House ethics panel to expand Rangel probe

[Parkbandit]

The House panel investigating alleged ethics violations by Rep. Charles B. Rangel, New York Democrat, said Thursday it voted unanimously to expand the probe.

A statement by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct said its investigative subcommittee already has issued nearly "150 subpoenas, interviewed approximately 34 witnesses resulting in over 2,100 pages of transcripts."

The subcommittee also has analyzed more than 12,000 pages of documents and held more than 30 investigative meetings, according to the statement issued by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, California Democrat, who is the committee chairman, and ranking minority member Rep. Jo Bonner, Alabama Republican.

However, the committee said confidentiality rules restrict members from saying how or why the investigation is expanding.

The statement follows a failed attempt Wednesday by House Republicans to remove Mr. Rangel from his post as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Rep. John Carter, Texas Republican and secretary of the House Republican Conference, presented a resolution for a full House vote calling for the removal of Mr. Rangel, at least until the committee concludes its probe. However, the Democrat-controlled chamber sidestepped the issue by instead referring the resolution to the ethics panel.

The committee has been investigating Mr. Rangel for 16 months on an expanding number of allegations, including tax evasion and failure to report income and assets.

Among the allegations are that Mr. Rangel failed to report income from rental property in the Dominican Republic, that he was living in a rent-controlled New York apartment and that he had at least $250,000 in a checking account. Another allegation is that Mr. Rangel used official congressional letterhead to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.

Republicans say the 16-month review has dragged on without resolution and that Democrats continue to shield Mr. Rangel despite the congressman's own acknowledgment -- in revised disclosure statements last month -- that his net worth was roughly $500,000 more, or nearly double what he previously reported.

The Ways and Means Committee is the House's chief tax-writing panel and also oversees the Internal Revenue Service.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, on Thursday called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, to force Mr. Rangel to step down as chairman.

"Given the expanded investigation announced today, it is past time for Speaker Pelosi to insist that Chairman Rangel step aside until the ethics committee completes its work," Mr. Boehner said. "The American people wont stand for having a chairman of the Houses tax-writing committee who is under investigation for not paying his taxes. What more has to happen before Speaker Pelosi does the right thing?"

"As a practical matter, today's announcement is nothing new," Rangel spokesman Robin Peguero said. "Today's action by the committee is a technicality, as everything they referenced in today's announcement has already been subject to ongoing review by the ethics committee and its staff. It is clear that the committee is being very thorough and deliberative in their process, hence today's announcement."

Mrs. Pelosi's office said Thursday afternoon that the speaker would comment later.

The vote Wednesday was 246-153, with two Democrats siding with the minority and 19 members voting "present."

Mr. Rangel, who entered Congress in 1971, was among those who voted in favor of referring the resolution to the committee.

"That's where it belongs," he said. "It doesn't belong on the floor."

Reps. Gene Taylor and Travis W. Childers, both from Mississippi, were the two Democrats who voted against Mr. Rangel on Wednesday. A Republican aide said the vote showed that support for Mr. Rangel was weakening.

"These votes show that support for the Democratic leaders' decision to sweep this matter under the rug is starting to crack," said Michael Steel, spokesman for Mr. Boehner.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/08/house-ethics-panel-expand-rangel-probe/

Holy shit.. why again is this taking so long to kick this scumbag out of government?

[Kuyuk]

Gotta do it right to make it stick.

Just like in corporations, it's all about documentation, documentation, documentation.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Probably because he's one of hundreds, he just got caught with his hand in the jar. They don't want to set precedent to come back and haunt them.

[Kembal]

He needs to give up his committee chair, or at least temporarily turn it over to the next senior Democrat in line while awaiting the outcome of the investigation(s).

Although, I doubt conservatives would like the representative next in line. It's Pete Stark (D-CA), and he's more liberal than Rangel.

[Ardwen]

If we railroaded all the corrupt politicians out, there wouldnt be a hell of alot left to actually keep the place running. Probably have to have the custodial staff making the bills, that is assuming they arent walking out with the toilet paper at night.

