home

I'm With Charlie

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:13:37 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This is my view only.

I am a big Charlie Rangel fan. And I do not believe for a second that Rangel's situation has any effect on any race in the country. I do not think Rangel should resign. He did nothing that was corrupt. And I think that Rangel's demand for a trial in the House Ethics Committee is completely appropriate. Let the chips fall. Anyway, here's what Rangel said today on the House floor.

I repeat, this is my view only and I do not speak for TalkLeft.

< Raising Marginal Rate On High Incomes Does Not Reduce Productivity | RIP: Sen. Ted Stevens >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    I'm With Charlie | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    go (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    Charlie
    also a fan

    I like his voice. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:59:16 PM EST
    I like that he was an elisted man in Korea. I like his fights for the poor. Count me in, also.

    You would have loved (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by NYShooter on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:44:17 PM EST
    his story of when he was in a foxhole in Korea, overwhelming fire coming in and death seeming imminent, he made a deal with G*d that if He let him live he would devote his life to public service. Claims he thinks of that ordeal every morning when he wakes up, and that's what puts a smile on his face for the rest of the day.

    Bullcrap? Maybe, but you gotta love him.  


    Parent

    Yet another elected federal (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:48:12 PM EST
    "public servant" who has apparently amassed a fair amount of personal wealth, though.  But, who doesn't?

    Parent
    I listened to him (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:15:30 PM EST
    And I feel the same way.  It seems absurd to me that they are attempting to get him to just to go home without a trial.  And it is creepy too.  Charlie can be a pain when he chooses to be, so trying to show him the door without trial also doesn't pass a certain smell test with me.  If there is anything that the Obama administration can't afford at this time IMO, it is some sort of appearance that they are trying to shed Democrats that would challenge them on their lack of representing Democrats.

    Charlie was with (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:14:14 PM EST
    She Who Shall Not Be Named in the primaries, too, if I remember right, as I think was Maxine.

    Parent
    Aha . . . (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:14:11 PM EST
    you get it.

    Parent
    In his House speech, I loved (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by KeysDan on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:33:06 PM EST
    his response to those Democrats who worried that he would be a liability in fall by saying that the Republicans have given ample reasons for them to get re-elected.  

    I've always liked him (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Democratic Cat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:41:07 PM EST
    and am glad he has refused to resign.

    Thanks for this, BTD (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:18:50 PM EST
    His main point in the excerpts I heard from the speech on the House floor was exactly right, too-- that leaving him swinging in the wind for two years over this is just flat-out wrong.

    I'm with Charlie, too (4.00 / 2) (#30)
    by esmense on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:02:14 PM EST
    These charges are the biggest bag of horsefeathers I've ever seen.

    Democrats are truly idiots if they think that abusing Rangel will be seen as some kind of proof of the party's superior purity. All they've done is put petty things like Rangel's a few late-paid taxes and failure to move a car out of the congressional parking garage on the same level as the worst Republican abuses during the Abramoff era.

    Can't these people do anything right?

    I have a very unpleasant thought (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by observed on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 11:20:12 PM EST
    about the appearance of prominent ethics investigations of Rangel and Waters, having to do with how the O. administration might be quite pleased at this turn of events.

    Thanks For That (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:07:27 PM EST
    And all those here who have been outraged by his corruption, STFU...  you should be ashamed of yourselves.

    You should seriously think (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:34:46 PM EST
    about applying to replace Gibbs in his job. You would be a natural.

    Parent
    OK (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:40:47 PM EST
    As I am certain that your comment was meant as an insult to Gibbs, I take it as a compliment.

    Parent
    Reasonable minds may not differ? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:09:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Differ? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:13:01 PM EST
    Based on what? Hearsay and abstract allegations?

    I would think that someone who was in the biz would wait until they heard the whole story before they cast their stones on Rangel being corrupt.

    Parent

    On what? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:11:41 PM EST
    Explain how Rangel profited personally.

    Parent
    I Think That He Did a Number of Corrupt Things (none / 0) (#1)
    by msaroff on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:29:29 PM EST
    None of them rise to the level of expulsion, and they might not rise to the level of censure, but they appear to rise to the level of admonishment, and his losing his chairmanship seems appropriate.

