Rangel ‘trial’ spotlights flaws in House ethics process

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Read your fucking link you ignorant shit. Here, let me quote it for you:

lmao...that proves nothing you moron

why didn't they turn this over to the proper authorities? or yeah...because then he wouldn't just get a lecture

 

[Bonestorm]

Every committee is "bipartisan", they always will be unless one party holds every seat in Congress, however it is junk to pretend that they didn't rush to do this before the Rs held the majority in all the committees as well as the Chairs.

The ethics committee doesn't work that way.

Seriously, I don't understand exactly what causes people to be so willing to to to "protect" the criminals that are in elected office just because of party affiliation. I'll never understand it.

I'm all in favor of the IRS and DOJ bringing criminal charges against him. I just don't think that his the job of the ethics committee.

Yes, they should recommend to expel a member who was in his position violating the very rules and laws that he was appointed to uphold. The people in his district can do better, they know it, you know it, and I know it.

The people in his district just re-elected him.

And no it isn't "extreme", Congress has been very lax in policing its members. I believe that they should do a better job at it.

Yes, it is extreme. Only two people in history have been expelled for something other than treason or supporting confederate succession.

 

[Bonestorm]

lmao...that proves nothing you moron

why didn't they turn this over to the proper authorities? or yeah...because then he wouldn't just get a lecture

That proves that you are a jackass. Censure is disciplinary action.

And the IRS and DOJ don't need a permission slip from the House ethics committee to investigate Rangel so I'm not sure why you have such a hard on for "referral" to the proper authorities.

 

[Damocles]

The ethics committee doesn't work that way.



I'm all in favor of the IRS and DOJ bringing criminal charges against him. I just don't think that his the job of the ethics committee.



The people in his district just re-elected him.



Yes, it is extreme. Only two people in history have been expelled for something other than treason or supporting confederate succession.

Again, past poor performance is not the measure of what is "extreme". We should demand better of those we elect rather than try partisanly to excuse even the most egregious behavior. What he has done is something that any other employee at any of our jobs would get fired for, he needs to simply be sent home.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

That proves that you are a jackass. Censure is disciplinary action.

And the IRS and DOJ don't need a permission slip from the House ethics committee to investigate Rangel so I'm not sure why you have such a hard on for "referral" to the proper authorities.

did he or did he not violate tax laws....

 

[Bonestorm]

Again, past poor performance is not the measure of what is "extreme". We should demand better of those we elect rather than try partisanly to excuse even the most egregious behavior.

But it isn't "the most egregious behavior." That's the point. Treating Charlie Rangel in the same way that you treat traitors to the United States of America or people convicted of accepting bribes (or caught on tape accepting $50,000 cash from undercover IRS agents) doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Again, if the DOJ or IRS want to prosecute him, I'm all for it.

 

[Bonestorm]

did he or did he not violate tax laws....

Your question is not relevant. The issue for the ethics committee is whether he violated House ethics rules. They found that he did and sanctioned him as they saw fit.

If the IRS or DOJ, who are responsible for enforcing tax laws, want to investigate and prosecute Charlie Rangel they are free to do so.

 

[Damocles]

But it isn't "the most egregious behavior." That's the point. Treating Charlie Rangel in the same way that you treat traitors to the United States of America or people convicted of accepting bribes (or caught on tape accepting $50,000 cash from undercover IRS agents) doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Again, if the DOJ or IRS want to prosecute him, I'm all for it.

It makes sense to me, he quite literally violated the very rules he was appointed to uphold. IMO, it is exactly equal to taking bribes. Send him home, just like any other employer would do, and then let the DOJ and IRS agents go after him. It isn't your employer's duty to imprison you if you violate the laws, they just send you home.

We put these people in positions that effect our lives, demanding better of them shouldn't be so difficult.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Your question is not relevant. The issue for the ethics committee is whether he violated House ethics rules. They found that he did and sanctioned him as they saw fit.

If the IRS or DOJ, who are responsible for enforcing tax laws, want to investigate and prosecute Charlie Rangel they are free to do so.

absolutely incorrect....amazing how ignorant you are

http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/RangelStatementChairRankingMember.pdf

read the first paragraph under the heading "report"

further, if they believe there is evidence of violation of any law or regulation, they can and should refer the case to the doj or irs....but they didn't

why is that? given they found him guilty of violating such laws....

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Dude, Congress has the power to expel their members.

Seriously, this is Ds doing anything and everything they can to let the guy continue in office. If this guy was an R I'd still be saying, "Time to go, pal!"

