• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sorry Charlie

hal2kilo

hal2kilo

Lifer
Well I'm sitting in an airport waiting for a flight. I see old Charlie Rangel was convicted on all counts.

I think he's gone senile or his arrogance knows no bounds. I can't understand what the hell he thought he was doing yesterday when he walked out of the hearing pleading that he couldn't afford to pay his attorney's.

What will his punishment be as far as congress goes. Can they remove him from his seat?

Will the Justice Dept. go after him on criminal charges?

Should have gone quietly into the night and retired.
 
I predict a Letter of Reprimand or perhaps a Censure.

(Translation: a formal letter stating the legislative equivalent of "You Were A Bad, Bad Boy". The difference being a Censure is more strongly worded, though still the legal equivalent of toilet paper.)

This, as a matter of course, carries no real legal consequences and is not binding in any way. Although the Justice Department could choose to investigate and go after him based on the findings since those are all public record.
 
Last edited:
He'll stomp around, make a speech, claim racism, get Al Sharpton to say something good about him, claim more racism, and eventually... nothing will happen.

Justice Department going after a black congressman? That's racism.
 
Unfortunately, the House or the Senate seems to come up with one of these characters at least once a decade. Party affliation doesn't matter. The common threads are: (1) long service/high seniority in the House or Senate, (2) given their district or state, election is essentially guaranteed and (3) their personal entitlement being paramount is a dominant theme.

Before Rangel there was Stevens from Alaska (although these jokers tend to come from the House). Different party, same characteristics-a blight upon representative government and the human race in general.

Odds are very little will happen to Rangel-probably a letter of censure, won't even affect his committee positions. Like so many conmen before him, he will sell his letter of censure to the constituents back home as a badge of honor for fighting against the man.
 
I for one will defend Rangell not on the basis of his ego, but on the basis that the various charges against him do not amount to a pattern of personal gain. Asd the Prosecution freely admitted, there is no pattern of criminal conduct from Rangel like there is with certain congreesmen and Senators.

The only charges with some personal gain meat on them were tax evasion charges on some of his properties. Rangel, took one tax position and the IrS took another, its happens every day with millions of people, sometimes the IRS wins and sometimes the consumer wins. Nothing criminal there.

But when it comes to crap like Rangel using Federal seals to promote a charity that bears his name, Rangel does not make ad ime of money either way.

Since many of the charges against Rangell are in that same class, its bad judgement on the part of Rangel and not a pattern of corruption.

To some extent Rangel is a victimn of political correctness, the GOP over eager to play the blame game, and the Rangel ego that allowed him to think he could escape any share of his own blame for bad judgment.

And after Ramgel blew 2 million dollars on his own attorneys who told him he would not escape some blame, Rangel could not bring himself to accept a centure. Rangel had six months or more to come to grips with reality, and pleading I need new attorney and more time went over like a lead balloon when the game of musical chairs stopped.

But still Rangel will retain office unlike the very corrupt Jefferrson or Delay. But the Rangel Tax leadership is toast and the GOP is trying to extract every inch of political milage as they make a molehill into a moutain.

Cheer up GOP, payback will be a bitch.
 
These appear to be clear but very minor violations of the rules - though accepting the cruises from a private corporate donor is not as minor.

He was wrong to do these things - even if the cause was good to raise funds for a deserving institution.

This is an 'appearance of impropriety issue'.

We could compare to issues on the right, but we can do that elsewhere.
 
PeshakJang said:
He'll stomp around, make a speech, claim racism, get Al Sharpton to say something good about him, claim more racism, and eventually... nothing will happen.

Justice Department going after a black congressman? That's racism.
Click to expand...

Actually with Bozo and Holder in office that would mean it's black on black crime/prosecution, both of which are frowned upon by the black community.
 
Lemon law said:
I for one will defend Rangell not on the basis of his ego, but on the basis that the various charges against him do not amount to a pattern of personal gain. Asd the Prosecution freely admitted, there is no pattern of criminal conduct from Rangel like there is with certain congreesmen and Senators.

The only charges with some personal gain meat on them were tax evasion charges on some of his properties. Rangel, took one tax position and the IrS took another, its happens every day with millions of people, sometimes the IRS wins and sometimes the consumer wins. Nothing criminal there.

But when it comes to crap like Rangel using Federal seals to promote a charity that bears his name, Rangel does not make ad ime of money either way.

Since many of the charges against Rangell are in that same class, its bad judgement on the part of Rangel and not a pattern of corruption.

To some extent Rangel is a victimn of political correctness, the GOP over eager to play the blame game, and the Rangel ego that allowed him to think he could escape any share of his own blame for bad judgment.

And after Ramgel blew 2 million dollars on his own attorneys who told him he would not escape some blame, Rangel could not bring himself to accept a centure. Rangel had six months or more to come to grips with reality, and pleading I need new attorney and more time went over like a lead balloon when the game of musical chairs stopped.

But still Rangel will retain office unlike the very corrupt Jefferrson or Delay. But the Rangel Tax leadership is toast and the GOP is trying to extract every inch of political milage as they make a molehill into a moutain.

