A House ethics subcommittee announced today that it found Congressman Charles Rangel guilty of all 13 ethics violations against him.
It took the bipartisan panel of four Democrats and four Republicans less than 24 hours to come to the decision.
Rangel made a brief, but dramatic, appearance before the committee yesterday. He argued for a postponement so he could set up a legal defense fund, and said he was not given enough time to prepare.
"I am so proud of my record in the Congress. I love this Congress. I love this country. I think I am entitled to more," pled Rangel.
After the committee's chairwoman, California Democrat Zoe Lofgren, reminded Rangel that he had months to prepare, Rangel headed for the exit.
The committee began deliberations after agreeing that the facts in the case were so clear that witnesses were not necessary.
Rangel is accused of using a rent-stabilized apartment for campaign activities, failing to pay taxes on rental property in the Dominican Republic, and improperly using congressional letterhead to raise funds for a City University center to be built in his name.
Rangel is not expected to be expelled from Congress, but could receive a censure or reprimand.
Given that there were no material facts in dispute, this seems to be the only conclusion the committee could have possibly reached.
Rangel had threatened to walk out of the Ethics Committee hearing.
After accusing the House ethics committee of denying his right to a lawyer, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) threatened to leave the hearing.
Rangel parted ways from his lawyers last month. He told the committee today that they quit, not sure he could pay the already $2 million legal bills he had racked up over the committee's two-year investigation. He also claimed the committee told him only two weeks ago that he could set up a legal defense fund to pay his lawyers, and that he didn't have enough time to create such a fund and hire counsel.
"I've been a lawyer long enough to know it's very, very unwise to represent yourself," he told the committee. Rangel also claimed that lawyers in New York had offered to represent him for free -- but the ethics committee told him that would constitute an illegal gift.
He then announced that he would leave the hearing. Without counsel, that would mean he would put up no defense.
They then met in executive session and decided that they would indeed proceed with the hearing anyway.
First off, the trash has been carted off to the dump. The single most foul, offensive, miserable, and corrupt waste of flesh has been removed from our legislature. Everybody who contributed to his ousting, from reformers to unions and the WFP to all the volunteers and voters who looked at this abysmal sleazy excuse for a human being and roundly said enough is enough, should be commended for their contribution. A clear message has been sent to the rest of the pack up there that you cannot get away with just anything.
The GOP nominated Carl Paladino for Governor. But the great thing is that Rick Lazio won the Conservative nomination, thus making it even more impossible for Cuomo not to win, not even considering Paladino's history of racism and general wingnut teabagging lunacy.
It appears Eric Schneiderman will pull out the AG race. This is a very good thing. Schneiderman has been a lifelong reformer. I am very happy to think that the man who had Hiram Monserratte's scalp will now fill a position with powers to regulate all of Albany.
Unfortunately, Ruben Diaz Sr. soundly defeated Charlie Ramos, 81-19 at this point. What we've learned from the Pedro race and the Squadron/Connor and Newell/Shelly races from 08 is that pork-spewing incumbent legislators can be defeated, but it involves a full-court press by reformers, democratic clubs, unions, and the WFP. If that full spectrum coalition isn't all behind the challenger, it is unlikely that incumbents lose. Another anti-gay Senator, Shirley Huntley beat challenger Lynn Nunes by an over 2-1 margin.
Charlie Rangel won re-election. Rangel certainly doesn't deserve this victory but it was clear this would happen with the divided nature and weak candidates of the opposition.
Crazy person Greg Ball won his GOP primary for the 40th Senate District to face rockstar Mike Kaplowitz in November.
Doug Hoffman is losing the GOP nomination for NY-23 but will ensure we keep the seat because he will run on the third-party Conservative line.
Carolyn Maloney soundly defeated Reshma Saujani. Saujani could have tapped into an anti-incumbent mood this year but was defined early as the pro-wall street candidate and never shook that association.
Bill Stachowski lost to a Steve Pigeon candidate. Stach was stupid for voting against marriage equality and for that he deserves to lose. But Tim Kennedy didn't deserve to win. It would have been better if that pro-equality energy were directed at Ruben Diaz Sr. instead.
Overall, I'm sad that Diaz Sr. won by such a large margin but the race in the neighboring 33rd district took most of the reform resources. Next time, that might not be the case. In many of the other races, the best result happened for us happened, so everyone should feel good after today's results. Nights like these are what make politics great.
In today's least surprising news, CBS2 is reporting that Charlie Rangel has cut some sort of deal, one that would avoid a public trial and which he would admit at least some of what has looked pretty obvious for quite some time.
New York Congressman Charles Rangel has reportedly cut a deal to admit to ethical wrongdoing and avoid a potentially humiliating public trial.
Harlem friends of Rangel tell CBS 2 they have been told that the details could be unveiled when the House Ethics Committee meets Thursday afternoon.
