Rep. Charles Rangel (D., N.Y.) has just been found guilty by a House ethics adjudicatory subcommittee of violating congressional ethics, financial, and fundraising rules. This ends the trial phase, and Rangel’s case will now be sent to the full Ethics Committee for “sentencing.”
The panel deliberated for about six hours, before returning and announcing that there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Rangel was guilty of 11 of the 13 charges he faced.
Rangel will likely receive a formal censure.
UPDATE: Rangel responds:
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? 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.
I am disappointed by the unfortunate findings of the Ethics Subcommittee. The Committee’s actions are unprecedented in view of the fact that they arrived at without rebuttal or counter evidence on my behalf.
While I am required to accept the findings of the Ethics Committee, I am compelled to state again the unfairness of its continuation without affording me the opportunity to obtain legal counsel as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
This unfair decision is the inevitable result of the Committee’s insistence on moving forward despite the absence of any legal representation on my behalf. The Committee elected to reject my appeal for additional time to secure new counsel and thus acted in violation of the basic constitutional right to counsel.
The Committee’s findings are even more difficult to understand in view of yesterday’s declaration by the Committee’s chief counsel, Blake Chisam, that there was no evidence of corruption or personal gain in his findings.
From here forward, it is my hope that the full Ethics Committee will take into consideration the opinion of its chief counsel as well as the statement by Rep. Bobby Scott, a member of its investigatory subcommittee who said that any failings in my conduct were the result of “good faith mistakes” and were caused by “sloppy and careless recordkeeping, but were not criminal or corrupt.”
I feel genuinely bad for Rangel. He seems like a decent guy. And he shot Chi-Coms in North Korea. How many people can say that? It ought to be worth something.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWeighed against 50 years of theft, graft, extortion, embezzlement, tax evasion, and professional race-mongering?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot much.
Agreeing with Oofy. Rangel is a likeable liberal who served the country honorably in the military but descended into common leftism in the House. His punishment should be severe but let's not lose sight of the fact that he was, at one time, an honorable public servant.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFrom Wikipedia-
"Censure is a procedure for publicly reprimanding a public official for inappropriate behavior."
Give ME A BREAK!! oooooohhhhh, I'm sure Charlie's quaking in his loafers!
If you or I did what he did, we'd be serving time in a Federal prison and this guy gets what's amounts to a traffic ticket.
"7th Commandment: All animals are equal, except some animals are more equal than others."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not sure I would call Rangel a "professional race-monger". When one considers what types of candidates are likely to come from Harlem, Rangel is about as good as it gets. At any rate, it might be fun to see some Republican get up in the well of the house, Eric Stratton-like, and defend him. "The question is not whether Congressman Rangel took some liberties with his taxes, he did (wink)."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, there are quite a few Korean War Vets who "shot Chi-Coms" in Korea and I would bet most of them haven't cheated on their taxes. All that, however, is irrelevant to this issue. Charlie cheated on his income taxes while serving on (and chairing) the committee which writes the tax code every citizen is supposed to comply with. He violated the House ethics guidelines, and has lined his pockets at taxpayer expense. The outrage here is he will most likely be “censured” rather than run out of town on a rail with tar and feathers dripping from his thousand dollar suit!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHis Honorable Service helped him get elected. His Dishonorable Service should result in jail time. It's just that simple.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseForty years in Congress is too d**n long for anyone! The guy might have started out decent (I have my doubts), but in that amount of time anyone would forget their roots, and forget what it's like to be a REAL person with a REAL job and REAL problems. Long-term congressmen tend to think of themselves as an American version of royalty where the constraints that apply to the "little people" don't apply to them. The founding fathers did not intend for congress to be a career in its own right - and for good reason.
Rangel should be a poster-boy for congressional term limits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm a private citizen. If I cheat on my taxes can I get away with a cenure too?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBeing a White Sox fan, a little jingle popped into my head after reading this:
NA NA NA NA, NA NA NA NA, HEY HEY HEY...GOOODBYE!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusejust curious - did he have money before he went to Congress? If not, how does he afford a nice beach home in the Dominican Republic?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDuke Cunningham was the only Navy ace from Vietnam and served his country honorably for twenty years prior to entering politics. When he was convicted, on charges brought in real court, not a make believe internal congressional panel, he was rightly sentenced to real prison time. While Mr. Rangel’s prior military service was admirable, it in no way excuses his fifty years of fleecing American citizens while living outside of the rules he fashioned for others. It’s a shame, as well as a further indictment of our political system, that Mr. Rangel will not be offered taxpayer funded accommodations in the same facility as Mr. Cunningham.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'll grant that Rangle is in fact a pretty affable guy - in fact when I interned on the Ways and Means Committee during the days when Thompson was the Chair, some majority staff found it easier dealing with ole Charlie. But the guy is a perfect symbol of the corrupting influence of Washington, and nothing he's done in his past can mitigate the unethical chicanery he's been involved in.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDuke Cunningham served honorably in Vietnam, but he was still a crook. Past performance is no guarantee of future innocence. He should be treated just like any other citizen in these circumstances. Actually he should be held to a higher standard! He is the man who was making the rules we all had to follow. The fact that he broke these laws is a pathetic. That he gets a slap on the wrist is an outrage!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRangel was an honourable public servant at some time? If so, that was before I was born, and possibly before many of the readers of this article were born.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is a set up. The democrats and Rangel wanted this done before the Republicans take over. Rangel cans his lawyer so he can claim he should have been represented. The current committee holds a show trial and finds him guilty. He will get a censure when he should be expelled (and then prosecuted), and he'll claim if he had a lawyer he would have been acquitted.
DOJ will not prosecute.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe the discussion of Rangel and others being "honorable at one time" etc. etc.? This is one MORE good argument for what is, I believe, the ultimate necessary reform of our congress---term limits. Whether it is the advancing arrogance of Charlie's kind of crooked behavior or merely the earmark/lobbyist syndrome that Republicans who were otherwise "honorable" got into last time we ran the House, power definitely corrupts over time. Get 'em in, let 'em deliver on their election promises in a few years, and then get 'em back into the REAL world from whence, we can hope, the next batch will come with the wisdom, experience, and, yes, HUMILITY that the peoples' representatives should have and, as Rangel demonstrates so well, clearly do not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRangel says he's already spent two million dollars on lawyers. What did he get for that money?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRangel has a law degree from St John's University and was a US Attorney. He could have represented himself and certainly had enough prior assistance from high-powered lawyers to mount a decent defense, particularly since he had a month to prepare. His complaint about being deprived of due process is a crock. First, it is a House proceeding, not a federal court and he has been accorded the process due. Second, the Committee Counsel's (a D party flunky) opinion on his intent is irrelevant, this was a finding of fact and they found he broke the rules. The Full Committee will decide his punishment and that is where intent and mitigating factors come in. That said, the man has spent forty years in the House and knows the rules. He cheated and got caught and should be expelled. DOJ can pick it up from there, no jeopardy attachs, but no one expects Holder to do the right thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt seems to me that intentional and material non-compliance with our tax laws by the Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee should be an expellable offense. Representative Rangel has helped write the Internal Revenue Code and he cannot intentionally not comply with his own laws without serious consequences.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse