Patterico's Pontifications

11/15/2010

Rangel Goes Pro Per

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:16 am



Easy enough when the trial is rigged:

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) plans to defend himself before a jury of his Congressional peers Monday without the assistance of an attorney in a fight for his personal reputation and possibly his career.

Few believe Rangel’s job is on the line because expelling him would require a two-thirds vote in the lame-duck session where Democrats still hold the majority despite their election losses and Rangel is still beloved by many of his colleagues.

I think that’s the legal standard, isn’t it? “Is the accused beloved by colleagues?”

29 Responses to “Rangel Goes Pro Per”

  1. It is such a shame that so many partisan democrats, especially the powerful ones, ignore Rangel’s dishonesty. He’s a weasel and a cheat who uses power to enrich himself at our expense.

    No partisan loyalty should lead someone to ignore ethics problems. I wonder if democrats have purists who try to shout down democrats who have a problem with Rangel, the way the right as people like that.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  2. Oops! We’re really going to have a session today? But I don’t have a lawyer. Never mind!

    DWPittelli (2af301)

  3. He knows he is going to be convicted (or whatever the term is for these proceedings) and he knows he isn’t going to get expelled… so why bother spending the money on a lawyer? Seems like a sensible strategy to me.

    steve (369bc6)

  4. this only makes me glad we didn’t adopt the british approach, which was to make parliament the final court.

    And my understanding is now the british don’t even do that anymore. they now have a supreme court of some sort.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  5. #3: wasn’t happyfeet. Sorry, forgot to change name back from sockpuppet friday.

    Comment by steve

    Ya know what: we should capitalize on this kind of error. They should have a charity each Friday on the sockpuppet thread. If you forget to get the handle straightened out, you owe $1 to the USO or
    Project Valour-IT or whoever is the charity of the week.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  6. Few believe Rangel’s job is on the line because expelling him would require a two-thirds vote in the lame-duck session where Democrats still hold the majority despite their election losses and Rangel is still beloved by many of his colleagues.

    I hate reporting like this.

    “Few believe…?” Who are we talking about? The reporter and the guy in the cubicle next to him?

    Kman (d25c82)

  7. I still look forward to the next two years of watching Rangel get even more thoroughly schooled on this thing called “economics” when Ryan takes over his previous helm at Ways and Means.

    Dmac (498ece)

  8. The Democrats will do nothing to Rangel because they are all vulnerable to similar charges. This is the party that has impeached federal judge Alcee Hastings as an influential member.

    Mike K (568408)

  9. I hate reporting like this.

    Really, kmart? Funny, I don’t seem to recall your protestations during the endless past decades of MSM “reportage” with rapier – like statements of alleged fact that only relied on mythical “unnamed sources,” or “people close to the Senator say…” Even the Messiah adopted this tactic, using the strawman at every opportunity, “people say that we/I/you can’t…”

    Dmac (498ece)

  10. Dmac, Kman

    Well, let’s see what they actually do. then we will know the answer.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  11. W.W. – Amazing he’s going pro per when he already raided PACs for close to $400,000 for legal support against ethics rules according sources.

    daleyrocks (940075)

  12. daleyrocks, that is amazing.

    He’s going for some kind of corruption record!

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  13. Considering the legal costs for government workers who get caught up in Ethics Hell (which usually has little to do with what civilians would call “ethics”), I hope this breaks him. Karma is a bitch.

    Kevin M (298030)

  14. BTW, isn’t tax evasion a crime?

    Kevin M (298030)

  15. This raises an interesting point. Nancy Pelosi and other liberals pat themselves on the back for their new House Special Task Force on Ethics which supposedly takes the partisanship out of ethics charges. Instead of the old system where members brought ethics charges against one another and it automatically was referred to the committee, the task force now investigates each charge before determining which ones advance. The one negative about this, however, is the degree of bureaucratic delay that the task force entails. In this case, it seems to have caused Rep. Rangel a considerable sum in attorney and PR fees (this is, of course, because he is so obviously guilty, so one can’t really feel sorry for him).

