What's To Become of Rangel ?

[Marie]

Even if only half of these allegations are substantiated, shouldn't that be more than enough to get Rangel to voluntarily retire ?
Wouldn't you think he should have the sense to realize the harm he potentially could do to his party if he keeps his problems in the limelight for very much longer ?

Excuse me, WHO'S keeping them in the limelight? You really think Rangel wants the attention? (So you probably thought Clinton as responsible for BJs being brought up every 5 minutes, because he wouldn't confess, right?)

"Even if only half of these allegations are substantiated"-- nice Foxsinuation, Commander. Let's get rid of the guy before the truth is known.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying if half of the accusations turn out to be true, shouldn't that be enough for the guy to step down of his own accord ? Why put his party through the embarrassment if he's guilty, by stringing this out ?

I understood what you said.

-Marie-

[The Icy Commander]

So if he has in fact broken laws, you would not call for his resignation, or, wish for him to retire on his own ?

[Marie]

So if he has in fact broken laws, you would not call for his resignation, or, wish for him to retire on his own ?

I've been saying I want to hear what the investigation finds. Intent is a part of it -- how much was inadvertent, as he says, and how much of the trouble could be attributed to an attitude that he's above the law? I'm reserving judgment until that is sorted out.

He's a good legislator and if there isn't a damn good reason to can him, I'd prefer that he stay and keep working for us, and let the voters decide the rest when the time comes.

-Marie-

[keithaddict]

Marie, do none of the allegations against Rangel bother you in the slightest? They are rather atrocious and the way he's been reacting to related questions lately doesn't indicate he's getting out of anything. To me the only question is how long are they going to drag this out and how ugly will it have to get. Don't defend democrats who don't deserve it. Even if I go out on the limb with you and say maybe even though he was the head guy on the committee that writes tax laws he had no idea what he was doing, shouldn't he still lose his job simply for holding that post and not knowing how many laws he was breaking?

[Marie]

Marie, do none of the allegations against Rangel bother you in the slightest? They are rather atrocious and the way he's been reacting to related questions lately doesn't indicate he's getting out of anything. To me the only question is how long are they going to drag this out and how ugly will it have to get. Don't defend democrats who don't deserve it. Even if I go out on the limb with you and say maybe even though he was the head guy on the committee that writes tax laws he had no idea what he was doing, shouldn't he still lose his job simply for holding that post and not knowing how many laws he was breaking?

I don't know why what I said is so hard for you to understand. It's called due process.

-Marie-

[keithaddict]

Do we need due process to chastise Vitter for getting caught cheating on his wife? Do I need to come up with more Republican examples to get my point across?

You keep harping on how they need to prove intent, so I'm just asking your opinion. To me, even if they can't prove he intended to do what he did, he should lose his seat just for being that ignorant about his own committee's policies.

[Marie]

Do we need due process to chastise Vitter for getting caught cheating on his wife? Do I need to come up with more Republican examples to get my point across?

You keep harping on how they need to prove intent, so I'm just asking your opinion. To me, even if they can't prove he intended to do what he did, he should lose his seat just for being that ignorant about his own committee's policies.

I spoke to that, too.

Intent is a big deal with me. You might say I'm more New Testament in my approach, by and large.

-Marie-

[keithaddict]

So you honestly think in the event that they can prove he didn't intend to break the law, it's perfectly fine that he be so ignorant to so many ethics laws pertaining to taxes when he's the guy heading the committee that makes the damn tax laws? This is a hypothetical, answerable question that doesn't hinge on the case being over. It's just basically impossible for me to see you making this same kind of defense were it a Republican in Rangel's shoes. Corruption is corruption and wrong is wrong, and in this case unless they prove he didn't actually do any of this stuff at all (which it looks like no one is even arguing) I think he is deserving of any punishment he winds up with.

[Marie]

So you honestly think in the event that they can prove he didn't intend to break the law, it's perfectly fine that he be so ignorant to so many ethics laws pertaining to taxes when he's the guy heading the committee that makes the damn tax laws? This is a hypothetical, answerable question that doesn't hinge on the case being over. It's just basically impossible for me to see you making this same kind of defense were it a Republican in Rangel's shoes. Corruption is corruption and wrong is wrong, and in this case unless they prove he didn't actually do any of this stuff at all (which it looks like no one is even arguing) I think he is deserving of any punishment he winds up with.

