Thiebear Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Democrats Hold Off GOP Attack On Rangel Rep. Charles B. Rangel, under investigation for alleged ethics violations, will at least for now remain chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. Republicans tried, as they had three times before, to strip him of the position while the investigation is underway. Democrats managed to send the resolution to committee. (By Melina Mara Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) sat stone-faced as the House chamber buzzed around him, preparing to vote on a measure that could partly undo his almost four decades of work in Congress. As Republicans pressed their attempt to remove him from his perch as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Democrats stood by Rangel -- who is under investigation for a series of alleged violations that include improperly occupying several rent-controlled New York City apartments and not disclosing a laundry list of income and assets -- and deflected the measure to committee. They have stuck with Rangel repeatedly as the list of charges against him has grown, resisting any temptation to push aside a popular fixture in the party who helped found the Congressional Black Caucus in 1971. They have done so despite vows from Republicans to continue to force them to go on the record in defense of their colleague. But the issue carries complications for both parties. Investigation for over a year? Still head of the committee he is busted on? Its outrageous and the NUMBER1 thing to point to when people re-elect outright thieves and then complain about spending. More at the Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/07/AR2009100700738.html?hpid=moreheadlines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I say, remove from congress. He's the poster boy for Term Limits over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aREDSKIN Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I just laugh at Reid & Pelosi EVERY time I see them on TV proselytizing to us on the improper behavior of their adversaries. This is just part and parcel of the Democratic criminal enterprise we have on Capitol Hill and elsewhere. How is it it's almost a daily occurrence we read or hear about a Dem being busted for something?? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203946904574300013592601036.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/62009-waters-many-members-suffer-from-problems-like-rangels Many members" of Congress suffer from the same disclosure issues as Rep. Charles Rangel (D.N.Y.), one of his allies said Wednesday. Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) downplayed the seriousness of allegations against Rangel that he failed to disclose sources of income and pay taxes on some properties, saying that many lawmakers suffer from innocent lapses in judgment when filing mandatory financial disclosure forms. "I want to tell you, there are many members who, if you go back over all of their records, over all of the years, you're going to find that there were disclosures that were not made," Waters said during an appearance on MSNBC Wednesday morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 8, 2009 Author Share Posted October 8, 2009 and to say you must wait for it to finish in the ethics committee: Just before Thanksgiving last year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the committee "assured" her that "the report will be completed by the end of this session of Congress, which concludes January 3, 2009." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Why would anyone support this guy retaining his seat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I do wonder about guys like this and guys like Marion Barry whom despite public wrongdoing still manage to hold on and gather support. I know Barry was a figure in the Civil Rights movement and that carries a lot of weight to people still, but what he does today undermines what he did then. It isn't payback for being rooked back in the day or sacrificing or fighting the "man" Why is it that we support a fallen hero? I wondered the same thing about G. W. Bush and why people continued to rally behind him and so strongly advocate for him and all his policies esp. the economic ones that were so clearly damaging. Are Barry, Rangel, Bush, Delay, Newt, Wolfowitz, etc because their past colors everything? Is it just a party label and team unity thing? Now, I got on Bush's case with Scooter Libby. Bush said that if there was even a whiff of impropriety head's would roll and then when it became clear that there was much more than a whiff coming from Libby all they way up to Cheney, he backed down and said, innocent until proven guilty. What does that mean for Rangel? I think it means if nothing else his chairmanship and responsibilities ought to be suspended until the truth comes to light. If he's innocent, then there needs to be a lot of apologizing and if he's guilty then the whole weight of justice ought to crush him in every way the law deems appropriate. Still, it's the larger issue of these guys that linger on despite us knowing their villains. Ted Stephens of Alaska was re-elected again and again despite it being well known what he was doing. Marion Barry with his whores and cocaine and tax cheating and bribes still finds his way into office any time he wants to get there. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 8, 2009 Author Share Posted October 8, 2009 40 years.... 40.. you get more crap coming your way each year.. its all about the payback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Awesome. Another thing for the GOP to hammer next fall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Didn't the Dems force through some rule that any member who's been indicted can't hold committee chairmanships? For the purpose of forcing Delay out? Why wouldn't that apply here? (It does seem, to me, that it would be to the D's political advantage to hide the guy until it's over. Looks to me like the noble ethical thing and the dirty, anything for political power, thing are one and the same, here.