PDA

View Full Version : Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) Found Guilty | Ethics Violations




FrankRep
11-16-2010, 11:21 AM
Rep. Rangel Found Guilty of Violating Ethics Rules (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-rangel-found-guilty-of-violating-ethics-rules/)

The Blaze
16 Nov 2010

YouTube - Rangel Found Guilty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMv1L1FmXaY&feature=player_embedded)

FrankRep
11-16-2010, 11:23 AM
Background:


http://www.thenewamerican.com/images/stories/AP-3-2010/rang-ap.001.jpg
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.)



Yesterday, the House Ethics Committee made known that will be charging Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) with multiple ethics violations. by Mary McHugh


Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) Charged by House Ethics Committee (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4119-rangel-charged-by-house-ethics-committee)


Mary McHugh | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
Friday, 23 July 2010


Yesterday, an investigative subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee, a bipartisan group of 10 Representatives — five Democrats and five Republicans — made known (http://www.citizensforethics.org/files/Press_Statement_Rangel_adjcomm.pdf) that it will be charging Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) with multiple ethics violations.

The specific charges will not be known until July 29 when an adjudicatory subcommittee of the House ethics panel meets to, as stated by the ranking Republican on the Ethics Committee Jo Bonner (Ala.), "determine whether any counts in the Statement of Alleged Violation have been proved by clear and convincing evidence and to make findings of fact."

After the announcement the 80-year-old Congressman commented, "I am pleased that, at long last, sunshine will pierce the cloud of serious allegations that have been raised against me in the media" and "I will be glad to respond to the allegations at such time as the Ethics Committee makes them public."

Despite his cheerful tone, the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/ethics_raps_put_rangel_on_trial_UWVIY8E3EdzJqDv5mH 08jM) reported that previous to his announcement, “The sharp-tongued Rangel was spotted arguing with Ethics Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) right before the bombshell charges were announced.” Also noted was the fact Rangel was on the Republican side of the aisle, away from his Democratic confreres.

Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington called for his resignation in a news release (http://www.citizensforethics.org/blog/rangel-resign), saying, “The notoriously lax Ethics Committee has found substantial reason to believe that Rep. Rangel has violated federal law, House rules, or both. Now the question is whether Rep. Rangel will resign or endure a public trial that promises to be filled with detailed and undoubtedly embarrassing revelations of wrongdoing. Rep. Rangel has toughed it out as long as he could, the time clearly has come for him to resign. He can no longer effectively represent the citizens of New York.”

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/22/AR2010072204704.html) reported:



Sources familiar with the case said that Rangel could have avoided this showdown by accepting the subcommittee's findings. He was briefed on the allegations against him — as required by House rules — in recent weeks and he rejected them.

…In March, Rangel reluctantly stepped down as chairman of the Ways and Means Committee — a week after the ethics panel ruled in a separate case that he had broken congressional gift rules by accepting trips to conferences in the Caribbean that were financed by corporate interests. The panel said that, at a minimum, Rangel's staff knew about the corporate backing for the 2007 and 2008 trips — and that the congressman was therefore responsible.


In a section called “Sleazy Does It,” the New York Post listed the current possible charges against the Congressman as follows:




* 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.



While Rangel is unlikely to testify at next Thursday’s organizational meeting of the ethics subcommittee, he has told reporters he would attend the forum. He announced June 6 he would seek reelection. It is not thought that Rangel’s trial will start before his primary; House ethics committee rules prohibit the committee from acting 30 days before a primary and 60 days before an election. He and his lawyers will have at least 15 days to review the allegations against him before any trial commences.

Ken Spain, communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee, spoke about some of the fallout that could come from the allegations (http://thehill.com/homenews/house/110429-ethics-committee-files-charges-against-rangel): “This is troubling news not only for Congressman Rangel, but for his most ardent defender — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. For over two years, the Charlie Rangel saga dragged on while Speaker Pelosi not only sat idly by, but encouraged her members to vote against an investigation into the deeply troubling matters at hand. It appears that Charlie Rangel will finally be judged by a jury of his peers, but unfortunately for the Speaker, the verdict is already out on what she promised would be the ‘most ethical Congress in history.’ “

In the past when commenting upon the behavior of Rangel, Speaker Pelosi has lightly said, “It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." But now with elections at hand and falling poll numbers, she and other Democrats appear to be putting space between themselves and the embattled Rangel.

