Skip to comments.EDITORIAL: Censure without shame--Lack of contrition exposes depth of Rangel's guilt
Posted on 12/07/2010 5:02:40 PM PST by jazusamo
The bipartisan House Ethics Committee found Mr. Rangel guilty of 11 ethics-rules violations related to unpaid taxes on rental income from his villa in the Dominican Republic, failure to disclose personal financial assets and improper solicitation of donations. Additionally, last spring, Mr. Rangel resigned as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee after being found guilty of accepting corporate-financed travel. Now the Federal Election Commission is investigating whether Mr. Rangel improperly used $400,000 from his National Leadership PAC to fund his defense on the previous ethics charges.
None of this has made an impression on Mr. Rangel, a 40-year House veteran who until recently was one of the most powerful men on Capitol Hill. "I was not found guilty of corruption," he told reporters after his censure was read on the House floor. "I did not go to bed with kids, I did not hurt the House speaker, I did not start a revolution against the United States of America, I did not steal any money, I did not take any bribes, and that is abundantly clear." He claimed he's "not guilty of corruption or self-enrichment," but had an average citizen been found guilty of the same offenses, he would face sterner justice than a 45-second scolding. When The Washington Times' Kerry Picket tried to make this point to Mr. Rangel, he was evasive and dismissive. "I don't deal in average American citizens," he quipped...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
In total, 36 of 37 voting African-American members of the House voted against censure, or 97 percent - including Rangel, who also cast a ‘nay’ vote in his defense.
He got to vote on his own censure ?
Actually, Charlie, it's abundantly clear to me that you are a crook.
Yep, he lied because he did steal money from the government.
(1)When faced with allegations of misconduct, DENY, DENY, DENY.
(2)When faced with irrefutable video, eyewitness, or DNA evidence, see (1)
Actually, I see the very idea of requiring “contrition” as anti-American, and a downright evil policy when used in courts of law.
It begins with prosecutors who offer plea bargains not just for admitting guilt, but for putting innocent people in a position where they are threatened with such a horrific punishment if found guilty, even if such a sentence is unlikely, yet offered an almost petty punishment if they admit guilt, but only as long as they humble and debase themselves before the court; that they feel they have no choice but to plead guilty. Not only confessing to a crime they did not commit, but explaining how truly sorry they are for having done so.
Then judges get into the act, toying with them before sentencing, that if they assure the prosecutor and the judge that not only were they guilty, but that they are truly sorry for having offended, the judge might, at his whim, give them the petty sentence. But retaining the authority to give them the very harsh sentence, based on his mood at the time.
This is neither justice, nor judgment. It is no different than an Asiatic judge who demands that those he tries bow their heads in humbleness and shame before his majesty decides their fate.
Justice is objective. A defendant is guilty or innocent based on the evidence. Not hunches, feelings, prejudices and appearance. If a judge feels guilt that he may have found an innocent person guilty, that is the price he must pay for administering justice. If he truly felt that way, then he should not have found guilt.
The same with the prosecutor, who cares more about winning his cases than justice. He has no right to sleep soundly at night, pretending that coerced confessions and false contrition prove his oppression was justified.
If someone is guilty, find them as such, and punish them accordingly. Don’t play games for ulterior motives.
As Adam Clayton Powell Jr. said when he lost his chairmanship in 1967, “keep the faith, baby”.
The lack of contrition shows the original problem that led Rangle to think he, as an “esteemed” Congressman, was above the average citizen and could get away with his deeds - his arrogance.
Well, in Rangel’s case it’s not surprising that he feels no remorse. He believes he’s entitled to his ethical lapses and probably believes he had no lapses. His tax evasion and using of four rent controlled apartments for his use is actually criminal.
It’s evident to me he’s wrong because of his overwhelming conviction.
Charlie’s no turd in the punchbowl. The entire Congress is a cesspool and he’s just one of the biggest floaters.
Charlie Rangel, the old ‘rat POS, isn’t going to start getting ethics now. He’s living in a world of unethical, law-breaking scumbags. This means NOTHING.
He should remain front, center and defiant along with Pelosi, Reid and Obama as the faces of the Democrat Crime Syndicate. The swamp was drained and refilled with sludge from the outhouse, the U.S. House of Representatives....and their assorted cretins, degenerates and enablers.
He was only sorry that he got caught!
You’re absolutely right, he’s not going to change his ways now.
“I don’t deal in average American citizens,”
How high and mighty! His constituents should be insulted, but they’re so dumb they are proud of him.
Common sense and integrity are lost on that point...
Common sense and integrity are lost on that point...
Yes, that one statement alone shows his appalling arrogance, he doesn’t belong in Washington.
FrogDad and I saw his comments on the House floor after his censure.
He was totally unrepentant, even haughty, in his comments.
Why should he be contrite. Most of the senior member knew what he had going for the past two decades and they never said anything about it.
That’s the attitude our system was designed to root out and keep out of power.
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.