Censure recommended for New York congressman Rangel
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
Syria defiantly denies killings, as U.N. council meets
( 1 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 1 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 1 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
89 Comments
Login to comment
0
Molenir
No real surprise. We've known he was dirty for years, its about damn time they held a trial. More to come from the dirty Dems.
0
MisterCreosote
40 years in Congress. The epitome of cronyism.
"Rangel, a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, is not expected to resign. He is 80 years old and remains a dominant political figure in New York’s famed Harlem neighborhood."
0
yabits
Note that it was the Democratic-led House holding Rangel accountable.
Charged on 13 counts of ethics violations. Gee, that's seven less than a certain person who quit the governership of Alaska.
0
MisterCreosote
Only after he refused a Democrat president's request to step down.
" Charged on 13 counts of ethics violations. Gee, that's seven less than a certain person who quit the governership of Alaska."
Charged is not the same as convicted.
0
Triumvere
Well that was fast.
0
yabits
LOL! Quitting your position and skipping town before the trial is just as good as convicting yourself.
That certain ex-governor doesn't even rate as high as Rangel on the moral scale. At least he faced the music.
0
MisterCreosote
I guess some people here believe the people of Harlem deserve to have a crook like Rangel representing them. Why else would they bring up completely unrelated ethics cases and ones in which all charges were dismissed?
0
thetruthhurts
Gee, that is 13 more than should have been violated. Do you somehow think what Palin did or did not do should excuse Rangel? How do you manage to come up with that logic?
0
manfromamerica
This guy should be in the White House. He fits right in on Obama's team.
0
Molenir
Trumped up charges aside, what the heck are you talking about? Palin is much higher on the scale. She faced what were obviously politically motivated attacks. Rangel, well he's been convicted of a range of violations, by a democratic congress. Note the difference.
Its up to the full panel to determine his punishment. In all probability, it won't be much. Still, is good that this is finally happening. Even though they should have held this a year ago.
0
manfromamerica
Maybe Obama will appoint him to replace tax-cheat Geithner. Of course there's always competition from tax-cheat Daschle. Or tax-cheat Richardson.
Dem's sure don't do their Biden-proclaimed "patriotic duty" (paying taxes)...
0
lostrune2
The people of Harlem voted him it, even knowing the charges against him.
The result will most likely be a censure. The House ethics committee is not a court - they have their own rules. And they emphasized that this is not a corruption trial but of unethical activities.
0
yabits
How do you manage the logic to come up with that ludicrous question?
Neither Rangle nor Palin shoud be excused. But if Rangle resigned from the House and skipped town, he would have fallen down a bit on the morals scale.
0
yabits
The ethics charges in the former example where largely brought by Republicans. You do have a point: They are notorious false accusers.
0
yabits
13 charges in 40 years vs. 20 charges in just over two years.
Wow, Rangel's going to have to live to be 150 to catch up with her.
(Unless she somehow regains public office.)
0
sailwind
yabits,
I hate tell you but Sarah Palin is married your attention to her over and over again seems......well kinda strange.
0
Molenir
As I said, politically motivated attacks. Note also how these accusations all stopped, the moment she left office.
Actually the reverse is true. Had he resigned, it would have been an acknowledgment of the charges, and would mean an apology for committing these errors. And quit trying to bring Palin in. It smacks of desperation.
0
yabits
And the fact that the Republicans would make someone as "ethically challenged" as Charles Rangel one of the leaders of their party is....well kinda stranger.
I'll try to remember that the next time I read Carter brought up in an Obama topic, Ted Kennedy brought up in a Bush topic, or Robert Byrd brought up in a topic about Tea Party racism. Etc., etc., etc. Come to think of it, based on that standard, most of the conservatives' arguments smack of desperation.
0
sailwind
Agreed no conservative would allow Congressman Rangle to use the 'race card' as his defense, it would be errr....desperation.
0
Taka313
charlie is guilty as hell and should resign...or at least become a republican. They welcome that kind of behavior.
Taka
0
TheQuestion
So you'd rather have him stay in his position, waste millions of dollars on a pointless defense, make a fool of himself and his party through his ridiculous speeches, and use up days worth of time that could have been spent on more important topics than have him step down and save us all the trouble? How is that moral at all?
Ok, and Rangle is still a corrupt politician.
