Skip to comments.Charlie Rangel Calls Ethics Hearing “Unfair”; Threatens to Walk Out During Hearing – Video
Posted on 11/15/2010 7:30:46 AM PST by Federalist Patriot
Here is video this morning of Democrat Rep. Charlie Rangel appearing before the Adjudicatory Subcommittee, a sub unit of the House Ethics Committee. Rangel is being charged with 13 counts of ethics violations, mostly connected to his fundraising practices and his finances. The trial before the committee is expected to take about a week.
In this video, Rangel calls the process unfair because he contends he is being denied counsel before the committee. Actually, Rangel has failed to secure counsel for himself because he says he cannot afford to pay an attorney any longer. When Democrat Chair of the Subcommittee Rep. Zoe Lofgren made it clear it was not the committees responsibility to get counsel for Rangel, he launched into an extended complaint against the unfairness of the process, and said he was going to remove myself from the proceedings. But before he could walk out, another member of the committee made a motion to continue the proceeding to a later time, a motion that is being considered by the committee in Executive Session.
(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...
Doesn’t the Sergeant at Arms have the authority to detain or even arrest those in the chamber?
This is a wealthy man and he claims he can’t afford a lawyer? Isn’t half the congress populated with lawyers? Can’t he talk one of his buddies into representing him pro bono?
It’s fairly obvious that Charlie Rangel is NO fan of ETHICS.
The Audacity of Criminality. The ‘Rat Crime Syndicate forges on.
Rangel IS an attorney!!
Take a look at the corrupt Congresman Charlie Rangel replaced, Adam Clayton Powell. Following is from Wikipedia ...
In January 1967, the House Democratic Caucus stripped Powell of his committee chairmanship. The full House refused to seat him until completion of the Judiciary Committee's investigation. Powell urged his supporters to "keep the faith, baby" while the investigation was under way. On March 1, the House voted 307 to 116 to exclude him. Powell said, "On this day, the day of March in my opinion, the end of the United States of America as the land of the free and the home of the brave."
Powell won the Special Election to fill the vacancy caused by his exclusion but did not take his seat. He sued in Powell v. McCormack to retain his seat. In November 1968, Powell was again elected. On January 3, 1969, he was seated as a member of the 91st Congress; but he was fined $25,000 and denied seniority. In June 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the House had acted unconstitutionally when it excluded Powell, a duly elected member.
Powell's increasing absenteeism was noted. In June 1970, he was defeated in the Democratic primary by Charles B. Rangel. That fall, he failed to get on the November ballot as an Independent; and he resigned as minister at the Abyssinian Baptist Church and moved to his retreat on Bimini. Rangel continues to represent the district (2010).
Poor Charlie has run out of other people’s money it seems. And he sure as HELL isn’t about to use the millions he has STOLEN over the past 50 years!! After all...that’s HIS now!!!
Tell him to sell some of his apartment buildings
This is typical liberal democrap
Get caught cheating, lie about it, claim how uunfair it is, fire your lawyers then claim they are not allowing you legal council...
Rangle himself must know he is toast, he is just trying to muddy the waters and delay
Rangel: Well, I... I...
Zoe Lofgren: ... and therefore the...
Rangel: I object to the proceeding and I... with all due respect, since I don't have council to advise me, I'm going to have to excuse myself from these proceedings, because I have no idea what this man has put together, over two years, that was given to me last week, and I just hope that the issue in this committee, in terms of fairness... would be judged.... for what it is. So, with all due respect, and recognizing how awkward it is for the members of this committee, as collegues, and as someone who would like to preserve the right of members to be judged by their peers, with council, I respectfully remove myself from these proceedings.
G. K. Butterfield: Madam Chair? Before the respondent leaves, may I ask the chair an additional question?
Zoe Lofgren: Certainly.
Butterfield: Even though the respondent did not specifically... ah... make a motion to continue this hearing, I deem his comments to be a motion to continue, and I would like this committee to seriously consider a motion to continue. I would like for us to do it in executive session and discuss among ourselves what the respondent has said, because I take his contentions very seriously.
Butterfield: I know the importance of council... especially in this environment, so I'm gonna that ask that... that we deem his statements to be a motion to continue, and that we discuss it in executive session.
Zoe Lofgren: All right, that is a request from one member, to have a discussion on the... ahh... well, your motion...
Butterfield: I'll make a motion to continue the matter....
Zoe Lofgren: To continue the matter...
Butterfield: ...and take it up in executive session.
Zoe Lofgren: ... and a sess... we will go in to our closed session, and have a brief discussion, and then we will return.
Butterfield: Was there a second...
Zoe Lofgren: Yes there was.
Butterfield: There was a second to the motion?
At this point, the meeting breaks up. Rangel shakes a few hands like he's a celebrity who's just been given an award for something. He hands his prop, an enormous binder full of papers, to a flunky, and disappears into a flunky cloud.
Rangel don't look too great. He don't sound too great either, he's doing the "old man" bit, but I don't believe that for a minute. It's all a big act. But the whole hearing's a big act. Bunch of Democrat crooks trying to look like they're "investigating" one of their fellow-crooks, who thought that his race and the fact that he's from congressional district that would return him to office every two years even if he was in a federal prison, who apparantly calculated that no one would dare try to touch him, so he went way, way, way over the line, to the point that it was hurting the whole Congress.
Listen to him drone on and on, with this "poor me" expression, at one point holding out his arms to either side in a gesture meant to conjure images of Christ on the Cross. What a shabby performance from a shabby, embarrassing man.
He can’t even conclude that he is concluding to the fact that he doesn’t have attorneys to conclude with this committee.
[He isn’t even articulate in stating his objections.]
Rangel is a lawyer who “writes” laws regarding the taxes he did not pay. He needs no legal assistance.
Rangel has had attorneys working on his ethincs case for two years. He just “fired’ them so he could do what he did today. Stall, stall, stall.
Rangel will now be dealing with the new Congress and that may not be a bad thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.