[AnticorRifling]

If we railroaded all the corrupt politicians out, there wouldnt be a hell of alot left to actually keep the place running. Probably have to have the custodial staff making the bills, that is assuming they arent walking out with the toilet paper at night. I thought that was what they wrote some of the bills on....

[Ardwen]

Maybe the part the custodial staf took home was where all the worthwhile bills went....

[Atlanteax]

The double standard is such a crock. Any republicans under suspicion with corruption are immediately railroaded right out.

I say railroad all the corrupt politicians out whether they have a D, R or I in their name.

http://cagle.com/working/091104/asay.gif

Obviously this happens regardless whether political party "controls" Congress...

But it'd be particularly nice if both could keep their membership "clean" versus engaging in "cover-ups" so they can retain their majority (or fill-buster minority).

[BigWorm]

Obviously this happens regardless whether political party "controls" Congress...

But it'd be particularly nice if both could keep their membership "clean" versus engaging in "cover-ups" so they can retain their majority (or fill-buster minority).

Why do you keep necro-bumping old threads with bad cartoons?

[Atlanteax]

Last I knew, the Rangel probe is still ongoing and his removal is still being obstructed.

[Parkbandit]

House ethics subcommittee has found Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) guilty on 11 counts of violating House rules "by clear and convincing evidence," Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the chair of the House ethics committee, announced Tuesday.

Rangel was found guilty of breaking House rules related to reporting rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic, of using a rent-controlled apartment in New York for campaign activities, and rules against using congressional stationery to raise funds for a center at New York's City University to be built in his name.

After receiving news of the verdict, Rangel blasted the the findings "unfair" and "unfortunate."

"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?" he said. "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."

But Lofgren stood by her committee's verdict and the process they used to come to it. "This has been a difficult assignment, time-consuming and we have approached our duties diligently -- and that includes every member of this subcommittee," Lofgren said. "We have tried to act with fairness, led only by the facts and the law, and I believe that we have accomplished that mission."

The top Republican on the subcommittee, Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), endorsed the committee's findings, but said the Rangel matter has broader implications for the entire House. "I'm hopeful as we move forward with this matter into the next phase, that at the end of the day we will be able to begin an era of transparency and accountability, a new era of ethics that will restore the credibility of this House," he said.

Rangel faced charges stemming from a 21-month investigation into accusations that he failed to pay rent-related taxes on his villa in the Dominican Republic; that he used a rent-controlled apartment in New York for campaign activities; and that he used congressional stationary to raise funds for a center at New York's City University to be built in his name.

The trial began Monday, more than two years after the congressman asked the Ethic Committee to investigate him following media reports about irregularities in his tax filings and personal financial disclosure reports to the House.

Although the congressman insisted he never knowingly violated House rules, he stepped down from his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee earlier this year under pressure from fellow Democrats. After that, he defiantly kept a high profile on Capitol Hill and in his Harlem district, maintaining his innocence at every opportunity. He was re-elected to a 21st term on Nov. 2.

In an extraordinary speech on the House floor in August, Rangel held forth for more than half an hour to defend himself before going home to New York to campaign for re-election. He said then that there was "not one scintilla of evidence" to prove him guilty of the violations and demanded that the ethics committee publicly try him so he could answer the allegations.

But when the eight-member House panel began the hearing Monday, Rangel walked out of the proceedings, deeming them unfair and a violation of due process since he had no legal team representing him. Rangel explained that he had spent nearly $2 million in legal fees in the run-up to the trial and asked the committee to delay his hearing until he could find and raise more money to pay for more lawyers. The committee said no.

"The committee has deprived me of the fundamental right to counsel and has chosen to proceed as if it is fair and impartial and operating according to rules, when in reality they are depriving me of my rights," Rangel said in a statement after leaving the hearing.

Despite Rangel's absence, the committee's staff attorneys continued with their case against him, making an early motion to end the hearing with no further witnesses or evidence against Rangel. The committee granted that judgment and then went into closed executive session to debate each count against the congressman.