At this point I really can't tell the difference. At least the republicans don't try so hard to make it look like they're clean.
0
thetruthhurts
I guess the same way you magically brought Palin in on this discussion.
Then bringing Palin into the discussion was meaningless. Thanks for admitting it. That raises you up on the morals scale a bit.
Please. It is the crime he is accused of that is immoral. The fact he wants to keep his job is another matter entirely.
I am curious. Do all Americans wear political party colored glasses that mold everything into such black and white images?
0
Molenir
Er, its Dems that have Rangel as one of their party leaders.
And now you try to justify yourself? Come on Yabits. You can do better then this. I grant Palin is a valid topic, depending on the thread, and the focus of the discussion. Same with any of those others you mentioned. But bringing her up, and trying to compare her issues with those of Rangel, is truly an act of desperation. I don't even understand why you're defend ing Rangel. I mean sure he's a lib, but I'd condemn him if he was a conservative. What he did is pretty bad, especially considering his position. Don't try to justify him, by pointing out other pols. And don't try to defend him by saying Republicans are dirty too. I grant the point. They are. Even if it seems most of them are Dems lately.
0
yabits
Hey, the panel's hearings are over and it didn't cost millions. (You must be getting your numbers from the same people who told us how much the recent trip to India was costing.) The rest of your "point" is mere hyperbole.
0
yabits
Not justifying him. He stood in front of the panel to face the music and soon will receive his punishment.
He didn't bail out and quit like that 2-year governor.
0
thetruthhurts
Yes, you are. With your next sentence you seem to be trying to say that although he may be immoral, you think he is not as bad as Palin. I say, who cares? This article is about Rangel and your mentioning Palin does nothing to change the situation Rangel finds himself in or the crimes he is accused of commiting.
What do you think of what he has been accused of? Do you think it moral? Your comments about Palin seem trite and completely disconnected to the conversation. Why not just say Rangel is not as bad as Hitler and be done with it?
0
yabits
Bringing Palin into the discussion is most meaningful, since she's another politician in the spotlight who has had far more than Rangel's 13 charges levied against her. Unlike Rangel, she quit her job and skipped the state rather than fight to clear her name.
In my opinion, if Rangel is going to be attacked, it ought to be with some eye to other politicians and their recent ethical problems. Therefore, when compared with, say....Palin, Rangel comes out ahead on the character meter.
0
TheQuestion
In an excerpt from NBC "Lawmakers criticized the law firm that Rangel retained for taking $2 million from him, than dropping him as a client when he couldn’t pay a million more. The Congress, many of whose members are lawyers, should consider the ethics involved in this episode too." That money came from PAC and an ammount like that is, in itself, a violation of ethical guidelines.
0
thetruthhurts
yabits,
Rangel has already been forced out of one position for breaches of ethics and rules. Hardly a beacon of morals. You are justifying Rangels accused crimes based on another person and it is ridiculous.
What is meaningful with regard to Rangel? I still don't see it at all. Do Palin's accused crimes make Rangel less accused? Do they make Rangel somehow innocent? No. Again, why not compare Rangel to every other person accused of a crime? Because that would be ridiculous and meaningless as is your comparison.
As you say, it is your opinion, and I think you are wrong. Rangel should be attacked or not because of Rangel. There is absolutely no reason to compare his accused crimes with other politicians or people in general.
We do not yet know if he is guilty of the crimes of which he is accused. However, if he is, I would find it very questionable to refer to him as having character. Someone with real character would not commit crimes in the first place and would not have to be compared to others to make them look better. You seem to be grasping at straws and playing hard and fast with the definitions of character, morals and ethics. Hope you are not a politician.
0
thetruthhurts
Actually, I was wrong. Since he was convicted, it is fair to say we know Rangel is guilty. At least it is fair to say we know he was convicted. As I really could not care less about Palin, until now I did not realize Palin had in fact been cleared of the charges against her making yabits' argument about Palin was even more specious. yabits, did you know this? If so, it begs the question even more strongly why you would try to inject Palin into this conversation.
0
manfromamerica
Corruption is rampant in the Democrat party. Unfortunately that means in the White House too.
0
zurcronium
Rangel is a small time operator compared to the corruption of the Tom Delays of the republican party. Corruption is a republican party function embedded deep in the DNA. Sure some demos are on the take with politics but their numbers are minimal compared to the party of the rich for the rich and by the rich. Oil companies elected bush to create wars for oil, Rangel has not caused US GIs die for nothing as the corrupt republicans have done.
