WASHINGTON House ethics investigators have accused the once-powerful Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) of breaking a series of congressional rules. Nailed by the House ethics commitee. How guilty do you have to be to have that happen?
Mr. Rangel will have the opportunity to defend himself at a public trial before the House ethics committee beginning next week, according to a statement Thursday from the panel, formally called the House Committee on Standards of Official Contact. The committee did not detail the charges or its findings. Congressional ethics investigators had been reviewing whether Mr. Rangel failed to disclose $75,000 worth of income he received from a rental property he owns in the Dominican Republic. Mr. Rangel has admitted what he called a mistake on that matter and has paid back taxes. That's what I get for borrowing Geithner's copy of Turbotax...
Lawmakers are required to fill out a financial-disclose statement once a year listing their assets, debts and sources of income. But Mr. Rangel has repeatedly failed to report all of his assets, and he recently filed amended reports that disclosed an additional $500,000 in assets. Oh, that 500 grand in assets...
Investigators have also been reviewing whether Mr. Rangel used official congressional letterhead for fund-raising letters he sent to corporations and others seeking donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.
In addition, investigators were looking at whether Mr. Rangel have violated congressional rules by occupying several rent-stabilized apartments provided by a Manhattan real estate developer. The congressman himself had asked the ethics committee to look into those two matters.
If Mr. Rangel is found guilty of violating House rules, he could face a penalty as severe as expulsion from Congress. Or a strongly worded letter...
A special investigative panel set up by the ethics committee had spent months looking into allegations of wrongdoing by Mr. Rangel. Thursday's action by the investigators is similar to an indictment. "The investigative subcommittee has said that there was wrongdoing. Now there will be public hearings" to determine if the charges can be proven, said Robert Walker, the former staff director of the ethics committee.
"I am pleased that, at long last, sunshine will pierce the cloud of serious allegations that have been raised against me in the media,'' Mr. Rangel said in a statement. "I will be glad to respond to the allegations at such time as the ethics committee makes them public." ...I am soooo fuckin' dead. Oh, wait! I forgot about my constituents! See ya next year, boys!
In March, Mr. Rangel stepped down as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, a week after the ethics committee found him guilty of violating House rules by failing to properly disclose a trip to the Caribbean that was underwritten by corporations. Mr. Rangel later reimbursed the costs of the trip using funds from his campaign account. In other word's, "other people's money".
Mr. Rangel's popularity in his home district of Harlem has largely survived intact. It is unclear how much Thursday's ethics report will help the congressman's primary challengers. Rangel's re-election chances hinge largely on the Sept. 14 Democratic Party primary, since his district is so heavily Democratic. His challengers include state Assemblyman Adam Clayton Powell IV, son of the man Rangel unseated in 1970. Also seeking the seat are Vince Morgan, a former aide to Mr. Rangel, as well as Jonathan Tasini, an anti-war activist, and Joyce Johnson, an Obama supporter. So far, only Mr. Powell comes close to the name recognition likely to be necessary to unseat the longtime incumbent. Adam Clayton Powell. There's a name from the past. He made Charlie look like Mother Teresa.
Mr. Rangel has suggested that the ethics questions may help him with voters who think he is being unfairly criticized. I blame...THE MAN!
The Harlem Democrat has planned a giant birthday bash and campaign fundraiser in New York in a few weeks, featuring a performance by Aretha Franklin. Let's hope she don't charge her meals to Charlie. That'll clean out his campaign account.
The last lawmaker to stand public trial by the House ethics committee was Rep. Jim Traficant (D., Ohio), who was expelled from Congress. Who was found guilty of horrific abuse of a hairpiece...
#1
Why bother? Charlie is a long time Democrat pol. He knows where the bodies are buried, and anyone that accuses him will have dirt flung at him, or worse.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/22/2010 19:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Remember that the Democrats totally control the place, so this has nothing to do with Rangel committing crimes, but raw, naked power.
The House leadership is based on seniority. Rangel is the 4th most senior Democrat in the House, which automatically elevates him to the chairmanship of the very powerful House Ways and Means Committee.
In order of seniority, the three House Democrats more senior than Rangel are John Dingell, John Conyers, and Dave Obey. So this brings up the first question:
Is it likely that any of these three may lose in the upcoming election?
If so, this would move Rangel to chairmanship of the *most* powerful committee in the House, the Committee on Appropriations.
In short, Charlie Rangel would control the specific expenditures of money by the government of the United States. Currently chaired by Dave Obey, who is a toady and lickspittle to Nancy Pelosi. If Rangel became its chairman, Nancy Pelosi could pound salt, because Rangel is no friend of hers.
