Meanwhile, at this writing, MSNBC's front page is only covering the start of the ethics trial. CNN.com's home page has nothing AT ALL on Rangel but does have the following under the "Politics" heading: Political Circus: Hotties in the House Gingrich's plan for the country Paging Jeb Bush -- for 2012 Divided Dems look ahead to 2012 Female faces lacking in Congress Chance for Obama, Congress to lead 'Rahmbo' dodges egg Now, tell me again who's got a problem in their coverage?
Well he's Black,Liberal and a Democrat which means his chances of getting away scott free are about 99%..if he was also a Woman and Gay it would be a 110%.
Charlie Rangel is a disgrace to his office. Those who keep returning him to it are a disgrace to the nation.
I can't say that I have any confidence of anything meaningful coming out of this. Members of Congress tend to protect their own.
He left the courtroom today because he needed more time to find a lawyer. That will be easy - but how much time will it take him to find some ethics?
The House ethics guide specifically allows the use of campaign funds, which, for the purposes of the guide includes PAC money, for legal defense related to campaign or official duties, and defending ethics charges in the House most certainly qualifies: The reason the "experts" here remain unnamed is because they do not exist. Now the underlying ethical problems remain, of course, but there's no basis for the claim that using PAC funds to defend against ethical changes is itself a violation of House ethics rules.
I was really dissappointed to see Rangel run and downright discouraged to see him win. The democratic party and his district is better off without him.
Only when the person has gotten committee permission to establish a Legal Defense Fund....they just can't grab PAC money and use it willy-nilly. It's supposed to be a closely monitored and very transparent process with scads of oversight and accountability. You should have kept reading.
How stupid are the people in his district for re-electing him. About as stupid as the people of California are for re-electing someone like Barbara Boxer back to the US Senate.
Well there you go. There's your party. Democrats will NEVER voluntarily relinquish power. I forget who it was--maybe Nixon against Kennedy--where the election was close enough that it could've dragged on a la Bush/Gore, but because that wouldn't have been good for the country, Nixon conceded. Nixon definitely resigned when it became clear that the legislature was prepared to bring impeachment proceedings, rather than subject the country to it. Clinton? Not so much. Instead he stood there with a straight face and said "depends on what 'is' is" rather than give up power. Pelosi made the conscious decision to run the legislature into the ground rather than concede on Obamacare. Then after she did, she decided she still wanted to be in charge of the charred remnants. No contemporary Democrat does the right thing if it means surrendering power.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/129407-house-ethics-panel-convicts-rangel-on-multiple-counts Looks like Charley got convicted on 11 of 13 counts. Unfortunately, the fucker will still get to serve out his term with no serious repercussions.
Hell, in DC Mayor Marion Barry went to prison for being a crackhead. When he got out they reelected him.
