More

Charles Rangel To Urge House To Reject Censure

LARRY MARGASAK   11/28/10 01:25 PM ET   AP

Charles Rangel

WASHINGTON — Rep. Charles Rangel is ready to make a last stand to salvage his reputation and tell the House that a censure should be reserved for crooked politicians.

He will argue that he's not one of them.

The 80-year-old Democrat from New York's Harlem neighborhood wants his punishment for ethics violations downgraded to a reprimand, according to congressional and nongovernment sources who are in touch with Rangel but are not authorized to be quoted by name.

Rangel will ask the House ethics committee chairman, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., for time to plead his case on the floor of the House, where he has served for 40 years, including a stint as chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

The ethics committee voted 9-1 on Nov. 18 that Rangel should be censured for committing 11 counts of fundraising and financial misdeeds that violated House rules.

There is precedent for Rangel's argument that censure – the most severe punishment short of expulsion – is too harsh in his case. It won't be easy because he'll have to overcome the overwhelming vote of a committee that has an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.

Rangel plans to argue that censure has been imposed for violations including bribery, accepting improper gifts, personal use of campaign funds and sexual misconduct; none is present in his case.

The ethics committee, in explaining its recommendation, agreed in a report that the discipline usually is reserved for lawmakers who enrich themselves. In Rangel's case, the committee said, its decision was based on "the cumulative nature of the violations and not any direct personal financial gain."

The committee's chief counsel, Blake Chisam, responding to a question from a committee member, told Rangel's ethics trial that he saw no evidence of corruption.

The House will take up Rangel's discipline in the postelection session that resumes Monday, but no date has been set for decide his punishment.

To the public, a censure and a reprimand appear similar. Both punishments are meted out on the floor of the House and include a vote disapproving a member's conduct.

A censure goes beyond the vote and requires the disciplined member to appear at the front of the chamber – called the "well" – and receive an oral rebuke from the speaker that includes a reading of the resolution.

A reprimand is simply a vote of disapproval. It can be a separate resolution or a vote to adopt the ethics committee's findings. The punished lawmaker is not required to stand in the well.

Rangel was found to have improperly used official resources – congressional letterheads and staff – to raise funds from businesses and foundations for a center named after him at the City College of New York.

Some of the donors, the committee found, were businesses and foundations with issues before the House Ways and Means Committee. The contributions left the impression that the money was to influence legislation, although Rangel was not charged with taking any action on behalf of donors.

He also was found guilty of filing a decade's worth of misleading annual financial disclosure forms that failed to list hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets, and failure to pay taxes for 17 years on his rental unit in the Dominican Republic – an embarrassment for someone who presided over tax legislation.

In addition, the committee told Rangel to pay any taxes he still owed.

The sources said Rangel complied last week, sending the U.S. Treasury a check for $10,422 and a check for $4,501 to New York state.

Rangel has apologized and admitted his mistakes, although he denied any intent to violate standards of conduct.

Twenty-two House members have been censured while nine have been reprimanded. The last censures were in 1983, when the House disciplined Reps. Gerry E. Studds, a Massachusetts Democrat, and Daniel Crane, an Illinois Republican. Both were cited for sexual misconduct with teenage pages – Studds with a male page, Crane with a female one.

Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., was the last to be reprimanded. He was disciplined in September 2009, in a partisan vote, for shouting "You lie!" at President Barack Obama during a nationally televised speech to Congress.

(This version CORRECTS that Rangel wrote check to U.S. Treasury, not IRS.)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON — Rep. Charles Rangel is ready to make a last stand to salvage his reputation and tell the House that a censure should be reserved for crooked politicians. He will argue that he's no...
WASHINGTON — Rep. Charles Rangel is ready to make a last stand to salvage his reputation and tell the House that a censure should be reserved for crooked politicians. He will argue that he's no...
Filed by Whitney Snyder  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,343
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (26 total)
  1 of 3  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
Debbie McPherson 02:30 PM on 11/28/2010
Rangel is the very embodiment of everything ugly and destructive in Congress and politics and general. These people operate on bribes, they are dirty backroom dealers, they believe they can control all the laws and operate above them. Congress is as one pundit put it best " a bi-partisan cesspool of corruption". And we all know it and we are also coming to the realization that while being self-serving pigs  Read More...
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
04:04 AM on 11/30/2010
He wouldn't be being censured over this if he was white. Plain and simple. Racism has been rearing its ugly head again in American politics ever since Rush hoped Obama would fail.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ghee99
05:48 PM on 11/29/2010
if you or me did even a fraction of the wrongdoings rangel is guilty of, we would be in jail, for a looooong time