Said Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/23/rangels-ethics-troubles-emboldens-republicans-quiets-democrats-campaign-season/):



In a statement that conspicuously lacked any hint of support, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the action taken against Rangel "would indicate that the independent, bipartisan ethics committee process is moving forward."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., dodged questions on Friday about how pushing the Rangel hearing back into late July and August could adversely affect Democrats in November's elections.

"The ethics process is working," Hoyer allowed.


The Hill (http://thehill.com/search?as_q=the+big+question&sort=date), Congress’ own daily newspaper, asked in today’s "The Big Question": “Will Rep. Charles Rangel survive his ethics scandal and win back his House seat?” TBQ regular contributor and John Birch Society president, John F. McManus, replied:



Only a few days ago, Mr. Rangel introduced a measure in the House seeking to reinstitute a military draft. His bill has no co-sponsors. It seems that he is attempting to deflect attention away from his alleged misdeeds with such a move. But the lack of support for his draft proposal likely indicates that his colleagues are distancing themselves from him. He has already stepped down from chairmanship of a powerful House committee, something he would not do if he were innocent of all the charges now facing him.

A few years ago, federal judge Alcee Hastings was impeached by the House, tried and convicted by the Senate, and removed from the bench. Undaunted, Hastings ran for Congress in Florida and won election to the House of Representatives. He serves currently as the congressman for Florida's 23rd district.

Could Charles Rangel survive numerous ethics charges and win reelection? If voters in Florida are willing to sweep a serious matter under the rug for Alcee Hastings and elect him, the possibility surely exists that voters in New York will do likewise for Rangel.

It is sad but true that many voters in America care little about the Constitution and a great deal about getting favors from government. They will overlook plenty in order to get "their" man or woman elected.


Of course, this elect-the-guy-who-is best-at-picking-taxpayers'-pockets approach is largely what has America in its current predicament in the first place. But increasing numbers of American voters appear to be seeing the light. The results will be known in November.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/4119-rangel-charged-by-house-ethics-committee

tjeffersonsghost
11-16-2010, 11:30 AM
mwhahaha good...

HOLLYWOOD
11-16-2010, 11:40 AM
They're ALL Criminals... Rangel is lesser evil compared to the other scumbags below and what they stole directly from the Taxpayers.

How much you wanta bet, Rangel never goes to jail? Just a slap on the wrist, even his moronic constituents, voted the clown in again. He's been in Washington DC for over 40 years straight.

On Deck... Racist and Thief rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/maxine-waters-t.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/maxine-waters-t.html)

Maxine Waters' ties to bank questioned

March 12, 2009
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/images/2009/03/12/maxinewaters.jpg (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/photos/uncategorized/2009/03/12/maxinewaters.jpg) Questions have been emerging over the last few months about the actions of an L.A. congresswoman who reportedly set up a meeting between federal regulators and a bank seeking $50 million in bailout funds. Maxine Waters did so even though her family had financial ties to the bank. The Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123682571772404053.html) has been reporting this story for a while, and today the New York Times weighed in: (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/us/politics/13waters.html?_r=1&hp)

Representative Maxine Waters (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/maxine_waters/index.html?inline=nyt-per), Democrat of California, requested the September meeting on behalf of executives at OneUnited, one of the nation’s largest black-owned banks. Ms. [Waters'] husband, Sidney Williams, had served on the bank’s board of directors until early last year and has owned at least $250,000 in stock in the institution. Treasury officials said the session with nearly a dozen senior banking regulators had been intended to allow minority-owned banks and their trade association to discuss the losses they had incurred from the federal takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Kevin Cohee, OneUnited’s chief executive, instead seized the opportunity to plead for special assistance for his bank, federal officials said.
A few years ago, The Times' Chuck Neubauer and Ted Rohrlich did an in-depth report (http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/19/local/me-waters19) on similar themes: "U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters (http://topics.latimes.com/politics/people/maxine-waters)' family members have made more than $1 million in the last eight years by doing business with companies, candidates and causes that the influential congresswoman has helped




Oh, hiding In the Dugout : US Senator Daniel Inuoye (D-HI)

After Call From Senator Inouye’s Office, Small Hawaii Bank Got U.S. Aid, His Bank


http://www.propublica.org/article/senator-inouye-small-hawaii-bank-aid-630 (http://www.propublica.org/article/senator-inouye-small-hawaii-bank-aid-630)

http://propublica.org/images/articles/inouye_gt_20090630.jpg
Central Pacific Financial, Hawaii's fourth-largest bank, was approved for $135 million in bailout funds shortly after Senator Daniel Inouye's (D-Hawaii) office made a call to the bank's regulator. Inouye, who reported owning Central Pacific shares worth $350,000 to $700,000 in 2007, denies attempting to influence the process (Getty Images file photo).