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 The hemming and hawing from the Dem leadership over this is really embarrassing. At the very least, remove him from the committee while you figure out if he keeps his seat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscoBob Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I don't care which party, if there are reasonable allegations of wrong doing, then you should be suspended from your posts (not kicked out of congress) until it is determined if you did anything illegal. They need to come up with a non-partisan way of policing the behavior of congressmen....leaving them to police themselves is like allowing inmates to vote for their own freedom.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Remove him from his chairmanship. Demote him below the lowiest freshman in terms of seniority, and tell him he won't rise above there. If he resigns or refuses to run on his own, awesome. If he tries to run, his party should basically tell him "**** off, scumbag." So I'm for the immediate removal of his posistion, but the gradual removal of him from office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 What ever happened to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'? Not defending what he did, if he did it. But the only way to know if he did it, is due process. This is, in my opinion, a key point. Yes, due process can be slow. But what is the alternative? Acting upon allegations is a slippery slope. Due process is the cornerstone of ensuring personal libery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AAARedskin Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Charlie obviously has no shame....even a Kennedy would have at least written a check for the back taxes and put the whole matter behind him, etc. I suppose Charlie feels safe with all the fellow Dems protecting him....this way he can get caught, AND STILL keep all the dough. I'm sure he also feels good knowing the trained puppets in his district will still vote for him. (they'd vote in a porn star if they were told to do so) Wow....and Congress wonders why their approval numbers are so low..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I don't care which party, if there are reasonable allegations of wrong doing, then you should be suspended from your posts (not kicked out of congress) until it is determined if you did anything illegal. They need to come up with a non-partisan way of policing the behavior of congressmen....leaving them to police themselves is like allowing inmates to vote for their own freedom.... I respectfully disagree, and suggest that this is precisely the sort of thing our founding fathers were legislating against when they devised our system based on due process. Prior to due process, the governemnt could throw you in jail for anything 'resonable'. Anything they defined as resonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 power currupts and if true, he's a farce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 What ever happened to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'? Not defending what he did, if he did it. But the only way to know if he did it, is due process.This is, in my opinion, a key point. Yes, due process can be slow. But what is the alternative? Acting upon allegations is a slippery slope. Due process is the cornerstone of ensuring personal libery. The idea if 'Due Process' in the US Constitution, Article 5, states: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" This portion of the Constitution deals only with criminal court proceedings. The US Congress, specifically the House of Representatives in this case, has its own rules and regulations with respect to how it deals with the charged misconduct of one of its members. If they find him guilty of misconduct, they can have him removed from the House. They can remove him from his Chair position before they hold a hearing. The 'Due Process' would only apply if he were charged of a crime. To the OP, more specifically the Post, I don't understand why it would only be the 'GOP' who would want Rangel removed from his Chair position. I would hope that memebers of his own party would want to have another Representative in that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stadium-Armory Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 This portion of the Constitution deals only with criminal court proceedings. The US Congress, specifically the House of Representatives in this case, has its own rules and regulations with respect to how it deals with the charged misconduct of one of its members. If they find him guilty of misconduct, they can have him removed from the House. They can remove him from his Chair position before they hold a hearing. The 'Due Process' would only apply if he were charged of a crime. Yea, that's fine. The Congress has its own "due process". I'm just saying that the process should run its course before disciplinary action is taken. People here are crying for his removal based on allegations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Didn't the Dems force through some rule that any member who's been indicted can't hold committee chairmanships? For the purpose of forcing Delay out? Why wouldn't that apply here? Because he hasn't been indicted. Still, I think the Democrats are making a huge mistake here. Huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btfoom Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Because he hasn't been indicted.Still, I think the Democrats are making a huge mistake here. Huge. Good point, Predicto. I also agree 100%. If nothing else, it allows the Republicans to hammer on him any time, especially if they have a member who has their own 'issues'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted October 8, 2009 Author Share Posted October 8, 2009 Yea, that's fine. The Congress has its own "due process". I'm just saying that the process should run its course before disciplinary action is taken. People here are crying for his removal based on allegations. He's admitted to most of it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.