The Harassment Scandal That Threatens To Take Down NYS Democratic Leadership

Over the past couple of weeks, a growing scandal in the New York State Assembly has meant that Assemblyman Vito Lopez lost his chairmanship of the powerful Housing Committee over revelations that he harassed multiple women over a period of years. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver stripped Lopez of his chairmanship, but then it was revealed that Silver authorized the payment of a $100k settlement to two women over additional harassment claims.

Then, there's word that NYS Attorney General Eric Schneiderman signed off on the settlements, which used taxpayer funds, despite claims that Schneiderman's office had not given Speaker Silver guidance.

Speaker Silver admits that he and his office screwed up the handling of Lopez's case.

We have a couple of interrelated issues: (1) the criminal/civil liabilities of Lopez for carrying out harassment in his office, which included suggesting to female staffers that they ought to wear more revealing clothes or go braless; (2) Speaker Silver's handling of the cases and not making the issues public; (3) AG Schneiderman's handling of the case from his office.

It's an issue that threatens to overshadow the convention this week. Censure isn't enough, and a more thorough house cleaning needs to occur, including the Speaker himself:

Mr. Silver announced on Aug. 24 that he was censuring Mr. Lopez, 71, after a bipartisan Assembly ethics committee found credible evidence that Mr. Lopez had groped, kissed and verbally harassed two female employees. Mr. Lopez was also stripped of his chairmanship of the Assembly’s housing committee.

Over the next few days, reports emerged that Mr. Silver had signed off on a $135,000 secret settlement of claims against Mr. Lopez brought by two other women, and that the previous claims were not referred to the Assembly’s ethics committee. Mr. Lopez subsequently said he would not seek another term as chairman of the Brooklyn Democratic Party but has refused calls to resign his Assembly seat.

“The only time I ever had a conversation with him was about 10 minutes before I issued the letter stripping him of his chairmanship, and then I had a subsequent conversation with him last week and I asked him to resign,” Mr. Silver said. “He obviously didn’t agree with me, but he didn’t say much. He just indicated that he couldn’t — that he wasn’t going to.”

In statements last week, Mr. Silver, the Legislature’s most powerful Democrat, acknowledged mistakes in his handling of the alleged harassment incidents.

“Ultimately, I’m the speaker and I’m responsible, and clearly mistakes were made,” he said on Monday.

Mr. Silver said he first heard about claims made against Mr. Lopez in January. The first two women who brought claims were represented by a team of lawyers that included Gloria Allred, the prominent Los Angeles attorney. They initially sought $1.2 million.

Mr. Silver said his legal staff acted in good faith, explaining that they were trying to avoid costly litigation and to accede to the wishes of the alleged victims.

“What was demanded was tremendously more than what the case was ultimately settled for,” he said, “and the judgment of settling the case was that we will save the state money on potential liabilities here, in addition to the fact that the assemblyman agreed to pay a sum for his own actions.”

Trying to settle the matter makes sense since the costs of litigation could have been far higher, but the failure to refer the matter to the ethics committee was a massive failure on the Speaker's part.

To have the AG lie and obfuscate about his role in signing off on the deal is unforgivable.

This is hardly the first time that Silver has come under fire for botching the handling of harassment or sex abuse in the Assembly; his own staffer was convicted of sexual assault and his office attempted to cover up the details.

For far too long, the state legislature has operated under the Bear Mountain Compact, which is an unwritten rule that what happens in Albany stays in Albany. It created a permissive attitude where legislators can act as they please and ethics and the law were meant for everyone else, but optional for those who enact the law.

Two separate investigations are underway: one by the state’s Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) and another by the Staten Island district attorney who is filling in for the recused Brooklyn prosecutor. Among those allegedly harassed is current NYC City Councilwoman Diana Reyna, who was one of Lopez's staffers.

The JCOPE is hamstrung by the fact that Silver gets to appoint some of its members, and they can limit their investigation rather than going after all the malfeasance involved - meaning that Silver could skate by on his own handling of the growing scandal.

The sad thing is that Silver will win reelection handily (and retain his speakership) and so too will Lopez. While Lopez said that he would not seek reelection past this November, he's going to win handily. Far too many constituents ignore massive problems with the candidates they elect - including criminal behavior. For the legislature to clean up its act, voters have to demand changes. Legislators aren't going to do it to themselves.

Silver's called for Lopez to resign, though Lopez has rebuffed the call thus far. Some Democrats are calling for Lopez to resign immediately, including New York Senator Chuck Schumer (who originally hails from Brooklyn). Those calls need to come hard and fast, and the Assembly Democrats ought to be considering a new speaker but Silver's lasted as long as he has as speaker because he's the consummate professional politicial - dividing and conquering potential alternatives to his speaker's position.

Joe Paterno To Step Down After Season In Wake Of Penn State Sex Abuse Scandal

Joe Paterno, the storied coach of the Penn State football team, will be announcing his retirement at the end of the season in wake of the sex abuse scandal involving his former defensive coach, Jerry Sandusky.

The person says Paterno will announce his retirement later Wednesday.

The person spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity because the decision has yet to be announced.

Paterno’s support among the Penn State board of trustees was described as “eroding” Tuesday, threatening to end the 84-year-old coach’s career amid a child sex-abuse scandal involving a former assistant and one-time heir apparent.

Paterno’s son, Scott, said his father hasn’t spoken with Penn State officials or trustees about stepping down. Addressing reporters outside his father’s house, he said Joe Paterno plans to not only coach in Saturday’s game against Nebraska, but for the long haul.

