40 years with his hand in the cookie jar finally caught up with him.

stdreb27

Active Member
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38367462...-capitol_hill/
A House investigative committee on Thursday charged New York Rep. Charles Rangel with multiple ethics violations, a blow to the former Ways and Means chairman and an election-year headache for Democrats.
The committee did not immediately specify the charges against the Democrat, who has served in the House for some 40 years and is fourth in House seniority. The announcement by a four-member panel of the House ethics committee sends the case to a House trial, where a separate eight-member panel of Republicans and Democrats will decide whether the violations can be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
The timing of the announcement ensures that it will stretch into the fall campaign, and Republicans are certain to make it an issue as they try to capture majority control of the House. Speaker Nancy Pelosi had once promised to "drain the swamp" of ethical misdeeds by lawmakers in arguing that Democrats should be in charge.
Rangel led the tax-writing Ways and Means panel until he stepped aside last March after the ethics committee criticized him in a separate case — finding that he should have known corporate money was paying for his trips to two Caribbean conferences.
Officials said that in the current case, the committee and Rangel's attorney tried unsuccessfully to negotiate a settlement. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private discussions. A settlement would have required Rangel to agree that he violated ethics rules.
The investigation of Rangel has focused on:
•His use of official stationery to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.
•Whether he had the Ways and Means Committee consider legislation that would benefit donors to the Rangel Center at the same time the congressman solicited donations or pledges.
•Preserved a tax shelter for an oil drilling company, Nabors Industries, which has a chief executive who donated money to the center while Rangel's committee considered the loophole legislation.
•Used four rent-controlled apartment units in New York City, when the city's rent stabilization program is supposed to apply to one's primary residence. This raises the question of how all the units could be primary residences. One was a campaign office, raising the separate question of whether the rent break was an improper gift.
•Whether Rangel, as required, publicly reported information on the financing and rental of his ownership interest in a unit within the Punta Cana Yacht Club in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Rangel also had to pay back taxes on the rental income.
•Intentionally failed to report — when required — hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in assets. The amended disclosure reports added a credit union IRA, mutual fund accounts and stock.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3290246
Hes gone. Too bad, I like him as far as Democrats go.
Well he's not gone yet, basically he's going before a grand jury of congressman. So who knows where that will go... He's not been removed, he can still vote. It is just a grand jury.
 

reefraff

Active Member
I am not sure, I don't think they are going to be seen as supporting a crook heading into this election but they may figure it's going to be so bad this extra baggage isn't going to make a big difference.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3290277
I am not sure, I don't think they are going to be seen as supporting a crook heading into this election but they may figure it's going to be so bad this extra baggage isn't going to make a big difference.
I dunno, these aren't new allegations... It wouldn't be the first time, they supported him while this scandal was happening.
 

fishtaco

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3290380
I dunno, these aren't new allegations... It wouldn't be the first time, they supported him while this scandal was happening.
Dude are you feeling okay? You linked to MSNBC and I know how painful it must have been. LOL
I will say for a left-leaning new org, they are not pulling any punches so far. Just another politician who has been there too long and needs to go for the good of the country.
Fishtaco
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3290594
Dude are you feeling okay? You linked to MSNBC and I know how painful it must have been. LOL
I will say for a left-leaning new org, they are not pulling any punches so far. Just another politician who has been there too long and needs to go for the good of the country.
Fishtaco
If it makes you feel any better, I went to drudge, and that was the link off of drudge... But hey, unlike lefties, I read A LOT of left wing sites... I just rarely bring it up because it is for the most part pretty useless...
At some point, MSNBC can't ignore that story anymore. I guess this was it... It is pretty hard to spin the Rangel story and make him come out smelling rosey...
 

reefraff

Active Member
I'd say we can expect Rachel Madcow to be calling it a racial which hunt by right wingers any day now. Did you hear her little tirade about the USDA official's firing. It was all Foxes fault even though Fox never aired a story about it until the poor woman had already been fired. I almost choked when she referred to the "fake ACORN Story". I guess she didn't follow all the lawsuits or watch any of the videos.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3290605
I'd say we can expect Rachel Madcow to be calling it a racial which hunt by right wingers any day now. Did you hear her little tirade about the USDA official's firing. It was all Foxes fault even though Fox never aired a story about it until the poor woman had already been fired. I almost choked when she referred to the "fake ACORN Story". I guess she didn't follow all the lawsuits or watch any of the videos.
What ticks me off about the whole thing is that despire her "seeing the light" she's still a racist little woman. Refering to blacks as "our people" and stuff. She should be fired just for that. imo
 

reefraff

Active Member
She was using the term "one of his own" and "white lawyer" pretty liberally. I don't think the woman deserved to be fired but she sure as hell doesn't deserve a promotion to Saint either.
 
Top