Rangel should resign

[JohnBrowdie]

not a good day for democrats as far as the oped pages go.

but if the chairman of ways and means being up to his armpits in tax evasion charges didn't cost him his chairmanship, then I don't see how in the world this revelation will do it.  the fact that he wasn't fully forthcoming about how fundamentally dishonest he was shouldn't come as much of a surprise to anyone.

Rangel should resign
Second brush with financial scandal should end his time in Congress

Charlie Rangel always has been an entertaining congressman. And not to damn him with faint praise, an effective one, too. But the New York City representative, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, is having a problem with his numbers as they relate to the truth. He now can be neither entertaining nor effective. He needs to go. If he won’t, Speaker Nancy Pelosi needs to push him.

It’s the same old story for Rangel, who last year reluctantly acknowledged what he described as an inadvertent failure to report $75,000 in rental income for a beachfront property in the Dominican Republic. Then, many critics—including this page—called on him to step down from his chairmanship, at least until his professed innocence could be established. He didn’t.

Now, it gets worse. Newly-filed disclosures show that Rangel failed to report at least half a million dollars in assets in 2007. They also show that his net worth is between $1 million and $2.5 million, or about twice what he claimed in 2008.

This would be cause for uproar over any elected official, but when that official heads Congress’ finance—and tax— committee, it is intolerable. Once could be a mistake; an unlikely one, to be sure, but it is possible. The odds of simple error fall to near zero when it happens twice, and when both times are in your financial favor. We’d feel better about it if he accidentally paid taxes on more than he is worth, rather than less.

This is no longer just a problem for Rangel. It’s a problem for Pelosi and all House Democrats, including Brian Higgins of Buffalo and Louise Slaughter of Fairport. It’s a management problem now because Rangel’s shortcomings can— and will—be used to undermine the Democratic majority’s claim to power. And why not? If Democrats are willing to put up with this kind of behavior from one of the chamber’s most powerful members, they will have asked for an Election Day spanking.

This is Pelosi’s sternest test. She should give Rangel a week to do the right thing and then, if he doesn’t, she must.

Link

[JohnBrowdie]

if it comes down to eric holder investigating, rangel doesn't have anything to worry about.

marc rich? pardoned.  FALN? pardoned.  al gore putting the arm on foreign nationals for campaign contributions as vice president?  "no controlling legal authority".  philadelphia black panthers suppressing the vote? not worth investigating.   

CIA agents protecting the safety of americans aggressively?  hang 'em high.

[JohnBrowdie]

I think rangel is dirty, but I also think the special prosecutor law has turned into a repulsive abuse of power whereby political differences are turned into criminal offenses.

but the hypocrisy ball is in the dems court.  the congressional democrats should already feel uncomfortable with what eric holder considers worthy of investigation;  apparently if you aren't a CIA agent, then you are pretty much immune.  if they don't get serious about rangels repeated violations of financial disclosure requirements and (more than likely) tax laws, then I would think that the electorate will take the issue into their own hands in the midterms.

Groups want counsel for Rangel probe

Exasperated watchdog groups are calling for a special counsel to intervene in the ethics committee probe of Rep. Charles Rangel.

The good-government officials say they are astounded by Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) disclosure last week of at least $650,000 in assets that he previously had failed to list on his House financial disclosure forms. And they are frustrated that the House ethics committee has not issued findings on Rangel, who requested that the panel investigate him in July 2008. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in November 2008 that she expected the probe to be completed in January 2009.

The disclosure records normally are due in May, but Rangel, who chairs the powerful Ways and Means panel, filed an extension and then decided to amend previous-year reports and filed those changes in August, when news is usually slow and lawmakers are out of town.

Some in the watchdog community are tired of waiting for the ethics committee.

“Appointing a special counsel is a step the committee could and should take,” said Lisa Gilbert, democracy advocate for U.S. PIRG. “There really couldn’t be a situation where there is a more overt case for doing so than with Rangel … it’s that serious and far-ranging.”

More

[JohnBrowdie]

"The American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history." -  Nancy Pelosi, November 8, 2006

Pelosi will let Rangel hold post despite latest allegations

Speaker Nancy Pelosi will let Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) keep his chairmanship despite his failing to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets on federal disclosure forms, according to Democratic aides.

The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s latest misstep has received strong media scrutiny and prompted good-government watchdog groups to call for a special counsel investigation.

Growing ethics turmoil surrounding Rangel has prompted calls for Pelosi to yank Rangel’s gavel.

But Democratic aides say that Pelosi will not pressure Rangel to resign his post or censure him publicly unless the House ethics committee finds him guilty of misconduct or a prosecutor brings forth charges.

Aides cited various reasons for Pelosi holding her fire.

[various other bullsh*t reasons follow]

More

[JohnBrowdie]

this is probably a standard practice, and only looks bad because rangel is in such trouble.

it oughta be prohibited for members of the ethics committee to be able to accept campaign contributions from fellow congressmen, but then it would be impossible to fiond anyone willing to serve on the ethics committee.