I'm sorry, but that's just insufficient. Paterno knew about the abuse, and he and the university went to great lengths to keep the matter private when law enforcement should have been involved the moment that another coach found Sandusky abusing a child in a Penn state athletic facility.

Everyone involved in the decision-making process at the university put the university's football program ahead of the interests of the children who were being abused by Sandusky. They barred Sandusky from bringing children on campus, as though that was sufficient; it wasn't. Officials looked the other way, and two of them are facing charges relating to the abuse.

People knew about the abuse, and left it to university officials to police the matter, but they instead did nothing. The university would say that it was complying with the letter of the law, which didn't require informing law enforcement, but that's quite besides the point. What about the morality and ethical responsibility to act to inform law enforcement of the potential abuse? Everyone looked the other way and thought the matter was closed, even as the abuse continued.

In some respects, the university handled matters in the same fashion as the Catholic Church has done in its own sex abuse scandals. It claimed to have acted according to the letter of the law, and yet the abuses continued for decades. The Church allowed children to be abused under its watch and it violated its trust with its parishioners.

The same thing has happened with Penn State; the university violated its trust with the public.

Yet, there's some on campus who think that Paterno shouldn't be forced to resign, be fired, or considered for possible charges. They think that Paterno has done nothing wrong.

That's just not true either. He looked the other way as the university went ahead and made a deal with Sandusky to stop bringing children from his charitable project on campus, but that didn't address the abuse that had been discovered. He put the football program ahead of the right thing to do.

And in that light, Paterno failed himself, his football program, the university, and the community at large.

NJ Taxpayers Fleeced By Cops; Firefighters Obtaining HGH and Steroids

This is a story that hits at the nexus of health care, insurance, government spending, and taxpayers bearing the burden for the costs.

It's a story of cops and firefighters getting costly steroids and human growth hormone (HGH) from doctors and wellness centers and the costs get passed on to the municipalities that employ the cops or firefighters. While the firefighters and cops pay minimal co-pays, the municipalities (which are often self-insured) have to pick up the tab themselves - and those health care costs are passed on to taxpayers in the form of higher costs of governance.

It's a story of fraud, financial mismanagement, and lousy ethics and enforcement of existing law.

A Star-Ledger investigation has found that at least 248 officers and firefighters obtained steroids, growth hormone and other testosterone-boosting drugs from Colao before his death in August 2007. In addition, the newspaper found Colao often falsely diagnosed his patients with hormone deficiencies to justify his prescriptions, a violation of the law and medical ethics.

For the officers and firefighters in the physician’s practice, the drugs came cheap.

Like Vargas, they used their government benefits to pay for the substances in most, if not all, cases. A Star-Ledger analysis suggests the total cost to taxpayers runs into the millions of dollars, driven primarily by Colao’s willingness to so widely prescribe human growth hormone, one of the most tightly regulated drugs in the nation.

For members of the Jersey City Police Department alone, Colao wrote 235 growth hormone prescriptions in a 13-month period, according to legal filings related to the brutality suit.
The public cost of just those prescriptions, based on an average price of $1,100 per month, runs to nearly $260,000.

Pharmacy records obtained by The Star-Ledger show hundreds of other prescriptions went to law enforcement officers and firefighters from 53 agencies, including the state Department of Corrections, the State Police, the NJ Transit Police Department, county sheriff’s offices and municipal departments large and small.

As expansive as Colao’s practice became, the abuse of taxpayer funds for steroids and other hormones didn’t begin or end with one Jersey City doctor.

The Star-Ledger found Colao to be an example of a wider problem, one fueled by a lack of oversight within police and fire agencies, a reluctance by prosecutors to bring criminal charges for insurance fraud and a failure by health plan administrators to flag outlandish claims.

In the years before Colao’s death, for example, New Jersey’s residents were billed $300,000 for steroids and growth hormone a group of Trenton police officers bought over the internet from a Florida dentist, state officials confirmed.

Sadly, I think even the Star Ledger's coverage just grazes the tip of the iceberg.

As they say, read the whole thing. The quest to get stronger and remain strong means that cops and firefighters will try anything, including HGH and steroids. That decision can (and has) cost some their lives.

Rangel Blames Staffers For Ethics Woes

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY-Censured) would like people to think that he didn't do anything wrong other than be too trusting of his staffers. That's a whole bunch of nonsense. He says his worst mistake was trusting his staffers.

That's quite the excuse Charlie. Blame the staff when you're the one ultimately responsible for the paperwork. You signed off on it.

Moreover, who are you blaming for being a tax cheat or for the use of a rent stabilized apartment as an office? No staff involved there. That's all on you - and you unjustly enriched yourself by not paying taxes for all those years on your real estate holdings and paying below market rents.

It is an interesting juxtaposition to see Rangel claiming that he did nothing wrong at a time when actor Wesley Snipes is being carted off to prison for a lengthy stay because of being a tax cheat. There are some significant differences in the two cases.

Snipes was a tax protester and his tax obligations were in the millions of dollars. He failed to file and pay taxes on $38 million in earnings going back to 1999. He claimed he was a non-US citizen and engaged in all manner of chicanery to avoid paying taxes. Snipes was sentenced to prison for three years because he was found to have willfully failed to file federal income tax returns under 26 U.S.C. § 7203. His codefendants were sentenced to even longer terms as they were involved in setting up and advising Snipes on his tax avoidance schemes. Snipes will be reporting to prison after his appeals were rejected.