    JVW (eccfd6)

  16. A continuation of the Democrats’ clown show that has at last been given its curtain call as of January 2011.

    SPQR (94a0ec)

  17. Just remember – most ethical Congress evah

    Dmac (498ece)

  18. Is there a difference between “pro per” and “pro se”?

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  19. Our esteemed host asked:

    I think that’s the legal standard, isn’t it? “Is the accused beloved by colleagues?”

    When the same colleagues comprise the “jury,” why yes, it is. Please see the impeachment trial of William J Clinton.

    The Dana who isn't naïve (3e4784)

  20. Well, well, well: looks like Charlie has already figured out a way to turn this hearing into a farce. Watch for the race card to be played in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . . 2 . . .

    JVW (eccfd6)

  21. Charlie never met a double sawbuck he didn’t like.

    mojo (8096f2)

  22. Not that I’m expecting it, but… it would be hilarious if he was booted. That would make two in a row for that particular congressional district. (Just to refresh your memory, Rangel was elected to that seat just after Adam Clayton Powell was booted from Congress.)

    Steven Den Beste (99cfa1)

  23. Rangle has walked out of his hearing, claiming he hasn’t had time to get counsel, but the committee voted to proceed anyway. The ethics committee may opt for a summary judgment and the trial would be over.

    Doesn’t this sound pre-planned?

    DRJ (d43dcd)

  24. They managed to delay serious action until after the elections which was what they wanted. It’s not as if we really needed dramatic Democrat corruption charges on the news during this past election, but I’m sure it wouldn’t have helped the Democrats.

    Now that that’s done, they want to try him ASAP to get it over with so it’s out of everyone’s minds for 2012. Seems simple enough. And by that time they can use it to say, “See? We’re housecleaning! Honest!”

    luagha (5cbe06)

  25. “…he hasn’t had time to get counsel…”

    Which means that since his raid of the Leadership Cmte funds to pay for his previous lawyers became public (and possibly subject to further ethics charges), he can’t go back there to pay for a new lawyer, his previous lawyers have probably recused themselves since they might have to give the money back, and his private accounts are either tapped-out, or so hidden “in the Caymans” that he doesn’t want to even hint at their existance.

    But, Hey!, he’s one of the Best & Brightest!

    AD-RtR/OS! (e9ff94)

  26. DC lawyers who specialize in political corruption cases are a limited brand, and very expensive. Rangel has a problem: if no one were looking closely, he could have raised enough for two top-tier law firms and a private jet. But y’all gotta be so picky about where money comes from now . . .

    If Democrats hadn’t lost the majority, he still could have found enough concerned citizen-lobbyists to mount a strong defense, but the “Ranking Member” of the minority isn’t worth the annual shoe-shine bill for the Chairman.

    So sad that such a historic figure should be laid so low for mere lack of – ugh! – money! Charlie is the successor to the legendary Adam Clayton Powell, expelled from Congress for corruption (in truth Powell was no more corrupt than most of his colleagues, just arrogantly dismissive of the need to disguise it).

    Upon his return to the body which expelled him, a reporter asked Powell how he could possibly keep the support of his constituents. Powell famously replied, “This is Harlem, and back in the old days the only entertainment we could afford was the Saturday matinee double feature at the movies. And who was the hero of all those movies? Handsome, thin lips, light skin, curly hair, mustache – man, that’s gotta be Adam Clayton Powell!”

    Adjoran (ec6a4b)

  27. I think that’s the legal standard, isn’t it? “Is the accused beloved by colleagues?”

    In politics — *sigh*far, far more often than it should be.

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)

  28. He’s got attorney Lowell hanging around with him in the hearing while falsely claiming to have no representation.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  29. but the “Ranking Member” of the minority isn’t worth the annual shoe-shine bill for the Chairman.

    That’s OK, Rangel isn’t worth the pus from a boil on my ass, either.

    Not that there are any such, but, all I’m sayin’ is…

    :^9

    IgotBupkis, President, United Anarchist Society (9eeb86)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1319 secs.