[BadKosh]

House voted to kill resolution to oust Charlie Rangel. This is one scumbag that should go. The Dems obviously don't think what he did was so bad. The Dems have been on the wrong side of LOTS of issues of late. Whats up with that?

[BadKosh]

Here is the resolution:

"Raising a question of the privileges of the House.

Whereas the gentleman from New York, Charles B. Rangel, the fourth most senior Member of the House of Representatives, serves as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, a position of considerable power and influence within the House of Representatives;

Whereas clause one of Rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commission, officer, or employee of the House shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”;

Whereas The New York Times reported on September 5, 2008, that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel has earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the Dominican Republic since 1988, but never reported it on his federal or state tax returns, according to a lawyer for the congressman and documents from the resort.”;

Whereas in an article in the September 5, 2008 edition of The New York Times, his attorney confirmed that Representative Rangel’s annual congressional Financial Disclosure statements failed to disclose the rental income from his resort villa;

Whereas The New York Times reported on September 6, 2008 that, “Representative Charles B. Rangel paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage extended to him to buy a villa at a beachfront resort in the Dominican Republic, according to Mr. Rangel’s lawyer and records from the resort. The loan, which was extended to Mr. Rangel in 1988, was originally to be paid back over seven years at a rate of 10.5 percent. But within two years, interest on the loan was waived for Mr. Rangel.”;

Whereas clause 5(a)(2)(A) of House Rule 25 defines a gift as, “…a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value” and prohibits the acceptance of such gifts except in limited circumstances;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s acceptance of thousands of dollars in interest forgiveness is a violation of the House gift ban;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s failure to disclose the aforementioned gifts and income on his Personal Financial Disclosure Statements violates House rules and federal law;

Whereas Representative Rangel’s failure to report the aforementioned gifts and income on federal, state and local tax returns is a violation of the tax laws of those jurisdictions;

Whereas the Committee on Ways and Means, which Representative Rangel chairs, has jurisdiction over the United States Tax Code;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct first announced on July 31, 2008 that it was reviewing allegations of misconduct by Representative Rangel;

Whereas Roll Call newspaper reported on September 15, 2008 that, “The inconsistent reports are among myriad errors, discrepancies and unexplained entries on Rangel’s personal disclosure forms over the past eight years that make it almost impossible to get a clear picture of the Ways and Means chairman’s financial dealings.”;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on September 24, 2008 that it had established an investigative subcommittee in the matter of Representative Rangel;

Whereas after the Ethics Committee probe was underway, The New York Times reported on November 24, 2008 that, “Congressional records and interviews show that Mr. Rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited Nabors Industries an oil drilling company last year, while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.”;

Whereas the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced on December 9, 2008 that it had expanded the jurisdiction of the aforementioned investigative subcommittee to examine the allegations related to Representative Rangel’s involvement with Nabors Industries;

Whereas since then, further serious allegations of improper and potentially illegal conduct by Representative Rangel have surfaced;

Whereas during the recently completed August district work period, Representative Rangel acknowledged his failure to publicly disclose at least half a million dollars in cash assets, tens of thousands of dollars in investment income, and his ownership of two pieces of property in New Jersey;

Whereas corrected financial disclosure statements filed by Representative Rangel on August 12, 2009 now reveal his net worth to be nearly twice as much as he had previously revealed;

Whereas The New York Times newspaper reported on August 26, 2009 that, “United States Representative Charles B. Rangel, whose personal finances and fund raising are the subject of two House ethics investigations, failed to report at least $500,000 in assets on his 2007 Congressional disclosure form, according to an amended report he filed this month. Among the dozen newly disclosed holdings revealed in the amended forms are a checking account at a federal credit union with a balance between $250,000 and $500,000; three vacant lots in Glassboro, N.J., valued at a total of $1,000 to $15,000; and stock in PepsiCo worth between $15,000 and $50,000.”;

Whereas Roll Call newspaper reported on August 25, 2009 that Representative Rangel’s corrected filings also revealed “at least $250,001 in a fund called ML Allianz Global Investors Consults Diversified Port III.”;

Whereas the aforementioned Roll Call story reported that “Rangel also originally misreported that his investments in 2007 netted him $6,511-$17,950 in dividends, capital gains and rental income. In his revised filing, that range jumped to between $29,220 and $81,200.”;