Rangel's tax obligations were far less and didn't engage in overt tax avoidance as Snipes did. Rangel's problem is that he didn't declare his income from rental properties and did so for a decade all while being the guy running the committee that sets tax policy for the nation.

Snipes is getting what he deserves, and Rangel's tax problems have yet to be fully resolved. Rangel may end up doing no prison time, but may end up having to pay considerable penalties and interest.

Rangel In Hot Water Over New Ethics Woes

Just days after being censured by the House of Representatives for multiple ethics violations, Rep. Charles Rangel is facing new ethics woes.

This time he's being investigated over his use of a group PAC to fund his legal defense against the original ethics charges.

The FEC is investigating a complaint that Rangel misused his political action committee to fund his legal defense over House ethics rules, the New York Post reported Sunday.

Filed by the National Legal and Policy Center, the complaint charges that Rangel used nearly $400,000 raised by his National Leadership PAC to pay his legal bills. Rangel told the House Ethics Committee last month that he could no longer afford counsel in the panel’s proceedings after spending more than $2 million on legal fees.

While a member can use money he raises personally for his campaign to pay legal fees, a member cannot use the sort of PAC money he used in his legal defense fund to do so.

That's a big no-no, and he no one but himself to blame for this latest ethics problem.

Moreover, Rangel continues to peddle the nonsense that he did nothing to enrich himself. He most certainly did. He also blames this on political pressure, but the fact that more than half the Democrats in the chamber voted in support of censure shows that the situation was bipartisan. In fact, it would tend to support the fact that his ethical and legal woes were like

By failing to pay the proper tax on his real estate investments, he profited from the failure to pay those taxes. By unlawfully using a rent stabilized apartment as his office, he was able to profit from the below-market rental. That's unjust enrichment and that most certainly meant more money in his pocket.

A legislator cannot say that what he did is no worse than what other members do (or did). Rangel was caught lying about his taxes and other legal and ethical missteps. He has no one to blame but himself, and his ongoing refusal to accept the punishment shows that he still thinks himself above the law. The sad thing is that his constituents don't think any differently. They had no problem reelecting him twice despite the tax avoidance and multiple ethics issues. In fact, his supporters had no problem cheering him on his return to Harlem.

Rangel Likely To Be Censured

As I have been saying, Rep. Charles Rangel, the Harlem Democrat, will get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Today's hearings prove the point explicitly when the chief House ethics lawyer says that the charges merit censure.

Indeed, it showcases the folly of ethics trials in Congress when tax evasion and blatant and persistent ethics violations that show a pattern of abuse get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Rangel was the chair of the very committee that sets tax policy, and yet Rangel managed to underreport income on real estate properties for years. Those are serious charges and ones that the IRS can exact serious punishment, including criminal sanctions if willful intent is found.

Meanwhile, Rangel has been whining to whoever will listen about the unfairness of his situation. That is, also, complete nonsense, since Rangel lied about his taxes and took advantage of his position to further enrich himself. He violated multiple ethics rules, showing that he had disdain for the rules of the House - the very institution he claims to honor and respect.

He'd much rather blame others for his malfeasance, when he had every opportunity to settle matters before now. He had legal counsel and spent nearly $1.4 million on legal counsel before sending his lawyers packing. Still, it would have been cheaper for him to have paid his taxes accurately and completely since that's where a good part of his expenses went - to figure out where all his money was and how much he owed the IRS and other state and local tax authorities.

UPDATE:
Rangel continues to deny that he was corrupt, but admits that "mistakes were made". You know what else, mistakes were made by Rangel's constituents, who sent him back to Congress in 2008 and 2010 despite Rangel's disregard for the very laws that he wrote.

Harlem Landlord Provided Rangel and Other VIPs Preferential Treatment

Consider this the Friends of Rubler program. Rep. Charles Rangel, the disgraceful Democratic Congressman from Harlem who was found guilty on 12 of 13 ethics violations earlier this week was able to gain preferential treatment on his rents (which were already questionable under the rent stabilization rules that prohibited the use of the apartments for office space) and other important Harlem individuals benefited from perks that the common folk would have been able to obtain in an effort to boost the profile of the apartment complex.

Neil Rubler, then-CEO of the Olnick Group, which oversaw the Lenox Terrace apartment complex where Rangel lives, discusses discounted rentals for Harlem powerbrokers in a Dec. 2, 2005, e-mail to Olnick President Bruce Simon, according to documents made public by the House ethics committee.

Aside from Rangel, Lenox Terrace tenants include Gov. Paterson, his dad, Basil, state NAACP President Hazel Dukes, and the son and daughter of the late Harlem political and business leader Percy Sutton.

"Bruce, Lenox has long benefited from, and has supported, the tenancy of local political leaders. Charlie Rangel, Percy Sutton, the Patersons . . . and others have various 'friends and family' incentives," Rubler said.

"We don't get a direct benefit from these arrangements -- no kickback has occurred. Instead, the benefit is intangible but meaningful as it raises the prominence of Lenox in the community."

Rubler has since left the firm. Simon declined requests for comment.

A Feb. 10, 2005, memo from Lenox General Manager Darryl Rankin to Rubler includes a list of 15 VIP tenants who should get tender loving care -- including the congressman, Paterson and two Rangel congressional staffers, James Capel and Melvin Norris, among others. Rankin put the list together at Rubler's request.