0
manfromamerica
small-time? Hardly! He's a major Dem house leader. OK, how about tax-cheat Geithner? Or tax cheat Daschle? Or tax cheat Richardson? Or commie Van Jones? Or any of the numerous other corrupt Dems and WH staff?
0
thetruthhurts
Oh, okay. Here that Rangel? Continue as you were. zurcronium thinks he found someone worse (of course coincidently from the opposite party), so that absolves you of any crimes.
In fact, hey everyone! You are now allowed to do anything you like because we can always find someone who has done something worse and in doing so, you are completely absolved of your crimes. Free for all for all! Fun times ahead, yes indeed.
0
TimRussert
The poster Taka313 wins the prize for the deepest dive into the River Denial.
0
TimRussert
zurcronium -
What are the names of these companies? If Rangel is going down, he could name them!
People like you could get a little 'closure' for Gore's defeat, waaaaaaay back in 2000.
0
Molenir
He is guilty. Has been convicted. They are not determining the punishment. I should point out however, that he has not been charged with any actual crime. Merely violating ethics rules. Now some of the charges could very well merit an actual indictment. Though I seriously doubt that will happen. Especially considering who is in charge at Justice, and his (Holder's) apparently racist policies.
0
Molenir
bah! Now determining the punishment.
0
manfromamerica
wow, talk about a delusional statement.
0
thetruthhurts
Yes, I made an additional post correcting myself. As far as the charges, they do seem to relate to possible tax crimes. However, you are correct that the House is not in a position to determine this. A court of law would be the place for such a determination.
0
yabits
I know that Palin was found guilty of abusing her office for personal gain in the Monegan case.
She was also found guilty of violating state ethics laws with her Alaska Fund Trust.
If the false report of Palin being innocent makes the argument specious, the fact that she was found guilty, despite the false reports of the right-wing press, makes her comparison with Rangel all the more pertinent.
0
MisterCreosote
Case was thrown out. Sarah Palin is a private citizen. You are obsessed. The issue is Charlie Rangel and the five decades he has had his snout in the public coffers, screaming 'racism!' every time someone tried to hold him accountable.
0
Madverts
Bah Democrats lose again to the repubs.
At least their scandals are the drug-fuelled gay-sex in Denial with male prozzies that make you smile.
Dems are soooo boring.
0
yabits
Oh, how rich. This from someone who just two minutes earlier posted about Obama's transcripts in a topic about Bush's memoirs.
Alex, I'll take "Rogues and Crooks" for $1000. And the Answer is: "Had the most ethics violations allegations of any politician in the past 10 years."
Contestant A: "Who is Charlie Rangel?" (Error buzzer)
Contestant B: "Who is Duke Cunningham?" (Buzzer)
Yabits: "Who is Sarah Palin?" (Ding! Ding! Ding!)
0
TheQuestion
So basically Rangle is ok because other people are worse? That logic didn't work for me in the 2008 presidential election and it doesn't work now.
0
Molenir
Wow, and incorrect too. You left off 'Cold Cash' Jefferson. Apart from that, you could say any politician could be guilty of it. So long as someone files a claim against them, as happened in Alaska.
0
yabits
Rangel's offenses must be taken in context. The reactions to Rangel must also be taken in context.
That's precisely the attitude taken by conservatives when one of their own is guilty. For example, we'll be sure to hear about Rangel (or some other accused Democrat) the very next time a Republican is brought up on ethics violations. Bet on it.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
0
thetruthhurts
Why? I was not aware there was a 'context' clause in House ethics or US law. So, in your opinion, we should not actually judge people by what they have done, but rather on what they haven't? Rangel did something wrong. It is reasonable to say that he did something wrong. It is not neccessary to compare it to all wrongs did by other people. I think you should stop being so defensive. No one is saying you did anything unethical or illegal. Also it seems Palin was cleared in the Monegan case. Are you not aware of this?
0
manfromamerica
yabits: Palin's allegations are just that - allegations, not convictions. Rangel's are CONVICTIONS. so you support Geithner's tax cheating? Or Daschle's tax cheating? Or Obama, Emanuel and Blago selling Obama's senate seat? Hillary's Whitewater corruption and coverup? or any of the other Demo scandals?