I will also add that Rangel is not part of the socialist-communist cabal, because though very liberal, he also fought in the Korean War, demonstrating enough heroics to earn both a Bronze Star and Purple Heart while under heavy fire in North Korea.
This alone is good enough reason for the socialist-communist cabal to hate him.
So it will be very interesting to watch this, though very hard to tell what is really going on.
And so after weeks of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich promising to take the stand and declare his innocence, his attorney expressed the view that Dead Meat will keep his mouth shut.
"I think he should not testify because I do not think the government proved their case at all," said veteran criminal lawyer Sam Adam Sr., representing the governor in his federal corruption case.
But hasn't Blago already proved the government's case, in his own voice on those (bleeping) golden federal wiretaps?
What is more likely is that Adam doesn't relish the idea of his client impaling himself on the federal spit before enthusiastically flipping the switch on his own rotisserie.
If Dead Meat takes the stand, Blagojevich would be asked questions about all those federal tapes. These wouldn't be softball questions from TV personalities giddy about his circus freak act, like the harpies from "The View" who begged to touch his wondrous hair.
Instead, Blagojevich would be asked things like: What exactly did you mean when you said you wanted to "(bleep)" the people of Illinois?
The FBI recording was made on Election Day in 2008, the day Barack Obama won the presidency. That's the day Blagojevich was recorded venting his frustrations about public service.
"Now is the time to put my (bleeping) children and my wife first for a change," Blagojevich said, ripping on what he considered to be unappreciative voters.
"I (bleeping) busted my ass. I gave your (bleeping) baby health care. ... What do I get for that? Only 13 percent of you think I'm doing a good job, so (bleep) all of you," he said.
Funny thing about folks who register to vote. They're the same bleeping people who sit on juries.
So if Blagojevich took the stand, federal prosecutors Reid Schar, Christopher Niewoehner or Carrie Hamilton would ask him, again and again, whom he meant when he said "(bleep) all of you," and the jury would see him squirm in his chair.
He wasn't squirming exactly on Tuesday, as brother Rob Blagojevich testified in his own defense, but he sure wasn't comfortable.
Blagojevich is always animated, twitchy, desperately grabbing any hand within reach, politicking even in the federal cafeteria. But on Tuesday there was something about his eyes. They were hard and glittery.
His wife, Patti, sat in the first row of the courtroom gallery, knitting her "prayer shawl" while chatting with a famed columnist from New York. Patti did the slip-stitch and pass or some other knitting term I don't how to use.
It was part of the stage show. And the jury didn't miss it.
Sitting a few rows behind her, as Patti played the Northwest Side Girl From the Neighborhood, I half expected she'd call the jurors over to her metaphoric front porch and offer them coffee and some of her homemade plum kolachkes.
At the end of Rob's testimony, the lawyers went over for a sidebar with U.S. District Judge James Zagel, and the white noise machine was turned on. By then the rumor was going through the courtroom among all the reporters that Dead Meat would not put on a case at all.
Rod chatted with one of his lawyers. But his brother, Rob, sat behind them, alone at his own table, staring into space, his index finger holding his temple, pressing it there, as if to hold the memory of his mother's deathbed plea for the brothers to stick together.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/22/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He was bought off, it's the Chicago Way. Take the money or die.
#2
Given the enormous focus on the White House and all their stumblings recently, I'm pretty sure that the threats of Rahm and Valerie being called to testify under oath finally brought some level of deal for Blago. It will remain to be seen if the sentencing phase of the conviction supports that a deal was struck, or if a Presidential Pardon suddenly appears?
If no deal was made, then this guy has tried the greatest legal bluff in decades.....
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- Senate Democrats reportedly are shelving legislation that would limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to climate change, acknowledging they don't have the 60 votes needed for even a limited proposal to pass.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said his party's leadership instead will push for a bill aimed at holding BP "accountable" for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday in its online edition. Okay, boys. We lost cap and trade. How about we...blame BP for the oil spill!
Good one, Harry! No one will see through that!
Harrrrumph harrrumph harrrrumph....
Reid said it would include a provision to remove the cap on damages paid to residents and businesses by oil companies after spills and also include incentives for vehicles fueled by natural gas, the Journal reported.
Curbing emissions linked to climate change is one of President Barack Obama's top priorities. So my bet is this won't be the lead on tonight's news...
Reid didn't offer a timetable for action on the new legislation, but said Democrats would continue to try to build support, according to the Journal.
