Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Charlie Rangel Calls Ethics Hearing “Unfair”; Threatens to Walk Out During Hearing – Video
Freedom's Lighthouse ^ | November 15, 2010 | Brian

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 committee’s 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 ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: charlierangel; ethics

1 posted on 11/15/2010 7:30:50 AM PST by Federalist Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

Doesn’t the Sergeant at Arms have the authority to detain or even arrest those in the chamber?


2 posted on 11/15/2010 7:33:08 AM PST by SJSAMPLE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

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?


3 posted on 11/15/2010 7:34:12 AM PST by McGavin999 ("I was there when we had the numbers, but didn't have the principles"-Jim DeMint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot
Charlie is talking out of both ends of his alimentary canal. I heard he was going to go pro se, i.e., represent his own scholarly self.
4 posted on 11/15/2010 7:35:02 AM PST by caddie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

It’s fairly obvious that Charlie Rangel is NO fan of ETHICS.


5 posted on 11/15/2010 7:35:27 AM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo...Sum Pro Vita. (Modified Decartes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot
Actually, Rangel has failed to secure counsel for himself because he says he cannot afford to pay an attorney any longer.


6 posted on 11/15/2010 7:36:12 AM PST by Hoodat ( .For the weapons of our warfare are mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

The Audacity of Criminality. The ‘Rat Crime Syndicate forges on.


7 posted on 11/15/2010 7:42:11 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

Rangel IS an attorney!!


8 posted on 11/15/2010 7:46:44 AM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion......the Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot
Nothing of significance will happen to Rangel.

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."[7]

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.[8] 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.[9]

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).

9 posted on 11/15/2010 7:49:27 AM PST by OldNavyVet (One trillion days, at 365 days per year, is 2,739,726,027 years ... almost 3 billion years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

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!!!


10 posted on 11/15/2010 7:58:28 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

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


11 posted on 11/15/2010 8:03:34 AM PST by Mr. K (physically unable to see typos until I click 'post')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot
Rangel: All I'm asking, and I agree with you 100%, madam Chairwoman, all I'm asking for is the time to get council. I have lawyers, from Washington DC and New York, are willing to give me free council... to be able to come here because they don't think I've been treated fairly and yet, they say that if they do that, it's a gift, and violates all of the laws. I heard that, perhaps, they can do it at reduced fa... at reduced fees, or fair fees, if only we had time to develop the committee. You tell me that I don't have time to do that. And so, while you tell me that, yes, I can hire anybody, get anybody, not have a lawyer, you're also saying, and that's the very part of your letter, that time... does not... permit... this matter to be concluded before the end of this session, and that's the nuts and bolts of what we're talking about. You're telling me all of the things I could do, but you're not gonna give me time to do it. I think no one can say that that's not the way this ends up. Yes, I can do these things, but you have to conclude this now, and the next day, and my representation, fifty years of public service, has to suffer because this committee has concluded that you must conclude this matter, before this congress ends, and all I'm asking for is time to get council, time to get council, and you're saying now, I think, that you denied it before, and you're denying it now. Zoe Lofgren: I gather that you do not object to the admission of the evidence that has been proffered by committee council...?

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.

(jump cut)

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.

12 posted on 11/15/2010 8:04:07 AM PST by Steely Tom (Obama goes on long after the thrill of Obama is gone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

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.]


13 posted on 11/15/2010 8:10:48 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot

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.


14 posted on 11/15/2010 8:16:55 AM PST by isthisnickcool (Sharia? No thanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Federalist Patriot
Sorry Charlie, you brought this on yourself when you ripped off all of the other peoples money for your defense.

Photobucket

15 posted on 11/15/2010 8:57:13 AM PST by jazusamo (His [Obama's] political base---the young, the left and the thoughtless: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson