Patterico's Pontifications

11/19/2010

House Ethics Committee Recommends a Very Severe Slap on the Wrist for Rangel

Filed under: General — Aaron Worthing @ 6:27 am



[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; send your tips here.]

Via The Hill we learn that:

The House ethics committee recommended on Thursday by a vote of 9-1 that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) be formally censured by the full House for 11 counts of violating ethics rules.

The panel also ordered Rangel to pay restitution of any unpaid taxes.

Mmm, yeah, so basically a very firm talking to.  There might even be a wagging of the finger involved.  Color me unimpressed.  Of course just like when Bill Clinton was censured, the press tries to pretend this is a big, big deal:

Short of expulsion, censure is the most serious sanction the ethics panel can recommend. Only 22 House members have been censured in the history of the chamber.

Really, that is the only two choices we have?  Throwing him out or giving him a really stern talking to?  I mean, sure, a sufficiently stern talking to might work if the person is capable of shame…  Still, why can’t they come up with some medium level of punishment?  You know, like a pay cut.  Or a crappier office.  Or crappier committee assignments.  Something.  Why can’t that be added to the arsenal of punishments, so the choice isn’t simply either 1) invalidate the will of the people of his district (they did elect him after all), or 2) letting him off with virtually nothing.

Of course the Hill article literally doesn’t mention what he did wrong until the very end, and then weirdly puts the charges in order from least offensive to most offensive:

The lawmakers on the panel found that Rangel had used House stationery and staff to solicit money for a school of public policy in his name at the City College of New York. They also concluded that he solicited donors for the center with interests before the Ways and Means Committee. Members of Congress are allowed to solicit money for nonprofit entities — even those bearing their names — as long as they do not use congressional letterhead or office resources to do so.

The ethics panel split 4-4 on a charge that Rangel violated the gift ban because the plans for the center included an office and the archiving of his personal and professional papers.

The panel also found Rangel guilty of using an apartment in Harlem zoned for residential use as his campaign office, failing to report more than $600,000 on his financial disclosure report and failing to pay taxes on rental income from a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic.

And of course those who were ethically pure as new fallen snow came to Rangel’s rescue:

Before the committee made its decision, Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) argued for a lighter punishment than censure and reminded the committee that Rangel received a purple heart and a bronze star for his heroism in the Korean War. Butterfield, who is under investigation by the ethics committee for failing to repay excess travel per diems, or another member sympathetic to Rangel could offer a resolution calling for a reprimand or lesser punishment.

“The facts of the case do not, do not warrant a censure in my opinion,” Butterfield said. “Even counsel has acknowledged that deciding punishment is difficult in this case. Censure is extreme and should be restricted to personal conduct in which the [lawmaker] received personal gain.”

You know, because when you cheat on taxes, you are not gaining at all personally.  /sarcasm  I mean does that make any sense at all?  He is being ordered to pay back taxes he owed.  But Butterball has the chutzpah to say that Rangel wasn’t benefitting personally from his ethics violations?

But of course Rep. Pete Welsh (D-ecrepit) explained the real reason why they should be lenient.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) cautioned his colleagues that punishing Rangel would bring more scrutiny to each and every member of Congress and the political donations they receive from corporations and individuals.

“Where you draw the line is in the eye of the beholder,” he said.

Well yeah, once you we start to actually expect ethical behavior from Congress, things could get out of control. And lord knows, we wouldn’t want that, would we?

And you can bet he is afraid of when the “eye of the beholder” belongs to an incoming and far more Republican congress.

And displaying a killing-your-parents-and-then-pleading-for mercy-based-on-the-fact-you-are-an-orphan level of chutzpah, Rangel complained that he didn’t get a fair trial, because he walked out:

At several points during the hearing, Rangel angrily responded to questions from Republican lawmakers about whether his misdeeds constituted corruption.

Had witnesses testified during the hearing earlier this week, Rangel told the panel, it would have been clear that “there would not be even a suggestion of corruption.”

Rangel said the panel denied him the chance to call witnesses, but Lofgren refuted that charge, saying that he could have refused to agree to a request for summary judgment and called witnesses had he not walked out of the hearing on Monday.

By the way, let me posit a theory on why this is happening now.  Now I don’t know all the intricacies of their ethics procedures, but in most adjudicative settings, you can only try a guy once for a given charge or claim even if the Sixth Amendment doesn’t technically apply.  So I suspect they are doing it now, and putting on this show of giving Rangel a severe talking to, because they want to get it done before the new, much more Republican congress gets sworn in.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

25 Responses to “House Ethics Committee Recommends a Very Severe Slap on the Wrist for Rangel”

  1. From what I understand, you can only expel him from the current congress: which means, since he was re-elected, he’ll be right back in January anyway.

    So what’s the point, other than to make an example no one will appreciate or care about. Harlem voters are sure he’s the victim of RAAAAAACISM anyway, and they are the only people who can really rid the congress of Rangel, other than the cold hand of Death (of natural causes, just so you don’t get the wrong idea, he is in his 70’s after all), which will probably be the more likely agent of change in this case.

    docweasel (5510fc)

  2. doc

    > From what I understand, you can only expel him from the current congress: which means, since he was re-elected, he’ll be right back in January anyway.

    If true, that makes his trial now make even more sense. no danger that it might actually have lasting consequences.

    Aaron Worthing (e7d72e)

  3. Jay Rockefeller should take note: this is an example of why the people have no faith in their government. Not some TV channel.

    TimesDisliker (d0a10d)

  4. I think post-election was the driving factor here. Also his walking out and getting a summary finding seems planned, to avoid a lengthy media coved trial. Kabuki theatre.