A bill authored by Sens. John Kerry, a Democrat from Massachusetts, and Joseph Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, would have required reduced carbon pollution by 17% from 2005 levels in 2020. It would have put a price on emissions from electric utilities, transportation and manufacturing. But even a scaled-back version of that bill didn't have enough support to make it through the Senate. Jawn Kerry triumphs again!
Amid a troubled political environment, nearly 2 dozen House Dems commissioned polls over the last 3 months, according to reports filed with the FEC. But those polls weren't made public, leaving some GOPers to believe incumbents are beginning to run scared.
The members who conducted polling are among the GOP's top targets this year. Reps. Mark Schauer (D-MI), Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), Chet Edwards (R-TX), Ike Skelton (D-MO), Rick Boucher (D-VA) and Chris Carney (D-PA) were among those who paid for polling.
The campaigns involved largely refused to discuss their internal polling, citing policies against revealing internal strategy. Megan Jacobs, a spokesperson for Edwards' campaign, pointed to a strategy memo arguing Edwards' campaign is far ahead, but the memo doesn't cite poll numbers.
Spokespeople for Schauer, Pomeroy, Skelton, Boucher and Carney, along with a dozen other members of Congress, did not return calls or emails seeking comment about their surveys.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/22/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The campaigns involved largely refused to discuss their internal polling, citing policies against revealing internal strategy.
Wahaaaaaa. Sure! This means their polls are somewhere south of a polecats.
A legislative candidate from Wisconsin can't use a profane, racially charged phrase to describe herself on the ballot, an election oversight board decided Wednesday. Ieshuh Griffin, an independent running for a downtown Milwaukee seat in the state Assembly, wants to use the phrase, "NOT the 'whiteman's b----.'"
But the state's Government Accountability Board voted to bar that wording, agreeing with a staff recommendation that it is pejorative and therefore not allowed.
State law allows independent candidates to have five words describing themselves placed after their names on the ballot as long as it's not pejorative, profane, discriminatory or includes an obscene word or phrase.
Griffin, who is black, argued her case to the five white, retired judges on the board that regulates elections. She said the phrase was protected free speech.
"It's a freedom of expression," she said. "It's not racial. It's not a slur."
She convinced three of the judges that the wording should be allowed, but two said it should not. One judge was absent, and Griffin needed four votes to succeed. Griffin said she intends to seek an injunction in federal court.
Board member Thomas Cane, a retired state appeals court judge, said he didn't find the wording to be "particularly offensive."
Fellow board member Thomas Barland, who spent 33 years as a circuit court judge in Eau Claire, agreed.
"She says a lot in five words," he said. "It wasn't pornographic, it wasn't obscene and I didn't interpret it as racial."
Judge Gordon Myse, the board chairman, cast the third vote in favor of Griffin.
"Isn't she saying, 'I'm not under the white man's direction? I'm independent of that.' Isn't that what she's saying?" Myse said.
Roxanne Dunlap, a white woman from Sussex, felt compelled to speak up in the middle of the meeting, saying she was offended by the statement. She said if a white candidate wanted to have the statement "not the black man's b----" put on the ballot, it would be soundly rejected.
Griffin said her statement wasn't directed at any one individual but the government as a whole. The b-word was referring to a female dog that rolls over, she said.
"I'm not making a derogatory statement to a group of people or an ethnic group," she told the board. "I'm saying what I am not. Everyone I spoke with, elderly and young, understand my point of view."
The phrase was included on nomination papers Griffin circulated to get the 200 signatures needed to be on the Nov. 2 ballot. Griffin, who described herself as a "30ish" community activist, will still appear as an independent candidate.
The Assembly district she hopes to represent covers the east side of Milwaukee and parts of Glendale. It's currently represented by Democrat Annette Polly Williams, who is retiring. Three Democrats and Griffin are seeking to replace her. The bizarre part is that they almost agreed with her. Is something wrong with their brains?
#1
Telling someone "You're not a @(#$(!!" is STILL a derogatory statement as long as @(#$!! is considered derogatory. Basic linguistics & common sense.
#3
I've always liked it when someone calls me a son of a b*tch. At least I know where I stand with them. Let the whackjob have her freedom of speech. It informs us all...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
07/22/2010 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Ieshuh, huh? The legislative language in bills she proposes should make interesting reading
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/22/2010 9:47 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
WASHINGTON House ethics investigators have accused the once-powerful Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) of breaking a series of congressional rules.
What is the sound of Dead Meat?