    That being said, compared to the Republicans, who accepted bribes to lobby for slave labor, he really is a piker in the corruption department.

    He did no corrupt things (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:35:10 PM EST
    He broke some rules but did not profit personally (he screwed up his taxes but then paid them and the penalties.)

    Parent
    He should not have used Section 8 (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:09:01 PM EST
    housing units for his offices, unless there is some exception of which I am unaware.  Which doesn't necessarily mean he should be adminished, censured, etc.  Just stop using them.

    Parent
    He broke no laws or rules (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    in his use of the rental apartments in question.

    He received no preferential treatment.

    Indeed, the building has a 20% vacancy rate.

    Parent

    It sounds as if Rangel will survive (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MKS on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:55:32 PM EST
    He has gotten bad press.....

    Repeating a number of times that he did  not profit personally would help him....

    Parent

    He'll survive (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:03:07 PM EST
    unless he resigns.

    They will not have the guts to expel him on the two but nonsense they have charged.

    Parent

    Do the regs. re Section 8 permit use of (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:53:12 PM EST
    If so, the man is being badly maligned.

    Parent
    He has not violated Section 8 (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:59:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Just read the Statement of Alleged Violations. (4.00 / 1) (#23)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:22:06 PM EST
    Mea culpa.  Best not to rely on the evil MSM.

    Parent
    But (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:11:29 PM EST
    Weren't you on the fainting couch that he used 4 apartments that were rent stabilized, when so many pooooooor NYers were on the streets,, or something like that?

    As I said, better to wait and see before you let abstract knowledge start the prosecution...

    Parent

    You are so much holier than I. (none / 0) (#24)
    by oculus on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:23:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Hardly (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:31:06 PM EST
    I am not holy at all.

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#28)
    by pitachips on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 06:50:37 PM EST
    He didn't "profit personally" only because he was caught!

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:12:09 PM EST
    What is it, 20 years or so later? So he was waiting to personally profit until the day after he was "caught," just coincidentally?


    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#4)
    by masslib on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 04:50:24 PM EST
    This is a bunhc of trumped up bs. His district loves him, as they should.  He brings home the bacon.  There is utterly no reason for him to resign.  It;s dunny how Daily Obama is reporting this incident.  Not sure they are big fans of Rangel over there.

    I'm with you, BTD (none / 0) (#16)
    by McKinless on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:35:39 PM EST
    His speech on the House floor was remarkable. I hope he wins his primary with big numbers.

    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:50:30 PM EST
    Liked his speech and agreed with it. If they want him gone, get on with it. or, as the originator of a group once said, censure and move on.  

    Parent
    Me three (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by christinep on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 05:57:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by hollyfromca on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:49:50 PM EST
    It was a moving speech and the fact that they have scheduled his hearing a day before the primary is a travesty.  That wonderful 80-year-old man who has dedicated his entire life to public service deserves a full hearing, even if makes his fellow Dems uncomfortable.

    Parent
    If he didn't pay his taxes (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:31:41 PM EST
    then he profited.

    Now, you can argue that he didn't mean to, but he did.

    And if the Chairman of the committee that writes our tax laws can't figure them out... then something is wrong.

    Say what you want, I think he's a crook who cut every corner...

    And Pelosi said that was going to end.

    Yet the swamp still us full of critters.

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:37:28 PM EST
    Obviously you are making stuff up again. Yes, I know you are too busy channeling Beck, and Fantasizing about Newt and Palin to bother with the facts. As usual you look the fool.

    Parent
    Yes, but if Rangel goes down (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Cream City on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:44:14 PM EST
    for not paying taxes, then Geithner ought to go first.  Think of the profits that he made on Wall Street from all of those unpaid taxes he could invest, compared to the street in Harlem where Charlie had his investments.

    And the country and the Dems would be a lot better off without Timmy than without Charlie.  And not just because Charlie is a lot more fun to watch.

    Parent

    Except he paid his taxes (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 07:48:39 PM EST
    and the attendant penalties.

