PDA

View Full Version : Rangel Trying To Make Deal On Ethics Charges



red states rule
07-27-2010, 03:04 PM
Looks like ol' Charlie does not want a full probe and thus public accounting of all he has done






WASHINGTON -- Embattled Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel was meeting with the head of the House ethics committee and other top Democrats amid rumors he may try to work out a deal rather than face a full vetting of the charges he is now facing.

A settlement would mean Rangel must admit he committed some ethical misconduct.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday that "everyone would like for the Rangel issue to go away" and that the ethics process with Rangel is not a pleasant one.

Rangel would not respond Tuesday to requests for information about the investigation, citing the "sensitive circumstances" of the probe. He added to reporters: "You will not be able to frame any question, no matter how good you think you are, (to which) I will respond."

Ethics committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren has been preparing to launch a rare, public ethics inquiry on Thursday into alleged misdeeds by the New York Democrat.

Lofgren will chair an "adjudicatory subcommittee" that will present its case against Rangel. An investigative panel reported last week that it had found ethics violations by Rangel.

For nearly two years, the ethics committee has probed Rangel on a host of issues, ranging from tax evasion to improper use of congressional stationery to raise money for a school of public affairs in the congressman's name at City College of New York.

Rangel met with Lofgren on Monday night and sought closed-door counsel from Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., a special assistant to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/27/rangel-scrambling-make-deal-ethics-charges/

Gaffer
07-27-2010, 03:14 PM
I'm sure some money will change hands to help him "make it go away".

There's no ethics involved. He stepped on someones toes and they are stepping back. At worst he'll get his wrist slapped and have to retire to some Caribbean resort. kerry can visit him on his yacht.

red states rule
07-27-2010, 06:01 PM
I'm sure some money will change hands to help him "make it go away".

There's no ethics involved. He stepped on someones toes and they are stepping back. At worst he'll get his wrist slapped and have to retire to some Caribbean resort. kerry can visit him on his yacht.

With most libs in DC, Charlie did nothing wrong - except he got caught. I am sure Nancy Pelosi went to a local hardware store and bought a large shop broom she can use to sweep this under the rug

Gaffer
07-27-2010, 07:04 PM
Yeah it's always. I'm really sorry.... They always leave of the last half ....for getting caught.

Sweetchuck
07-27-2010, 10:33 PM
This infuriates me, he'll get off - you think his goombah's are going to run him up a flagpole?

The PEOPLE need to go to the private sector for representation. WE need to unite and contribute to a movement that will prosecute these fucking crooks because it's clear that they will NOT self-govern appropriately.

Those teabaggers should take this approach.

red states rule
07-28-2010, 04:46 AM
Just a few days ago Charlie bellowed how he was looking forward to a ethics fight

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38367462/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Sweetchuck
07-28-2010, 05:54 PM
Anyone see that coverage of those guys in that california town who were making something like $1.6m between something like 3 of them?

Those people are ready to riot, and here is my question - at what point is violence justified? At what point is it time for American citizens to take up arms?

Purely hypothetical question of course and I'm not advocating or suggesting that violence is the answer, I'm simply posing the question.

Anger + frustration = violence

Gaffer
07-28-2010, 06:11 PM
Anyone see that coverage of those guys in that california town who were making something like $1.6m between something like 3 of them?

Those people are ready to riot, and here is my question - at what point is violence justified? At what point is it time for American citizens to take up arms?

Purely hypothetical question of course and I'm not advocating or suggesting that violence is the answer, I'm simply posing the question.

Anger + frustration = violence

I think it's overdue. Nothings going to happen or change until frustrated people take firm physical action. The courts are useless, the media is useless and even voting is useless.

jon_forward
07-29-2010, 10:27 AM
my hope is that the dems wont get their way and have this go away anytime soon. maybe instead of 'remember the alamo' we need to have bumper stickers and buttons saying 'remember rangel' come nov!

Kathianne
07-29-2010, 10:28 AM
my hope is that the dems wont get their way and have this go away anytime soon. maybe instead of 'remember the alamo' we need to have bumper stickers and buttons saying 'remember rangel' come nov!

I can't believe that Christopher Dodd isn't being charged as well.