Rangel ‘trial’ spotlights flaws in House ethics process

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Rangel ‘trial’ spotlights flaws in House ethics process

By Rachel Rose Hartman and Holly Bailey

Every two years around this time, a common mantra repeated by Democrats and Republicans alike makes its way through Capitol Hill: This will be the Congress that finally cleans up Washington.

"We're going to drain the swamp," Nancy Pelosi vowed in 2006, echoing congressional leaders before her. And just last week, Eric Cantor, the No. 2 GOP leader in the House, promised virtually the same thing as the Republicans prepare to take the House majority. "We will drain the swamp rather than learn to swim with the alligators," Cantor declared.

But the conclusion this week of the House Ethics Committee investigation of New York Democrat Charlie Rangel confirms what virtually everyone in Washington knows about the House's interest in cracking down on ethics: It's a joke.


After two years of investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the official name of the ethics committee), Rangel was sentenced to a slap on the wrist for 11 separate ethics violations. It's a humiliating blow to the vanity of a 20-term lawmaker, perhaps, but Rangel won't have to resign from Congress or face penalties beyond paying back taxes on the charges. Rangel, like those before him, will benefit from a system designed entirely by Congress to protect its own.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/rangel-trial-spotlights-flaws-in-house-ethics-process

how true

 

[Bonestorm]

Rangel ‘trial’ spotlights flaws in House ethics process

By Rachel Rose Hartman and Holly Bailey

Every two years around this time, a common mantra repeated by Democrats and Republicans alike makes its way through Capitol Hill: This will be the Congress that finally cleans up Washington.

"We're going to drain the swamp," Nancy Pelosi vowed in 2006, echoing congressional leaders before her. And just last week, Eric Cantor, the No. 2 GOP leader in the House, promised virtually the same thing as the Republicans prepare to take the House majority. "We will drain the swamp rather than learn to swim with the alligators," Cantor declared.

But the conclusion this week of the House Ethics Committee investigation of New York Democrat Charlie Rangel confirms what virtually everyone in Washington knows about the House's interest in cracking down on ethics: It's a joke.


After two years of investigation by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct (the official name of the ethics committee), Rangel was sentenced to a slap on the wrist for 11 separate ethics violations. It's a humiliating blow to the vanity of a 20-term lawmaker, perhaps, but Rangel won't have to resign from Congress or face penalties beyond paying back taxes on the charges. Rangel, like those before him, will benefit from a system designed entirely by Congress to protect its own.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/rangel-trial-spotlights-flaws-in-house-ethics-process

how true

While I'm sympathetic to the view that Congress policing itself is pretty worthless, I'm not sure what alternative there is that would be better. What powers do you think the ethics committees should have that they do not have and for what purpose? What is the alternative and how would it be better?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

While I'm sympathetic to the view that Congress policing itself is pretty worthless, I'm not sure what alternative there is that would be better. What powers do you think the ethics committees should have that they do not have and for what purpose? What is the alternative and how would it be better?

they have more power than to simply recommend censure...

that is the joke part

 

[Bonestorm]

they have more power than to simply recommend censure...

that is the joke part

What do you think they should have recommended?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

What do you think they should have recommended?

the same penalties that you or i would get had we been convicted of the same things

 

[Bonestorm]

the same penalties that you or i would get had we been convicted of the same things

That's not really the job of the ethics committee, though. It's not the IRS, DOJ or US Attorney's office and a House ethics committee hearing is not a criminal trial.

You're basically asking for the ethics committee to operate as its own criminal and civil justice system. I don't think that's quite appropriate.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

That's not really the job of the ethics committee, though. It's not the IRS, DOJ or US Attorney's office and a House ethics committee hearing is not a criminal trial.

You're basically asking for the ethics committee to operate as its own criminal and civil justice system. I don't think that's quite appropriate.

not at all, you're completely misconstruing what i said

you asked about recommendation, it entirely within their power to refer the matter to the proper state or federal authorities

 

[Bonestorm]

not at all, you're completely misconstruing what i said

you asked about recommendation, it entirely within their power to refer the matter to the proper state or federal authorities

And if you answered "referral to the Department of Justice" your response would have made a modicum of sense. Instead, you mentioned penalties.

 

[Damocles]

While I'm sympathetic to the view that Congress policing itself is pretty worthless, I'm not sure what alternative there is that would be better. What powers do you think the ethics committees should have that they do not have and for what purpose? What is the alternative and how would it be better?

