Recapping the New York Primaries

Once again, the incumbents in New York managed to hold the day. But before I tackle the Charles Rangel v. Adriano Espaillat race, there's a few other races of note to run through.

Statewide, there was but one race. It was for the GOP nomination to run against Kristen Gillibrand for the US Senate. Wendy Long, a New York City lawyer, handily defeated Rep. Bob Turner and Nassau County Controller Robert Maragos. Turner, one might recall, won the seat vacated by Anthony Weiner. Long will face an uphill battle against Gillibrand, who has a massive war chest available to her. New Yorkers deserve to get at least a competitive race to press Gillibrand on issues ranging from 9/11 first responder compensation, funding for transportation and infrastructure, and economic development upstate.

Grace Meng won the race for NY6 over Rory Lancman, a seat that was vacated by the retirement of Rep. Gary Ackerman.

In one of the most watched races, Charles Barron was handily defeated by Hakeem Jeffries for the NY8 House seat. It wasn't even close, but that's not stopping Barron from demanding a recount.

Guess Barron wasn't satisfied with losing, he wants to double down on the moonbattery.

He thinks he "won" because nearly every politician and their mother in the NYC and NYS Democratic party essentially came out to campaign for Jeffries. Barron thinks he accomplished something by getting Gov. Andrew Cuomo to robo call for Jeffries. Others backing Jeffries included former city Comptroller Bill Thompson, Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, and Council Speaker Christine Quinn, whose staffers worked on Jeffries’ behalf.

The thing is that they all understood that Barron wasn't a suitable candidate for Congress (or dog catcher) and wanted to make sure he didn't get a chance. Even though the UFT chose to stay out of the race and DC-37 came out in support of Barron because Barron opposes charter schools, the turnout didn't favor Barron and Jeffries got the job done.

Now, as for Rangel v. Espaillat. It was supposed to be much closer than the final tally. In fact, many were predicting that Espaillat would win because of the changed demographics of the district due to redistricting. Yet, Rangel showed once again that his get-out-the-vote machine can deliver on election day. He's managed to hang on to win 45% to 40%.

Despite being censured by Congress and a litany of tax and ethics violations that should have sent him packing from Congress (and he lost his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee), Rangel continues to be sent back to Washington by the voters.

Rangel will serve as long as he's willing or healthy to do so. Nothing will stop him, not even scandals that would have laid low many other politicians.

Indeed, he continues to garner the support of New York politicians, ranging from Ed Koch to Andrew Cuomo and Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Come November, Rangel is all but expected to win the seat he has already held for 21 consecutive terms. For many in Harlem, he's the only Congressional representative they have known.

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.

House Censures Rangel 333-79

Rep. Charles Rangel, the Harlem Democrat, met his comeuppance today with a vote of censure of 333-79. It's still a slap on the wrist and Rangel still thinks he's done nothing wrong.

That mindset is joined by 77 Democrats and 2 Republicans, including Rep. Peter King, another New York Congressman who thought that Rangel lacked the mindset worthy of the sentence of censure.

How sweet. Let's just ignore the tax evasion and failure to pay taxes on income over a period of a decade. Rangel and those who voted against censure would like to ignore or excuse the unjust enrichment caused by the failure to pay taxes even though Rangel was the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel Wants Opportunity To Lobby House To Give Even Lighter Wrist Slap

The truly sad part is that the House might go along with this nonsense and give Rep. Charles Rangel, the disgraced Harlem Democrat who was found guilty on 12 of 13 ethics charges, an even lighter slap on the wrist than the Ethics Panel had suggested as punishment. Rangel wants the opportunity to lobby the rest of the House to plead his case for a reprimand, rather than censure.

Neither means a bit of difference to Rangel or his constituents who reelected him to yet another term in office despite being a tax cheat and scoundrel.

Rangel and his staffers are busy putting together colorful charts highlighting reasons not to give Rangel anything more than a censure.

