Congress knows the public hates their guts right now, and therefore, they do not want to touch these situations right now. Besides, there are rumors other House members, possibly Republican, were on the future hit list.

5. They did find him in violation. Good. If he was abusing his power, he needs to go. Goes with ANY of the House Members...

[Oh Shoot]

....

5. They did find him in violation. Good. If he was abusing his power, he needs to go. Goes with ANY of the House Members...

House would be empty.

Looks like he will only be "censured" or "reprimanded". Big whup.

Rangel has apparently committed federal crimes, but I hear no mention of his being indicted for that.

- OS

[E4 No More]

House would be empty.

Looks like he will only be "censured" or "reprimanded". Big whup.

Rangel has apparently committed federal crimes, but I hear no mention of his being indicted for that.

- OS

If they started that it'd be a Donnybrook of people telling on each other. They'd be throwing everyone but the rookies in jail.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

And that would be a bad thing?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[E4 No More]

And that would be a bad thing?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not that it's a bad thing, but that's like stepping up to drink koolaid in a cult.

[ttocswob]

20 lashes with a wet noodle...