Will Charlie Rangel's Guilty Verdict Affect His Re-Election Chances?

[WhoWee]

The House Democrats and Republicans finally agree on something - Charlie Rangel was found guilty of 11 ethics violations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/16/AR2010111604000.html?hpid=topnews

"Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who chaired the trial, praised her colleagues for their handling of the case, which landed uncomfortably in their laps in July after talks broke down with Rangel over reaching a plea deal.

"This has been a difficult assignment, time consuming, and we have approached our duties diligently," Lofgren said.

Lofgren said her panel, divided evenly between Democrats and Republicans, would meet again Tuesday to draft the final report to be sent to the full Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, which is the formal name for the ethics committee.

Lofgren's trial subcommittee essentially ratified all but one of the original 13 charges filed against Rangel by the investigative panel in July. "

Apparently the evidence was overwhelming.

"Those charges were a collection of different rules infractions related to three central elements of the case: that Rangel improperly used his congressional staff and official letterhead to raise seven-figure checks from corporate charities and chief executives for a college wing named in his honor; violated New York City rules by housing his political committees in his rent-controlled apartments in Harlem; did not pay taxes on a villa he owns in the Dominican Republic; and did not properly disclose hundreds of thousands of dollars in personal financial assets.


This occurred while he served as the ranking Democrat or chairman on the Ways and Means Committee, which has oversight of tax issues. He resigned as committee chairman last spring when he was found guilty of violating a more minor infraction related to accepting corporate-financed travel. "

It looks like Nancy Pelosi finally got her wish?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/nancy-pelosi-ethics-pledg_n_742991.html

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised four years ago that Democrats would lead "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."

But as her party defends its record with its majority in jeopardy, two prominent Democrats await ethics trials. Two other party members gave Congressional Black Caucus Foundation scholarships to relatives. Most importantly, lobbyists, corporations and special interests still have unimpeded ways to buy access to members of Congress."

The only question now is whether the voters of Charlie's Congressional District will remember (or care) the next time he's up for re-election?

 

[Office_Shredder]

The only question now is whether the voters of Charlie's Congressional District will remember (or care) the next time he's up for re-election?

Considering that everyone basically knew he was guilty already, and he got re-elected, I'm going to guess no

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised four years ago that Democrats would lead "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."

Out of curiosity what's the average rate at which congressmen are convicted (whatever the right term is here) of ethics violations, and how does this compare to the Democrats over the past two years? I don't know if this information is available anywhere

 

[Gokul43201]

Out of curiosity what's the average rate at which congressmen are convicted (whatever the right term is here) of ethics violations, and how does this compare to the Democrats over the past two years? I don't know if this information is available anywhere

http://nationaljournal.com/congress/house-censures-reprimands-and-explusions-a-history-20101116?mrefid=site_search&page=1

Doesn't happen often enough to sample over a 2 year period (or 20).

 

[mugaliens]

Anyone else here get the impression that while he may indeed have been guilty, he's was largely railroaded?

 

[FlexGunship]

Anyone else here get the impression that while he may indeed have been guilty, he's was largely railroaded?

Not really; this is usually how these things stack up. You let the first 10 slide, then on the 11th, you gather them all up.

I kind of always had the impression that the guy was a real scumbag, anyway. Just my opinion, though.

EDIT: I wanted to elaborate on my "scumbag" statement. Interviews with him are always derogatory. He treats anyone that doesn't have a TV camera like a piece of garbage. Also, people who are "career politicians" are often criminally ambitious and tend to treat us private sector folk like a hurdle between them and power.

Remember when politicians were private sector folk who had the urge to help fix problems with government? Now you can make political ambition a full time career. Remember when government employees were PUBLIC SERVANTS? Now they are better compensated than a lot of members of the private sector.

 

[talk2glenn]

Anyone else here get the impression that while he may indeed have been guilty, he's was largely railroaded?

How can a sane individual, regardless of party affiliation, possibly arrive at that conclusion? It boggles the mind.

Railroaded? Professional sports players who drink the night before a game are punished more severely than Charlie will be. He is one of the most egregious convicted non-criminal rule breakers in the history of the House, after an unnecessarily lengthy show trial when the documents Rangel himself filed established the facts (if this were criminal tax court, the IRS would've had his bank accounts within 6 months - seriously, he had no defense). Railroaded...?

In any sane world, he'd be expelled. That's politically impossible, so he ought to at least be suspended, with forfeiture of salary - a penalty not unlike what you'd get as a politically protected VIP in the private sector, as a bureaucrat, or as a member of a professional sports league. But the Ethics Committee doesn't even have that authority. It's choices literally are reprimand, or expulsion.

The system is designed to railroad the public, not the politician.

