ACW Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/30/AR2010073003761.html?wpisrc=nl_buzz The subcommittee that investigated Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) has recommended that the embattled lawmaker face only a "reprimand," a mild form of punishment similar to that given to Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) when he was rebuked in 1997. Rep. Gene Green (D-Tex.) told reporters Friday that his four-member investigative subcommittee is not seeking the high-level punishments of censure or expulsion, opting for a mid-level sanction that requires the approval of the full House but carries no other penalty. :doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Clearing the swamp, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgundy Burner Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Change we can believe in. Once again - there is a standard for dems (shake a finger and say, "don't do this again or we will have another lame investigation") and a standard for reps (their life must end or spend the remainder of their lives in jail and the entire party must be abolished). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 PoLiTiCs SuCkS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 First come the sanctions. Then the warning letters. Then the strongly-worded warning letters. Then the threat that they're considering removing you from your committees if you don't promise to stop soon. Then comes the letters about threatening to remove you from your committees... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 This is embarrassing. Rangel must have inherited J Edgar Hooover's secret files. I can't believe the Democrats believe Rangel benefits them more than he hurts them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Next up for a slap on the wrist is Maxine Waters http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/111973-reports-waters-chooses-trial-rather-than-accept-ethics-charges and a apology from my congresscritter http://thehill.com/homenews/house/111943-house-dem-apologizes-for-talking-about-rangel-case Rep. Gene Green said he shouldn't have revealed his panel recommended that Rangel be reprimanded.… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Rep. Gene Green said he shouldn't have revealed his panel recommended that Rangel be reprimanded.… Well, I kind of agree that it shouldn't have been revealed unless they were simultaneously revealing the evidence that earned the reprimand. We've heard a ton of stuff about Rangel. If it was proven true he should have been removed entirely. The question is what was presented and what was proven? If they could only prove the most minor infractions then a reprimand is warranted. If they closed their eyes and pinched their noses while digesting some of larger misdeeds, then a reprimand is an insult to the American people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Well, I kind of agree that it shouldn't have been revealed unless they were simultaneously revealing the evidence that earned the reprimand. We've heard a ton of stuff about Rangel. If it was proven true he should have been removed entirely. The question is what was presented and what was proven? If they could only prove the most minor infractions then a reprimand is warranted. If they closed their eyes and pinched their noses while digesting some of larger misdeeds, then a reprimand is an insult to the American people. I agree, this circus has gone on far too long Put up,or shut up. added Dignity? http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0710/Obama_Time_for_Rangel_to_end_career_with_dignity.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Change we can believe in.Once again - there is a standard for dems (shake a finger and say, "don't do this again or we will have another lame investigation") and a standard for reps (their life must end or spend the remainder of their lives in jail and the entire party must be abolished). Newt Gingrich was a Democrat? Amazing, the things I learn, here in Tailgate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Newt Gingrich was a Democrat? Amazing, the things I learn, here in Tailgate. Proves that Burgundy Burner is fair and balanced :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Burgold has a point in that we don't know what was proven. But man, smoke a fire go together very well, and this sure smacks of old boy networking. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Yeah, if I had to guess I would say that he deserved to be thrown out. Sadly, there are a lot of bums in Congress that deserve to be thrown out (on both sides of the aisles). However, I don't know what was proven and so I can't tell you if this was justice or a travesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Actually, every time I read about one of these things, what strikes me is how petty the things they managed to pin on them, are. I mean, that guy in Alaska. A BBQ grill? That's what they got him on? Maybe it's a case of putting Al Capone in jail for income taxes. Maybe there's a whole lot more dirt that we didn't find out about. My gut says that they're a lot dirtier than that. I always assume that there's a lot worse things that aren't being mentioned. But I'd like it if occasionally they'd actually catch some of them with the real dirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hyphenatedbren Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 I'd say his constituents should vote for "the other guy/gal/grilled cheese sandwich" but I know that won't happen. Because no matter how low Congress' approval ratings are there's still 90 percent retention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MEANDWARF Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Barney Frank and Charlie Rangel are prime reasons why there is an anti-incumbent feeling in the upcoming election. Plus you have Newt possibly throwing his hat in the upcoming election! OMG!:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted July 31, 2010 Author Share Posted July 31, 2010 I'd say his constituents should vote for "the other guy/gal/grilled cheese sandwich" but I know that won't happen. Because no matter how low Congress' approval ratings are there's still 90 percent retention.That's because people don't like Congress...except for ther own rep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Change we can believe in. ahem: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0710/Obama_Time_for_Rangel_to_end_career_with_dignity.html President Barack Obama has kept mum on the fate of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) for days -- but he tells CBS News that it's time for the embattled 80-year-old former Ways and Means Chairman to end his career "with dignity.""I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served-- his constituents very well. But these-- allegations are very troubling," Obama told Harry Smith in an interview to be aired on the "Early Show." and first broadcast on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. "And he'll-- he's somebody who's at the end of his career. Eighty years old. I'm sure that-- what he wants is to be able to-- end his career with dignity. And my hope is that-- it happens. " Obama wants him gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 That's because people don't like Congress...except for ther own rep. Exactly. People hate pork....at least when it's going to other people. Local projects in your district? Vital for you own economy in growth. A similar project in another district? Wasteful pork, and those people need to throw that bum out for wasting our money! Not that living in the late John Murtha's district has jaded my view on that at all...:beatdeadhorse: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GhostofSparta Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Obama wants him gone. Good for Obama for coming out and saying that. Somebody needs to take a firm stand. I think the problem is that while a lot of people want him gone, well....who's got the stones to take the lead? And if somebody takes the lead, well, what skeletons will they no longer be able to hide? Another reason Congress should not have anything to do with their own ethics investigations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 This is simply wrong IMO. Rangel should have been expelled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beans Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Obama wants him gone. Of course. With the elections coming up he is nothing more than a liability. Plus he's 80 years old. This is the stance that Bama's handlers have told him to take. Change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Of course. With the elections coming up he is nothing more than a liability. Plus he's 80 years old. This is the stance that Bama's handlers have told him to take. Change. It's awesome how you are able to warp reality to fit your ideology. If Obama says nothing: Change If Obama says something: This is the stance that Bama's handlers have told him to take. Change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beans Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 It's awesome how you are able to warp reality to fit your ideology. If Obama says nothing: Change If Obama says something: This is the stance that Bama's handlers have told him to take. Change. What did I warp again? At best, you are naive. Obama could have called him out when untold amount of allegations were being made. Instead he waited until the writing was on the wall. It's also funny you know my idealogy. I would take the same cynical approach with a Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted July 31, 2010 Share Posted July 31, 2010 Obama wants him gone. That makes a lot more sense. I couldn't figure out why the Democrats thought having him in office was doing them any good. I'm sure that-- what he wants is to be able to-- end his career with dignity. And my hope is that-- it happens. Too late! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.