Skip to comments.Ethics unveils 13 Rangel charges (Charlie "There's no inference of corruption")
Posted on 07/29/2010 12:22:02 PM PDT by milwguy
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Not even a mere hint or whiff of corruption.
How dare they ? !!
Nancy’s swamp-draining project, no doubt.
There may or may not be an "inference," depending on who is inferring, but there is definitely an implication, actually more than an implication, an accusation. I guess Charlie had to say something, other than "I plead guilty."
The charges include allegations that Rangel failed to report rental income on vacation property in the Dominican Republic and over the course of nearly a decade failed to report more than $600,000 on his financial disclosure statements.
Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on a panel that will try Rangel, said that the Democrat had been given the opportunity to negotiate a settlement during the investigation phase.
However, he said, that phase is now over. We are now in the trial phase, he said.
I had to read the article to finally get to who said there was “no corruption” and I found it came from that font of credibility, Charlie himself. Sounds like his “I am not a crook” moment.
Of course not. It's sitting right out there in the open, for all to see.
What’s the big deal? This is nothing more than a Democrap Resume’ builder. He would definitely qualify for a cabinet position under Czar B.O.!
They will let him resign with a stern warning. This preferential treatment is given only to democrats and other America-hating wackos.
Normal people are censured and forced to resign for MUCH LESS.
I had to read the article to find out who did the boo boo, the members of the committee (assuming college degrees, though I do know there may be one or another who do not possess) or the vaunted members of the journalism-elite -- those people I do know all possess a degree. Major league irritation, that error!! Who was the editor who put that title on this story?
“Charlie ‘There’s no inference of corruption’”
I think he means implication. People’s inferences are their own business.
Naw, he just means that’s how he sees himself.
“Failed to disclose HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS OF INCOME...?” Wanna bet hundreds of thousands or millions are one hell of a lot closer to the truth??!!!
“Naw, he just means thats how he sees himself.”
Well, good thing he told me about it, then.