    Parent
    Can't agree with you this one (none / 0) (#35)
    by coast on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:22:53 PM EST
    using one's office to obtain donations from those who are lobbying you seems pretty cut and dry. Soliciting earmarks (that would be your money and mine) for one's personal glorification also seems pretty daring.  The one that puts the nail in the coffin for me were his "errors" on his tax return.  As you state above, he did amend his returns and pay the taxes.  However, the amended returns were only prepared due to the investigation.  I don't think its too much to ask those who are responsible for writing our tax code to actually follow it.  His oversight was either due to incompetence or neglect.  As someone who has to deal with the trash he passed as law on a daily basis, I have no sympathy for him and wish him good riddance.

    By that measure (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:45:03 PM EST
    A Congressman can never ask for a charitable donation ever.

    That's just nuts. And it is not the law and it not the ethics rule.

    Frankly, it is cut and fried, there is nothing wrong with it unless there is a quid pro quo. There was none.

    Hell, he was not even asking for his campaign.

    Your position is wrong as a matter of law and to my thinking, insane.

    Parent

    I believe that the Alledged Violations section (none / 0) (#45)
    by coast on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:58:37 PM EST
    of the Investigative Subcommittee's report pretty much clarifies that his actions did violate ethics rules, if not the law.

    Parent
    On disclosures (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:01:48 PM EST
    Not on anything else.

    I think he will be cleared of all ethics charges except the disclosures and the use of the wrong stationary.

    It is trivial BS nonsense that amounts to nothing.

    Parent

    You are also wrong about the amended returns (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:46:21 PM EST
    Some errors were found, but more of the corrections occurred when Rangel had a forensic accountant do a thorough review and then Rangel self reported.

    Indeed. you are a font of misinformation.

    Parent

    A person in his (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:49:56 PM EST
    position should never, never, never make such a "mistake."

    The man is a poster child for arrogance.

    Parent

    Fine (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:52:00 PM EST
    Reprimand him. Censure him. Beat him at the polls, if you can.

    Just get on with it.

    And while your at it, fire Tim Geithner.

    Parent

    Absolutely. (none / 0) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:18:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Beating Rangel at the polls (none / 0) (#70)
    by BackFromOhio on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 06:38:08 PM EST
    Rangel won with 87.5% of the vote in 2008!

    Parent
    When was the forensic accountant brought (none / 0) (#42)
    by coast on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:52:34 PM EST
    in....as I said, as a result of the investigation.

    Parent
    You said wrong (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:56:04 PM EST
    Rangel did not have to bringin a forensic accountant and frankly, the tax law on the issue is hardly clear.

    Do you REALLY think Rangel did his own taxes? REALLY? How much money do you think was involved?

    Are you REALLY arguing that an inadvertent error on a tax return and a disclosure form merits expulsion from the Congress?

    REALLY/

    That is insane.

    Parent

    Not To Mention (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:57:43 PM EST
    That according to Rangel, had he gotten it right in the beginning there would have been no tax due...

    Parent
    It becomes more and more obvious (4.67 / 3) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:00:20 PM EST
    to me that a trial will be the best thing for Rangel.

    Too many people are spouting nonsense without a clue what they are talking about.

    A trial will make it clear  - clear Rangel of the nonsensical corruption charges and shame his accusers.

    He must insist on a trial.

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:02:33 PM EST
    Sad... but true.  

    Parent
    Your belief in that statement shows how blind (none / 0) (#55)
    by coast on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:51:44 PM EST
    you really are. The mere fact that he paid tax, in addition to penalties and interest, on the amended returns shows how obsurd Rangel's statement, if accurate, was.  If the statement were true, he would not have even owed any penalties or interest as they are only assessed when there is a tax due.  Besides, under reporting over $75,000 in rental income and $52,000 in forgiven interest would rarely would result in no tax, unless you have some pretty hefty deductions.

    Parent
    An investigation is about to reveal that you did (none / 0) (#53)
    by coast on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:19:28 PM EST
    not properly report income on your tax returns and you are the vice chairman of the committee that writes the tax laws and your are saying that he did not have to bring in a professional.  I believe that was the one prudent thing that he did.  I doubt that he does prepare his own taxes, but the accuracy of a tax return is the responsibility of the taxpayer not the preparer, as any good IRS agent will inform you.  As for the amount, its in the report.  I don't have access to his personal returns so I can't say whether its material.  I doubt that it was.  But given his position, it shouldn't happen.