In a subsequent e-mail to employees, Rankin said any problems regarding the VIP tenants "should be flagged immediately," and ordered that "no legal or collection actions are initiated against any of these apartments without notifying me first in advance."

A House panel found Rangel guilty of violating the ethics code by his misuse of a rent-stabilized apartment on the 10th floor at Lenox as a campaign office, calling the sweetheart deal an improper "favor."

It shouldn't be surprising that so many politicians benefited from the favors and preferential treatment. It's currying favors and dispensing favorable treatment that lets politicians advance up the political ladder.

Rangel Convicted On 12 of 13 Ethics Charges

As the Ethics Panel was saying yesterday, the facts were not in dispute. Rep. Charles Rangel, the Harlem Democrat was found guilty on 12 of 13 ethics charges by the Ethics Panel.

The question remains whether the Panel will take it upon itself to administer a slap on the wrist or drain the swamp by calling for his expulsion from Congress.

Frankly, it should not have come to expulsion - his constituents should have voted him out of office but Rangel's political apparatus in Harlem got out the vote in the primaries and staved off his opponent in overwhelming fashion. His constituents didn't seem to mind or care about Rangel's malfeasance, and that speaks volumes. They didn't mind Rangel's actions so long as he brought home the bacon to his district.

Yet, Rangel repeatedly broke the law and ethics rules. He needs to suffer the consequences of his actions and a slap on the wrist is insufficient.

UPDATE:
There seems to be a bit of confusion about the number of charges against Rangel and here's the rundown. Rangel was found guilty of all but one of the original 13 charges against him. The panel rolled two of the charges into one count because they were so similar. Thus, the 12 of 13 counts. Here is the full breakdown:

The panel could not reach a verdict on one count, Count 3, alleging that Mr. Rangel violated House gift rules by accepting contributions for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy at City College of New York.

But it convicted him of all the other counts. They are:

* Count 1: Violating solicitation and gift ban: Soliciting donations and other things of value on behalf of the Rangel Center from persons or entities with business before him or his Ways and Means Committee.

* Count 2: Violating code of ethics for government service: Accepting benefits under circumstances that could be construed as influencing the performance of his governmental duties, with respect to soliciting donations and other things of value on behalf of the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy at City College of New York.

* Counts 4 and 5, merged into one count: Violating postal service laws and franking commission regulations: Mr. Rangel was accused of using his franking privileges for the benefit of a charitable organization and for solicitation of funds.

* Count 6: Violating House Office Building Commission regulations. Mr. Rangel and his staff drafted solicitation letters on House property.

* Count 7: Violation of the Purpose Law and the Member’s Congressional Handbook: Mr. Rangel used House employees and other official House resources for work related to the Rangel Center and used his Congress member’s allowance to pay expenses related to the Rangel Center.

* Count 8: Violation of letterhead rule: Mr. Rangel sent letters related to the Rangel Center on House letterhead.

* Count 9: Violating Ethics in Government Act and House Rule 26: Mr. Rangel submitted incomplete and inaccurate financial disclosure statements, and failed to report or erroneously reported items he was required to disclose under the Ethics in Government Act from 1998 through 2008. In particular, Mr. Rangel amended certain financial disclosure statements only after a House committee began investigating his reporting of income from his Dominican villa.

* Count 10: Violating code of ethics for government service: Mr. Rangel leased a rent-stabilized apartment on Lenox Terrace in Harlem for residential use only, but was allowed by the landlord, a developer whom Mr. Rangel dealt with in his Congressional capacity, to use the apartment as office space for his campaign committee. The arrangement could be construed as influencing the performance of Mr. Rangel’s official duties.

* Count 11: Violating the Code of Ethics for Government Service: Mr. Rangel violated the code by failing to report rental income on his Dominican villa.

* Count 12: Violating the letter and spirit of House Rules listed above.

* Count 13: Conduct reflecting discreditably on the House: Mr. Rangel’s improper solicitations and acceptance of donations for the Rangel Center; his misuse of House staff, letterhead and franking privilege for the Rangel Center solicitations; his failure to file full financial disclosure statement; his failure to report the rental income on his Dominican villa; and his use of his rent-controlled residential apartment for his campaign office all brought discredit to the House.

The Farcical Rangel Ethics Trial To Get Underway: UPDATE: Rangel Walks Out

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) who managed to win convincingly in his primary and general elections in his Harlem district despite being under multiple investigations for tax evasion at the federal and multiple state and local levels, ethics charges and violating rent stabilization laws is finally going to go to trial before a House ethics panel.

Charges against Rangel
The charges allege violations of:

* A House gift ban and restrictions on solicitations. Rangel is accused of using congressional staff, letterhead and workspace to seek donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. The requests usually went to charitable arms of businesses with issues before Congress, including Rangel's Ways and Means Committee.
* A U.S. government code of ethics. Several allegations fall under this code, among them: Accepting favors (the Rangel Center donations) that could be construed as influencing Rangel's congressional duties; acceptance of a rent-subsidized New York apartment used as a campaign office, when the lease said it was for residential use only; and failure to report taxable income.
* The Ethics in Government Act and a companion House rule requiring "full and complete" public reports of a congressman's income, assets and liabilities each year. Rangel is charged with a pattern of submitting incomplete and inaccurate disclosure statements. He only filed amended reports covering 1998 to 2007 after the investigative ethics panel began looking into his disclosures. He belatedly reported at least $600,000 in assets.