There's already enough serious crap going on where I know for a fact the principles did what they did with the full knowledge it was wrong, I don't need to go looking for stuff to get me outraged or hypotheticals to get my panties in a wad about.

I wish he hadn't messed up because, as I said, I think Rangel's a good legislator. And I don't want Dems' desire to "send a message" about how they're "draining the swamp" will figure in the disposition of this case. The life Rangel has given to service to his constituents and to the country should weigh much more heavily in how it all turns out. That's not nothing. It's everything.

-Marie-

[keithaddict]

Alright I can understand that, at least you are admitting he has some things he owes his constituents answers about. I don't think good past deeds should excuse him should he be found guilty of wrongdoing, but I think I get where you're coming from. We both know that no matter what happens to Rangel, the far-right will make hay of it. If he's not punished they'll say the majority isn't, as you said, "draining the swamp", and if he is punished they'll just use it as an excuse to say "look he was proven guilty". He's going to make problems for Democrats in the mid-terms one way or another, and I think if the Dem.s are hard on him not only will they be doing the right thing morally but also the best thing for themselves politically in getting in front of the issue. Like I said the far-right will harp on this no matter how it turns out, and I think this is one of those rare cases in which the right thing to do is also the smart thing to do.

[Marie]

Alright I can understand that, at least you are admitting he has some things he owes his constituents answers about. I don't think good past deeds should excuse him should he be found guilty of wrongdoing, but I think I get where you're coming from. We both know that no matter what happens to Rangel, the far-right will make hay of it. If he's not punished they'll say the majority isn't, as you said, "draining the swamp", and if he is punished they'll just use it as an excuse to say "look he was proven guilty". He's going to make problems for Democrats in the mid-terms one way or another, and I think if the Dem.s are hard on him not only will they be doing the right thing morally but also the best thing for themselves politically in getting in front of the issue. Like I said the far-right will harp on this no matter how it turns out, and I think this is one of those rare cases in which the right thing to do is also the smart thing to do.

Justice isn't supposed to be about what political rivals will say. I'm getting tied of the whole reactive thing Dems have going on. That's the problem Clinton had, because Republicans maneuvered him into the same politico-legal situation: if you confess and ask for forgiveness, the media and the voters give you props -- but you're also incriminating yourself, which the Constitution says you're not required to do and probably isn't in anybody's best interest, anyway.

My feeling is that if someone is caught in that kind of bind and an investigation is going forward, legal considerations come first. Especially when someone has devoted as much of himself to public service as Rangel has.

Let the process run its course and once they see what they've got, then make a decision how to deal with him. If the violations were serious, there are lots of penalties short of banishment that would still be costly, and only penalize him.

Next election, if the voters don't want him around any more, they can vote for somebody else.

-Marie-

[The Icy Commander]

This blogger puts in a nutshell why Rangel wants to go forward with a trial.
This has got to be driving Nancy Pelosi nuts.

Rangel: What’s in it for him to stand and fight?

Code: Select all

Charlie Rangel's dealing days are over. Whatever else happens to the embattled Democratic congressman from New York — who's facing 13 charges from the House Ethics Committee, involving everything from incomplete financial filings to improper fundraising for a center named in his honor at New York's City College — he won't have a settlement in his pocket allowing him to hang onto the congressional seat he's held for 39 years.

Such a deal appeared to be in place earlier this week, when the committee offered Rangel a settlement that would result in an official reprimand — a penalty far less severe than expulsion or censure. But the lawmaker declined, instead pushing forward with a public trial in the House.

The complete charges were released Thursday, and many political leaders and pundits have since called for his resignation. There are numerous reasons Democratic leaders would like Rangel to quietly step away — chief among them the effect a corruption trial would have on public opinion during an already difficult election year.

But Rangel said he wants the opportunity to defend himself and has no plans to step down from Congress.