Cheer up GOP, payback will be a bitch.
Click to expand...

I like how you blame the GOP. The GOP didn't institute these ethics rules. They didn't say they would run the most ethical congress ever. The Democrats did. The only person to blame is Rangel himself. Its not about personal gain, its about abusing your power of office/using your influence improperly.

Rangel repeatedly abused his power/influence of office. Period.

And you dismiss his IRS improprieties as it happens to everyone. This is a guy who KNOWS the tax law, he is not an every day citizen. He was the Chairmen of Ways and Means since 2006, and Ranking Member for years well before that. He had to of known his tax filings were incorrect. Its not like the tax issues were new. They were well established. Or are you asserting Rangel is/was incompetent and shouldn't have been on Ways and Means?
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
These appear to be clear but very minor violations of the rules - though accepting the cruises from a private corporate donor is not as minor.

He was wrong to do these things - even if the cause was good to raise funds for a deserving institution named after him.

This is an 'appearance of impropriety issue'.

We could compare to issues on the right, but we can do that elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Left something out to minimize what he did, did we?
 
a tax free villa in the Caribbean and 4 rent controlled apartments in New York City with the walls between them knocked down... nope, clearly no personal gain here folks, move along.
 
Did not mean to walk out on my own thread but I finally got my brother's wirleless network back up that I set up for him when I was here the last time. He's no dummy, but he just throws his hands up and claims ignorance when it comes to computer hardware. Had his supposedly computer savy next door neighbor fix his computer crash. Got his network backup by just hard connecting into the router which defeated the whole purpose of what I set up for him. Be that as it may...

Anyway, I guess I was a little premature. Apparently, Charles was convicted on 11 of the 13 counts.

Yea, I looks like he'll get an, oh my god .... REPRIMAND. As far as I gathered from the pundits, he'll even get to still chair some committees. So why even bother having an ethics committee if nothing of note happens to him. No wonder this place is going to hell in a hand basket.

Hell, I like the guy. But if you or I were collecting rent on some property for 17 years, never reported it as income, and the IRS got wind of it, I'm sure we'd get more than a reprimand.
 
Maybe the civilian prosecuters will go get him now that he does not have congressional "protectino"
 
hal2kilo said:
-snip-
Yea, I looks like he'll get an, oh my god .... REPRIMAND. As far as I gathered from the pundits, he'll even get to still chair some committees. So why even bother having an ethics committee if nothing of note happens to him. No wonder this place is going to hell in a hand basket.

Hell, I like the guy. But if you or I were collecting rent on some property for 17 years, never reported it as income, and the IRS got wind of it, I'm sure we'd get more than a reprimand.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I'm not prepared to say he should be kicked out of office (that should probably be up to his constutuents), but all of this and only a (toothless) reprimand?

Also - laughing at Lemmon law for his defence of Rangel and claiming there was no personal gain.

Fern
 
Fern said:
Exactly.

I'm not prepared to say he should be kicked out of office (that should probably be up to his constutuents), but all of this and only a (toothless) reprimand?

Also - laughing at Lemmon law for his defence of Rangel and claiming there was no personal gain.

Fern
Click to expand...

Constutuents spoke last week - they want him to stay 🙁
 
this is why i hate the government. he abused his power. while i don't think it is to the level he should get kicked out but something more then what he is getting.
 
EagleKeeper said:
Maybe the civilian prosecuters will go get him now that he does not have congressional "protectino"
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I'm not aware of any 'congressional protection' that prevents prosecutors from prosecuting a member of Congress for tax crimes.

And since there is no such protection, there isn't any change that he lost it because of this ethic committee's findings.

I'm not sure if he falls into the less or more serious categories of tax violators - 'reasonable difference the IRS rules against' versus 'unreasonable tax fraud', 'forgetful sloppy paperwork' versus 'got caught trying to avoid paying and making an excuse'. They differ in degree.

He should get whatever IRS punishments fit what he did, smaller or bigger. Obviously.

I don't have any problem either with the 'hold him to a higher standard' idea that we need to protect the country from 'abuse of power' - but within limits.

And sorry righties, but as much as we might like to avoid a 'b-b-b-bush' response, your inconstency is massive at how you scream over far smaller wrongs by the left.

It doesn't excuse the far smaller issues, but you can't expect to ignore the far great wrongs by Republicans, and not have that noted when you scream about an issue.

If a Democrat doesn't declare a rental property income, that's quite wrong and should be punished. But when a Republican sells out the public for interest for billions or violates the public's rights for the interest of rich donors, refusing to enforce laws and putting people who will oppose an agency in charge of it - like appointing Scalia's son who is an anti-labor lawyer in charge of labor enforcement, or Powell's son in charge of selling out the public to the media industry as chairman of the FCC - those are far worse, but you are quiet.
 
I had a cable news feed on while working through lunch today and was listening to Rangel go on a wholly unrepentent rant about how unfair life is to him, how everyone has the wrong impression of his character and how if he only had a brain he would have had counsel represent him in the recent hearing.

He will likely only be censured, but this is a guy that is ripe and should be removed for the good of his District, the reputation of the Congress and the good of the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top