It's the culmination of two years of scandal for the 20-term Democratic lawmaker. At issue is whether the former head of the House Ways and Means committee will admit to any serious ethical wrongdoing. Rangel is being charged with misusing his office for fundraising, failure to disclose income, belated payment of taxes and possible help with a tax shelter for a company whose chief executive was a major donor.
WASHINGTON - Caught in a swirl of ethics inquiries, Representative Charles B. Rangel, the dean of the New York Congressional delegation, announced Wednesday that he would temporarily step down from his powerful post as chairman of the tax-policy-writing Ways and Means Committee.
"I have, this morning, sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi asking her to grant me a leave of absence until such time as the Ethics Committee completes its work," the congressman said in a brief meeting with reporters.
He declined to answer questions in any detail, saying that to do so would raise issues that "would distract me from what I have to do in terms of completion of the president's health bill as well as making sure our committee gets a good jobs bill."
NBC News has learned Charlie Rangel will voluntarily give up his Ways and Means chairmanship, possibly as early as tonight.
This has been building all afternoon as more and more Dems seemed to publicly drop their support for the embattled veteran from Harlem. The Politicoquotes a "senior Democratic aide" as saying, ""The dam broke today."
That said, it probably should have happened quite some time ago.
Charlie Rangel emerged from a closed-door meeting in Nancy Pelosi's office Tuesday night to declare that he's still the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee and hasn't agreed to give up his gavel - even as some media outlets were reporting that he'd done just that.
But asked whether he'd still be the chairman tomorrow and in the coming days, Rangel said: "I can't make all those promises at my age."
And when Pelosi was asked whether Rangel was resigning, she said "no comment."
The AP is reporting, via Jon Walker at FireDogLake, that Senator Reid has gutted one of the most important consumer protections in the HCR bill, the ban on annual limits.
The fact that this language has found its way back in the bill despite promises on the part of the Democratic leadership that protecting consumers of health care (and those who need it most BTW) was priority number one, is an especially large outrage among a series of outrages.
Here's the language the HELP committee's bill had in it regarding limits:
SEC. 2711. NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS.
`(a) In General- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish lifetime or annual limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary. `(b) Preventing Fraud and Abuse- This section shall not apply until the date on which the Secretary certifies that enacting this section will not result in undue proliferation of fraud and abuse, especially with regard to durable medical equipment.
No equivocation there. Clear and to the point.
Here's the language that is now in the HCR package:
SEC. 2711. NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS.
`(a) In General- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage may not establish-
`(1) lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary; or
`(2) unreasonable annual limits (within the meaning of section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) on the dollar value of benefits for any participant or beneficiary.
`(b) Per Beneficiary Limits- Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health insurance coverage that is not required to provide essential health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act from placing annual or lifetime per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits to the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under Federal or State law.
That one little word, unreasonable, is pointed out by me for obvious reasons. That one word is the loophole that we KNOW insurance companies will use as if it's a a black hole into which billions of our dollars will disappear.
We need to stop this bait and switch NOW.
Please call Senator Schumer and Congressman Rangel now and insist that we go back to the HELP committee's language:
Want to know what we are up against? Jane Hamsher has just pointed out that the Department of Health and Human Services has been pushing for this switch-a-roo all along.
Ensures consumer protections in the insurance market. Insurance companies will no longer be able to place lifetime limits on the coverage they provide, use of annual limits will be restricted, and they will not be able to arbitrarily drop coverage.
In this case, they replaced the word "unreasonable" with "restricted."
Just one little word will mean billions in profits to the Health Insurance Companies, and it seems that there are many in DC who are more than willing to make that happen. That money will come out of the wallets of citizens who need protection the most.
There will evidently be a Democratic primary among Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (NY-14), Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, and possibly some others, next year.
Maloney supporters, here and in the media, argue that a primary is the essence of democracy, but really they're only doing that because they are Maloney supporters, and Maloney is not the Senate incumbent.
Had Gov. David Paterson appointed Maloney to the Senate in January, NO Maloney supporter would be such a fan of an expensive, late primary which may have weakened Maloney in the general election.
It's not the worst political hypocrisy, but it is some level of hypocrisy, for Maloney supporters to try to sanctify the primary for their candidate.
The House ethics committee announced Tuesday it will expand its investigation into personal finances of Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) to include allegations of a quid pro quo for donations to a City College center bearing his name.
The Committee on Standards of Official Conduct announced its decision in a statement Tuesday afternoon, stating it followed a formal request by Rangel.
"The investigation subcommittee shall have the additional jurisdiction to determine if Representative Rangel violated the Code of Official Conduct or any rule, law, or regulation ... with respect to contributions of money or pledges of contributions of money to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Services at the City College of New York from any person or entity associated with Nabors Industries," the statement said.
