Friday, November 19, 2010

What happened to draining the swamp?

House Ethics Committee Recommends Censure for Rangel

OK. Pelosi said she was going to drain the swamp. Rid congress of corruption. That is, unless a democrat clogs up the drain.

Read the paragraph highlighted in red. Is the IRS going to "censure" him too?

WASHINGTON -- The House ethics committee's chief counsel has recommended that Rep. Charles Rangel be censured in connection with a finding that he engaged in improper financial and fundraising conduct.

Chief counsel Blake Chisman called for this punishment despite the New York Democrat's plea to his colleagues for "a drop of fairness and mercy."

This coming from a guy with a closet full of $3,000 suits

If Chisam's recommendation is carried out, this would be the most serious punishment, short of expulsion, which is highly unlikely. Chisam and Rangel argued their positions Thursday in a public hearing on sanctions held by the ethics committee.

The censuring of a lawmaker does not carry any particular limitation on powers or privileges afforded to a member of Congress. There are no specific rules governing what happens to a member who has been censured.

What's the point then?

This has been going on for two years, millions spent on investigating the allegations, appearances before ethics committees, and at the end of the day the result is..."Bad Charlie...see ya monday morning?" If this is how government is run why bother loading Maxine into the breech? Absolve her of her sins now and save the taxpayers millions.

Furthermore I don't know what Rangel is whining about. Forget about censure. He should be in jail. If he doesn't retire or die he'll be a lock the next election. Kind of sad when you think about it. That is... how stupid the people must be in his district.

In the past, however, the party conferences and caucuses have decided to discipline their own based on the decision to censure a member.

Rangel spoke calmly without notes as he faced the committee. He repeatedly denied he was corrupt or crooked, sparking a clash with Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.

McCaul questioned whether Rangel's conduct was, in fact, corrupt.

He noted that Rangel targeted donors for a college center named after him, people who had legislative issues that Rangel could influence in the Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel, McCaul added, didn't pay taxes on his Dominican Republic villa for 17 years.

"Failure to pay taxes for 17 years. What is that?" McCaul asked. He noted that former Rep. James Traficant, who was expelled after a felony conviction, didn't pay taxes for just two years.

Rangel argued, "City College (of New York) came to me to use my name. I was not trying to criminally hide anything from the IRS and Congress."

He said he didn't know the landlord of his New York apartment building placed him on a special handling list, when Rangel set up a campaign office in a subsidized unit designated for residential use.

Before Chisam commenced his remarks, Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Ala., told committee colleagues that Rangel need only "look in the mirror to know who to blame" for his predicament.

The scene 3 months from now.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Ahmed Ghailani

The first Guantanamo Bay detainee to be tried in federal criminal court was found not guilty on all but one of the 285 counts he faced for his role in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings.

285 counts and found guilty on only one! That's almost mathematically impossible.

Before going any further according to the transcript of a closed-door hearing in March 2007, Ghailani admitted delivering explosives used to blow up the US embassy in Tanzania in 1998.

So what we have here is this. Timothy McVeigh gets the death penalty. And considering the magnitude of the crimes, this scumbag practically skates?

Ghailani was acquitted on 284 charges including one murder count for each of the 224 people he killed. So out of the remaining 61 charges they can only find him guilty on one!!!

He was found guilty on the charge of conspiracy to destroy government buildings. What? The people inside the buildings don't count? The difinition of conspiarcy is: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons. So if you are guilty of conspiring to blow up the buildings, how is it possible to be found not guilty for the resulting death of 224 people inside the buildings?

(Talk about spin)

The U.S. Justice Department responded to the verdict in a written statement, saying, "We respect the jury's verdict and are pleased that Ahmed Ghailani now faces a minimum of 20 years in prison and a potential life sentence for his role in the embassy bombings."

(Are you kidding me... drug dealers get more time then this)

Being fair does not equate with being stupid.
As a terrorist he does not have the rights afforded an American citizen.
This is the end result of trying them in a civilian court. If we weren't already, we certainly are now, the laughingstock around the world. "The Messiah and Stedman" didn't see this coming? The TV commentators are saying this is a slap in the face and a failure for the Obama administration. I'm not so sure. Maybe this was the outcome they sought all along.

I have rocks in my back yard smarter then these prosecutors. These guys make Marcia Clark look like Perry Mason. Stupidity must trickle down from the top. Which is no surprise when you consider who the head of the DOJ is.