Now that Rangel has been found guilty, the full committee will meet to make a recommendation to the full House about punishment, which could range from reprimand to censure to expulsion.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11/16/charlie-rangel-found-guilty-on-11-counts-of-violating-house-rule/?icid=maing%7Cmain5%7C1%7Clink4%7C25810

11 counts... I bet he gets a mild slap on the wrist.

[BigWorm]

LOL that voluntarily choosing to walk out of the proceedings means he was "deprived of due process rights".

[Parkbandit]

LOL that voluntarily choosing to walk out of the proceedings means he was "deprived of due process rights".

That was my favorite part.. that and he couldn't afford a lawyer.

[Latrinsorm]

11 counts... I bet he gets a mild slap on the wrist.A list of possible penalties for his conviction:

"The most common forms of discipline in the House are now “expulsion,” “censure,” or “reprimand,” although the House may also discipline its Members in others ways, including fine or monetary restitution, loss of seniority, and suspension or loss of certain privileges."

Definitions:
Expulsion: "Expulsion is the form of action by which the House of Representatives, after a Member has taken the oath of office, removes that Representative from membership in the body by a vote of two-thirds of the Members present and voting."

Censure: "In the House of Representatives, a “censure” is a formal vote by the majority of Members present and voting on a resolution disapproving a Member’s conduct, with generally the additional requirement that the Member stand at the “well” of the House chamber to receive a verbal rebuke and reading of the censure resolution by the Speaker of the House."

Reprimand: "The more formalized distinction in the House whereby it is considered that a “reprimand” expressly involves a lesser level of disapproval of the conduct of a Member than that of a “censure,” and is thus a less severe rebuke by the institution, is of relatively recent origin. ... In the case of a “reprimand,” however, the resolution is merely adopted by a vote of the House with the Member “standing in his place,” or is merely implemented by the adoption of the committee’s report."

[Firestorm Killa]

A list of possible penalties for his conviction:

"The most common forms of discipline in the House are now “expulsion,” “censure,” or “reprimand,” although the House may also discipline its Members in others ways, including fine or monetary restitution, loss of seniority, and suspension or loss of certain privileges."

Definitions:
Expulsion: "Expulsion is the form of action by which the House of Representatives, after a Member has taken the oath of office, removes that Representative from membership in the body by a vote of two-thirds of the Members present and voting."

Censure: "In the House of Representatives, a “censure” is a formal vote by the majority of Members present and voting on a resolution disapproving a Member’s conduct, with generally the additional requirement that the Member stand at the “well” of the House chamber to receive a verbal rebuke and reading of the censure resolution by the Speaker of the House."

Reprimand: "The more formalized distinction in the House whereby it is considered that a “reprimand” expressly involves a lesser level of disapproval of the conduct of a Member than that of a “censure,” and is thus a less severe rebuke by the institution, is of relatively recent origin. ... In the case of a “reprimand,” however, the resolution is merely adopted by a vote of the House with the Member “standing in his place,” or is merely implemented by the adoption of the committee’s report."

Hoping on Expulsion

[AnticorRifling]

Those are just possible. They all might not happen and a slap on the wrist (make an apology don't do it again) could follow.

[Firestorm Killa]

Those are just possible. They all might not happen and a slap on the wrist (make an apology don't do it again) could follow.

Would be nice if it did happen. But I too am betting on the slap on the wrist.

[Latrinsorm]

Those are just possible. They all might not happen and a slap on the wrist (make an apology don't do it again) could follow.If he gets censure or reprimand he doesn't even have to make an apology, this sentence ends with lol.

[Gan]

Rangel getting re-elected is right up there with Marion Barry getting re-elected.

[Cephalopod]

I was just looking back over this (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=45684) thread, since I knew I had made some prediction about this a while ago... but I failed. I said Rangel would never make it to re-election, so boy was I wrong.