Whereas these most recent revelations by Representative Rangel have resulted in heightened national news media coverage of alleged impropriety and potentially criminal conduct by one of the most senior Members of the House;

Whereas an editorial in The Washington Times newspaper on September 1, 2009 noted, “Charlie Rangel is one lucky guy. The Democratic congressman from Harlem, N.Y., just discovered that his net wealth is twice what he thought. That’s a pretty good day at the office for a public servant. Mr. Rangel also realized that he made tens of thousands of dollars more than he reported in many different years over the past decade. This is the most recent string in a series of financial bonanzas for Mr. Rangel, who last year admitted he had forgotten about $75,000 in rental income on his Caribbean resort property.”;

Whereas the same editorial also noted, “The congressman has failed to pay property taxes on two lots in New Jersey, according to the New York Post. That’s not all. In order to avoid taxes and get lower mortgage rates, Mr. Rangel simultaneously claimed three ‘primary residences’.”;

Whereas an editorial in the September 17, 2009 edition of the New Haven Register stated, “The ethics and tax complaints keep piling up against U.S. Rep. Charles B. Rangel, who as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee controls writing of the nation’s tax laws. The New York Democrat may write those laws, but he apparently feels no obligation to obey them. The investigation appears to have a long way to go. The man who is in charge of writing the nation’s tax laws doesn’t pay his federal income or local property taxes. He has such a poor grasp of his own finances that he neglects to list half his assets on a disclosure form intended to keep members of Congress accountable and honest. We can already hear the defense of the next tax deadbeat called into court. If Charlie Rangel doesn’t have to pay his taxes, why should I?”;

Whereas, an article in The Washington Post on September 15, 2009 stated, “Rangel is now the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and a man of immense importance in Washington. Nonetheless, he has been busy of late revising and amending the record, backing and filling, using buckets of Wite-Out as he discovers or remembers properties he has owned in New York, New Jersey, Florida, the Dominican Republic and God only knows where else. Rangel recently even discovered bank accounts that no one in the world, apparently including him, knew he had. One was with the Congressional Federal Credit Union; another was with Merrill Lynch – each valued between $250,000 and $500,000. He somehow neglected to mention these accounts on his congressional disclosure forms, which means, if you can believe it, that when he signed the forms, he did not notice that maybe $1 million was missing. Someone ought to check the lighting in his office.”;

Whereas the same article in The Washington Post stated, “There is something wrong with Charlie Rangel. Either he did not notice that he was worth about twice as much as he said he was – which is downright worrisome in a congressional leader – or he thinks he’s above the law, which is downright worrisome in a congressional leader.”;

Whereas it has been more than one year since an editorial in The New York Times on September 15, 2008 stated, “Mounting embarrassment for taxpayers and Congress makes it imperative that Representative Charles Rangel step aside as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee while his ethical problems are investigated.”;

Whereas at various times during the past twelve months Representative Rangel and Speaker Pelosi have made public statements asserting that the ongoing investigation of Representative Rangel by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct would soon be concluded;

Whereas the Committee has to date issued no public statements concerning any expected timeline for conducting or concluding its investigation of Representative Rangel;

Whereas major daily newspapers, including The New York Times, The Washington Post , and The New York Post have called for Representative Rangel’s removal from his powerful position at least until the House Ethics Committee has completed its ongoing probes of allegations against him;

Whereas, Representative Rangel’s powerful position as chairman permits him to participate in high level decisions about critically important issues such as reform of the nation’s health care system;

Whereas an October 1, 2009 story in The New York Times stated, “Mr. Rangel is one of a small group of House leaders now meeting almost daily behind closed doors with Speaker Nancy Pelosi to distill from the three bills produced in separate committees the one package that will go to the House floor.;

Whereas an Associated Press story on September 20, 2009 stated, “The ethics committee’s investigation of Rangel is almost a year old. It’s as much a problem for House Democratic leaders as for Rangel himself. Later this year, when Rangel’s committee considers estate tax legislation that could expand into other matters, the headlines will be a version of this message: ‘Tax scofflaw presiding over tax changes.’”;