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Rangel found guilty on 11 ethics charges

Now what?

The ethics committee will meet Thursday to consider punishment for Rangel. It will come down to three possibilities and a unlikely fourth. A formal reprimand, censure, or expulsion. Of course he could retire. Would this not be a utter waste of time for all concerned if the only punishment doled out is a slap on the wrist... e.g., formal reprimand or censure? That boils down to (Gee whiz... you shouldn't have done that Charlie. See you Monday morning.)

If this was you or I we would be in jail. Just ask Wesley Snipes. I'm expecting Rangel to go into his usual long dissertation about what a fine war hero he was followed by his years of service (theft) and finally expounding on how his constitutional rights were violated because he had no time to hire legal representation. (Like it's only been two years.)
At the last hearing he said he was going to represent himself. How does that saying go...a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

The common consensus is he's going to get a slap on the wrist. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they will give him the option to retire if not he will be expelled even though it will take two-thirds of the House vote and we're in the lame duck secession. Democrats want to drain the swamp. This is their chance. Put your money where your mouth is. Anything else is just a waste of time.

Oh ...by the way should he somehow remain a Congressman I wouldn't be to concerned about the prospect of his re-election. He could video tape himself murdering someone on his front porch and still get elected.

Monday, November 15, 2010

The Never Ending Saga Of Charles Rangel

There has been a cloud (I was going to say black cloud but that may be deemed racist) hanging over Charlie Rangel's head for quite some time. Approximately 2 years ago Rangel was brought up on House ethics charges. One charge quite possibly could have been dismissed as an "error in judgement". But there are whopping 13 ethics violation charges not counting the new addition below.

List of charges The Hemingway Report: Difference Between Charlie Rangel and Al Capone

So how did this sit with those brilliant, voting, constituents in his district? In the last election, just a couple a weeks ago, he garnered 81% of the vote for his twenty first term in office!

Charlie Rangel's predecessor was Adam Clayton Powell. No stranger to scandals himself. So it begs the question. If you were a black politician, representing a black district, how would it be possible to not get re-elected?

Answer: Die midterm.

Rangel Used PAC Money for Legal Defense

New York Rep. Charles Rangel, whose ethics trial starts tomorrow, appears to have improperly used political-action committee money to pay for his defense, The New York Post reported Sunday.

Rangel tapped his National Leadership PAC for $293,000 to pay his main legal-defense team this year. He took another $100,000 from the PAC in 2009 to pay lawyer Lanny Davis. Two legal experts told The Post such spending is against House rules. "It's a breach of congressional ethics," one campaign-finance lawyer said.

Washington, D.C., political lawyer Cleta Mitchell said there is "no authority for a member to use leadership PAC funds as a slush fund to pay for personal or official expenses." Leadership PACs are typically used by politicians to donate money to other candidates.

But Rangel seems to have run afoul of House ethics rules. Lawmakers are generally allowed to use campaign cash to pay their lawyers, but this is limited to money in their personal campaign committee and they must ask permission first, the campaign-finance lawyer said. "The only campaign funds that a member may use to pay for congressional expenses are funds of his or her principal campaign committee -- not the funds of a leadership PAC or a multicandidate committee," according to the House Ethics Manual.

Legal fees tied to a campaign, election or performance of official duties are considered congressional expenses. "Accepting money or payment for legal expenses from any other source, including a PAC, would be a gift and is barred by the House rules," the lawyer said. The Ethics Committee had no comment.

Rangel's office refused to comment on the PAC money. On top of the $393,000 in PAC funds, records show Rangel yanked $1.4 million from his campaign coffers in 2009 and 2010 to pay the firm Zuckerman Spaeder, his main legal-defense team, and $100,000 in 2009 to pay Davis' firm.

He also spent $147,577 for Washington, D.C., lawyer John Kern and $174,303 for Watkins, Meegan, Drury & Co., a firm that offers forensic accounting and legal services.

An eight-member ethics subcommittee of four Democrats and four Republicans will convene at 9 a.m. to hear the 13 charges. They include failure to disclose and pay taxes on his vacation home in the Dominican Republic; his use of a rent-regulated Harlem apartment as a campaign office; and using congressional stationery to raise money for the Rangel Center at City College.