So what's in it for Rangel to remain in office and suffer through this public trial? Here's a brief rundown:


Innocence: Rangel maintains he is innocent. That's his own most frequently cited reason to stay and fight. What's more, admitting any wrongdoing now may put him in legal jeopardy later if some or all of these violations move to the U.S. court system.

Chairmanship: After decades of service, Rangel worked his way up to chair the powerful House Ways and Means Committee in 2007. But Democrats stripped him of his chairmanship due to the ethics inquiry. Rangel has always maintained that he surrendered his chairmanship only temporarily — and that he intends to reclaim it once he's cleared.

Ego: Large egos run rampant in Washington, and Rangel is certainly no exception. Many of the ethics charges are linked to the classic sorts of entitlement issues that afflict powerful and self-enamored pols: failing to report assets, not paying taxes, improperly using property for campaign purposes. It would be out of character for a kingmaker like Rangel to let pressure from his colleagues or others overpower him now.

Influence: After serving nearly four decades in Congress, Rangel has impressive clout — and many colleagues who owe him many favors. Resigning would mean forgoing all that — and suffering a plunge in status. Even before his trial begins, some Democratic House members are already starting to return fundraising money that Rangel steered their way.

Service: Rangel will continue to serve during this trial. This means he can continue advocating for his district, shaping legislation and performing all the other duties of a sitting lawmaker. Even without his chairmanship, he remains a senior member of the House who can aggressively advocate for his district on the Hill.

Legacy: There's no question that Rangel, a former war hero, has long been building his legacy in Washington and in New York. He was, after all, raising money for an eponymous monument to his career at City College. Any admission of wrongdoing would sully that legacy.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100730/pl_yblog_upshot/rangel-whats-in-it-for-him-to-stand-and-fight


[keithaddict]

@Marie

I hear what you're saying about justice, but I made sure to point out that I my opinion isn't based entirely on how I think Dem.s could best handle the issue politically, I also happen to think it's the right thing to do. Misuse of one's public office as an elected official is a pretty high crime in my book. I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[BrooklynBilly]

Even the president wants him out. Next in line is that witch Maxine Waters.

http://indyposted.com/35767/democrats-h ... ics-probe/

[The Icy Commander]

Now it looks like Maxine Waters may be in trouble as well.

Calif. Dem Maxine Waters to be charged with ethics violations

A House investigative panel has decided to charge Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California with ethics violations, raising the possibility of a second high-profile trial with political implications for Democrats this fall.

People familiar with the investigation, who were not authorized to be quoted about unannounced charges, say the allegations could be announced next week. The House ethics committee declined Friday to make any public statement on the matter.

Waters has been under investigation for a possible conflict of interest involving a bank that was seeking federal aid. Her husband owned stock in the bank.

New York Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel also faces an ethics trial this fall on separate charges that included failure to disclose assets and income, nonpayment of taxes and doing legislative favors for donors to a college center named after him.

Both Waters and Rangel are prominent members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Dual ethics trials would be a major political liability for Democrats, forcing them to defend their party's ethical conduct while trying to hold on to their House majority.

While Rangel is a former chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, Waters is a prominent member of the Financial Services Committee.

Waters came under scrutiny after former Treasury Department officials said she helped arrange a meeting between regulators and executives at Boston-based OneUnited Bank without mentioning her husband's financial ties to the institution.

Her husband, Sidney Williams, held at least $250,000 in the bank's stock and previously had served on its board. Waters' spokesman has said Williams was no longer on the board when the meeting was arranged.

Waters has said the National Bankers Association, a trade group, requested the meeting. She defended her role in assisting minority-owned banks in the midst of the nation's financial meltdown and dismissed suggestions she used her influence to steer government aid to the bank.

"I am confident that as the investigation moves forward the panel will discover that there are no facts to support allegations that I have acted improperly," Waters said in a prior statement.

The committee unanimously voted to establish an investigative subcommittee to gather evidence and determine whether Waters violated standards of conduct.

Waters, like Rangel, could settle her case by arranging a plea bargain with the ethics committee. So far she has decided instead to fight the allegations.



Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... z0vKSXT6If