Sen. Daniel K. Inouye's staff contacted federal regulators last fall to ask about the bailout application of an ailing Hawaii bank that he had helped to establish and where he has invested the bulk of his personal wealth.
The bank, Central Pacific Financial (http://bailout.propublica.org/entities/88-central-pacific-financial-corp) [3], was an unlikely candidate for a program designed by the Treasury Department to bolster healthy banks. The firm's losses were depleting its capital reserves. Its primary regulator, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., already had decided that it didn't meet the criteria for receiving a favorable recommendation and had forwarded the application to a council that reviewed marginal cases, according to agency documents.
Two weeks after the inquiry from Inouye's office, Central Pacific announced that the Treasury would inject $135 million.
Many lawmakers have worked to help home-state banks get federal money since the Treasury announced in October that it would invest up to $250 billion (http://bailout.propublica.org/programs/1-capital-purchase-program) [4] in healthy financial firms. But the Inouye inquiry stands apart because of the senator's ties to Central Pacific. While at least 33 senators own shares in banks that got federal aid, a review of financial disclosures and records obtained from regulatory agencies shows no other instance of the office of a senator intervening on behalf of a bank in which he owned shares.
Inouye (D-Hawaii) declined a request for an interview but acknowledged in a statement (http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/conversation6-24-09inouyeresponse.pdf) [5] that an aide had called the FDIC to ask about Central Pacific's application. Inouye said he was not attempting to influence the outcome. The statement did not address Inouye's personal role in the inquiry, including whether he directed the aide to make the call or knew at the time that it had been made.
Even if Inouye were directly involved, it would not violate the rules the Senate sets for itself, experts said.

http://propublica.org/images/articles/central-pacific-timeline.gif

Both the FDIC and the Treasury said the decision was not affected by the involvement of Inouye's office.

Inouye reported ownership of Central Pacific shares worth $350,000 to $700,000, some held by his wife, at the end of 2007 (http://pfds.opensecrets.org/N00001762_2007.pdf) [6]. The shares represented at least two-thirds of Inouye's total reported assets. Inouye has requested a delay in filing his annual financial disclosure for 2008, which was due this spring, and he declined to provide the current value of his investment. Since the end of 2007, the bank's stock has lost 79 percent of its value.
Central Pacific was founded in 1954 by a group of World War II veterans including Inouye who were emerging leaders in Hawaii's Japanese American community.
"The time had come to fund a bank that could provide equitable service not only to the Japanese, but to all communities," Inouye is quoted as saying in an exhibit in the lobby of one of the company's Honolulu branches. Inouye, who became the bank's first secretary, said that he initially invested $3,000, the minimum amount possible.
Central Pacific is Hawaii's fourth-largest bank, holding about 15 percent of the state's deposits. In recent years, it increasingly used the money to make loans in California, funding several large residential developments. By last year, the bank was facing the consequences of California's collapsing housing market. In July, Central Pacific reported a quarterly loss of $146 million (http://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2008/07/28/daily42.html) [7], matching its total profit in the previous three years.
In October, shortly after the government announced that it would invest billions of dollars in banks to spur new lending, Central Pacific submitted an application under the initiative, called the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP.
The bank faced long odds. More than 1,600 banks submitted applications to the FDIC in the three months after the program was announced, according to a report by the FDIC's inspector general's office. The agency forwarded 408 applications to Treasury, which approved only 267, or roughly 16 percent of the total.
Central Pacific's situation was even bleaker because it was in trouble with the FDIC. Regulators had raised concerns about the bank earlier in the year. The bank would soon sign an agreement with its state regulator and the FDIC requiring it to raise an additional $40 million in capital and to improve its management practices.

http://propublica.org/images/articles/central-pacific-financial_small.gif

After the bank applied for bailout funds, weeks passed. Andrew Rosen, a spokesman for Central Pacific, said that regulators had told the bank that the process would take "some time" because of the glut of applications.