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...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

And if you answered "referral to the Department of Justice" your response would have made a modicum of sense. Instead, you mentioned penalties.

they can recommend disciplinary action as well

(c) Upon completion of any proceeding held pursuant to clause (b), the Committee shall consider and vote on a motion to recommend to the House of Representatives that the House take disciplinary action

http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/111th_Rules_Amended_June_2009.pdf

good link, read up

 

[SmarterthanYou]

While I'm sympathetic to the view that Congress policing itself is pretty worthless, I'm not sure what alternative there is that would be better. What powers do you think the ethics committees should have that they do not have and for what purpose? What is the alternative and how would it be better?

there is none. congress is like Mos Eisely spaceport. it's just unfortunate the some people are too apathetic to vote out their elected criminals.

 

[Bonestorm]

Dude, Congress has the power to expel their members.

I understand that Congress has the power to expel its members. Do you think the ethics committee should have recommended that Rangel be expelled?

That's just a little extreme considering only two people in the history of the county have been expelled from Congress for reasons other than treason or supporting confederate secession and both were convicted of accepting bribes.

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!"

The Ethics Committee is bipartisan so I'm not sure why you insist on injection partisanship in what the committee did. In general, I don't think members of Congress should be removed from office by people other than their constituents except in extreme circumstances not present here.

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...

I'm not following much of that, but the IRS is still free to go after him.

 

[Bonestorm]

they can recommend disciplinary action as well

(c) Upon completion of any proceeding held pursuant to clause (b), the Committee shall consider and vote on a motion to recommend to the House of Representatives that the House take disciplinary action

http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/111th_Rules_Amended_June_2009.pdf

good link, read up

They have recommended disciplinary action. That's what censure is. Rangel has to appear and get lectured by his colleagues.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

They have recommended disciplinary action. That's what censure is. Rangel has to appear and get lectured by his colleagues.

lmao....

yeah....maybe the irs and court system can just lecture me

what a hack nigel

 

[old retired fella]

nothing the ethics committee does - or doesn't do - precludes any other arm of government from doing - or independently deciding to refrain from doing - whatever they can do.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

nothing the ethics committee does - or doesn't do - precludes any other arm of government from doing - or independently deciding to refrain from doing - whatever they can do.

most irrelevant post of the day

good job maineman...

 

[Damocles]

I understand that Congress has the power to expel its members. Do you think the ethics committee should have recommended that Rangel be expelled?

That's just a little extreme considering only two people in the history of the county have been expelled from Congress for reasons other than treason or supporting confederate secession and both were convicted of accepting bribes.




The Ethics Committee is bipartisan so I'm not sure why you insist on injection partisanship in what the committee did. In general, I don't think members of Congress should be removed from office by people other than their constituents except in extreme circumstances not present here.



I'm not following much of that, but the IRS is still free to go after him.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[old retired fella]

most irrelevant post of the day

good job maineman...

hey ohioman, you were whining that somehow, the DOJ and the IRS were not going after Rangel.... my post was not irrelevant...just a bit too subtle for your hamfisted approach to everything.

 

[Bonestorm]

lmao....

yeah....maybe the irs and court system can just lecture me

what a hack nigel

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

With respect to any proved counts against a Member of the House of Representatives, the Committee may recommend to the House one or more of the following sanctions:

(1) Expulsion from the House of Representatives.

(2) Censure.

(3) Reprimand.

(4) Fine.
(5) Denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or immunity of the Member if under the Constitution the House of Representatives may impose such denial or limitation.

(6) Any other sanction determined by the Committee to be appropriate.

[snip]

With respect to the sanctions that the Committee may recommend, reprimand is appropriate for serious violations, censure is appropriate for more serious violations, and expulsion of a Member or dismissal of an officer or employee is appropriate for the most serious violations. A recommendation of a fine is appropriate in a case in which it is likely that the violation was committed to secure a personal financial benefit; and a recommendation of a denial or limitation of a right, power, privilege, or immunity of a Member is appropriate when the violation bears upon the exercise or holding of such right, power, privilege, or immunity. This clause sets forth general guidelines and does not limit the authority of the Committee to recommend other sanctions.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

hey ohioman, you were whining that somehow, the DOJ and the IRS were not going after Rangel.... my post was not irrelevant...just a bit too subtle for your hamfisted approach to everything.

you have no clue how the process works

go away maineman