Charlie Rangel gets a slap on the wrist via a House Censure for cheating the government and his city of New York, and claims he in no way personally profited from his actions. Let’s work the House Ethics Committee before the 2012 election. Find a list of names below and a video below.
When the charges against Rangel became news, Mike Huckabee famously quipped that defending cannibal murderer Jeffrey Dahmer’s diet was easier than defending the New York congressman. Rangel was convicted of 11 of the 13 counts brought against him by the House Ethics Adjucatory Subcommittee. Here is a partial list of his corruption:
* Unpaid taxes: Rangel admitted he neglected to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic.
* Four rent-stabilized apartments: He leased the Harlem units, including one as an office — which is barred by state law.
* Undisclosed income: He failed to reveal to Congress more than $600,000 in assets and tens of thousands of dollars in income.
* Inappropriate fundraising: He wrote letters on official congressional stationery to solicit money to build the Rangel Center at CUNY.
* Pay-to-play: He preserved a tax shelter for an oil-drilling company, Nabors Industries, whose chief executive donated money to the Rangel Center.
* Breaking House rules: He stored his vintage Mercedes in the congressional garage.
Had you or I not paid taxes our taxes for years and years, and failed to report income to the Feds, what do you think would have happened?
In the video below, listen to Republican Mike McCaul (R-TX-10th) discuss his amazement at how and why Rangel can say he received no personal gain from any of the charges above.
Note also that McCaul goes off-topic laudes Rep. John Lewis, sitting by Charlie Rangel’s side throughout the hearings, for Lewis’ contributions during the Civil Rights era. John Lewis’ past is not a part of the Rangel charges. The charges against Rangel had nothing to do with racism, unless you want to consider how he cheated his own Black community.
Charlie’s House “Adjucatory” Subcommittee consisted of four Democrats and four Republicans, however media are reporting ten members brought the conviction. One lonely person voted against the censure. It seems that person is not to be identified. Now if that “no” vote was in protest to any punishment for Rangle, that’s obscene. If the “no” vote protested the censure and made a statement for harsher punishment, that’s a good thing. I’d like that person identified. Read more about the charges here .
In essence, everyone on the “Ajudacatory” committee thought a House Censure was appropriate combined with paying restitution for the money he kept in his pockets all these years, and the loss of his Chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee.
Here are members of the panel, plus two not listed on the House.gov website (the vote was 9-1 for censure):
Democrats: Zoe Lofgren, Chair, California
G.K. Butterfield, North Carolina
Kathy Castor, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont
Republicans: Michael McCaul Ranking Republican, TX-10th
Mike Conaway, TX-11th
Charles Dent PA-15th
Gregg Harper MS-3rd
I don’t live in these states. It is impossible to get an email, phone call or a response to a letter or fax unless you live in the congressman/woman’s district. So, if you are a Republican constituent of any of the above, please contact their office and chat with your representative about the censure. Here are some questions you might ask:
Who decided that censure was appropriate?
Who agreed that censure was appropriate?
Was the dissenting vote a Republican?
If so, was that a vote saying censure was in appropriately light?
If not, was the vote saying censure was too harsh?
Other than censure, what options did the committee have at their disposal – expulsion? A two-thirds vote of the Chamber to expel a member is needed.
Then lastly, let me know what you learned from your congressman. If you do not object, I will attribute you and quote you. We must begin shedding a bright light on how these things work, especially when a congressman has been so corrupt for so very long.
Now the decision to censure goes to the full House Ethics panel for a vote in January. If the censure stands, Nancy Pelosi will preside over the arrogant Rangel who must stand in front of the full House and take the censure on the chin. In the history of the House, only four members have been censured and nine reprimanded.
No doubt, Charlie Rangels sleaze runneth over, and if you saw his performance yesterday, you know he knows nothing of humility or remorse.