    JD (fdacaf)

  5. This is an injustice. These people want to write our laws, and refuse to obey them. Rangel uses ignorance of the law he is responsible for to justify enriching himself.

    There are too many examples of Rangel breaking the rules to deny that he’s extremely corrupt.

    Timesdisliker has a great point. Who the hell do these people think they are to tell us they want to shut down news networks when they accommodate Rangel cheating our laws? They want great power over our lives, and show no responsibility.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  6. It is more than at, Dustin, they want to exercise great power over our lives, while showing a complete and utter disdain for the same laws that they are foisting on the rest of us.

    JD (fdacaf)

  7. Kabuki theatre? Our government makes kabuki look good.

    Gesundheit (cfa313)

  8. He should be forced to traverse a gauntlet of his peers and other interested parties, with baskets of tomatoes at their feet, from the Washington Monument to Capitol Hill.

    AD-RtR/OS! (408097)

  9. well, he’s also getting fined by the IRS, so that’s essentially a pay cut, and I think that getting censured does in fact end up leading to ‘crappier office’ and worse committee assignments, as he will be pretty politically radioactive. (And technically, this *is* the medium punishment, b/c they could have given him a ‘reprimand’ rather than a ‘censure’ though that’s obviously a semantic issue, albeit a meaningful one).

    as for the timing issue, I think that’s a little paranoid– note that the Republican caucus were among those pushing for earlier, rather than later hearings.

    I wish there was some way to compel him to make a formal apology but I guess that’s not really possible.

    Mike (664d5e)

  10. In theory, a censure is really a message to the electorate indicating that the Congress does not believe that one of its members possesses the requisite integrity to represent his constituency.

    Sometimes, this works. If you don’t believe me, look up “Torricelli, Robert”.

    It presumes, however, that the following three conditions exist:
    — The member’s constituency is not subject to extreme gerrymandering
    — The local press has a genuine stake in the honesty and integrity of its local and state representatives
    — The voters within the consitutency are literate and thoughtful

    Charlie Rangel is extremely fortunate that none of these conditions actually exist.

    Steve (6ae15d)

  11. Mike is right in that Rangel having to pay back taxes is a de facto pay cut, and Rangel does owe quite a bit. So he will be suffering. However, that’s not enough for me. If you’re convicted of something that would put a citizen in jail, then you should also go to jail. They had no moral reason not to expel him.

    I think the Repubs were calling for an earlier trial to force the Dems to take a stand, however weak and lame that stand is. You could go either way on that one, though; if they had put off the trial, Rangel would be expelled, but the GOP would have to face the mob of racist blacks calling for their heads. Maybe they didn’t have the stomach for that.

    InRussetShadows (ce1ff6)

  12. Nothing prevents the next Congress from voting to expel him.

    Milhouse (ea66e3)

  13. This move really shows they have learned nothing from this election

    tom ridge (82637e)

  14. Plus, he still has to answer for draining funds for paying his lawyers from his Leadership PAC, which is not only an Ethics problem, but illegal.

    instaPUNdit (408097)

  15. Just thinking out loud, here, but the best move Rangel could make right now is to die before December 31 so his heirs get it all and pay no taxes.

    That was a joke, for the one uptight m*********** who will play the humorless scold, and needs to reach around behind her (it is always a her) and pull that stick out of her @$$.

    TimesDisliker (d0a10d)

  16. Look at this $@#! If the world was fair, Rangel would be Wesley Snipes’ celly.

    TimesDisliker (d0a10d)

  17. I say they take him out on the Mall and make him run the Gauntlet…

    mojo (8096f2)

  18. It is not a pyacut to make someone pay for something that they legally owe. That is absurd.

    JD (109425)

  19. I’m confused as to why Rangel – or anyone – would pay their lawyers $$millions to represent them in proceedings that seem to always culminate in some meaningless and painless “well, THAT will teach them!” gesture instead of any actual punishment.

    bobby b (4baf73)

  20. Overlooked, one must also consider that the purported purpose in all of this “kabuki” is to punish the man, whilst not depriving his constituents of their representation. Yes, I know, should he be expelled a replacement could be appointed or a special election held. But, in the interim, said constituents would be without representation. That being said, had the midterms turned out differently, this would have been swept under the rug.

    Edward Lunny (a6174d)

  21. Oh, now look at the Congressional Ethics Committee that God blessed us with…they have postponed Maxine Waters’ hearing
    indefinitely.

    Hey, it is Thanksgiving week coming up. Can’t expect anybody to do anything around the holidays, can we?!?!??/sarc off

    TimesDisliker (d0a10d)

  22. From my blog post on Thursday, written before the punishment was announced:

    If I were meting out the sentence, I would strip Rangel of all seniority and all the perks that go with it–i.e., he would be treated like a newly-elected freshman. I would also permanently ban him from any leadership position, including but not limited to chairmanship of any committee or subcommittee.

    I realize this is harsh, but the fact is that Rangel used his position of power and influence to insulate himself from the rules that everyone else has to follow, and in so doing violated the public trust. As a committee chairman, he owed allegiance not only to his home district, but to the country at large, because his use of power affected the country at large.

    With great power comes great responsibilty. When one abuses great power, one must pay a great penalty.

    ExRat (d82866)

  23. Princess Nan will never do any of that.

    AD-RtR/OS! (408097)

  24. Come on- it’s way more than a slap on the wrist. Charlie’s limo has to use the satellite parking lot now- many MANY yards farther away from the building.

    Justice is served or something.

    Jones (72b0ed)

  25. Not only is a formal censure expected, but sources say that in a stern reprimand, Rangel will also be banned from the dessert counter in the Congressional cafeteria for three days, beginning in January 1, 2016.

    No pudding for you, Congressman.

    bobdog (166386)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0901 secs.