he is crooked (of course)
and its been public knowledge for years that he's been crooked

i remember reading stories about these things he was just found guilty of in the local NYC press as far back as the mid-90's

yet, nothing was done for years
and now that he was caught,
he's whining that he doesn't want the term of "censure" applied to his criminal activity

not only a crook, but whay an incredibly arrogant criminal as well

how is it possible, in any sort of civilized society, that this guy is not behind bars?
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
04:05 AM on 11/30/2010
If he was white he would be getting a mere reprimand.
05:00 PM on 11/29/2010
Lack of accountability on Rangel's part is very familiar.
02:46 PM on 11/29/2010
If the House does nothing more than censure him, they shouldn't be surprised that they are dropping in stature. Why would citizens trust them to do much of anything if they cannot police their own. Rangel helped write the tax rules and claims he didn't know that rental revenue was taxable?
11:39 AM on 11/29/2010
Rangel doesn't pay taxes = nothing happens to him.
Me or you doesn't pay taxes = prison time.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
04:06 AM on 11/30/2010
Corporations don't pay taxes, either. Especially the one's who ship jobs overseas. Or have you never read the details of the Bush tax cuts.
09:41 PM on 11/30/2010
Did I say one word about Bush's tax cuts? Charlie Rangel and the average citizen not paying taxes is what I posted, or have you never read my post?
11:38 AM on 11/29/2010
The perfect example of why we need term limits.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wee weed up
11:36 AM on 11/29/2010
Rangel is one of the many reasons I do not vote for Dem canidates.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
04:06 AM on 11/30/2010
You'd prefer, I assume, one of those crooked republicans, then? You don't see the crime if the felon is white? Typical teabag.
11:23 AM on 11/29/2010
Some ethics violations are really just about breaking House rules. In this case, it involved not paying his taxes. In my book, that's serious enough for him to lose his job. After that, the IRS should treat him just like they would any other citizen. No favors. If a Joe Ordinary would get off without criminal charges, then so be it. But if they would prosecute him, then the same should be done to Charlie. You might even argue that he should receive a harsher penalty since he is a public servant. In any case, he should lose his job. As a Democrat, I don't feel we should permit any corruption or lawbreaking, regardless of party.
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
04:07 AM on 11/30/2010
If you don't pay your taxes on time the IRS doesn't lock you up. They sue you for the unpaid taxes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
libwithaclue
N Y C - L I B - M O U S......
11:13 AM on 11/29/2010
You should have bowed out gracefully and retired before all this came down, Charlie. Your district needs some young blood, anyway.
11:05 AM on 11/29/2010
The fact that he is attempting this is all the more reason to censure him. He ought to be thankful he's not being brought up on charges that actually could land him in jail, but instead, another member of the oligarchy somehow sees what's happening to him as being wholly unfair.
11:04 AM on 11/29/2010
Good for Charlie, good for the dems and good for the GOP
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:33 AM on 11/29/2010
What a sad ending to his story is being written now, because of his own actions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Moore
Teacher, German, Math, Pennsylvania
10:29 AM on 11/29/2010
Can someone please explain why it is, Charlie Rangel should be removed from Congress? Couldn't the voters of Harlem done that in the election held this very month? If they had confidence in him, then Congress should too. I do not believe that he is an innocent man by any means. That said, reprimand would be a fitting punishment. It means that his unblemished record in the Halls of Congress will be stained. Recall, the man has done considerable good over the years.
11:27 AM on 11/29/2010
Because he didn't pay his taxes. That's enough. He violated public trust. Sad, because he was a good advocate for the poor. But politicians should not be able to break the law and get away with it. We should hold them to a higher standard. I'm sure that there are other deserving people in his district who could replace him. Besides, he's 80. He should retire.
10:29 AM on 11/29/2010
he is one disgusting man - and should be in prison
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
robjh1
That Job Just Isn't Into You!
10:27 AM on 11/29/2010
What do we do: "In Rangel's case, the committee said, its decision was based on "the cumulative nature of the violations and not any direct personal financial gain."
The committee's chief counsel, Blake Chisam, responding to a question from a committee member, told Rangel's ethics trial that he saw no evidence of corruption."

And the people voted him back in... Is this a political witch hunt?

"and we are not saved..."
photo
Eris23Skidoo
Dischordian Keynesian
04:48 AM on 11/30/2010
Of course it's a political witch hunt.