Despite the seriousness of the charges, expect nothing more than a slap on the wrist. After all, his very constituents didn't think much of the multiple issues and wrongdoing while reelecting him to yet another term in office.

A letter of censure or a reprimand will be all that Rangel endures. Indeed, members of the ethics panel said that the charges will likely merit nothing more. Never mind that anyone else under similar circumstances would have been required to pay restitution or brought up on criminal charges for fraud and tax evasion.

Expulsion from Congress is not likely and here's why: both Democrats and Republicans need Rangel to stick around. Democrats need live bodies on Capitol Hill to deal with the incoming surge of Republicans while Republicans need a punching bag to showcase ongoing Democratic leadership tone-deafness to legal and ethical malfeasance by its caucus. Figure that the Democrats will weigh the positives and negatives of sending Rangel packing and opting to keep him around.

UPDATE:
Yet another sign of the farce? Rangel walked out of the proceedings, claiming that he hasn't had sufficient time to hire a new legal team. Excuse me, but Rangel knew for months that this was going to go to trial and the Democrats pushed off the trial until after the elections. This is just another sign of Rangel's obstinacy and disregard for the rules.

Can Harlem Do No Better?

Harlem is currently represented in Congress by Charles Rangel, a 20-term Democrat who is facing 13 ethics charges that could result in his expulsion from Congress and criminal charges stemming from multiple ethics, legal, and tax problems that I've repeatedly commented upon.

Facing him in a primary is Adam Clayton Powell IV, whose father was Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Powell the younger came out and made the ludicrous claim that his father would be appalled by Rangel's actions.

Challenger Adam Clayton Powell 4th attacked Rep. Charles Rangel's character on Thursday night with the audacious claim that his dad - the current congressman's rogue predecessor - would be appalled by Rangel's behavior.

"My father...might be turning over in his grave if he saw some of the political trickery that has been going on over the last 40 years," Powell said at a debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters.

The Rev. Adam Clayton Powell Jr., elected to the House from Harlem in 1944, was one of the most powerful black politicians of his era. But a corruption scandal - including helping himself to taxpayer funds for vacations to the Bahamas - led to his expulsion in 1967.

He got his seat back after the 1968 election but not his clout. Neophyte Rangel finished him off in the 1970 primary. Two years later, Powell died.

Really? Powell's father engaged in corruption and all manner of unethical behavior that led to Powell's expulsion from Congress. Rangel won the election in 1970 over Powell on the basis of cleaning up the corrupt mess that Powell left.

Now, the son is in the position that Rangel was in 40 years ago, except that Powell is revising history to ignore the reason that Rangel entered Congress in the first place; his father's corruption.

And there's little reason to think that Powell IV will do any better than Rangel or Powell's father in the corruption department. Harlem needs better representation - one that does not have links to the stench of corruption left by either Powell or Rangel. Harlem must do better, but alas I expect Harlem to reelect Rangel to yet another term in office despite the legal and ethics woes.

Gov. Paterson's Ticket Mess Gets Worse

The Public Integrity Commission already found that Gov. David Paterson (D-NY) misled investigators and was engaging in unethical behavior when he obtained free tickets to Yankee World Series games at the new Yankee Stadium. Now, the independent counsel (and former Court of Appeals Chief Justice) Judith Kaye has made similar findings. Kaye was brought in to investigate the matter by Attorney General Andrew Cuomo:

Kaye, acting under orders from the attorney general, forwarded her findings to Albany County District Attorney David Soares to weigh criminal charges.

"The evidence indicates at a minimum the above-described portions of the governor's testimony before commission staff were inaccurate and misleading," the report found.

"The evidence developed in the [Office of the Attorney General's] investigation under the independent counsel warrants consideration of possible criminal charges."

Paterson believed that he was entitled to the tickets because he was Governor of New York and that his presence at the World Series game was somehow related to his official duties as governor.

The report makes a strong case for perjury, and notes that Paterson had a window of opportunity to correct himself and the testimony, but did not do so before the close of the proceeding. That puts him in a real bind, and it will be up to Albany County DA David Soares to consider charging the governor on perjury and perhaps obstruction of justice.

If we want to see Albany cleaned it, justice demands nothing less.

There is an ongoing culture of entitlement among elected officials who think that they can do as they see fit, regardless of the legality and ethical considerations. Paterson has been a longtime Albany fixture, and thought nothing of taking the free tickets, even though he knew or should have known that it violated state ethics rules on accepting gifts from entities that employ lobbyists, such as the New York Yankees. The team did nothing wrong here - the illegality stems from Paterson's failure to follow the law and make the necessary payments and disclosures. Then, Paterson compounded the mess by obstructing the investigation by giving false and misleading statements.

Rep. Maxine Waters Likely Faces Ethics Trial Of Her Own

Hers is a case that's largely gone under the radar, particularly with the glare of malfeasance squarely on Democrat Charles Rangel from New York. However, it appears that Rep. Maxine Waters, a 10-term California Democrat, is going to face the ethics trial herself for charges stemming from improper communications with government officials.

Ms. Waters, at the time the investigation by the House ethics panel began last fall, was accused of intervening on behalf of OneUnited, a Boston-based bank. The Times reported last year that Ms. Waters called Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. in 2008, as the economy was in a free fall, to ask him to host a special meeting with executives from black-owned banks.

As a key House player on the Financial Services Committee, Ms. Waters often called Mr. Paulson. He agreed to arrange the requested meeting, The New York Times reported last year.