    As for the clarity on the tax law, if anything the tax code is pretty clear on income....its all sources unless specifically excluded.  Rental income is pretty straight forward.  His accountant was either asleep at the wheel or Rangle didn't provide him all the information.  Given the amount of discrepancies in his other report, I would bet Rangle failed to provide it.

    Do I think his actions are worthy of expulsion, yes.  But I doubt he will be.  Sorry, but my expectations are higher than others.  Its the Boy Scout in me.

    Parent

    And I think (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:37:54 PM EST
    your reasoning insane.

    Parent
    Poignant as usual. n/t (none / 0) (#56)
    by coast on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:53:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Bliunt as usual you mean (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 09:59:13 PM EST
    You remind me of the whiners about how mean Krugman was about Ryan.

    Tell you what, start picketing for the removal of real corrupt figure like Bitter and Ensign and then get back tome.

    You see, they DID trade their offices for personal gain. That is corruption. Rangel screwed up some forms.

    I have no patience for ignorance and stupidity.

    Parent

    Kick them out too. (none / 0) (#58)
    by coast on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:03:03 PM EST
    Unlike others, I don't care what is beside their name.  With 300 million plus in this country we can do better than many of the people who are currently in office.

    Parent
    You also don;t care (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 10:13:55 PM EST
    what the facts are.

    Parent
    You mean things like (2.00 / 1) (#62)
    by coast on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:34:31 AM EST
    solicitation of monies from companies who have business before his committee; or solicitation of funds from lobbyist representing companies before his committee; or funneling taxpayer funds all for personal gain...those facts?  You seem to think this is all about disclosures and stationary.  Its clear from the report that its about more than that.  And while you may not view receiving an office for life and a place to store your documents and carry on your legacy as "personal gain", the fact is that it has value and is therefore worth something. I don't know what rents in NYC are, but I would bet its not pennies.  Besides, this is the sort of perk those nasty CEOs get when they retire.  They do it with Company (private) money, which I think is wrong.  Rangel has the gaul to do it with public money.

    Parent
    Your theory is Rangel (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:06:07 AM EST
    traded favors for an office? My Gawd.

    That's the dumbest thing I ever read.

    Traded it for his ego is a better theory - and of course that is not illegal - unless you have a problem with the Frank Lautenberg Train Station in
    Secaucus.

    Just stupid.

    Parent

    You make it sound as though (none / 0) (#66)
    by coast on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:12:34 AM EST
    he were asking for a few hundred dollars and some furniture.  He was soliciting millions of dollars.  According to the report, the initial materials passed to prospects requested $30M donation or $6M over 5 years.  He was successful in obtaining millions of dollars from companies with business before his committee.  Sorry but I don't live in the stratusphere were that is considered chump change.

    We will agree to disagree on this one.  As I said before, I doubt he will get expelled.

    Parent

    The chump change (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:00:18 AM EST
    is what Rangel got out of it.

    Are you really this obtuse?

    You are saying Rangel traded favors for a desk chair.

    that is just plain stupid.


    Parent

    And finally (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 10, 2010 at 08:47:08 PM EST
    He ain;t going anywhere so your good riddance is misplaced.

    Charlie will be in the Congress next year.

    Parent

    Wow (none / 0) (#64)
    by jarober on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:08:23 AM EST
    I guess corruption only happens when people with an (R) after their names do it...

    No (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:40:57 AM EST
    Corruption happens when people put money in their pockets by trading the power of their office for personal gain.

    The way Gingrich did, and Ensign did, and Vitter did.

    Rangel put no money in his own pocket.

    He did not engage in corruption.

    It is a pretty simple concept if you want to understand it. If you are intent in not understanding it, of course you won't understand the difference.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#68)
    by DancingOpossum on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:34:32 AM EST
    Another Rangel fan here. Very glad he's not giving in to the smear campaign.

    I'm With Charlie | 70 comments (70 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment