A House ethics report charges that Rep. Charles Rangel, an iconic New York powerbroker, broke the chamber's rules by abusing his office for personal gain, raising the possibility that he could be punished by or even expelled from the House. The panel's "statement of alleged violations" reports that there is "substantial reason to believe" that the 40-year House veteran violated a series of 13 ethics and federal regulations on public officials.
"We must regain the public's trust," Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas), the lead Republican on the ethics subcommittee "jury" hearing the case. "
The headliner allegations are that he improperly solicited money from corporate officials and lobbyists for the Charles B. Rangel Public Policy Center in New York, that he failed to disclose hundreds of dollars of income and assets on financial disclosure forms, that he maintained multiple rent-stabilized apartments in violation of New York City rules and failed to pay income taxes on a Dominican island resort home. McCaul said that, if proven, the allegations amounted to "multiple violations of House rules and federal statutes."
Gene Green, the top Democrat on the investigating subcommittee, said the committee had sent out 160 formal requests for documents, reviewed 28,000 pages of documents, held 60 meetings, deposed Rangel on Dec. 15, 2009, and met twice more with him.
Rangel, who lost his Ways and Means Committee gavel after an adverse ethics finding earlier this year, was unable to strike the equivalent of a plea deal with the ethics committee despite months of negotiations over the more serious charges. "I'm not involved in a deal," Rangel said just off the House floor Thursday.
But he insisted the committee had not charged him with corruption.
"There's no inference of corruption" in the charges that will be unveiled before the ethics committee, Rangel said as he left the House floor. He said he "would welcome the opportunity" to address the panel.
Now, in the congressional version of a trial, the lawmakers who investigated Rangel and the committee's staff lawyers will make the case that he broke the rules and should be punished by the House. Sitting in judgment is a second team of lawmakers an "adjudicatory" subcommittee. The trial started Thursday with an "opening session" dedicated to remarks by the team of prosecutors and Rangel's defense team. The subcommittee will determine whether the charges against Rangel should be upheld. If so, the committee will recommend to the House whether Rangel should be reprimanded, censured or expelled from the House.
Even if the charges are proven at the trial, Rangel will have the right to a hearing in which he can argue for lesser sanctions.
Rangel and his Democratic colleagues have a lot riding not only on the outcome but on the conduct and length of the trial. Repbulicans have made clear they intend to turn Rangel into a campaign issue in districts across the country, tying past recipients of his campaign fundraising help to his ethics troubles and turning the allegations against him into an argument that Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has not done enough to "drain the swamp" in Washington.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) contended, instead, that the House ethics process is "working well."He and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) have avoided extended public comment on the Rangel situation, which threatens to open up a rift between politically vulnerable Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus.
Four Democrats in tough swing districts Reps. Betty Sutton of Ohio, Walt Minnick of Idaho, Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania and Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona called for Rangel to quit immediately or if the charges are found to be accurate before the release of the report.
But several members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Chairwoman Barbara Lee, have said Rangel deserves an opportunity to defend himself against the charges just like anyone accused of a crime in the world outside Congress.
#1
But several members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including Chairwoman Barbara Lee, have said Rangel deserves an opportunity to defend himself against the charges just like anyone accused of a crime in the world outside Congress.
He probably won't even deny that he did these things, just that they weren't unethical for him to do them.
Besides, he's a Democrat, so I'm kind of surprised that they are even bothering to bring these charges.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
07/29/2010 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
New York Congressman Charlie ("Y'got nuttin' on me, coppers!") Rangel has reportedly cut a deal to admit to ethical wrongdoing and avoid a potentially humiliating public trial.
That assumes that Chollie can be humiliated further ...
Oh, he will. Deals off, 13 charges released. Sorry, Charlie.
Harlem friends of Rangel tell CBS 2 they have been told that the details could be unveiled when the House Ethics Committee (think of a nudibranch pretending to be a vertebrate) meets Thursday afternoon.
"Sixty years ago I survived a Chinese attack in North Korea and as a result I wrote a book saying that I hadn't had a bad day since," Rangel said. "Today I have to reassess that statement."
Who's fault, Chollie? Chinese didn't make you take the money (or maybe they did, perhaps there's another ethics charge coming) ...
In a sense, Thursday is Charlie Rangel's war. He is battling to preserve his legacy of 40 years of congressional service in the face of ethics charges that, at the very least, will subject him to a humiliating process of having to admit ethical wrong doing.
Then again, it might be the high point of his 'legacy' as far as I can tell ...
Just what he will admit to and how he will do it remains to be seen. The punishment remains to be seen as well, but sources tell CBS 2 that at the end of the day, Rangel is not expected to be thrown out of Congress and that he is expected to run for reelection to a 21st term.
He'll be backslapping his pals in no time ...
Earlier in the week, he told CBS 2's Marcia Kramer that he feels his constituents will forgive him for anything that happens in the midst of the scandal.
"I'm confident that I'm going to win reelection," he said.
It's the kind of democracy we live in today ...
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.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/29/2010 14:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
typical crook, POS loser......and do you think people care? they'll vote him back in a heartbeat
The Obama administration is seeking to make it easier for the FBI to compel companies to turn over records of an individual's Internet activity without a court order if agents deem the information relevant to a terrorism or intelligence investigation.
The administration wants to add just four words -- "electronic communication transactional records" -- to a list of items that the law says the FBI may demand without a judge's approval. Government lawyers say this category of information includes the addresses to which an Internet user sends e-mail; the times and dates e-mail was sent and received; and possibly a user's browser history. It does not include, the lawyers hasten to point out, the "content" of e-mail or other Internet communication. Many people used web mail. Are they saying that they will require web mail providers to to save access information about every email? What if you run your own mail server. How are they going to make me provide such data? I get spam so bad my mail server logs, all of them, roll over every week. Is the requirement going to be that every mail server must provide logs sorted by recipient? Dating back how far? One year? Five years? If it's five years I would have to save data totaling well over four gigabytes.
But what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters. These missives, which can be issued by an FBI field office on its own authority, require the recipient to provide the requested information and to keep the request secret. They are the mechanism the government would use to obtain the electronic records.
Stewart A. Baker, a former senior Bush administration Homeland Security official, said the proposed change would broaden the bureau's authority. "It'll be faster and easier to get the data," said Baker, who practices national security and surveillance law. "And for some Internet providers, it'll mean giving a lot more information to the FBI in response to an NSL." That the administration even made the request shows just how obtuse they are regarding technical data. Would an average FBI technician even know how to scan server logs? What they are looking for? Do they have even an inkling of how long even with today's powerful processors to scan four gigabytes of simple text even with simple tools such as cat and grep?
Many Internet service providers have resisted the government's demands to turn over electronic records, arguing that surveillance law as written does not allow them to do so, industry lawyers say. One senior administration government official, who would discuss the proposed change only on condition of anonymity, countered that "most" Internet or e-mail providers do turn over such data.
To critics, the move is another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security. The proposal is "incredibly bold, given the amount of electronic data the government is already getting," said Michelle Richardson, American Civil Liberties Union legislative counsel.
The critics say its effect would be to greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order. "You're bringing a big category of data -- records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information -- outside of judicial review," said Michael Sussmann, a Justice Department lawyer under President Bill Clinton who now represents Internet and other firms. How about first repealing "anti-terrorism" laws that currently are used 99%+ for non-terrorism-related, ordinary investigations? Ordinary investigations that lack probable cause, based solely on "police voyeurism". Seriously, how hard is it to first have to have a reason before prowling through someone's underwear drawer? Hey, they are welcome to my mail logs, five years of them if they want.
#1
Would an average FBI technician even know how to scan server logs?
The FBI has, or certainly can have, software to analyze log data for patterns of interest. These would use data mining algorithms and social network representation, at a guess.
What they are looking for?
Calling patterns (who calls whom, when), social networks (who's indirectly linked to whom via which third parties) and changes in patterns ahead of operations (op tempo is reflected in increased call frequency, followed sometimes by going silent just before an op).
None of these require access to the body of the email, just the header info.
Do they have even an inkling of how long even with today's powerful processors to scan four gigabytes of simple text even with simple tools such as cat and grep?
At least some of the software they use - or could use - is significantly more sophisticated than cat and grep. Many machine learning / data mining algorithms execute very fast after the more time consuming step of training them.
#5
Reminds me of the old joke cartoon about programming - chalkboard full of flow charting and buried in the center is an undefined process labelled "And then a miracle occurs..."
#6
I can think of no better reason to kill this monstrosity, and to hang those that created it, than that chart. The last thing we need is something that complex. It has fraud, waste, and abuse written all over it, in 10-foot-high letters. I will not vote for anyone this year that doesn't first swear to abolish this piece of unexpurgated sh$$, and I'll be keeping a very close eye to make sure it's one campaign promise that's kept.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
07/29/2010 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Despite upbeat official assessments of the progress of Chelsea Clintons wedding plans, scores of documents just released by WikiLeaks reveal a starkly different picture behind the scenes.
Screw the country into the ground, that's OK. But this?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
A House ethics report charges that Rep. Charles Rangel, an iconic New York powerbroker, broke the chamber's rules by abusing his office for personal gain, raising the possibility that he could be punished by or even expelled from the House. The panel's "statement of alleged violations" reports that there is "substantial reason to believe" that the 40-year House veteran violated a series of 13 ethics and federal regulations on public officials. 
