Charles Rangel - Guilty.

They can't get rid of him. He knows where all the bodies are buried. If he goes down, he'll take some of them with him. They don't want that.
 
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/131779-house-censures-rangel-for-ethics-violations-on-xx-vote

"The House censured Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) Thursday evening, a dramatic downfall for the once powerful chairman of the Ways and Means panel.
In an overwhleming vote of 333-79, the House handed down its steepest form of punishment short of expulsion to one of the most senior and beloved members of the House.
Rangel, a 40-year veteran of the House, is only the 23rd lawmaker to be censured in the history of the House and the fifth in the last 100 years."
 
So the House overwhelmingly votes to censure (what a joke) Rangel for a string of ethics violations.

And what did democrats then do after he responded to the censure? Applaud him. A standing ovation.

This seems a clear demonstration of how sick the democratic party has become.
 
SezMe said:
Why didn't that logic apply to Newt or DeLay?
Click to expand...

LOL! What do you think they *got* Newt on, SezMe?

How many ethics charges did democrats file against him? 75.

And how many were found to have NO MERIT WHATSOEVER? 74.

And what were the details of that remaining one? Oh yes ... that he "may have" violated tax law by using tax deductible contributions from nonprofit organizations to teach an "allegedly" partisan college course and give false information to the committee about those contributions. Of course, the class didn't mention republicans or democrats, so it's hard to see how it could have been partisan. In fact, in this partisan class, one entire lesson was spent praising FDR. And a former commissioner of the IRS came forward and said no tax laws were violated. And an Ethics Committee lawyer gave approval for the class before it began.

And that false information they *caught* him on? That one of the papers he filed with the committee about the class failed to note that certain organizations gave to his "Renewing American Civilization" class. Of course, Newt had testified that contributions were made by those organizations. And most of the papers he filed did acknowledge their contributions. If he was trying to hide it, why would he have told them that in so many other ways. Was this "lying to Congress" or just a mistake in the piles of paperwork that bureaucrats insist on?

And what was the penalty for these awful transgressions? A $300,000 fine by the so-called *ethics* committee. For a class they had approved and that he received no payment to teach.

Now contrast that fine and the scorn leveled at him (by folks like you) with what Rangel clearly did in this case and the meager punishment he just got. Talk about rank partisan hypocrisy.

And by the way, despite the unfairness, Newt Gingrich accepted the penalty and said he had a moral obligation to pay the $300,000 out of personal funds. Compare that with the silly speech Rangel made immediately following the censure claiming the censure was just "politics". :rolleyes:
 
BeAChooser said:
So the House overwhelmingly votes to censure (what a joke) Rangel for a string of ethics violations.

And what did democrats then do after he responded to the censure? Applaud him. A standing ovation.

This seems a clear demonstration of how sick the democratic party has become.
Click to expand...

From what I heard, afterwards they went out and molested children.
 
BeAChooser said:
So the House overwhelmingly votes to censure (what a joke) Rangel for a string of ethics violations.

And what did democrats then do after he responded to the censure? Applaud him. A standing ovation.

This seems a clear demonstration of how sick the democratic party has become.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...sentatives_expelled,_censured,_or_reprimanded

Interesting list.

Lovell Rousseau beat the crap out of Josiah Grinnell on the house floor with a cane in 1866. He was censured.
 
If Linda McMahon was elected it would have been a fait accompli.


Back to Rangel, I just want to see if the IRS goes after him for the $1,000,000 in back taxes.
 
The Painter said:
Back to Rangel, I just want to see if the IRS goes after him for the $1,000,000 in back taxes.
Click to expand...

You mean investigate like the IRS did in Newt's case?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...-college-house-ethics-committee-investigation

Of course in Newt's case, the IRS cleared him.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich020499.htm

I don't expect Rangel would be cleared so easily.

Oh and I was wrong. The democrats didn't file 76 bogus ethics charges against Newt. They filed 84 bogus ethics charges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm

That's the extent of the hypocrisy of the democrats in the Rangel case.

What's his punishment? Censure certainly doesn't look like much.

And now we must wonder what is really going on in the Waters case where the deputy chief counsel, Cindy Morgan Kim, and another attorney, Stacy Sovereign, have been suspended.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45777.html

Reportedly, they were suspended for continuing to investigate the case, after the ethics committee had decided to take Waters to trial. Now I fail to see the harm in continuing the investigation. What were democrats afraid they'd dig up? Could the fact that their boss, Blake Chisam, is a democrat have something to do with it? Could it have something to do with the emails they discovered? Is it just coincidence they were suspended the same day those emails were blamed for delaying Waters' trial? Hmmmmmmmm? :D
 
It should be noted that this is, of course, Adam Clayton Powell's old seat. I guess you young 'uns cain't remember back that far. It's a Fat Cat seat. Powell was not just censured, but expelled(later reversed by the Supremes) and he won re-election several times after the expulsion and was reseated. (IIRC, he had an ex-wife on the government payroll who didn't even live in Washington or his district.) Ironically (or appropriately), Charlie's the guy who defeated him, ultimately.

The voting population in Harlem seems to think Tammany Hall was a good thing and should be carried on into the 21st century. I suppose it's a little of "well, it's about time one of us got something out of the system".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom