iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Earl Ofari Hutchinson

Posted: August 8, 2010 03:54 PM

The names of Harlem Congressman Charles Rangel and California Congresswoman Maxine Waters are now firmly imprinted in the media and public mind as the poster duo for congressional corruption. They're black, high profile, are ranking Democrats, and they're outspoken. That instantly made them inviting and even dispensable targets. The media crucifixion of Waters and Rangel absolves Congress of taking any real action against its worst offenders. Since the Rangel and Waters imbroglio broke, there's been much wild and loose talk, speculation, rumor, and innuendo that Waters and Rangel will, take your pick: resign, cut a deal, receive a reprimand, or a censure, or the most absurd of all, be expelled.

But the record still stands that the only congressperson in the last century officially expelled from Congress was then-Rep. Jim Traficant in 2002. His expulsion was a pro-forma act. Traficant had already been convicted on federal corruption charges and been sentenced to prison. Harlem Congressman Adam Clayton Powell was not expelled. He was "excluded" from taking his seat and censured in 1967 for his misdeeds.

Then there's the much publicized case of then GOP House majority leader Tom DeLay. DeLay is often cited as an example of a fearless Congress cracking down on its ethics violators even when the violator is one of its highest ranking and highest profile members. But Delay became a prime target only because the media ran endless stories picking apart every aspect of the paper trail of his influence peddling and sordid financial dealings. Delay's dirt became a media cause célèbre. Congress could not afford to ignore him. Despite the near smoking gun proof of his malfeasance, the ethics committee did not censure or expel him, but simply let the committee report it issued that spelled out the violations of House rules serve as his punishment.

Making Rangel and Waters the poster duo for political corruption also conveniently takes the glare of scrutiny off of the dozens of other Congresspersons not named Rangel and Waters that are just as deserving, if not more so than them of being plopped on the political hot seat. The twenty-seven other congresspersons named as being under investigation for possible ethics violations were made public last October. Then a congressional staffer leaked a summary of a preliminary report of the ethics committee on possible violations and the possible violators. The committee made it clear that the suspect congresspersons had not been formally charged with anything and that the investigations were merely preliminary. But the charges under investigation were not all for petty offenses. The checklist of charges included allegations of sweetheart arrangements with lobbyists, illicit campaign and finance dealings, questionable receipt gifts, tax reporting questions, and failure to disclose property and gifts.

There were two glaring reasons why the names of the two dozen other congresspersons under investigation are not known and Rangel and Waters' names are. The others have no national name or media recognition. They are relatively low on the congressional seniority totem pole. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the House Democratic Leadership can't wave their names to the press and the public and get the tongues wagging and stoke public fury about their alleged misdeeds. House Democrats can't self-righteously and falsely claim that the ethics rules work, the ethics committee is doing its job, and that House Democrats can police their own. And then when the press and the cameras go away, quietly cut a deal with both to make the issue and public attention on them go away before any real damage is done to Democrats with the fall elections looming.

The hitch in the plan is that Republicans may hold Rangel hostage for the elections. The report is that they have told Rangel "no deal" to his offer to cop a plea to some of the charges in exchange for a reprimand only. Waters has flatly said there will be "no deal." This may not have been part of the carefully scripted plan by Democrats to use Rangel and Waters as bait to snag a disbelieving and hostile public into cheering them for cleaning up corruption among them. No matter how things shake out, don't expect to see any other names on the rogue's list of Congressional ethics violator suspects than Rangel and Waters.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. He hosts a nationally broadcast political affairs radio talk show on Pacifica and KTYM Radio Los Angeles.

 

Follow Earl Ofari Hutchinson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earlhutchinson

 
 
  • Comments
  • 8
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blknight96
10:36 AM on 08/09/2010
Mr. Hutchinson, do yourself a favor and quit trying to group these 2 together, as most of us know Rangel's case against him is completely different from Water's case. Both are approaching it differently too, Waters is NOT taking any deals and wants a speedy hearing or trial. Wrangel tried to make a deal, then claim he didn't and then find out that the Republicans didn't want his deal and would rather go to trial.

Treat each one as individuals and quit masking them as one in the same because public opinion on Wrangel's case looks real bad, but to group Waters in his mess isn't fair to her. She has a strong case to prove she did no wrong and that Paulson is the one who should be on trial here not her.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Krow
03:00 PM on 08/10/2010
I thought Charlie did a good job of defending himself on the House floor this morning. Both of the cases deal with events over two years old, neither case has a date set for a hearing, much less a trial. The old axiom that justice delayed is justice denied obviously does not apply to House members. These cases aren't about corruption, they're about politics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Derrick Mathis
10:42 PM on 08/08/2010
I meant to say:

UNTIL Obama leaves the White House there's gonna be a whole lot more black lawmakers and public figures under scrutiny and folks are not going to be shy about putting them there.

Sorry for the error.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Derrick Mathis
10:39 PM on 08/08/2010
What bothers me about this essay is whatever Delay has done doesn't make accusations of Rangel's or Water's wrongdoing any less valid. Okay, so the media is being racist in focusing on black lawmakers cause we have a black president. I'll bet you a hundred to one if the president was a white Buddhist and they were white Buddhist congress members who were under investigation for some accusation or another the stage light would be on them.

I'm not making accuses for the whack racist ways of the media, or govt. or society as a whole. And I am saying I'm tired of grown intelligent black folks rushing to the defense of their own JUST BECAUSE they're black. Cause that's exactly what I'm experiencing or at least if feels like with the Waters/Rangel deal.

Obama leaves the White House there's gonna be a whole lot more black lawmakers and public figures under scrutiny and folks are not going to be shy about putting them there.

My question is, why is it that many blacks were not expecting that as a by-product of Barack Obama's election to the White House? And this scenario with Rangel/Waters hardly bears the characteristics of a witch hunt. But the reaction in some factions of the black community makes it seem so.

Including yours Earl.

Waters will get a public hand-slapping at best. She ain't goin' nowhere. As for Rangel, he needs to take the president's advice and go out with dignity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Krow
10:32 PM on 08/08/2010
The political damage is done, If a trial were begun tomorrow and they were both exonerated, the damage is done for this election year. I assume that the accused is allowed some type of discovery and the right to subpoena. By the time they get around to commencing the trial/s, Congress will be well along in 2011.
Ms.Waters attorneys can call witnesses, being the CEO's of all of the too big to fail banks to testify about their meetings with Secretary Paulson and discuss how much money they were asking for and how much money they got. It would be interesting to go over their phone records too. Then the defense could interrogate the Senators or Congressmen about what was discussed in those meetings and how it related to campaign donations or TARP funds. A good defense attorney, by opening this Pandora's box, could make better cases against the accusers than they brought against the accused.
They could keep this spectacle going for six months, keeping the Republicans from enjoying any of their I'll gotten gains. The tactics used to make these two black Congressmen from solid districts in the hearts of the two largest cities in America, the scapegoats for their race baiting is hardly a coincidence. If these Congressmen stick to their guns and hold out for trial, they may win a bigger victory than they imagined. This reeks of Rove.
05:55 PM on 08/08/2010
We do have a strange media and an even stranger value system. We are slowly, but surely trending toward the "guilty until you can prove you are innocent., and if the talking blabbering crowd in the media find you guilty so be it. Now they are going to censor this media, the internet, and Huffington will be pure blather with a little drool thrown in for color. Moderators will be ordered to dump everything that even has the whiff of controversial. We are being forced by fear into a compliant citizenry of drones.
05:08 PM on 08/08/2010
It's not clear just what Hutchinson is grousing about here. Is he complaining that Rangel and Waters have been unfairly singled out for their corrupt practices? Is he complaining that other Congressional ethics violators have committed greater offenses with impunity? But then, nothing has yet been done to Rangel or Waters either. Is he unhappy because media have reported the Rangel and Waters investigations? Well, surely there's nothing new in that. Is he unhappy that the Rangel and Waters affairs might harm Democrats' chances in the upcoming elections? But there's sure nothing new in that either. No, this does not look like a "carefully scripted plan" by Democrats to sacrifice Rangel and Waters to a bloodthirsty public. Rangel and Waters are not victims of anything, and they will deserve whatever negative consequences might befall them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Blknight96
10:02 AM on 08/09/2010
Before throwing Congresswoman Waters under the bus so fast, I think you need to here her side of this story. She has been on several black talk radio shows in the past weeks and will be setting up a website too. You'll have a completely different take and see this is indeed a political move by Republicans and Karl Rove fingerprints are all over this.

In the report that was released, a representative from Treasury was very specific that at the time you asked for a meeting with the National Bankers Association, Treasury was getting 70 to 80 calls a day from all financial parties about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout and your call was simply one among the many. Why then is considered now a major offense?

I believe this started with a Treasury employee who was a mentee of Karl Rove (a top GOP operative). He remembered that I had disclosed that my husband sat on the board of directors of One United Bank at one time. He took this public information to the OCE to make it look as if there was a conflict of interest. The committee looked at it and said "aha" maybe there is a conflict here. And because their investigation is so limited, they came up with the idea that I received some benefit from the meeting that I requested

http://www.thegrio.com/politics/rep-maxine-waters-no-deals-im-not-going-to-the-backroom.php