0
manfromamerica
wow!! Democrats, that's called corruption. As is Obama offering federal jobs in order to influence candidates to drop out of congressional races.
0
TimRussert
IOW - we cannot judge this crook by the oppressive standards of civil society. No, Rangel is a special case because - yes - he is "black" and by definition (if you are a "progressive") not to be held responsible for his actions.
0
yabits
Huh?? You think that's what "context" means? (Hoo-boy..)
Oh, yes it is. You can't know how serious the wrong is without doing so. There are many esoteric ethics rules, and it's often necessary to look at other case examples. The same can be said with who is bringing up the complaint as well as the number of complaints.
Next there is the precedent of how the House has dealt with those committing like offences in the past.
0
manfromamerica
yabits - you are in denial.
This Dem administration and Congress is the most corrupt in US history. Fortunately this election has started to straighten things out.
0
yabits
Rangel would not have been censured if he resigned his office first under a cloud of suspicion. Had he resigned, there wouldn't have been a need for any panel of representatives hearing the charges in detail. Had he resigned, his delusional supporters -- such as they might exist -- could attempt to deny his wrongdoings. (Gee, that was easy.)
LOL!! I'm sure, upon reconsideration, they found that it was OK for the spouse of an elected offical to use her office for a personal vendetta.
I believe the Democrats -- this being a Democrat-controlled Congress by a wide margin -- handled the Rangel affair properly. I believe that liberals and supporters of the Democratic Party have been consistent in their condemnation of Rangel's unethical activities.
In fact, I can't think of a single Democrat in Congress who has had ethics charges as well-defended and/or totally denied as has the Republicans have done with their own corrupt personalities. Meanwhile, the Democrat-led Congress is getting ready to process the charges against Maxine Waters. I suppose that to delusional haters of Democrats, this proves how much the party toes the line of the Black Caucus.
0
TimRussert
Rangel will get a little slap on the wrist. Criminals protect criminals. Maxine Waters' ethics trial has been canceled.
"Most ethical Congress ever" is just one more Demcrat lie.
0
thetruthhurts
BS. The man wants to keep his job. Plain and simple. That you praise him speaks of your bias and it is saddening.
Again, you cannot manage to criticize Rangel's actions at all. You seek to dodge them and excuse them with disconnected and incorrect information. Fortunately, the Democrats in the House were not so easily swayed. You should consider asking Rangel for a job. It seems like he should have the money to pay you, that is for sure.
0
thetruthhurts
yabits,
You can bring up new cases now that your original argument has been squished. I could not care less. It does not change what Rangel did and his guilt and it does not lessen or diminish it. It merely shows you don't seem to care as much about right and wrong as you do about whether there is an R or a D after the person's name. You may feel comfortable with this, as I suspect many Americans do. However, I think it does a misjustice to law abiding citizens. Rangel is guilty. End of discussion.
0
yabits
But the original argument was not squished. Charges were brought, investigations were held, and the accused party was found guilty of ethics violations.
Only the ones supporting the Rs appear to deny it when it points to one of their own. Criminals protecting criminals indeed.
0
yabits
What actually was squished was the argument that a certain party was cleared of ethics violations.
There is no chance that an ethics violator like Rangel would be offered a job as a commentator on events. Especially if he resigned his office under a cloud of scandal. Only criminals who protect criminals would do that.
0
thetruthhurts
In November 2008, they were cleared of the charges you originally brought up, by an independent Democrat.
I am not an R and as such I could not care less. I think your whole argument is specious and disconnected.
Yeah, right. No ex-cons ever make it on US TV...eyes a rollin' at light speed.
Rangel is still guilty and you still have not criticized the man. End of discussion.
0
yabits
My post of 08:10 PM JST - 18th November proves that wrong.
As the timeline on Rangel's offenses makes clear, it can easily take over two years from the time an alleged ethical violation is reported and an action to reprimand or censure undertaken. It was mid-2007 when the alerts on Rangel's solicitation of funds for his "center for public service" were being reported.
Secondly, there is a difference between being cleared of charges because one is innocent, and the charges having to be dropped because of the destruction of key evidence (in the form of electronic communications) pertaining to the case. Especially when the person involved is found guilty on other ethics charges.
