Originally posted by zeeblebotya, and the last poll I saw said only 11% of Americans have trust in their reps?? wonder why, are they staying too long and think that they're above the laws?
see how long William "bribes in the freezer" Jefferson lasted. and he was from the hinterlands.
and see how long Rangel has managed to stretch this out so far.
It turns out Rangel might now actually get a chance to cut a deal.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/111297-ethics-panel-chairwoman-i-did-not-meet-privately-with-rangel
You kind of have to read the article to get the full picture. There's too much to cut and paste, but I will post this part:
There are no committee rules barring Lofgren from discussing the matter with Rangel directly, according to ethics experts, but any deal would require at least one GOP vote to be ratified.
A Republican source said, “You can't have one side of the committee cutting a deal with the defendant in the case. Can you imagine if Republicans had negotiated secretly with Tom DeLay or Newt Gingrich?”
If it takes one Republican, Rangel's goose might be cooked.
Originally posted by Eladarhttp://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/K-Street-goes-to-the-defense-of-Charlie-Rangel-1004040-99363214.html
I wonder where the money will come to pay for those bills. He won't pay for it.
Two of the three firms providing legal counsel to Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., in his pending ethics cases are lobbying firms. In fact, one firm, Oldaker, Belair & Wittie, conducts much of Rangel's political fundraising, while operating four different lobby shops.
But who's ultimately paying Rangel's legal bills? Mostly corporate and union political action committees along with individual lobbyists. Over the past six months, PACs and lobbyists have accounted for a majority of the money Rangel's campaign has raised this year, not counting transfers from Rangel's other fundraising operations
Originally posted by EladarWait a minute. Aren't Rangel's supporters merely exercising their freedom of speech?
But who's ultimately paying Rangel's legal bills? Mostly corporate and union political action committees along with individual lobbyists. Over the past six months, PACs and lobbyists have accounted for a majority of the money Rangel's campaign has raised this year, not counting transfers from Rangel's other fundraising operations
Originally posted by Hugh GlassWrong. They need not worry unless they get caught. Then when and if they get caught they simply cut a deal. You do realize that Rangel is just a small sliver of the problem don't you? These boys are above the laws of the little people like ourselves.
That figures, smart move for the dems... I wonder how much Charlie owed, and what the tax bill will come to with added penalties?
Clean up your act boys,, everyone is watching these days....
:-)
Originally posted by Hugh GlassAnd of those 11%, 10% either work for the representatives or have bought them out. The remaining 1% are retarded and wards of the state.
ya, and the last poll I saw said only 11% of Americans have trust in their reps?? wonder why, are they staying too long and think that they're above the laws?
Pack it in, Harlemites urge embattled Rep. Charles Rangel
BY TREVOR KAPP AND JAMES FANELLI
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Friday, July 30th 2010, 4:00 AM
Barry Johnson, 62, said Rep. Charles Rangel should call it a career after being formally hit with 13 ethics violations.
"When you do something that breaks the rules, you should be punished for it," Johnson said. "He did some good for a long period of time, but it's time for someone new."
Johnson was floored by the 13 charges a House ethics panel leveled against the fabled New York powerbroker, particularly the allegations that he failed to pay federal taxes on a Dominican Republic property.
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/07/30/2010-07-30_its_a_wrap_pack_it_in_harlemites_urge_rep.html#ixzz0vAOtJgMJ
Originally posted by utherpendragonI heard someone defending him the other day by saying that these things were not done "in malice". In other words, he was not attempting to hide any of these violations, hence, they must have been unintentional. LOL. Mark my words, Rangel walks.
[b]Pack it in, Harlemites urge embattled Rep. Charles Rangel
BY TREVOR KAPP AND JAMES FANELLI
DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Friday, July 30th 2010, 4:00 AM
Barry Johnson, 62, said Rep. Charles Rangel should call it a career after being formally hit with 13 ethics violations.
"When you do something that breaks the rules, you should be punished f ...[text shortened]... ny_local/2010/07/30/2010-07-30_its_a_wrap_pack_it_in_harlemites_urge_rep.html#ixzz0vAOtJgMJ[/b]
Ethics panel wants Rangel reprimanded
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ethics_committee_wants_rangel_reprimanded_9IZ3aIoioxN4S6pMfIsu5K
WASHINGTON -- The House ethics investigatory subcommittee recommended that Rep. Charlie Rangel be reprimanded, which is the least severe punishment, according to a new report.
The disclosure was made today by Rep. Gene Green (D-Texas), who is the panel's chairman.
A reprimand falls below expulsion and censure on the list of available punishments.
Slap on the wrist.
Hey, I can accurately predict the future! Of course I think a lot of people saw this one coming.
Rep. Charles Rangel told Harlem leaders Saturday he signed a plea deal on ethics charges but that the GOP pushed for a trial.
"He said he had signed an agreement. He was ready to go but I guess politics came into play," said Assemblyman Keith Wright (D-Manhattan), one of about 50 leaders gathered for a Harlem district meeting Saturday.
Another attendee said Rangel implied, "It was Republicans that didn't want an agreement" and that he signed a deal before the ethics committee released its report last month.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/08/08/2010-08-08_rangel_says_he_tried_to_make_a_deal.html
Totally predictable.
Originally posted by no1marauderMy prediction is that he would walk even though he has obvious violations of the law.
What did you predict? Unless it was that "as of August 8th, the Rangel case remains unresolved" your prediction was either wrong or hasn't come to pass.