But Rangel dismissed a suggestion by ABC’s Dean Norland that this was bad news.
“Don’t you say that because you have no idea what is good news or bad news,” Rangel lectured. “I don’t have any fear at all politically or personally (with) what they came up with.”
Eventually, the adjudicatory subcommittee will hold sessions with Rangel and possibly witnesses and then render judgment.
But that will bleed well into September. That raises questions around Rangel’s re-election chances. The Harlem Democrat faces a primary challenge in September from state legislator Adam Clayton Powell IV. Moreover, many Democrats don’t want anything about ethics creeping too close to an election. But that’s what they’ll get with this stage of the process in its infancy.
This is ironic. In fact House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) released this November, 2008 statement about Rangel’s ethics woes.
“I have been assured the report will be completed by the end of this session of Congress, which concludes on January 3, 2009. I look forward to reviewing the report at that time.”
"Lecture" it to the judge you arrogant dirtbag...and to the voters.
Only if his continuing in his seat costs the Dems, and I don't see it happening. From Rangel's own mouth in your next post:
“I don’t have any fear at all politically or personally (with) what they came up with.”
Nope. We all know how this game is played, the double-standard of R vs. D after your name, the demographics of your constituency, etc. He has nothing to fear whatever with, as he puts it, "what they came up with." (Does anyone else read that there's way more to find, it just wasn't unearthed as yet?)