Yet, I think that there's more than sufficient reasons and justifications to expel Rangel from the House - the fact that he repeatedly lied about his taxes and real estate holdings. He avoided reporting and paying the proper income tax and improperly utilized a rent stabilized apartment as a campaign office.

That's grounds for expulsion - not a censure or reprimand.

Yet, I expect nothing more than a slap on the wrist because that's what Congress generally does.

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.

Rangel's Walkout Epitomizes All That's Wrong With Congressional Ethics

Rep. Charles Rangel walked out of his ethics trial yesterday claiming that he didn't have the time or money to seek legal counsel.

That's, of course, complete nonsense since Rangel was on the record as demanding that his case be expedited. Rangel could have sold any number of properties to put up as collateral - including the villa in the Dominican Republic that opened the door to the world of Rangel's malfeasance more than two years ago. No one is denying Rangel counsel except that it suits Rangel to claim that this is about fairness to him when it is the American public who has been denied fairness by Rangel's disregard for the law.


Moreover, Congressional leaders delayed the trial until after the midterm elections - giving Rangel still more time than should have otherwise been granted under the circumstances.

After all, this is a festering morass of malfeasance that has been ongoing for more than two years. Congress has refused to take action until now, and even though the facts are uncontested, the most that Congress will do is give Rangel a slap on the wrist.

Congressional Democrats want to claim that these were nothing more than technical errors in accounting and paperwork oversights. That ignores that Rangel broke state and federal tax law by regularly underreporting his taxes - all while Rangel was the Chair of the very committee that oversees tax policy for the country.

Such tax evasion is punishable by stiff fines and if it was found to be willful, even jail time. In addition to other penalties and interest, Chapter 75 §§7201-7344 of the IRC lays out the penalties and fines for various tax malfeasance. Willful failure to pay or report taxes is punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and five years in prison. Fraudulent returns are subject to up to $10,000 in fines and up to 1 year in prison. That's no minor matter or paperwork oversight. Rangel's tax malfeasance went on for the better part of a decade and gives rise to the specter of purposeful and willful tax underreporting.

Throw in the potential conflicts of interest of various lobbying groups, using Congressional letterhead for lobbying and violating New York law by using rent stabilized apartments for office space, and you've got a pattern of disregard for the law and rules.

A slap on the wrist is insufficient, but that's all that Congress will dole out. That says as much about Congress as it does about Rangel.

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.

Mixed Messages In New York Primary Results

What kind of message did voters send based on last night's election returns?

Mixed messages - and it totally depends on the race we're talking about.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY15) won reelecting pretty handily despite being up on ethics charges that could get him booted from the House. His constituents didn't seem to mind, and it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that the primary was the only chance to unseat him. What does that say about his constituents in Harlem? They don't care about his criminality and illegal acts - including evading paying taxes in multiple jurisdictions and to the IRS?

At the same time, the nutter Carl Paladino handily beat the GOP preferred Rick Lazio. Neither of these guys are world beaters and Paladino is a nut job whose racist and bigoted comments surely reflect his true mindset and views on the diverse population found throughout the state. He has money to burn, and that surely helped him beat Lazio. Paladino seems to have touched a nerve of discontent, but it will not be sufficient to beat Cuomo in November.

Paladino really doesn't have a chance at beating Andy Cuomo in November, but he might make it interesting with tons of money to devote to his campaign. What the primary showed is that the GOP is particularly weak in NYS - something I've been noting for years and that the GOP establishment has few candidates to run for statewide offices except retreads - Lazio was last seen running as a replacement for Rudy when Rudy withdrew from the US Senate race against Hillary Clinton following his prostate cancer diagnosis. Before that, he was pretty much a nobody - and will again return to obscurity.

Other local races of note here indicate that some voters finally got tired of criminal behavior - sending Hiram Monserrate (who was now running for Assembly after being tossed this summer from the State Senate) and Pedro Espada Jr. packing. Those two loathsome Democrats launched a coup last year to hand power back to the GOP for a few months so that they could push their own agenda and enlarge their own political fortunes, but fortune turned quite cold real fast - and both are really thugs in nice clothes.

