Rangel

[david gibson]

You shoot someone on Saturday afternoon, then see if you can "schedule an interview" with law enforcement the next morning.

ROTFLMFAO

big difference in an intentional shooting and an accident.

and if there was sooooooo much wrongdoing, why was there no congressional inquiry? because they knew there was no fire either.

you guys will never get over your hatred. but thats ok, i will never like The Apologist either. but at least i have a valid reason.....

[Julie R.]

Cheney and Teddy have been discussed plenty; let's leave them out and keep to the topic at hand: Rangel. Does no one else see the irony of this arrogant, deceitful CRIMINAL getting re-elected and acting like he's done nothing wrong? And playing the race card if anyone dare hints otherwise? Rangel is a poster child for smug assurance that Congressional office is a get out of jail free card for breaking laws. He needs to be removed from office by his peers and locked up with the poor and downtrodden he champions.

[BonMallari]

was it ever reported if the guys got their limit on birds......

[dnf777]

Changing somebody quoted text, is telling a lie. Notice how I made the same point just before you, without lieing.
In fact I bet you had to google Mary Jo just to see what I was talking about because there is no way you sould spell
The name of the river on your own!


.

Ken, I agree with you about Kennedy. I don't think there's a prison large enough to hold all the politicians (from both parties) that should be behind bars!

Didn't catch the other comment you refer to. I quit reading them a while ago.
I have 6 and 8 year olds at home that I get enough of that from.

[YardleyLabs]

Before crying foul on tolerance of criminal behavior, it makes sense to look at the charges involved. Unlike prior such hearings, Rangel was not being charged with corruption, tax evasion or any other violation of the law. He was charged with violating House rules in connection with fund raising for a school of public policy created and named after him at City College in NYC. The actions he took were similar to those taken by Bush, Cheney, Clinton, and their various predecessors in setting up presidential libraries. Rangel was specifically charged with using official stationery and franking privileges to solicit funds for the school, and soliciting contributions for the school from lobbyists. The other charges against him were for incomplete information in his congressional financial disclosure forms (not his tax returns) and for failure to conform with NYC rules concerning use of rent controlled apartments. That too is not a crime. Rather, it simply provides the landlord with an opportunity to evict the tenant without violating NYC laws. Committee staff noted specifically that they found no evidence of corruption or personal gain in anything done. What they did find was evidence of sloppy record keeping and violations of house rules on fund raising. If you or I did the things he did, using company stationery and postage meters to mail out letters, we would not be arrested and we would not be censured, because no laws were broken. If Rangel were expelled for such behavior, it would represent a complete departure from any action with respect to any member off congress in the past.

[dnf777]

big difference in an intentional shooting and an accident.

..

Shooting someone under the influence of alcohol is not viewed as an "accident" in the eyes of the law, nor mine.

Its such typical behavior for sheriffs, wherupon hearing of an accidental shooting, to tell people, "hey, get back with us tomorrow".

If you fail to see that, OR you think gunplay after drinking is ok, then there's really no point discussing this further. But for grins, I can't wait to hear what you say!

[road kill]

Before crying foul on tolerance of criminal behavior, it makes sense to look at the charges involved. Unlike prior such hearings, Rangel was not being charged with corruption, tax evasion or any other violation of the law. He was charged with violating House rules in connection with fund raising for a school of public policy created and named after him at City College in NYC. The actions he took were similar to those taken by Bush, Cheney, Clinton, and their various predecessors in setting up presidential libraries. Rangel was specifically charged with using official stationery and franking privileges to solicit funds for the school, and soliciting contributions for the school from lobbyists. The other charges against him were for incomplete information in his congressional financial disclosure forms (not his tax returns) and for failure to conform with NYC rules concerning use of rent controlled apartments. That too is not a crime. Rather, it simply provides the landlord with an opportunity to evict the tenant without violating NYC laws. Committee staff noted specifically that they found no evidence of corruption or personal gain in anything done. What they did find was evidence of sloppy record keeping and violations of house rules on fund raising. If you or I did the things he did, using company stationery and postage meters to mail out letters, we would not be arrested and we would not be censured, because no laws were broken. If Rangel were expelled for such behavior, it would represent a complete departure from any action with respect to any member off congress in the past.

When was Rangel president???



RK

[road kill]

BTW--Genius:

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/11...Clink4%7C25713

The Congressional commitee forgot to ask your advice first!!


RK

[Eric Johnson]

If Rangle is dismissed from the House, the ultimate penalty, his seat will be vacant and he can run again. Chances are, he'd be re-elected.

Unless there is a clear violation of tax law, I'm going to move on.

Eric

[Gerry Clinchy]

The other charges against him were for incomplete information in his congressional financial disclosure forms (not his tax returns) and for failure to conform with NYC rules concerning use of rent controlled apartments. That too is not a crime. Rather, it simply provides the landlord with an opportunity to evict the tenant without violating NYC laws. Committee staff noted specifically that they found no evidence of corruption or personal gain in anything done. What they did find was evidence of sloppy record keeping and violations of house rules on fund raising.

Using the apartments to live in ... would seem to be personal gain; although the only apartment the committee took issue with was the one (as I understand it) that committee addressed was the one used for his campaign office.

One can make a case for him not getting "personal gain" for the charity he was soliciting money for ... depending on what activities that charity ends up participating in.

And all that cash in the freezer? Certainly, I'd expect large sums of cash legally acquired would be safer in a bank? Nobody seems to be taking about that anymore.