In late November, still waiting for an answer, the bank's government-affairs officer called Inouye's office to ask that it check on the status of the application, according to Rosen. (Rosen said in an initial interview that the bank had not contacted Inouye's office about the application. After Inouye was contacted for this story, Rosen said that he'd been mistaken, that the bank had called Inouye's office.)
One day after the bank's request, an Inouye aide called the FDIC's regional office in San Francisco, which regulates Central Pacific. Inouye said in a statement that the staffer, Van Luong, "simply left a voicemail message seeking to clarify whether Central Pacific Bank's application for TARP funds had actually been received by the FDIC." The statement said that the bank was soon notified that the application had been received, "and that closed the matter."
"This single phone call was the entire extent of my staff's contact with regard to Central Pacific Bank, to any outside agency," Inouye said.
Internal FDIC e-mails (http://s3.amazonaws.com/propublica/assets/docs/FDICInouyeFOIAdoc.pdf) [8] obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that Luong's question was referred from San Francisco to FDIC headquarters in Washington. A few days later, Alice Goodman, who heads the FDIC's office of legislative affairs – and whose office is typically the point of contact for congressional inquiries – called Luong to say that the application "was still under process."
The internal e-mails show that the application had been forwarded to an inter-agency council headed by the Treasury Department that reviews cases in which a bank did not meet the criteria for a federal investment. Those criteria require banks to demonstrate their viability without the benefit of federal funding.
Shortly after the Inouye staffer's phone call, the council approved Central Pacific's application.
So far, more than 600 banks have received federal investments. While some recipients have started to repay aid, the Obama administration announced this spring that it would continue to accept applications from community banks until November. The crush of calls from Capitol Hill on behalf of specific applicants led the Treasury to announce earlier this year that it would start releasing a weekly list of congressional inquiries. It has yet to do so.
The question of what role members of Congress have played in influencing the Treasury's decisions is under review by the special inspector general appointed to oversee the financial rescue program. A spokesman for the special inspector general said a report is expected later this summer.
Such contacts by members and their staff do not violate the rules Congress has established to govern itself. "Congress has never been willing to adopt strong conflict-of-interest rules for its members, but for the most part, has left it up to each member to decide for themselves whether they have a potential conflict of interest," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog group.
The most similar known case comes from the House.Rep. Maxine Waters (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/w000187/) (D-Calif.) arranged a meeting between regulators and the National Bankers Association, whose chairman was the general counsel of OneUnited, a bank in which her husband held shares. The general counsel attended the meeting along with the bank's chief executive. A person at the meeting said the discussion focused on OneUnited. Rep. Barney Frank (http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/f000339/) (D-Mass.), who did not own shares in the company, subsequently inserted language into the bailout bill that effectively directed the Treasury to give special consideration to that bank.
The report by the FDIC inspector general found that 26 of the 408 companies whose applications were sent to the Treasury faced enforcement actions as severe as those against Central Pacific. Because the FDIC inspector general did not name these 26 banks, it is unclear how many ultimately won the Treasury's approval. Nor is it clear whether any other bank used the Treasury money -- as Central Pacific did -- to address a capital shortfall identified by regulators.
Several financial analysts said they know of no other instances in which Treasury money was used this way. But they said it was impossible to be sure because banks are not required to disclose such regulatory actions, for instance those requiring that firms raise additional capital. Central Pacific had made this disclosure voluntarily.
Andrew Gray, an FDIC spokesman, said the Central Pacific decision was not unique, but he declined to name other banks, citing a policy against commenting on specific institutions.

Correction: This story inaccurately said that Rep. Maxine Waters arranged a meeting between regulators and OneUnited of Massachusetts. She actually arranged a meeting between regulators and the National Bankers Association, whose chairman was the general counsel of OneUnited. A person at the meeting said the discussion focused on OneUnited.

USUAL SUSPECTS

http://media.masslive.com/breakingnews/photo/nancy-pelosi-barney-frank-christopher-dodd-256ab40975847ff1_large.jpg

LibertyEagle
11-16-2010, 11:51 AM
Kicking them out of office is not enough. It sounds like the whole matter is dropped if they step down. They have used their positions to fill their own pockets and they deserve to be severely punished. There need to be trials and if found guilty, punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Koz
11-16-2010, 12:00 PM
I bet nothing happens to Rangel. No punishment that really amounts to anything. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

sluggo
11-16-2010, 12:01 PM
Maxine Waters should be next. That woman is dangerously stupid.

FrankRep
11-16-2010, 12:07 PM
Maxine Waters should be next. That woman is dangerously stupid.

Her trial is coming.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) Charged by House Ethics Committee; Ethics Violations
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=255245

More Trouble for Democrats: Ethics trials for Charles Rangel, Maxine Waters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=267124

Rael
11-16-2010, 01:22 PM
What happens next? A $20 fine and he loses his parking spot for a week?

Cowlesy
11-16-2010, 01:27 PM
I bet nothing happens to Rangel. No punishment that really amounts to anything. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

Probably a safe bet.

dean.engelhardt
11-16-2010, 02:10 PM
You or I would be accountable for tax evasion. Rangel is found guilty of violating House rules. Give me a break.