What Mr. Paulson did not know at the time was that Ms. Waters’s husband, Sidney Williams, owned stock in and had served on the board of OneUnited, whose chief executive turned the Treasury headquarters meeting into a special appeal for bailout assistance. The executive of the institution, one of the nation’s largest black-owned banks, asked for $50 million in federal aid, The Times reported.

This is the kind of self-interest that raised all kinds of red flags for the Office of Congressional Ethics, which referred the situation to the House Ethics Panel, which launched the investigation.

Waters is fighting the matter, but charges should be forthcoming this week.

And again, one should expect to hear that Democrats are more than willing to offer a slap on the wrist for Waters' malfeasance. After all, if they were merely willing to recommend the minimum sanction - a reprimand - to Rangel for failing to report income for more than a decade and multiple ethics and legal violations, the self-dealing that appears involved here (assisting a bank with which there are close relations) would not garner more.

Farce on the Hill

A pox on both the House Democrats and Republicans.

The Republicans deserve scorn and derision for their abject failure to support a measure to provide assistance and compensation for Ground Zero workers who toiled on the pile and were sickened by their service to recover the remains of nearly 3,000 people who were pulverized by the collapsing Twin Towers.

The Democrats had put forth a measure that would have provided $7.4 billion to compensate sickened workers, expanded the Victim Compensation Fund, and provided medical care. The bill fell 255-159, largely along party lines. It required a 2/3 passage. 95% of Democrats voted for the bill and 98% of Republicans voted against it. The roll call tells the tale of this measure. And among those who voted no was NJ Rep Scott Garrett (R), who knows or should have known that this would directly affect some of his constituents adversely - because his district encompasses part of Northern New Jersey and whose citizens were affected by the attacks directly.

That's absolutely insane, especially when President Bush, in the days following the attacks, asked Sen. Chuck Schumer, the senior senator from New York, what was necessary, and the President promised everything that the state needed it would get.

The same courtesy should have been extended to the workers who toiled to recover the remains of nearly 3,000 people and the debris that showered down all over Lower Manhattan. Nearly nine years later and the country is still treating these workers little different than the Soviet Union did the liquidators who toiled to put out the fires and enclose the nuclear reactors at Chernobyl.

Meanwhile, Democrats and their leadership deserve to take all the scorn and derision for their continued support and protection of corrupt Democrats, the latest of which is Rep. Charles Rangel, the senior Democrat from New York. The findings by the ethics panel reflect the news reports for more than two years that show just how Rangel gamed the system to his advantage and steadfastly refused to abide by tax laws of the local, state, and federal levels (and where at the federal level he was in charge of setting tax policy as Chairman of House Ways and Means), didn't feel that he was subject to rent stabilization laws, ignored ethics rules and guidelines, and generally treated his position as an entitlement and in the process disrespected his constituents.

The leadership refused to move against him in 2008, fearing that it might anger the Congressional Black Caucus (which is essentially a subgroup of Democrats in Congress). Instead, they let him keep his chairmanship until earlier this year when the evidence became such that even the leadership could no longer ignore the festering problem. That it's taken more than two years to act on this ethics probe shows the unseriousness that Democrats had to cleaning up the swamp of corruption in Congress (which is just as bad as when the Republicans were in charge).

In fact, both instances show that neither party should be trusted with power. The party out of power thinks that they can act as irresponsibly as they want without repercussion to their actions while the party in power thinks that they can act with impunity and without regard to the will of the people or in disregard to the law.

A pox on both their houses.

UPDATE:
Republicans claimed that their opposition was on procedural grounds.



Rep. Anthony Weiner was right in being outraged over the failure to pass this legislation. Rep. Peter King, one of the few Republicans to vote for the measure also castigated his fellow caucus.

UPDATE:
Some are calling Weiner's righteous rant on the floor the wailings of a 4-year old whose video game was taken away claiming that this was a vote on the merits against watered down legislation. Nonsense. That's not what the legislation contained and anyone who paid attention to what was in the legislation would know that.

UPDATE:
Gothamist has more on the contentious floor debate over the 9/11 workers bill.

Rangel Awaits Ethics Probe Announcements With Defiance: UPDATE: Will Stand Trial on 13 Counts

Will Rep. Charles Rangel be forced to apologize for saying that awaiting the results of the House ethics panel investigations into his gross misconduct is the worst thing to happen to him since the Korean War? It's all about him. It always was.

Speaking to reporters today, Rangel said he survived a Chinese attack in North Korea 60 years ago. As a result, he says, "I haven't had a bad day since." But Rangel says "today I have to reassess that statement."

I guess watching the Twin Towers collapse killing nearly 3,000 people - many of his fellow New Yorkers and residents of his and neighboring Congressional districts doesn't make the cut.

He may be sounding less defiant, but that's only because of the overwhelming charges against him that are pending.

He's still unrepentant over his tax evasion, the use of rent stabilized apartments in violation of state law, House rules on long term parking, and various other matters. Rangel has framed this as a public lynching, even as he ignores that he violated multiple laws at the state and federal level.

Sorry Charlie, but you're not being lynched. You're in the process of facing justice that you so richly deserve for feeding at the public trough for so long that you consider yourself entitled to take whatever actions you thought without repercussions or consideration to the legal and ethical violations you committed.

His lawyers are busy trying to find a negotiated settlement that avoids opening Rangel up to criminal prosecution for his malfeasance. If he admits to any wrongdoing or criminality, the doors open up to criminal prosecution.

