Rangel’s Day in Court

Actually, it won’t quite be a court — though it could be down the road. A House ethics subcommittee has found that the erstwhile Ways & Means chairman likely violated House rules, a decision Rangel contested. So, in order to resolve the matter, an “adjudicatory subcommittee” must be convened to hear out the case. The first hearing will be on July 29 and it will be open to the public, as is tradition.

The last time such an open process was used was for former Rep. James Traficant, an Ohio Democrat who was expelled from the House in 2002 for taking bribes, racketeering, filing false tax returns and forcing aides to perform household chores on his Ohio farm and DC houseboat (which was, coincidentally, parked not far from Duke Cunningham’s houseboat). Traficant served seven years in prison and is now a radio host in Ohio. He recently filed papers to make an independent run for his old seat.

Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay skipped such a step when his ethics investigation went right from the exploratory phase to admonishment — a first in ethics committee history.

Rangel first asked the committee two years ago to look into newspaper allegations that he’d failed to report income from a Caribbean rental, that he used Congressional letterhead to solicit donations for a charity in his name and that he broke New York rent subsidy laws. The alleged tax lapses were particularly worrisome as the chairman of the Ways & Means Committee is Congress’s top tax writer. Politico reported that Rangel was seen arguing with ethics committee chair Zoe Lofgren shortly before today’s announcement was made. Zofgren had, reportedly, been encouraging Rangel to follow a DeLay route and skip the adjudicatory process. As of August 2009, Rangel had spent more than $1 million in legal fees defending his actions to the committee. If he’s found in violation of House rules the committee’s evidence could be turned over to prosecutors to pursue a criminal case.

The investigation into Rangel and his yielding of the Ways & Means gavel while the process dragged out has been considered a victory by ethics watchdogs and a sign that the newly-formed Office of Congressional Ethics has been a success. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, under pressure from groups including the Congressional Black Caucus, is reportedly considering weakening OCE or disbanding it altogether after the next elections.

Subscribe to Jay Newton-Small on Facebook
Related Topics: charlie rangel, ethics committee, open hearing, Congress, Democratic Party, Nancy Pelosi, Republican Party
  • Latest on Swampland

    Obama Stumbles? Why the President’s Right to Talk About Bain

    The meme of the day in journo-world is that President Obama has stumbled at the outset of the general election campaign. The evidence for this? Well, uh, there isn’t very much, really–except that a few Democrats have criticized his campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital and that Obama’s fundraising is merely humongous, instead of obscenely humongous. The two phenomena are linked, of course: Obama isn’t getting the usual haul from Wall Street because he has outrageously–outrageously!–tried to regulate the bankers who did so much to crash the economy in 2008. The handful of Democrats squawking are people who either (a) get money from private equity firms or (b) have retired and joined Mondo Casino. But there is another side to this story:

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Morning Must Reads: Haunted

  • nflfoghorn

    Why doesn’t Charlie the Tuna spare us all the trouble and resign?

  • nflfoghorn

    Wh doesn’t Charlie the Tuna do us all a favor and resign? This is like water torture.

  • nflfoghorn

    Wh = Why
    .
    my bad for the double-post

  • http://www.stevebeste.com Steve Beste

    Charlie Rangel to Skippy Russert: ‘That Was a Dumb Question’ http://ow.ly/2fl1F Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!

  • swissArmyBrainBETA

    thanks for the update. i was going to guess “Whitewater-rafting”. would never have suspected “Why”

  • gysgt213

    Actually. i think its appropriate you said it twice. Let me just say I like Charlie Rangel. I think he is a hoot and a colorful pol. But I do not tolerate one abusing their position of trust,

  • shepherdwong

    The sad part: he had (way) better than even money it would actually be a dumb question, he doubled down, and he lost. Retire, Charlie.

  • spob

    The issue that’s hiding in plain sight is the tax treatment of the discounted rent-controlled apartments. Since for-profit entities cannot, generally speaking, give “gifts” as defined in the tax code, then the benefit Rangel got for those discounts is taxable. And there’s no way Rangel declared that income.
    .
    JNS, why aren’t you covering this angle?

  • nflfoghorn

    The last paragraph troubles me. I somehow doubt that anyone in the CBC is above ethical standards either; the members and Pelosi should be propping up the process, not Charlie.

  • http://chasbow1552.wordpress.com chasbow1552

    HE IS HOME FREE, ONE COMMIE WILL NOT HINDER ANOTHER COMMIE. REMEMBER 2 STEPS FORWARD AND 1 STEP BACK. EXAMPLE; THE NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY.

  • kathy

    NBC has played over and over Rangel’s arrogant responses to Luke Russert, and played another instance of his telling a reporter “You really shouldn’t be doing this, you know. It’s very rude.”

    It seems clear that Rangel has had too much power for too long, and thinks he’s above both the law and anyone’s criticism.

    And in a cringe-inducing comment, he told Russert (who asked very good questions on the fly) that of course he was young and “needed to make a name for himself” and that if he worked for NBC it just showed how a network that used to have respect had deteriorated. Hope he cringed when he was told who Luke was.

  • nflfoghorn

    Your brain power won’t increase by leaving caps lock on….

blog comments powered by Disqus