Whereas the New York Post newspaper reported on September 2, 2009 that, “A review of property records for the borough of Glassboro revealed at least six tax liens levied against Rangel’s property during the past 16 years. Just last year, two separate liens were levied against both properties owned by Rangel.”;

Whereas on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited “high ethical standards” in a letter to former Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson;

Whereas Speaker Pelosi took the aforementioned action while Representative Jefferson was under investigation and the subject of considerable controversy in the news media, but prior to any indictment Whereas on May 24, 2006, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi cited “high ethical standards” in a letter to former Representative William Jefferson asking that he resign his seat on the Committee on Ways and Means in light of ongoing investigations into alleged financial impropriety by Representative Jefferson;

Whereas in April of 2007, Republican Leader John Boehner successfully urged several Republican Members to relinquish their committee assignments after learning that each had become the subject of investigations into possible criminal activity; Whereas Leader Boehner took the aforementioned actions while the Members in question were under investigation and the subjects of widespread media controversy, but prior to any indictments;

Whereas in the wake of the most recent allegations against Representative Rangel various editorials and articles in major national newspapers criticizing Speaker Pelosi’s continued refusal to remove Representative Rangel as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means after promising she would preside over “the most ethical Congress in history” have held the House up to public ridicule; Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution and pending completion of the investigation into his affairs by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Representative Rangel is hereby removed as chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means."

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Whats up with that?

Nothing, politics as usual.

It's just amazing how much worse (than expected) the Democrats are, after promoting "change" last year.

Whoever believed that change crap is so gullible, he/she should buy the Brooklyn Bridge.

-t

[OAW]

Personally I like Charlie Rangel and the way he articulates the issues. But this looks really bad. And moreover, he ought to know better and realize that he can't get away with things that others might be able to get away with. Even if he's one of the most senior members of the House. But the man has a lot of juice on the Hill so I suspect the House will kick the can on this for the time being and see what the Ethics Committee will do about it. If the Ethics Committee goes after him then and only then will Speaker Pelosi remove him from his Chairmanship.

OAW

[turtle777]

It's sad, real sad. A normal citizen would go to (IRS) hell for doing what Rangel did. It's such a freaking double standard.

This really shouldn't be a Dems vs. Reps issue. A Republican doing the same thing should be fired as well.

-t

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's sad, real sad. A normal citizen would go to (IRS) hell for doing what Rangel did. It's such a freaking double standard.

This really shouldn't be a Dems vs. Reps issue. A Republican doing the same thing should be fired as well.

-t

Bingo!

Unethical and/or illegal practices by a member of Congress should be punished regardless of party affiliation. At the very least Rangel should be publicly censured if not outright booted out of Congress. Although, if we do start demanding all our corrupt politicians leave office we will have a lot of empty seats to fill in Congress.
(And, to be honest, I think most Americans don't care about how corrupt "their" member of Congress may be because I think most Americans are ignorant of/indifferent to political corruption because they are ignorant of/indifferent to politics in general.)

[BadKosh]

I think the Dems siding with Rangel will be part of what the repubs rub in the dems faces next election cycle.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It's sad, real sad. A normal citizen would go to (IRS) hell for doing what Rangel did. It's such a freaking double standard.

Laws favor the rich. "Normal" citizens don't have multi billion dollar conglomerates as constituents.

[Dork.]

I don't mean to defend Rangel, but all this vote was about was whether to oust him from his committee chairmanship now, or wait for the Ethics Committee to finish it's investigation. The Republicans wanted to boot him now, the Democrats wanted to refer the matter to the committee. So, technically the matter isn't over, and the Democrats who voted against the measure didn't "let him off the hook", but I guess it depends on how thorough the investigation is.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I don't mean to defend Rangel, but all this vote was about was whether to oust him from his committee chairmanship now, or wait for the Ethics Committee to finish it's investigation. The Republicans wanted to boot him now, the Democrats wanted to refer the matter to the committee. So, technically the matter isn't over, and the Democrats who voted against the measure didn't "let him off the hook", but I guess it depends on how thorough the investigation is.

Yeah, I'm sure the Ethics committee is gonna pull a stunt like "Well, the Rangel resolution was shot down, so what else are we supposed to find. He's already been acquitted."