That's the real reason why he's not cut a deal with the panel thus far. Everyone knows just how serious the issues are against Rangel, and a wrist-slap isn't going to be enough here. A wrist-slap will result in the GOP using it as a wedge issue against Democrats and their leadership in the midterm elections, just as surely as Democrats did to the corrupt Republicans in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

The panel is expected to issue its determination at 1pm EDT.

UPDATE:
It has come down to the wire, but CBS News Channel 2 in NY is claiming that he's cut a deal with the panel. No word on the details, but they'll probably be released this afternoon.

UPDATE:
1010wins.com reports that there is no deal in place, but apparently the committee is still in talks with Rangel's lawyers.

New York Democrat Charles Rangel says there's no deal yet to settle his ethics case and avoid a trial on charges of violating standards of conduct.

Rangel told reporters outside his office, "Until someone tells me there's a deal, there isn't."

The former committee chairman spoke just before a House ethics panel is to hold a public session where charges will be read.

UPDATE:
Deal or no deal, and Rangel chose no deal. He chose poorly. Rangel will now face trial in the House on 13 charges.

The charges include allegations that Rangel failed to report rental income on vacation property in the Dominican Republic and over the course of nearly a decade failed to report more than $600,000 on his financial disclosure statements.

Rangel's refusal to make a deal means that this will now play out over the next few months unless Rangel's fellow Democrats push him to retire or resign to avoid damaging their own reelection chances.

Wrist Slap For Gov. Paterson In Handling Aide's Domestic Violence Case

The good news for Gov. David Paterson is that former Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals in New York, Judith Kaye, found that criminal charges weren't warranted in the Democrat's handling of a domestic violence case by his aide David Johnson.

The bad news is that he handled the case poorly and that there were multiple missteps by him and his staff along with the NYPD:

Mr. Paterson personally contacted the woman, Sherr-una Booker, and urged her to help him contain any political fallout from the episode, Ms. Kaye’s report shows, and even called her after he asked the attorney general to investigate the matter for possible criminal prosecution.

But those contacts did not rise to a criminal charge of witness tampering, the report said, because the governor did not specifically try to prevent Ms. Booker from testifying or making an appearance in court.

On Wednesday, Mr. Paterson’s lawyer hailed the findings and said they supported the governor’s repeated insistence that he had never abused his office or broken the law. The governor told investigators that he had contacted Ms. Booker the night before a scheduled court appearance in the case only because he wanted to know whether she was spreading rumors about his personal life. Ms. Booker supported his account in her testimony.

“The governor is pleased that Judge Kaye, after a thorough and independent investigation, has exonerated him” of any criminal wrongdoing, the lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., said in a statement.

Ms. Kaye recommended that the Bronx district attorney consider charges against Mr. Johnson over the episode at Ms. Booker’s apartment on Oct. 31, 2009, in which Ms. Booker said Mr. Johnson tore off her Halloween costume, choked her and shoved her into a mirrored dresser. Mr. Johnson refused to cooperate with Ms. Kaye’s investigation.

Ms. Kaye also said the New York City police erred in their response the evening of the episode.

While Ms. Kaye found that the governor did not break any law, her four-month investigation raises numerous questions about the actions of Mr. Paterson as his administration sought to conceal Ms. Booker’s accusations from the public.

Kaye is also investigating whether Paterson perjured himself in how he obtained tickets to baseball games in violation of state law. That's a far more serious issue, and could result in criminal charges being filed.

Kaye recommended charges be filed against Johnson.

Rangel Remains Defiant As Democrats Move To Exits

Senior Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel from Harlem continues to act as though he's entitled to his seat despite multiple legal, tax, and ethical lapses. He's maintaining his grip on his seat, even as fellow Democrats are trying to shove him through the door into retirement. They can see the writing on the wall of having to deal with sleazy ethics charges entering the primary and midterm general elections by the guy who was responsible for putting together the nation's tax policy.

"I think it's best that he settle," Rep. George Miller, an influential California Democrat who helped engineer Pelosi's rise to power, told The Post.

"Because I just said so, that's why. That's my feeling," he added.

Amid mounting pressure on Rangel, Miller's blunt statement is the most direct message from any member of Pelosi's inner circle, and comes just a day after Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) -- another member of her leadership team -- met with Rangel to talk about the charges he's facing.

Van Hollen heads the campaign arm charged with getting enough House Democrats re-elected to keep their majority -- a task that grows harder as the Rangel affair draws voters' focus to scandal instead of the party's own agenda.

For any plea bargain to be accepted by the bipartisan House Ethics Committee, which is bringing charges against the 80-year-old Rangel, he would have to swallow a bitter pill -- admitting to multiple, substantial ethics violations, sources said.

Considering that Rangel was facing ethics charges likely stemming from breaking House rules on long term parking, failing to disclose paid junkets, undisclosed income from real property in Latin America, violating rent stabilization laws in New York, abusing homestead property tax credits/exemptions in multiple jurisdictions, and violating federal tax law, there's any number of legal and potential criminal angles the House panel could take.

The saddest part is that Rangel's constituents would likely reelect him even if this ethics cloud remains, all while saddling the rest of the Democrats with a mess. After all, his Harlem constituents reelected him in 2008 even with the unfolding scandal breaking in its full glory.