[Firestorm Killa]

I was just looking back over this (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=45684) thread, since I knew I had made some prediction about this a while ago... but I failed. I said Rangel would never make it to re-election, so boy was I wrong.

I think alot of us failed on that. There must be some really dumb people in his district.

[Tordane]

I think alot of us failed on that. There must be some really dumb people in his district.

Isn't his district mostly Harlem?

[Parkbandit]

A list of possible penalties for his conviction:

"The most common forms of discipline in the House are now “expulsion,” “censure,” or “reprimand,” although the House may also discipline its Members in others ways, including fine or monetary restitution, loss of seniority, and suspension or loss of certain privileges."

Definitions:
Expulsion: "Expulsion is the form of action by which the House of Representatives, after a Member has taken the oath of office, removes that Representative from membership in the body by a vote of two-thirds of the Members present and voting."

Censure: "In the House of Representatives, a “censure” is a formal vote by the majority of Members present and voting on a resolution disapproving a Member’s conduct, with generally the additional requirement that the Member stand at the “well” of the House chamber to receive a verbal rebuke and reading of the censure resolution by the Speaker of the House."

Reprimand: "The more formalized distinction in the House whereby it is considered that a “reprimand” expressly involves a lesser level of disapproval of the conduct of a Member than that of a “censure,” and is thus a less severe rebuke by the institution, is of relatively recent origin. ... In the case of a “reprimand,” however, the resolution is merely adopted by a vote of the House with the Member “standing in his place,” or is merely implemented by the adoption of the committee’s report."

So, of those 3.. Expulson would be the only non wrist slap. You can take that off the table because it will never happen.

So, looks like I was right. Did you even have a point? Shouldn't you be straight ironing your hair or something important?

[Parkbandit]

I was just looking back over this (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?t=45684) thread, since I knew I had made some prediction about this a while ago... but I failed. I said Rangel would never make it to re-election, so boy was I wrong.

That was an awesome thread... I should have bumped that one.

My favorite part is WB looking more foolish than usual.

[Firestorm Killa]

Isn't his district mostly Harlem?

Yes it sure is. makes you think huh?

[Tgo01]

Censure: "In the House of Representatives, a “censure” is a formal vote by the majority of Members present and voting on a resolution disapproving a Member’s conduct, with generally the additional requirement that the Member stand at the “well” of the House chamber to receive a verbal rebuke and reading of the censure resolution by the Speaker of the House."

Reprimand: "The more formalized distinction in the House whereby it is considered that a “reprimand” expressly involves a lesser level of disapproval of the conduct of a Member than that of a “censure,” and is thus a less severe rebuke by the institution, is of relatively recent origin. ... In the case of a “reprimand,” however, the resolution is merely adopted by a vote of the House with the Member “standing in his place,” or is merely implemented by the adoption of the committee’s report."

When I read the censure one I was thinking to myself "Is this for real? They basically make him 'stand in the corner' while they tell him what a naughty boy he's been and remind him of the rules? How can they possibly give him a lesser punishment?" Then I read the reprimand bit and I had my answer.

[EasternBrand]

To be fair, even the ethics prosecutor agreed at the beginning of the hearing that Rangel's actions did not rise to the level of corruption, even if they were ethical violations. When the prosecutor can't even bring himself to allege that violations were corrupt, it's pretty hard to see how the committee could justify anything as drastic as expulsion.


As the hearing proceeded without Rangel, there was a key exchange between Rep. G.K. Butterfield (R-NC) and [Blake] Chisam[, the chief counsel for the House Committee on Ethics,] 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.”

On whether Rangel had used his office to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York, Chisam replied: “I think what’s ironic to me is that he could have done this without seeking permission, without having to come to the committee and ask permission if he had only followed a few simple rules. He could have done this right.”

Later, Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-TX) asked if Rangel’s “sloppiness” was a defense for his conduct.

“I don’t believe that it’s a defense at all,” Chisam responded more directly. “I believe that it’s a violation of the rules.”

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

Warning: giant picture of Charlie Rangel's jowls at this link is NSFL.