UPDATE: Rangel Convicted Of Ethics Violations

Rep. Charles Rangel at his House Ethics hearing (AP)

Yesterday, Rep. Charles Rangel walked out of his House Ethics hearing, after begging his colleagues for a postponement so he could find a lawyer. As the Washington Post reports, "No, they said, and quickly began deliberations, saying the facts were so clear they didn't need to call witnesses." The panel, made up of four Democrats and four Republicans, deliberated for hours yesterday and will continue deliberations today. Update: Rangel was found guilty of ethics violations; more details below.

Rangel, 80, had said, "I am being denied a right to have a lawyer right now because I don’t have the opportunity to have a legal defense fund set up and because I can’t afford another $1 million. I truly believe I am not being treated fairly." But the panel's Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-California) pointed out he was advised back in 2008 to set up a legal defense fund. The NY Times reports:

With Mr. Rangel absent, the panel listened to its chief counsel as he methodically presented the evidence against Mr. Rangel, which was based on 549 exhibits, dozens of witness interviews and thousands of pages of financial documents. Members then met in executive session and later announced they had found the facts in the charges against Mr. Rangel to be “uncontested.”...

Mr. Rangel’s decision not to mount a public defense startled some members of the committee; he has been publicly expressing his eagerness to tell his side of the story for more than a year, and promising his constituents that he could disprove the accusations.

But the walkout spared Mr. Rangel the embarrassment of being publicly confronted with the unsavory details of the case.

Rangel's transgressions are many: Among them, a love of junkets, not paying taxes, using House letterhead to solicit donations to a graduate school named in his honor and renting too many rent-stabilized apartments.

The House ethics committee's chief counsel Blake Chisam said, "I see no evidence of corruption" by Rangel but suggested the 40-year House veteran was "overzealous" and "sloppy in his personal finances."

UPDATE: The House Ethics panel found Rangel guilty of 11 counts, "including failing to report rental income and improper use of a rent-stabilized apartment and soliciting charitable donations from people with business before Congress." Chairwoman Lofgren said there was "clear and convincing evidence" against him.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on November 16, 2010 1:00 PM

Comments [rss]

whitecastlerock

Nothing like a bonafide tax dodger getting off scot free...

Såkandulæredet

No more dancing for you asshole. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0s-4j-UvOA

FelixtheCat Christine Quinns

Damn, Rangel got some moves.

FelixtheCat Christine Quinns

petty stuff compared to what Joe Bruno has done and yet the old crook is still walking free.

emilydickinson

This seems like really penny ante stuff compared to some of the other shenanigans our elected officials are involved in. Chisholm stated it best that he was "sloppy" with his personal finances. That seems a tad generous, but I don't think Rangel is the arch-criminal people are painting him out to be either.

I just have some respect for him as a war vet, civil rights activist and lifelong public servant. He screwed up in a minor way, and he's being punished for it. The coverage seems out of proportion with the crime.

Stewart

Are you kidding? This guy was chairman of the Ways and Mean committee which is responsible for tax legislation and didn't bother to report all of his income so he could pay his FAIR SHARE of taxes.

So this finding means he is either incompetent or he committed tax fraud. Seems as if he is no longer fit to serve in the Senate.

handsomedevil

He screwed up in a minor way, and he's being punished for it. The coverage seems out of proportion with the crime.

Maybe so, but he was lazy, sloppy, and arrogant, and pretty much refused to own up to any of it. It's not how you want your reps to behave.

(It's the multiple rent-controlled apartments that galls me the most, btw.)

He had a chance to apologize, retire with dignity, and let somebody else try their hand at his guaranteed Democratic seat, and didn't take it. So I do not feel sorry for him.

Ed

NY 15 may not survive the upcoming round of redistricting in anything like its present form.

If the 2009 Census estimates are born out, it will be very difficult to keep three Manhattan based Congressmen. You would either have to extend NY 15 further south, swallowing up alot of wealthy White neighborhoods, or include territory in the Bronx. Either way, it becomes less competitive for a Harlem based poll.

JenChungsBaby

He should be expelled just for wearing that tie.

Dogsbody

Nah, the tie is fine, but the real crime is the pocket square clashes with it.

ides_of_march

The voters of Harlem have the collective IQ of a turnip for re-electing this clown, especially since they had an excellent candidate, Michel Faulkner running this time.

patsw

If he does not resign and is merely expelled from Congress, the voters are free to return him to office in 2012. Also, NY-15 may become a parting gift for David Paterson.

Politburo

Is anyone buying this martyr shtick?

capitalist

Chucky Rangel is the poster child for term limits on US Congressmen.

He is a disgrace to himself, his family, his constituents and his country.

SHAME! SHAME SHAME!

Bartleby

The only detestable idea from Rep. Rangel was the DRAFT.

He figured that if we had a DRAFT, the debutantes & faux-beaus of NYU might actually DO SOMETHING besides invade NYC with their MIC $50k/yr all-year summercamp than shop & drink and look for sex & the city.

WRONG! Teach even these rich kids to kill, and kill they will. Once braindead in youth, never worth their spinal marrow.

Welcome to Bloomborgs non-ruckus manorhattan and the NYU wasteland that ate the Village.

Petey

But those idiots in Harlem keep re electing him. Did he even run against anyone this time around?

virgilstarkwell

we already have term limits. they're called 'elections'.

besides rant on gothamist, what have you done to get rangel out of office?

handsomedevil

There are actually some good arguments for term limits. We know that incumbents win like 90% of the time, which seems like a ridiculously high rate. So, either incumbents are almost all awesome or something is broken.

The incumbent in your own party is almost impossible to beat, so you occupying that seat in perpetuity rules out anybody better from your "team" ever coming up until you retire or die.

Incumbents usually have a big fundraising advantage. (Again, for the primaries that almost always the case.)

And in general we suspect that the influence of all those donations from special interests warps policy, not to mention that your rep wastes tons of time chasing that money down.

what have you done to get rangel out of office?

Ah, the old "what have you done" argument. That's pretty weak. What have YOU done to insure that your representative is not being unduly influenced by big donors? Oh, nothing? You don't say.