This also highlights the difference between people who bend over backward to creatively employ the use of the term "cleared" to describe those on their side who are unethical, and those people who condemn unethical behavior no matter on which side of the spectrum the person happens to fall.
While I condemn the actions for which Rangel has been recommended for censure, I genuinely respect his submission to the process. At 80, he certainly could have easily opted for retirement, but showed the grit and the integrity to take one straight on the chin.
0
thetruthhurts
What did he 'take on the chin' exactly? He took money is what he did. That mere fact he 'submitted to the process' is not a cause for praise or respect. It is ridiculous that you see public service as so low a profession that getting caught doing something and waiting to be accused is what you consider grit and integrity. To me, not doing something wrong and working for the people is much more worthy of such praise. To each his own. I now see you are not really interested in Rangel or what he did. You just wanted to attempt to post about your own agenda. That is exactly what I suggested in my first post to you in this discussion and can see even more now I was extremely on the mark in my comments. I am a pretty good judge of character after all.
0
thetruthhurts
I would just like to point out the hypocrisy of this statement as Rangel was also found guilty of previous ethics charges and you have, of course, made not mention of these whatsoever.
Rangel is not squeaky clean and your attempts to use other politicians to whitewash Rangel are rather dubious.
0
yabits
Assuming for the moment that I'm only half-right means that the earlier statement about my argument being "squished" was 100% wrong.
This is also wrong. To be found not guilty implies a trial was held. When investigators have to add a cautionary note to a final report that key evidence was destroyed and, because that was done, there is insufficient evidence to bring the matter to a trial, it is no more or less a "not guilty" situation than of a key witness suddenly disappearing before having to give testimony. Many an evildoer has gone free on a technicality -- and that is precisely the case here. But they are far from "not guilty."
Will over 90% of Rangel's tenure in office was spent effectively serving the voters of his district. And I didn't condemn Rangel, respecting his years of faithful service -- I condemned the man's unethical behavior.
Prior to the charges that were brought up in this matter? You haven't shown any proof of that whatsoever.
The sentence that makes my point perfectly. Rangel's behavior has to be put on the spectrum. Everything, including grit and integrity, can be put in relalive terms. Public service is brought much more low by an executive who draws an onslaught of ethical complaints, destroys evidence prior to an investigation, and then quits office and skips town -- all within a two year "career."
Compared with that kind of truly sleazy behavior, Rangal comes off quite well.
0
thetruthhurts
It was completely wrong and I will explain again why. Please pay attention. This is not about Palin. I am not on Palin 'side'. I do not have an 'R' after my name. This story is about Rangel and what he did. You have been attempting to bring completely disconnected things into this discussion because of your own obsession with 'us' and 'them' and thinking that by bringing Palin into the discussion you have shown that Rangel is not as guilty. My point is that your point is ridiculous. It has blinded you to the point that you cannot read newspapers that say Palin was cleared of many of the charges you claim she was not cleared of. To me, I could not care less about Palin. I don't care if she is innocent or guilty. It has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. When another poster pointed out she had been cleared of the charges you mentioned, I checked and, as I mentioned to you, she had been cleared.
0
thetruthhurts
Really? Does this include 17 years of possibly millions in tax evasion? How does that sit with being ethical to his voters? Do you even know what the man has been accused and censured for? I do not think you do or, if you do, care. I mean, you never mention it at all, do you?
0
thetruthhurts
This is not a courtroom. Do your own research for a change. You don't even know what he was censured for this time. It is hardly grit and integrity.
0
thetruthhurts
No, it mer ely has to st and the te st of et hics and the law. You can spend your life chasing Rep ublicans and using them to excuse unet hical beha vior. To be clear, I have never from the begin ning had the inten tion of defe nding Palin. I do not care about her as regards to this discussion or at all in fact. She is as connected to this discussion as the moon and North Korea are. You brought her up and I think it is ridiculous that you felt the need to bring her up to somehow make Rangel look better. If he needs that help, he can't be that great.
0
thetruthhurts
No, he does not. You really do not seem to be fam iliar with what the man is being cens ured for. He is a hy pocrite. He cla imed to work all these years for the common man while taking great adva ntage of his position to enri ched him self. How you can say he comes off 'well' is beyond me as is your thinking this beha vior is a sign of int egrity. In my opinion, his voters deserve better. You can bring up any compar isons you would like, nothing you say changes this. It certainly does not excuse it. What it does do is show the lengths you seem to be wil ling to go to defend 'your side' instead of act ually def ending ju stice. I will admit, that is one thing I can't unde rstand about party-liners. They are will ing to over look things merely because the person doing them is a member of the same pol itical party.