Can we draw a larger conclusion?

I think the real story is that voters are fickle - and that predicting the outcome in November is going to be a tall order. The Delaware outcome may have made a GOP takeover in the Senate more difficult because the candidate chosen, O'Donnell is less electable than Castle. That's a slim bit of good news for Democrats on an otherwise difficult election season.

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.

Major Democrats Still Plan Attending Rangel's Birthday Bash

Senior Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel is holding his 80th birthday bash at the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan, and the list of confirmed attendees leaves one's head scratching at the way politicians are more than willing to ignore Rangel's ethical and legal problems.

Among those who will be attending: NYS Gov. candidate Andrew Cuomo has confirmed he will attend. So too will US Senator Chuck Schumer. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand and Gov. David Paterson are planning to attend. Comptroller Tom DiNapoli’s campaign said the event is still on his schedule.

In fact, the fact that so many top Democrats are in attendance provides an all too easy GOP advertising campaign.

Rangel's ethics mess threatens Democrats' reelection chances in November, but these New York Democrats aren't likely to lose their reelection bids, so they're all too comfortable showing up next to Rangel.

For Cuomo, this looks particularly bad since he's running on a platform to rid Albany of corruption. Yet, he's showing up to honor a guy who's been in office 40 and spent the last decade ignoring his obligations to pay his taxes, fulfilling his ethics obligations, and violating state rent control laws.

Watch for the image of Cuomo in attendance of Rangel's function working its way into attack advertisements in the Fall.

UPDATE:
Mayor Bloomberg certainly isn't going to improve his recent polls by attending Rangel's party tonight, and yet he's going.

Is there anyone among the Democrats that will stand up to Rangel and demand that their fellow Democrats stand up for proper ethics and against Rangel's corrupt and unethical behavior?

UPDATE:
Apparently Rangel's party has sold out - it's maximum capacity.

Rangel Double Dealing on Deal To End Ethics Investigation

It wasn't all that long ago that New York Democrat Charles Rangel was indignantly and defiantly stating that he would be vindicated in any ethics trial carried out by the House of Representatives. He thought that the charges weren't serious and that there was a lack of evidence.



This week, he's changed tact, claiming that the Republicans are out to get him and are the ones standing in the way of any deal on the 13 charges facing Rangel.

It's all so much smoke being blown by Rangel and his supporters.

Rangel wants to shift the blame of his situation on to anyone but himself.

Rangel was the one who failed to report income for years on end. He's the one who failed to follow House ethics rules on reporting junkets and imputed income. He's the one who lived in a rent subsidized apartment for years on end even though he was using those apartments illegally.

And charges that Rangel acted improperly seem to increase by the day.

Should it surprise anyone that Rangel is not optimistic that a deal can be struck? The time to cut a deal passed long ago. Congressional Democrats protected him long enough, and they correctly see Rangel as a weight on their collective necks with the 2010 election season being a particularly challenging one.

Rangel has to go, and yet he's still campaigning for reelection (and could quite likely win reelection despite his corrupt nature).

Going To Bat For Charlie Rangel

Corrupt Democratic Congressman from Harlem Charles Rangel has come under increasing pressure from various Democrats in Congress since the House Ethics Panel listed 13 charges against him that could possibly lead to his expulsion from Congress. Over the weekend, President Barack Obama weighed in and suggested Rangel resign to avoid taking down his fellow Democrats in tight races in the 2010 midterm elections. Why is New York Governor David Paterson going to bat for Rangel?

Paterson, appearing on Kiss- FM's "The Open Line," said it's wrong to call on someone to step aside who has chosen to fight to clear his name.

The governor did not refer specifically to Obama, who said on Friday that the hopes Rangel ends his career "with dignity."

But New York's first black governor said he is "especially surprised when people from our own community do it because we've been the greatest victim of it for centuries."

