I was plaesed to see that the House actually is doing something about Rep. Rangel (D-NY). For too long, this guy has been getting away with murder-he wasn’t declaring income (from a condo outside the USA), and somehow managed to get hold of four rent controlled apartments in NYC.
Seriously, should a criminal like this be voting on tax laws that affect us? As a member of the US HOR, Rangel is sworn to uphold the laws of the USA-though I suppose he could plead ignorance (the laws are so complex).
In any event, is rangel allowed to vote and initiate bills while under investigation?
Or should he recuse himself from such actions?
Isn’t there something about a person being “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” in the constitution? If so, shouldn’t that apply to Democrats as well as Republicans?
Yeah, but its very likely true. Which is a damned shame, ‘cause I really like Ol’ Chollie. Reminds me of Adam Clayton Powell, but not as brazen. The utterly bold faced hypocrisy of the right on this is true enough, but no defense.
He has to go. Damn.
Ted Stevens didn’t recuse himself from votes even after being convicted. However, Rangel should probably just go ahead and resign, and save the nation the trouble of prosecuting him.
Sure, That’s how Tom DeLay handled it, and he still hasn’t gone to jail.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0722/rep-rangel-charged-multiple-ethics-violations/ Here is a list of potential charges. There will be a house investigation, unlike when the repubs were in and killed the ethics board. If he is found guilty ,he should suffer the consequences.
But that is the Dem attitude. Nobody is defending him. he should get due process and then ,if found guilty, get proper punishment.
He’s been under investigation for months. Should he have been prevented from voting for all that time?
Should all congressmen recuse themselves from any voting or other legislative activity while an ethics complaint is being investigated? If that were the case, Republicans would file ethics complaints against every single Democrat, and vice verse, leaving nobody able to vote on any bill.
I happen to think that Rangel almost certainly did wrong, and he should face some type of strong punishment for letting down basic standards of conduct for a public official. But I think the whole process should be seen through, and not deprive the voters of his district in New York from representation by jumping to conclusions.
I also realize he’s probably not doing much harm to the country since he stepped down from his Chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee, and therefore he seems to be little more than one vote out of 435 at the moment.
Rangel is still the elected representative of his district and therefore has a responsibility to vote on any legislation thjat comes before the House.
This and this and if the charges prove true, he should receive the harshest possible punishment for his transgressions. I’m already ashamed and astounded by his ignorance defense.
He still gets the assumption of innocence until he gets judged by the ethics panel. The fact that RALPH says he is most certainly guilty is not proof. He still gets his day in court. Sorry about that.
He did get removed from his post by the way. Does that make you feel better?
Yes, but he’s still upset about John Kennedy’s dad buying Illinois for him.
I don’t wish to defend Charlie Rangel.
But in general, someone who has run afoul of tax laws may be a good person to consider how to draft new ones. The fact that someone has broken the past law does not preclude him helping to write its replacement.
Not that I agree with Rangel on taxes generally. I don’t really want him in the position he’s in. But being guilty of tax evasion does not in itself preclude him from working on tax laws unless it removes him from Congress altogether.
Why should he just be kept out of the loop on tax legislation specifically? If he’s committed a crime and is convicted of it, he should be removed from office or pressured to resign, and thereby not vote on any legislation at all.
I hereby demand that any Congressperson who has plead guilty or no contest to a traffic infraction recuse him- or herself from any vote regarding the NTHSA.
No, he isn’t.
Congressmen swear only to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. I think you’re confusing this with the oath given to Federal law enforcement officers.