0
yabits
So, when you implied that Rangel was found guilty of ethical violations prior to 2007 -- "previous ethical violations," to quote you -- you can't provide any evidence of that.
That's likely because research shows that no evidence exists and you are simply making things up.
But by mindlessly and incorrectly insisting that someone has been "cleared" or found "not guilty" of ethical violations -- when in fact they have been found in violation of the laws, that is what most people would call a pretty blatant de fense.
No one, least of all myself, has overlooked Rangel's unethical behavior. If anyone is overlooking things, it's the ones who have amply demonstrated how they deny, de_fend and overlook the unethical behavior of those on their side.
0
thetruthhurts
yabits,
You have a probl em with making assum ptions about things. You read my comm ents and ass ume I support Palin, which is completely un true. I thought she shoul d have fin ished her term as governor. Now you are mis reading what prev ious ethi cal viol ations means. Rangel has been found to have et hical vio lations before the ones in this article. I said not hing about before 2007. You said that. In addition, for two years running Ci tizens for Resp onsibility and E thics has named Rangel one of the 15 most cor rupt members of Congress. It is run by a Democrat, so I assume this will make it all true for you.
0
thetruthhurts
Nothing mindl ess or inc orrect about it. She was cleared of the ch arges I said she was cleared of. When you bro ught up the latest charge, that I overlooked in your first post (because quite fra nkly it had no thing to do with this disc ussion), you will notice I did not try to def end it. She was in fact found gu ilty. I have no problem admitting it. If you will check I said from the beg inning that it does not matter to me whether she is inn ocent or gui lty as per tains to this dis cussion. It still is ire levant to this dis cussion. You keep talking about how you feel about Palin. You do not talk about Rangel. Quit avoiding this issue and talk about it.
0
thetruthhurts
Yes, you ha ve, especi ally you rself act ually. You have been atte mpting to lig hten the gr avity of Rangel's g uilt with the g uilt of som eone else. As you wo uld say that is what m ost peo ple would call a pr etty bl atant de fen se. You have never disc ussed Rangel's case. From your first post you have so ught to s hift the f ocus a way from Rangel's gu ilt. You keep me ntion ning sides and people defe nding une thical beh avior. I don't know who you are tal king about as we are the only two in this discu ssion and as I have alr eady said that I am not inte rested in defe nding P alin. I mer ely want to talk about what the sub ject of this ar ticle, Rangel. It is you who has cons istently try to s hift the foc us for pa rty rea sons. Fo cus on the man and foc us on what he has done rega rding the things he has been cha rged with and then let's talk about his g rit and int egrity. As I said, I think it hy pocr itical to claim you are fig hting for your poor voters whilst getting rich from your po sition. You have not comme nted on this at all.
0
yabits
There is a well-known saying that came out of the Watergate ethical and legal debacle: "it's not the crime; it's the cover-up."
In the case of Rangel, his "guilt" is not for the kinds of misdeeds that would merit his removal from office. The real gravity would have come if he quit his post, refused to face justice, and just skipped town.
0
thetruthhurts
BS. It is the crime. Stop making excuses and face this simple fact. What Rangel did was wrong and a seriously break in the trust given to him by his voters. You continue to try to excuse his behavior with meaningless comparisons. Sad.
0
yabits
Not all wrongdoing is criminal behavior. Obstruction of justice through the destruction of evidence is, however. Facing justice and taking his punishment was the right thing that Rangel did.
Rangel's voters have had the opportunity to register their feelings of trust towards him over a 40-year career -- the vast majority of those years were of loyal and dedicated service.
0
thetruthhurts
yabits,
It is possible what Rangel did violated federal law as well. This is particularly true of the tax related violations. Whether anything will come of this is, of course, an entirely different matter.
I agree it was the right thing to do. I also think he did it because he wanted to keep his job and keep his reputation intact. I also think that, being a lawyer, he was aware of the possibility of further tax law related charges being filed and wanted to nip it in the bud if possible.