It was only last fall when a top Obama aide told a beleaguered Paterson that the White House preferred he not run for election this year.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a loyal friend of the 80-year-old Rangel, was also kinder in her words than Obama, who repeatedly referred to Rangel in the past tense.

"Any personal respect and affection we may have for people makes us sad about the course of events," she said on ABC's "This Week."

But Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the House had to adhere to high standards. "When I came in, we said we'll drain the swamp. And we did," Pelosi said after a week that saw the venerable Harlem Democrat nailed by 13 charges of ethics violations and California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters headed for an ethics trial of her own.

Here's the missing context from Gov. David Paterson's attempts to back embattled corrupt Democrat Charles Rangel.

So, why is Paterson coming out to defend Rangel?

It goes back to the Harlem Gang of Four. The four Harlem politicians, former Mayor David Dinkins, Basil Paterson (David's father), Rangel, and former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton, wielded tremendous power in Manhattan politics and their shadow continues to loom large. This is little more than calling in a favor for a fellow member of the elite group.

Rangel bristles at any calls for his resignation and he's quite secure in the belief that his constituents will send him back to Congress (and I think he's right to think so given the way that they voted for him in 2008 when the tax evasion and other legal and ethics woes were first uncovered).

At the same time, it's laughable for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to talk about draining the swamp of corruption when she refused to raise her hand against Rangel's corruption in 2008 on the eve of national elections that swept Obama into the White House. She refused to move against Rangel as the tax evasion charges piled up or any of the other ethics charges lest she incur the wrath of the powerful Congressional Black Caucus. Hers is not a profile in courage, but rather political expediency. She's protected the corrupt Democrats for years - and it's only the overwhelming stench of that corruption that has forced her hand while she's trying to do all she can to retain the majority in the House. Moving against Rangel now is one of the few ways in which she thinks she can retain the House.

Where Do Rangel's Constituents Sit On His Massive Ethics Mess?

Do Charles Rangel's constituents think that Rangel should be booted from office over his 13-count ethics indictment in the House? While some reports seem to think that this doesn't sit well with his constituents, reporters were busy asking his constituents this morning and not all of them were calling for Rangel to step down.

Indeed, some were saying that this was a witch hunt to go after Rangel after 40 years of service and that this was politics. They cited his work for the district and all the good things he's done.

The myopia is astounding, but not unexpected. After all, when people are polled about Congress, they generally give Congress generically awful marks, but rank their own member quite well. Rangel is no exception to that rule. In fact, I've remarked on numerous occasions during this entire affair that while it will hurt Rangel's fellow Democrats, Rangel may well be reelected without much of a problem.

Rangel was reelected handily in 2008 despite the news of his tax evasion, rent stabilization mess, and other legal and ethics woes coming to light during the summer of 2008. If his constituents didn't boot him then, what makes anyone think that they're going to do so now?

It may well take a perp-walk to send Rangel packing if Congress doesn't first expel him and Congressional Democrats are loath to do so. They've been dragging their feet for nearly two years in resisting calls for investigations and for Rangel to step down as chair of Ways and Means. Yet, the weight of evidence against Rangel is such that it can no longer be avoided and the timing couldn't be better.

Everyone should get what they deserve over coddling corruption, graft, and unethical behavior.

UPDATE:
Here's a full breakdown of the House ethics panel's findings.

UPDATE:
Despite the finding that Rangel evaded his tax obligations for more than a decade (from 1998 until the present), Democrats on the panel think that his actions deserve a slap on the wrist: they are recommending a reprimand. Reprimand is the lowest of three possible outcomes - explusion would have been the worst, and a censure would have been an intermediate step.

That the panel's Democrats can't see that this case warrants the most serious punishment is outrageous. After all, if anyone systematically avoided their tax obligations for a decade, they would be looking at jail time. Combine the tax woes with the multitude of other ethical and legal woes, and expulsion should have been the only possible outcome.

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.

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.