Now we have Congress saying, The definition of "is", and unsurprisingly, Desh is all over any excuse whatsoever to give the guy a pass. If I'd done what he has done the IRS would have landed on me like a big heavy thing landing on a much smaller thing...

It's some back taxes. I don't care. If it were an R you wouldn't be deciding to strip the people in a district of the representative of their choice over some misdemeanors.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

lmao...that proves nothing you moron

why didn't they turn this over to the proper authorities? or yeah...because then he wouldn't just get a lecture

No one is preventing "the proper authorities" from doing whatever they want.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

It makes sense to me, he quite literally violated the very rules he was appointed to uphold. IMO, it is exactly equal to taking bribes. Send him home, just like any other employer would do, and then let the DOJ and IRS agents go after him. It isn't your employer's duty to imprison you if you violate the laws, they just send you home.

We put these people in positions that effect our lives, demanding better of them shouldn't be so difficult.

If the people in his district wanted a different representative they could vote for him. As it is they would just vote him back. It's a waste of taxpayer money just for your biased partisan idiocy. You should be placed in front of a firing squad.

 

[Damocles]

It's some back taxes. I don't care. If it were an R you wouldn't be deciding to strip the people in a district of the representative of their choice over some misdemeanors.

Considering the position he was in, yes, I would. Even misdemeanors are "impeachable", and the specific position the man was in makes his violations even worse.

 

[Damocles]

If the people in his district wanted a different representative they could vote for him. As it is they would just vote him back. It's a waste of taxpayer money just for your biased partisan idiocy. You should be placed in front of a firing squad.

Right, they could. However they are not the only lives effected by such authority. We set these people in positions of power, it is time to demand better action.

 

[Damocles]

No one is preventing "the proper authorities" from doing whatever they want.

There is a difference between turning something over and not turning something over.

If there were no difference there would be no reason requiring, say, a shrink to turn over any patient for any crime, because when they don't they aren't "stopping" authorities from doing something.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Considering the position he was in, yes, I would. Even misdemeanors are "impeachable", and the specific position the man was in makes his violations even worse.

Misdemeanors didn't mean the same in those times as they do now, and you can impeach someone for any reason you want.

 

[Damocles]

Misdemeanors didn't mean the same in those times as they do now, and you can impeach someone for any reason you want.

Yet you say we shouldn't, even for crimes because they are "misdemeanors"...

Rubbish. The man directly used his power to violate rules it was his job to oversee. It is disgusting that we have a whole party willing to celebrate that such a man will continue in his job because you don't want to see a D get fired for such things. Any one of us would have, rightly, been fired from our jobs for equal violations. He's not special or above the laws or even above morality. If it were my Congressman, I would like to see him expelled so the vacating committee could appoint somebody who had a portion of an idea of the difference between right and wrong, let alone who wouldn't violate the very laws and rules they are appointed to oversee.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

No one is preventing "the proper authorities" from doing whatever they want.

why is you liberals have deflected and are trying to turn this into a thread about the irs or doj....

this thread is about the ethics panel being a joke and i said not turning him over is another example of the joke the ethics panel has become....

they should have referred the case because they found clear and convincing evidence he didn't pay taxes for over 17 years...

why are you defending them not referring the case to the doj or irs?

 

[old retired fella]

why is you liberals have deflected and are trying to turn this into a thread about the irs or doj....

this thread is about the ethics panel being a joke and i said not turning him over is another example of the joke the ethics panel has become....

they should have referred the case because they found clear and convincing evidence he didn't pay taxes for over 17 years...

why are you defending them not referring the case to the doj or irs?

are you honestly suggesting that the IRS and the DOJ have been kept blindfolded by the ethics committee?

Are you honestly suggesting that either one of those agencies is incapable of acting on the actions of Rep. Rangel without the concurrence/acquiescence of the house ethics committee?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yet you say we shouldn't, even for crimes because they are "misdemeanors"...

Rubbish. The man directly used his power to violate rules it was his job to oversee. It is disgusting that we have a whole party willing to celebrate that such a man will continue in his job because you don't want to see a D get fired for such things. Any one of us would have, rightly, been fired from our jobs for equal violations. He's not special or above the laws or even above morality. If it were my Congressman, I would like to see him expelled so the vacating committee could appoint somebody who had a portion of an idea of the difference between right and wrong, let alone who wouldn't violate the very laws and rules they are appointed to oversee.

How is tax trouble "using your power to violate rules it's your job to oversee"? The ways and means committee oversees spending, not taxation, and Rangel doesn't have any direct power over that regardless. If he had been using his power in the government to prevent himself from being taxed (something you have no power to do no matter how powerful you are in the legislative branch), it would be different, but there's no evidence that occurred.