-t

[Chongo]

I remember the Dems wanting Tom "Cha Cha" Delay to step down even though he had not been charged yet. Rangel has admitted that he did not report the income, or pay taxes on the unreported income. Remember, it not the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charge.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Apparently it's okay for lawmakers to break the laws. There's no YouTube video of it happening, so who cares?

[Big Mac]

No, it's okay for the Democrats to break the law and stay on as chairs of the committees that write the laws they broke. But private citizens go to prison for the same infractions, of course.

The Democratic Party ran in 2006 and 2008 on a platform of getting rid of corruption in Congress.

[Dork.]

I did note that Rangel actually voted on this resolution. (He voted against it, if you were wondering).
Wouldn't you think he would recuse himself from the vote, due to the obvious conflict of interest?
Perhaps that should be the first new item for the Ethics Committee to consider.

[stupendousman]

I'm sort of with Dork on this one, though with caveats.

It would seem that the ethics committee is dragging it's feet here. I'm not sure how this isn't a pretty open and shut case. Rangel has admitted to major violations of the very laws he's sworn to uphold and create.

Unless they are waiting until after the 2010 elections to decide something, or if they decide it's okay to let Rangel violate the law, I'd wait to see how things play out. Not acting against Rangel is going to hurt the Democrats more than booting him in the long run. As someone already mentioned, this is going to provide a huge amount of grist for Republican election mills. It would seem to be smarter to get things over with and have him resign now - but the Democrats are usually a lot slower to cut their losses when it comes to scandals and corruption it seems.

What I don't understand is how people like Rangel, Frank and Dodd keep getting elected by the people they represent. How can they stomach the continual corruption and double talk from the likes of these three (feel free to add any Republicans who do the same - these three seem to be the most prominent who are always getting themselves in ethical hot water) year after year and not vote in another candidate? Are the people of their states stupid, or simply corrupt themselves?

[BadKosh]

Perhaps the people who voted for Dodd, Frank, Rangel Pelosi, Reid etc are sleaze buckets themselves?

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

What I don't understand is how people like Rangel, Frank and Dodd keep getting elected by the people they represent. How can they stomach the continual corruption and double talk from the likes of these three (feel free to add any Republicans who do the same - these three seem to be the most prominent who are always getting themselves in ethical hot water) year after year and not vote in another candidate? Are the people of their states stupid, or simply corrupt themselves?

These districts are heavily partisan: I remember reading that no Republican candidate for President has won more than 10% of the vote in the last three of four elections in Rangel's district in Harlem. The streak could go even longer for all I know.

This means that the real election happens during the primary. And it's hard to generate voter excitement over a primary, especially against an incumbent with deep connections in a party. Even if a challenger beat someone like Rangel in a primary, since that person would be a Freshman congressman, he would not get the same committee assignments as a veteran legislator like Rangel would. So what incentive does the local or state party have to replace someone like Rangel? Doing that would reduce the state's influence on the legislative process.

[BadKosh]

I see where the Congressional Black Caucus has condemned the action as "political." NO! Really? Does that mean the Congressional Black Caucus condones Rangels actions?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

These districts are heavily partisan: I remember reading that no Republican candidate for President has won more than 10% of the vote in the last three of four elections in Rangel's district in Harlem. The streak could go even longer for all I know.

A Republican winning in Harlem? Even making a dent?

Originally Posted by Dork. 

This means that the real election happens during the primary. And it's hard to generate voter excitement over a primary, especially against an incumbent with deep connections in a party. Even if a challenger beat someone like Rangel in a primary, since that person would be a Freshman congressman, he would not get the same committee assignments as a veteran legislator like Rangel would. So what incentive does the local or state party have to replace someone like Rangel? Doing that would reduce the state's influence on the legislative process.

Indeed. But it's happened before. From 1945 - 1971 the Democratic representative from Harlem was the late, great Adam Clayton Powell Jr. who was the chairman of the powerful Education and Labor Committee. He was also dealing with allegations of corruption. And he was defeated in 1970 in the Democratic primary by certain young upstart named Charlie Rangel.

OAW

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

These districts are heavily partisan: I remember reading that no Republican candidate for President has won more than 10% of the vote in the last three of four elections in Rangel's district in Harlem. The streak could go even longer for all I know.

This means that the real election happens during the primary.

No, this means people in Harlem are idiots.

-t