 

[FlexGunship]

...so he ought to at least be suspended, with forfeiture of salary...

Or he should be made to perform a public service! Maybe he could be sentenced to act as the head of the House's Ways and Means... ooohhhhhhhh...

 

[Jack21222]

Or he should be made to perform a public service! Maybe he could be sentenced to act as the head of the House's Ways and Means... ooohhhhhhhh...

Pfft!

You owe me a new keyboard, FlexGunship. Mine has Dr. Pepper all over it.

 

[FlexGunship]

Pfft!

You owe me a new keyboard, FlexGunship. Mine has Dr. Pepper all over it.

I owe you a new keyboard... I owe someone else a new laptop for the same reason. This forum is too expensive! I'm going to have to quit my job and get one of those cushy political jobs where you can embezzle money and lie about your expenditures and taxes just to pay for all...

ooohhhhhhhh...

You owe me for one laptop cleaning, Flex. :) Next time I'll finish lunch before reading your posts, Lol.

 

[Al68]

I owe you a new keyboard... I owe someone else a new laptop for the same reason...

Um...that's two laptops now (at least).

 

[Gokul43201]

Most of this stuff is not new, yet Rangel just got voted back into office with a 70% margin ... and probably will again. Predictable, but

 

[BobG]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised four years ago that Democrats would lead "the most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history."

Out of curiosity what's the average rate at which congressmen are convicted (whatever the right term is here) of ethics violations, and how does this compare to the Democrats over the past two years? I don't know if this information is available anywhere

Is that the relevant item or is a more honest, open process for handling ethics investigations the more significant item to measure?

A House Speaker is being very naive if she thinks she can control the actions of every Democratic Congressman. On the other hand, she can affect how ethics investigations are handled.

If I remember correctly, her comments were referencing Tom DeLay's problems that led to an admonishment. In the aftermath of the admonishment, Republican Joel Hefley lost his chairmanship of the House Ethics Committee and decided to retire from Congress and a Republican controlled House decided to change some of the rules and made ethics investigations harder to conduct. People's opinions about the incident can certainly vary, but, in my opinion, the aftermath was more a reason for concern than one Congressman receiving an admonishment, even if it was a Congressman in a leadership position.

You break the rules, you take your lumps and it's not something that should be a partisanship issue (nor was it under Hefley), nor should it be something where you get punished for investigating real wrong-doing.

Full disclosure: Hefley was the Representative from my district and I always liked the job he did in Congress.

 

[BobG]

What Pelosi/Reid accomplished in terms of Congressional Ethics: http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773635

But passing an act doesn't mean that much if it turns out to be just a piece of paper.

Where Pelosi actually succeeded:
- winning increased disclosure of lobbyists’ spending and contributions
- a ban on lobbyist gifts to lawmakers
- the end of cheap rides on corporate jets
- curtailment of privately financed trips that often amounted to free vacations
- creation of an independent ethics office
- identification of sponsors of “earmarks” — congressional spending given to favored recipients, who often returned the favor with campaign contributions

Where she failed:
- few members of Congress were disclosing that lobbyists were helping them raise campaign cash despite a provision of the Honest Leadership law designed to shed light on the ties between lawmakers and the capital’s influence brokers
- didn’t touch access-buying opportunities like campaign fundraisers, corporate-sponsored events for informal lawmaker organizations, or sports tournaments held by members’ charities (of which there have been about 9500 in the last 4 years, remembering there's over 400 members in Congress just to keep that number in perspective.)

The most honest, most open, most ethical Congress in history? I don't know. That's hard to measure, but it's a bold statement to make without proof.

At least more honest, more open, more ethical? Yes, a little.

Lasting change? We'll see. The independent ethics office is a board of non-legislators that conduct preliminary ethics investigations. They've ticked off quite a few Congressmen and could easily get the axe without Congressional leadership championing its cause.

 

[WhoWee]

Anyone else here get the impression that while he may indeed have been guilty, he's was largely railroaded?

No - BUT> I saw this >
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/socia...gel-to-give-up-chairma_n_483266_41390182.html

"“Get over it Mr. Congressman Rangel it is not about you but of course he wants his due process. I say GIVE HIM HIS DUE PROCESS AND IN THE PROCESS BRING DOWN THE REST OF THE ONES THAT ARE 10x WORSE THAN HIM. Good - don't step down.

The guy is riding the train caboose that is speedily moving forward.”"[/I]

I prefer to think of him as a caboose.

 

[WhoWee]

In somewhat related news:

More here: http://www.news8austin.com/content/headlines/275351/jury-finds-delay-guilty-of-money-laundering

You might want to start another thread?

 

[Gokul43201]

There was an old thread on that topic, but it had been locked. I've asked to have it reopened and have my post moved there.