As first reported by the New York Times, Rangel is alleged to have reversed a previous policy stand to help an oil company retain a multimillion-dollar tax loophole while the Nabors Industries' chief executive pledged $1 million to the City College center.
Charlie should step aside at Ways and Means until this investigation is complete. Really.
My first impressions of Denver are that this city, during a major party convention at least, pack just as much weirdness per square mile as my own beloved NYC.
Today I ha to stroll from the Big Tent, where I'll most likely be spending most of my time for the week (you can actually work here), to the place where the DNCC is actually doling out media credentials, about a 20 minute hike. In the space of one block along downtown Denver's main drag, the 16th street mall, I ran into a group of PUMA types, I counted 13 of them followed by at least 50 media folks. Not 20 seconds later, I ran into our own Charlie Rangel strolling down the street and surrounded by mostly convention goers snapping pics. At the end of the block I ran into a group of folks holding signs reading "Homo Sex Is A Threat To NATIONAL SECURITY" and "Time Is Running Out: OBEY JESUS!" These folks were being protected by probably 30 Denver cops who were quite nonchalantly, yet dutifully defending their right to be ignored by the thousands strolling by.
On the next block I ran into a group of folks (left my camera at the Big Tent. Dammit!) carrying a banner that read "Clintons for McCain". I counted 9 of them. They were all wearing McCain gear and carrying McCain signs. They were surrounded by another 40 or so media folks and a couple dozen conventioneers. They were chanting "Biden supports McCain!" to which the converntioneers replied each time "Baloney!" It was quite the spectacle. The interesting thing, aside from their rather puny numbers versus the media throng around them was the fact that they appeared exclusively to be, to my trained eye, republicans. These weren't disgruntled Hillary supporters. They were GOP media bait and the media was biting in a major way.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that you may well see on TeeVee tonight angry "Hillary supporters" chanting for McCain on the streets of Denver. Don't buy it. It's total bullshit staged for the media types dying for it. To see it from across the street, as opposed to from the lens of a camera focused on the rather curiously phrased banner ("Clintons" for McCain?), was to see a rather sad spectacle, 9 folks total, that the assembled media couldn't seem to get enough of.
Earlier today 10 New York Democrats voted to eviscerate the 4th Amendment and to retroactively excuse the lawless warrantless surveillance of tens of millions of Americans by an out of control Executive as well as the telecom companies that that facilitated these crimes. Their votes were disgraceful and we should never forget them, but the majority of New York Democrats stood up for our Constitution today and we shouldn't forget their votes either. The following New York Democrats stood tall today:
Clarke (NY-11)
Hall (NY-19)
Hinchey (NY-22)
Israel (NY-2)
Maloney (NY-14)
McNulty (NY-21)
Nadler (NY-8)
Rangel (NY-15)
Serrano (NY-16)
Slaughter (NY-28)
Towns (NY-10)
Velazquez (NY-12) (My Congresswoman. Way to go, Nydia.)
Weiner (NY-9)
It should probably go without saying, but all New York House Republicans (with exception of Tom Reynolds, who was apparently napping) voted for this abomination.
It looks more and more like City Councilman Mike McMahon is the Dem establishment's choice for the NY-13 seat. Today, Charlie rangel and 11 othe Dem congresscritters from NYC proclaimed their support according to Liz:
The 12 House members (Ackerman, Clarke, Crowley, Engel, McCarthy, Maloney, Meeks, Nadler, Rangel, Serrano, Towns, and Weiner) issued the following joint statement:
"Following the lead of local Staten Island and Brooklyn Democrats, the New York City Congressional delegation is proud to stand behind Staten Island Councilman Mike McMahon in his campaign for Congress."
"This year, we have an historic opportunity to turn the last Republican Congressional district in New York City Democratic. We are committed to seeing that Mike McMahon is successful."
"In the past eight years, New Yorkers have shown tremendous strength - together we have lived through the horror of 9/11, and we have seen New York soldiers off to war. But the misplaced priorities of the Bush administration have weakened our City, and there is a great deal of work to do to take us in a new direction."
"We are confident that Mike McMahon will play an important role in bringing our troops home from Iraq, and in winning our fight for good-paying New York jobs, reduced gas prices and quality health care for all Americans."
What's interesting to me is the absence of my Congresswoman's name, Nydia Velazquez. I wonder what that's about.
Charlie Rangel and the New York Democratic congressional delegation announced their endorsement of Barack Obama today in Washington, D.C.
Rangel said, "We come here collectively to endorse the decision that has been made by our fearless leader, who comes as a member of the state of New York that makes us so proud, and we're here to laud her efforts and what she is about to do."
Video of the press conference can be found here. (My congresswoman, Nydia Velazquez, can be seen right behind Rangel.)
