Washington – Rep. Charles Rangel Faces Censure

    10

    Washington – Rep. Charles Rangel is facing a vote of censure by his peers in the House of Representatives — a disciplinary action against him for ethics violations.

    Join our WhatsApp group

    Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email


    The House will decide whether to censure the 80-year-old Democrat — the most severe punishment short of expulsion — or reprimand him, a less public and severe scolding.

    Rangel, who has been urging his colleagues to forgo a vote to censure, asking instead that violations be downgraded to a reprimand.
     
    The ethics committee voted 9-1 on Nov. 18 that Rangel should be censured for committing 11 counts of fundraising and financial misdeeds that violated House rules.

    Rangel plans to argue that censure has been imposed for violations including bribery, accepting improper gifts, personal use of campaign funds and sexual misconduct; none is present in his case.

    The ethics committee, in explaining its recommendation, agreed in a report that the discipline usually is reserved for lawmakers who enrich themselves. In Rangel’s case, the committee said, its decision was based on “the cumulative nature of the violations and not any direct personal financial gain.”

    To the public, a censure and a reprimand appear similar. Both punishments are meted out on the floor of the House and include a vote disapproving a member’s conduct.

    A censure goes beyond the vote and requires the disciplined member to appear at the front of the chamber  — called the “well” –and receive an oral rebuke from the speaker that includes a reading of the resolution.

    A reprimand is simply a vote of disapproval. It can be a separate resolution or a vote to adopt the ethics committee’s findings. The punished lawmaker is not required to stand in the well.

    Rangel was found to have improperly used official resources — congressional letterheads and staff — to raise funds from businesses and foundations for a center named after him at the City College of New York.

    Some of the donors, the committee found, were businesses and foundations with issues before the House Ways and Means Committee.

    The contributions left the impression that the money was to influence legislation, although Rangel was not charged with taking any action on behalf of donors.

    He also was found guilty of filing a decade’s worth of misleading annual financial disclosure forms that failed to list hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets, and failure to pay taxes for 17 years on his rental unit in the Dominican Republic –an embarrassment for someone who presided over tax legislation.

    In addition, the committee told Rangel to pay any taxes he still owed.

    The sources said Rangel complied last week, sending the Internal Revenue Service a check for $10,422 and a check for $4,501 to New York state.

    Rangel has apologized and admitted his mistakes, although he denied any intent to violate standards of conduct.

    Twenty-two House members have been censured while nine have been reprimanded. The last censures were in 1983, when the House disciplined Reps. Gerry E. Studds, a Massachusetts Democrat, and

    Daniel Crane, an Illinois Republican. Both were cited for sexual misconduct with teenage pages _ Studds with a male page, Crane with a female one.

    Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., was the last to be reprimanded. He was disciplined in September 2009, in a partisan vote, for shouting “You lie!” at President Barack Obama during a nationally televised speech to Congress.


    Listen to the VINnews podcast on:

    iTunes | Spotify | Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Podbean | Amazon

    Follow VINnews for Breaking News Updates


    Connect with VINnews

    Join our WhatsApp group


    10 Comments
    Most Voted
    Newest Oldest
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments
    mannie
    mannie
    13 years ago

    great news, and i hope its not over. this man sat on taxation law department. a regular man would get prison. he deserves that too.

    13 years ago

    he really has to stop making such a fuss

    grandson1
    grandson1
    13 years ago

    I think that this crook should be thrown out. I just can’t believe his lame excuses that he didn’t know what he was doing. The people of Harlem deserve the garbage they get.

    ProminantLawyer
    ProminantLawyer
    13 years ago

    Good news – now he will be law abiding and since he pays taxes now it is good for the gove

    puppydogs
    puppydogs
    13 years ago

    Anything less than a full censure is a joke, and anyone who votes for anything less than censure should be held accountable by the next elections (granted though its in 2 years and most people won’t remember)

    amicable
    amicable
    13 years ago

    Yet another example of disgusting affirmative action discrimination.

    Rubashkin lies on a bank loan: 27 years in prison for the jew.

    Rangel lies on tax returns and to congress: 0 years “censure” for the Black.

    DESPICABLE

    Azoiy
    Azoiy
    13 years ago

    Rangel is playing his cards just right. he sounds like the kid who screams “please don;t hit with that stick” just so that he shouldn’t be hit with the big bat. He too is begging not to be censured, but later after the censure he will laugh the whole thing off.
    Yes – he really deserves to do time in jail, big time! What a travesty of justice.
    And to MazelKGH – you are either a Yid without a heart, or a goy. How stupid to say “Rangel apologizes” – shkoach, what else should he do. But that statement about Rubashkin shows your true colors – shame on you. No felings for another Yid. And so far they have not proven any guilt on Rubashkin other than his dealings with the bank – of which testimony showed that the bank was fully aware of it and happy with the situation. Other than that we only heard of his mitzvos and gemilas chasadim.
    You should apologize!

    Buchwalter
    Buchwalter
    13 years ago

    One honorable legislator is facing prison term for money laundering, convening a white house meeting with oil companies to decide national gasoline policy is not very ethical but some of you may I say show only a slight bias , am I wrong. Why not petition that this matter be solved in a civil court