Rangel Attempting Last Minute Deal To Save Face In Ethics Flap

Don't think for one moment that Democrats in Congress were on Rep. Charles Rangel to make some kind of a deal and get out of sight as quickly as possible before their already dim chances in November get worse as Rangel's dirty laundry gets aired for all to see.

Rangel is apparently trying to negotiate an end to the ethics investigation before Thursday's release of the charges and potential repercussions.

The Associated Press has learned that New York Democrat Charles Rangel is making a last-minute effort to settle his ethics case. A settlement would mean that Rangel must agree that he committed some ethical misconduct.

The talks were confirmed by people familiar with the situation, but who were not authorized to be quoted by name.

Rangel stepped down earlier this year as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee because of an earlier ethics charge. A settlement would spare him an embarrassing ethics trial. It also would be a relief for other Democrats, who fear that an dragged-out ethics proceeding during the fall election campaign would hurt their ability to maintain their House majority.

Sorting Through Rangel's Ethics Charges

The House Ethics Panel found that the ethics charges against Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) were sufficient to send the matter before the entire House, which will conduct a trial on Rangel's violations of House ethics rules.

The matter has been sitting before the panel for nearly a year, and it's nice to see that they finally realized that the situation was serious enough to require further action. Moreover, the House Democratic party leadership saw that this was a mess that had to be addressed with enough time before the November election before the mess swamped the leadership's chances to retain control of the House.

Rangel, for his part, continues to deny that he violated the rules. That's all so much nonsense on his part since the number and kinds of violations are so numerous and overwhelming that the House leadership simply could no longer avoid the seriousness of the matter. They even tried to work out a deal with Rangel, but Rangel refused to deal - he didn't want to admit his guilt on the ethics flaps.

So, what is the House focusing on? This:

But sources said they're related to Rangel's use of official stationery to raise money for a City College center named for him; his use of four rent-regulated apartments; and his failure to report income.

"It's very bad news for Mr. Rangel," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, which called for him to step down yesterday.

"This means they found some very bad stuff. To me, this is a step toward expulsion."

Rangel was briefed in recent weeks on the allegations and rejected them, The Washington Post reported, citing sources who said he could have avoided the trial by accepting the findings.

Among the most serious charges that have been aired against Rangel -- first disclosed by The Post -- was his failure to report and pay taxes on rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic.

In all there were more than a dozen separate incidents that the House ethics panel could have focused on that were serious enough to require further action.

And Rangel continues to act with an air of entitlement that he did nothing wrong.

That's even after Rangel was forced to step down as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee earlier this year. You would have thought that was a wakeup call for Rangel to put the matter to bed, but he still thinks that he's entitled to his seat.

His constituents didn't have a problem with reelecting Rangel in 2008, even as the situation worsened - the findings of his tax evasion/nonpayment and multiple violations of New York rent stabilization rules led investigators to find still more problems. I wonder if they'd think twice before reelecting him again this November.

Yet, if he does - it would be a most ironic turn of events as his opponent is none other than Adam Clayton Powell IV, the son of the man that Rangel defeated 40 years ago. Powell was himself accused of corruption and the House took steps to prevent Powell from being seated (with a case that went all the way to the US Supreme Court - Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 89 S. Ct. 1944, 23 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1969), which found that the House could not expel him because he met all of the Constitutional requirements to be seated.)

Developing: Rep. Charles Rangel Facing Ethics Charges

According to the AP, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY/Tax Evader) is set to be hit with ethics charges. (HT: Mrs. Lawhawk)

So while some people, including Rangel himself, seem to think that the swirling charges around him would endear himself among his constituents, the fact is that he's been screwing his constituents and the nation for far too long. The list of his malfeasance is long and storied, including engaging in tax evasion in multiple jurisdictions, violating the rent stabilization law in New York, and multiple errors and omissions on House ethics rules including providing information on trips and the use of the House parking lot as long term storage.

Rangel has been facing these charges for nearly two years.

UPDATE:
Apparently Rangel had been trying to work out a deal with the House ethics panel investigating his malfeasance, but refused to settle when it would have meant an admission of culpability.

Career Redemption and Resurrection Roulette

There's nothing that people in the country love more than seeing someone famous getting knocked down a peg or 100. 

Except maybe seeing that person overcome the obstacles and situation and redeem themselves in public.

How else can one explain the reaction to Tiger Woods resuming his golf career in rather spectacular fashion at Augusta? He was cheered at practically every opportunity as he ended up with a four under 68 and was just two shots off the lead. Woods was so good that people actually could focus on his golf game and not on his sleazy personal life.

Then you've got former Newark Mayor Sharpe James coming home after a year stint in federal prison for selling city property to his girlfriend at a cut rate discount for $46,000 while she turned around and sold it for more than $600,000. He came home to a hero's welcome, and makes one wonder whether he's going to attempt to get back into politics. James is furiously attempting to rewrite the history, but the fact is that Newark is a much better place since James lost to Cory Booker and Booker cleaned house (incidentally finding the sales transactions and other

The same can be said of disgraced former New York governor Eliot Spitzer who said as much this week. He is contemplating going back into politics, but I think his single biggest obstacle isn't that he admitted paying for sex with prostitutes (okay, call 'em call girls - but it's the same damned thing only that you're paying more for the same things), but that his judgment is so screwed up that he thought that David Paterson would make a good lieutenant governor.

That decision has cost the state dearly as when Paterson was elevated to governor, Paterson was a fish out of water and is incapable of governing in an effective manner being surrounded with multiple scandals of his own making.