Sorry Charlie

[EagleKeeper]

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.

I do not think that Congress will remove him. He has not been convicted of a crime in the civilian sense. Byut they did expel a Republican when he was convicted of not paying taxes.

And even with the charges hanging over him, he was reelected.
2 years from now, he will have been able to spin the story in his own behalf that the sheep will not realize that they are being sheared.

 

[werepossum]

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.

I highly doubt his district would elect anyone better. Their primary interest is that their Representative take money from others and give it to them; who better to do that than a crook?

 

[nick1985]

I highly doubt his district would elect anyone better. Their primary interest is that their Representative take money from others and give it to them; who better to do that than a crook?

pretty much this

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's funny to see people defending Rangle while bitching about Palin.

Does anyone really think Charlie didn't use his power to get subsidized rent on his properties?

Charlie is dirty. There's no other word for it.

Don't worry though Charlie might get a stern warning. How harsh.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

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.

There's no room here for any "reasonable difference' arguement. He failed to report obviously taxable income. Period.

But unless something presently unknown becomes public, there's about .000001% chance of him being charge with a crime. At most he would face civil tax fraud charges, and that's just a fine/penalty.

More likely is that he pays back taxes + interest + penalties. Although this non-reporting went on for many years, it's likely they can only make him pay for the last 3 years, possibly 5 years (if the unreported income was at least = to 25% of his gross income). To go back further they'll need to at least charge him with (civil) fraud, and that remains to be seen. And if the IRS did charge him with civil fraud, I don't think we'd hear about it unless Rangel wanted to tell us. Personal tax info is subject to very strict confidentiality laws. However, a criminal tax fraud charge would be public.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Does anyone really think Charlie didn't use his power to get subsidized rent on his properties?

I've been wondering who in NYC approves those subsidized apartments. How could that bureaucrat grant Rangel 3, 1 is the limit per person. How could that bureaucrat not know that Rangel was using them for his office and not living in them.

IMO, no way they didn't know.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

It's funny to see people defending Rangle while bitching about Palin.

Does anyone really think Charlie didn't use his power to get subsidized rent on his properties?

Charlie is dirty. There's no other word for it.

Don't worry though Charlie might get a stern warning. How harsh.

Perhaps even - dare I say it - an entry in his permanent record!

 

[hal2kilo]

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.

Sorry Craig I'm as lefty as they come. Corruption is corruption. I do agree that the only reason why this came up is because the Democratic controlled congress actually put teeth into the ethics panel. I'm sure in the days of Tom Daley he would have really rooted out the Repuplican corruption lol.

 

[hal2kilo]

Wow, he actually got censured.

1.An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.
2.An official rebuke, as by a legislature of one of its members.

I guess he's essentially neutered, but as a political freak, I still don't understand what the real implications of this is.

 

[werepossum]

Wow, he actually got censured.

1.An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.
2.An official rebuke, as by a legislature of one of its members.

I guess he's essentially neutered, but as a political freak, I still don't understand what the real implications of this is.

The real implication of this is avoiding a Republican show trial of an obviously corrupt long time Democrat, culminating in the exact same non-punishment. One of the few things the Dem House has done of which I approve. Everyone knows what he has done, everyone knows he will skate, get the damned thing over with.

 

[PJABBER]

Wow, he actually got censured.

1.An expression of strong disapproval or harsh criticism.
2.An official rebuke, as by a legislature of one of its members.

I guess he's essentially neutered, but as a political freak, I still don't understand what the real implications of this is.

That was the committee recommendation to the full House, but the House itself still has to determine what they do with the committee recommendation.

They are likely to take up the issue in this lame duck session so that it doesn't wind up being an agenda item for the Republican majority Congress next year.

They can accept the proposed "penalty" or do something else or even nothing at all. They can also expel him, but that is not at all likely considering that it is still a One Party Democrat Majority Congress.