FrankRep
11-16-2010, 06:00 PM
Charles Rangel (D), 40-year veteran Congressman from Harlem and the senior member of the New York state congressional delegation, was convicted today of 11 counts of misconduct by a House ethics panel. By Charles Scaliger


Charles Rangel's Fall (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/congress/5215-charles-rangels-fall)


Charles Scaliger | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
16 November 2010


Another of the House mighty has fallen.

Charles Rangel (D), 40-year veteran Congressman from Harlem and the senior member of the New York state congressional delegation, was convicted today of 11 counts of misconduct by a House ethics panel. During his four-decade rise to seniority in the House, Rangel was a protégé of the likes of Dan Rostenkowski, the former powerful Illinois representative who was also convicted on numerous ethics charges. Like Rostenkowski, Rangel became the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — the committee with ultimate authority over all matters concerning taxation — before being forced to step aside under suspicion of misconduct.

Rangel served with distinction in the Korean War, where he received a Bronze Star for heroism, but became involved in ’60s and ’70s radicalism that carried over into his congressional career. In 1972, for example, he allied with Louis Farrakhan to thwart a police investigation into the murder of a New York City policeman, Philip Cardillo, at the Nation of Islam mosque in Harlem. Rangel and Farrakhan successfully persuaded the police to withdraw all white officers from the case and to refrain from arresting a suspect, threatening that a riot would break out if arrests were made. Although not as sensationalistic as the likes of Farrakhan and Al Sharpton, Rangel has long been the besuited, “respectable” face of race-baiting on Capitol Hill; in recent years, he has pushed to reinstate the draft solely on the grounds that middle- and upper-class whites should be forced to fight in our wars alongside “the poor, the black, and the brown.”

Rangel’s radicalism has gotten him arrested various times during his tenure in the House, as for example when he was nabbed at a protest against apartheid outside the South African consulate in New York in 1984, and more recently in 2004, when he was arrested on trespassing charges while protesting at the Sudanese embassy in D.C.

To his credit, Rangel’s warmed-over ’60s radicalism has occasionally prompted him to take a principled stand, as with his consistent and vigorous opposition to the Iraq War. But overall, Rangel has been for decades the very embodiment of old-school, hamfisted, corrupt-to-the-bone big-city politics of the sort that is in no small measure responsible for the deplorable state of our federal government. Rangel, like most of his old-school associates, has never scrupled to spend other people’s money freely, and has no more grasp of the Constitution he has sworn (20 times!) to uphold than the street criminals of whose rights he has been so solicitous over the years.

It is therefore ironic that one of the charges on which Rangel has been convicted was failure to claim assets on tax returns — in other words, tax fraud. It seems that the man who, for a season, presided over House tax policy (and, lest we forget, all tax levies must originate in the House, per the U.S. Constitution), conveniently neglected to report earnings from a rental property he owned in the Dominican Republic. He also failed to report some $600,000 in assets and income in a series of reports to Congress and used a rent-subsidized apartment in New York for a campaign office.

Rangel has claimed that these and other actions were not criminal or corrupt but were “good faith mistakes” resulting from “sloppy and careless recordkeeping.” Ah, yes, Charlie, as those of us who aren’t well-connected Congressmen who have managed to become filthy rich over four decades as the “people’s servants,” the “honest mistake” defense works wonders with the understanding folks at the IRS!

Accustomed to blustering his way through life, Rangel has sought to delay the inevitable, demanding the House halt its investigation when he ran out of money to pay his legal team. When the ethics panel refused to be cowed, Rangel stormed out of the proceedings, and was conspicuously absent when the convictions were read. No sooner was the verdict out than Rangel blamed the panel for daring to deliberate after he had chosen to abandon the proceedings. “How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the ethics subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room?” Rangel’s written statement railed. “I can only hope that the full committee will treat me more fairly, and take into account my entire 40 years of service to the Congress before making any decisions on sanctions.”

If there is any justice on Capitol Hill, Charlie Rangel will be sent packing. As recent elections have shown, Congressmen of his ilk have fallen out of favor across much of this country, excepting perhaps payola-permeated precincts like Harlem. But don’t expect Rangel to gracefully acknowledge that fact. If past is prelude, the embattled Congressman will probably attempt to frame his ethics convictions as a racially motivated lynching, and his fall as evidence that, after all, whites are still trying to oppress blacks. Wait for it.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/congress/5215-charles-rangels-fall