While Rangel's voters have had the opportunity to register their feelings. This was done without the full knowledge of what Rangel was doing vis-a-vis charges against him. Some of the charges claim he was doing some of these things for as long as 17 years. One can't help but wonder whether the voters would have given him the support they did with this knowledge. If he decides to run for reelection next time we will have a chance to find out.
I understand why you like the man, btw. There is certainly a lot to like about him. He is a likable figure. I personally love watching him speak. However, what he did was wrong and I think it is sensible to clearly say so.
0
manfromamerica
it's funny to hear yabits go on and on trying to justify Rangel's crimes and somehow insist Palin did something she didn't.
Fact: this Dem administration and congress is the most corrupt in history. Fortunately the Nov election started to clean a few things up.
0
yabits
He was never in any danger of losing his job, so I don't see how that could be his motivation. Keeping his legacy and reputation as intact as possible really makes sense.
Never have I tried to justify Rangel's ethical violations. Calling them "crimes" is more partisan Republican hyperbole.
Fact: The current Democratic administration and Congress is one of the cleanest in history. The "dirtiest" was during Reagan's two terms when well over 200 Republicans were either fired, arrested, or convicted of breaking the law or violating ethical codes.
Since the violations of the current administration can be counted on the fingers of one hand, they've got quite a ways to go.
0
thetruthhurts
yabits,
I think we have winded down to the end of this discussion, at least I don't see much more to be discussed as this discussion has been continuing.
Rangel felt pressure to leave the chair of the Ways and Means Committee. It is certainly conceivable he could equally feel pressure to leave his position in the house depending on how things develop. We defintely agree on his desire to also keep his legacy and reputation.
Sadly, if you look back at this discussion (I know you were not responding to me and you will now engage another poster in partisan bickering, but I wanted to respond), you will see that from your very first post you have been using another politician to somehow make what Rangel did not as serious. That is a form of justification and I really don't understand the need or desire for it. The fact is that for two years running the watch dog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics has named Rangel one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress. I maintain that from the minute you starting bringing up that woman, you were attempting to justify what Rangel did. If he can 'take it on the chin' as you put it, it would seem you should be able to accept it as well.
You may now continue party bickering as I am not particularly interested.
0
thetruthhurts
Actually, I would like to amend my response. I don't think you were trying to justify Rangel as much as attempting to minimize what he did using comparisons. Anyway, you don't seem particularly interested in the specifics of the case and since we are just going back and forth, I will leave you to it.
0
thetruthhurts
Ahh, what the heck. Let me swim in the party bickerfest for one post.
One, I don't think this is true, full stop. Two, Rangel has nothing to do with this administration or this congress. The man has been in the House since 1971. Focus on the man and leave Obama out of it.
0
manfromamerica
Really?? Obama, Biden, Geithner, Rangel, Locke, Daschle, Holder..., the list of corruption goes on and on.
This Democratic administration and Demo congress is the most corrupt in history.
0
manfromamerica
thetruthhurts -
Obama has filled his cabinet, czars, and other appointments with some of the most corrupt backroom dealers and tax cheats around. Yes Rangel has been in the house since 1971, but Obama and the Dem's entire leadership is filled with career graft.
0
manfromamerica
Yabits, you really need to read the news and do some research. Of course, if you are a Democrat shill, then of course you want to ignore the facts. However the looong list of scandals and crimes by team Obama members is staggering.
0
manfromamerica
Rangel is one of the most powerful Dems in government, and he is given his powers and influence by his fellow party members. How are his actions and the acceptance of them by the Dem leadership separate? They are part of the same entrenched corruption problem that plagues this administration.
0
thetruthhurts
I see no evidence of any acceptance of Rangels actions on the part of the Democratic leadership. Quite the opposite in fact, the reccomended censures came from Democrats as well. Do you have some evidence that Democratic leaders were aware of Rangels actions (while they were going on and let them continue with this knowledge) and did nothing about them? If not, I have trouble with you claim.
0
manfromamerica
thetruthhurts -
I disagree. Corruption is rampant in the Dem leadership. What Rangel did is the same as probably half of Obama's cabinet/nominees.
0
TimRussert
Have we forgotten Rezko? Blago? Burris? Violation of the Logan Act by interfering in Iraq's affairs as a senator and campaigning for a fellow socialist in Kenya? Plagiarist for VP? Accepting millions in illegal foreign donations while campaigning?
And that is just the two Dems in the White House...
Back to top