Rangel-ing: Charlie Pays 'Angels' In Ethics Probe
Harlem Congressman Gave Campaign Contributions To 3 Dems On Ethics Committee Charged With Investigating Him

CBS 2 HD has learned of more alleged back-door dealings and political power peddling by Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel

The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently "wrangling" other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles.

Here's a look at Charlie's so-called "angels" involved in his ethics investigation.

Congressman Rangel has been arrogant in refusing to discuss how, as the man who writes this country's tax laws, he failed to report over $1 million in outside income and $3 million in business transactions as required by the House, lapses under investigation by the House Ethics Committee.

"I recognize that all of you have an obligation to ask questions knowing that there's none of you smart enough to frame it in such a way that I'm going to respond," Rangel said.

There may be a reason for Rangel's arrogance. CBS 2 HD has discovered that since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him.

Charlie's "angels" on the committee include Congressmen Ben Chandler of Kentucky, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and Peter Welch of Vermont. All have received donations from Rangel.

Only Welch sees something wrong with being financial beholden to Charlie.

"In an abundance of caution, he has returned all campaign contributions from Mr. Rangel," said spokesman Bob Rogan, Welch's Chief of Staff.

It amounted to nearly 20 grand.

More

[JohnBrowdie]

when the WaPo asks a liberal stalwart to step down, it's serious, serious trouble.

Sorry, Charlie
Rep. Rangel must step aside as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

FOR POLITICIANS with major bad news to release or to make public, there's no time like the dead of August to do it. The thinking goes that the public won't remember a thing come September. We hope Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) will have no such luck. His belated revelation of previously unreported income, property and bank accounts demands that he step aside as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Rangel's amended financial disclosure form, which exposes omissions from his 2002 through 2006 records, is a treasure trove of outrage. He neglected to report a checking account with the Congressional Federal Credit Union and one with Merrill Lynch, each valued between $250,000 and $500,000; the tens of thousands of dollars he's earning from dividends from a number of mutual funds and stocks; and the money made from the sale of a Harlem townhouse. As a result, Mr. Rangel's reported net worth doubled, from between $516,015 and $1,316,000 to between $1,028,024 and $2,495,000.

We called on Mr. Rangel to resign his coveted post last November while the House ethics committee probed his contact with a potential donor to a pet project who also had business before the committee. Mind you, that committee already was looking into his using official stationery to raise funds for that pet project, paying below-market rents on four Harlem apartments, failing to report income from a Florida condominium sale and failing to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic. There's another subcommittee investigation into lobbyist-paid trips by Mr. Rangel and four other members of Congress.

Much is expected of elected officials. Much more is expected and demanded of those entrusted with chairmanships and the power that comes with them, especially when it involves the nation's purse strings. From all that we've seen thus far, Mr. Rangel has violated that trust continually and seemingly without care.

Link

[JohnBrowdie]

okay, so the man responsible for writing tax laws in the house of representatives is being allowed to retain that position even though he is accused of violating financial disclosure requirements and my have broken tax laws because (a) replacing him would piss off the black caucus (gee, sorry.  get your priorities straight, nancy) and (b) everyone else on ways and means is even less desirable?  (who's fault is that, nancy?)

Pelosi loath to drop hammer on Rangel

Why is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refusing a growing chorus of calls to drop the hammer on ethics-challenged Charlie Rangel?

Because, at the moment, doing nothing creates a lot less trouble for Pelosi than doing anything, current and former House aides tell POLITICO.

Stripping the Harlem Democrat of his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee would force Pelosi to make a series of unpalatable decisions about Rangel’s successor that would create a ruckus in the Democratic caucus.

It would also infuriate the Congressional Black Caucus, which is still sore over Pelosi’s decision to strip committees from former Louisiana Rep. Bill Jefferson – even after Jefferson had been found with a wad of tainted cash in his kitchen.

“Unless they find $90,000 in his freezer, like they did with Jefferson, we’re going to wait [for the outcome of a House ethics probe],” said a Democratic aide familiar with Pelosi’s thinking on the matter.
.
.
.
If Pelosi were to supplant Rangel, she’d face the prospect of choosing from a unappetizing menu of potential replacements at the Ways and Means helm.

“There are not a lot of good choices for her on that committee,” said a leadership aide.

More

[Miss Mia]

Rangel does need to go.  And Pelosi's a douche for not forcing him to resign, but it's not like I expect her to actually do it either.

[JohnBrowdie]

Rangel does need to go.  And Pelosi's a douche for not forcing him to resign, but it's not like I expect her to actually do it either.

you know it's bad when the only people that want rangel to stay are republicans.

[Miss Mia]

you know it's bad when the only people that want rangel to stay are republicans.

What's sad is that he'll never be voted out of office either.