The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: TheSarge on November 16, 2010, 11:26:30 AM
-
(http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/rangel_397x224.jpg)
WASHINGTON -- A House ethics panel has found Democratic Rep. Charles Rangel of New York guilty on 11 counts of breaking House rules.
The full ethics committee will next conduct a hearing on the appropriate punishment for the former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The committee will then make a recommendation to the House.
Possible punishments include a House vote deploring Rangel's conduct, a fine and denial of privileges.
The eight-member ethics panel had sat as a jury to judge Rangel's conduct. The 80-year-old congressman from Harlem was charged with 13 counts of financial and fundraising wrongdoing.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/16/ethics-panel-continues-deliberations-rangel/
-
GOOD!
Now, let's see a "decent" punishment. Not a slap on the wrist or taking away some privileges. That's bullshit. :argh:
-
GOOD!
Now, let's see a "decent" punishment. Not a slap on the wrist or taking away some privileges. That's bullshit. :argh:
A slap on the wrist is probably what he'll get. Some small fine.
-
He SHOULD be incarcerated and stripped of his position, period.
-
He SHOULD be incarcerated and stripped of his position, period.
....and I could probably see the fires in Harlem from here... :lmao:
-
They don't have the power to kick him out or send him to jail, all they can do is 'Censure' or 'Reprimand' him, with probably a fine thrown in. It all really means jack shit, they wanted to ram it through now though so there would be minimal coverage of an abbreviated trial rather than days and days of extended testimony about all the bloody details of his many years of corrupt bullshit and tax fraud.
-
They don't have the power to kick him out or send him to jail, all they can do is 'Censure' or 'Reprimand' him, with probably a fine thrown in. It all really means jack shit, they wanted to ram it through now though so there would be minimal coverage of an abbreviated trial rather than days and days of extended testimony about all the bloody details of his many years of corrupt bullshit and tax fraud.
Hi,
Of course the IRS would never consider prosecuting him for tax evasion right????
regards,
5412
-
Sadly, I don't think so, they seem to reserve that for White small businessmen with no political clout who get in over their heads.
-
No sense responding to each one of youall individually as I totally and wholeheartedly agree with everything said above.
He's a lowlife crook and should be thrown in prison on numerous felony charges. Being a minority Congresscritter, he'll probably get the ACLU to bring charges against his accusers for discrimination.
People like him make me want to throw up. People who vote for people like him make me want to throw things. :argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:
-
They will send him a strongly worded letter.
Dear Honorable Representative Mister Rangel your highness:
You have been a naughty boy fellow, a very naughty boy fellow. If you don't share some of the stolen wealth, we will have no recourse but to....to....to....send you another strongly worded letter.
Yours compatriots in crime;
The Ethics Committee.
-
Sadly in the urban minority culture he "represents" he will be regarded as a hero...one of our own who stuck it to the oppressive white establishment and got away with a minimal punishment.
It is a thought process devoid of reality and based on the belief that everything in life was and is a plan to keep them down.
Charlie has enriched himself at their expense yet by saying the words they want to hear is beloved.
-
Sadly in the urban minority culture he "represents" he will be regarded as a hero...one of our own who stuck it to the oppressive white establishment and got away with a minimal punishment.
It is a thought process devoid of reality and based on the belief that everything in life was and is a plan to keep them down.
Charlie has enriched himself at their expense yet by saying the words they want to hear is beloved.
Back in the 40's/50's, during my formative years, the rich blacks got rich milking their fellow blacks. And when you go back to before the civil war, slave owning blacks were know to be the most abusive of slave owners. So Charlie, Jessie, Al and all the othe race baiters are just doing what comes naturally, milking the brothers for every dime they can.
-
Lock him up, take the key and throw it in the trash. Such a disgrace to Congress, he is.
-
I heard reports that he illegally took almost $400K from PACs for his defense.
-
House Ethics Committee Recommends Censure for Rangel
WASHINGTON -- The House ethics committee's chief counsel has recommended that Rep. Charles Rangel be censured in connection with a finding that he engaged in improper financial and fundraising conduct.
If Chisam's recommendation is carried out, this would be the most serious punishment, short of expulsion, which is highly unlikely. Chisam and Rangel argued their positions Thursday in a public hearing on sanctions held by the ethics committee.
Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/18/ethics-committee-meet-rangels-punishment/)
-
Now it goes to the full house for a vote on his punishment. Too bad it couldn't be put off until the new members are seated.
-
A slap on the wrist and a "Don't do that again" and all will be back to normal. F'en pathetic. :argh:
-
Breaking on Fox News: the ethics committee voted 9-1 in favor of censure.
-
This is about what I'd expect anyway. No way were they going to throw him out - fraud, lying, and deception don't equate to real crimes, I guess. :whatever:
The thing that blows my mind (it shouldn't but it does), is that they keep reelecting his ass. Sumbitch is 80 years old and they keep putting him back in office.
Term limits anyone?
-
Term limits anyone?
My thoughts exactly.
-
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpps/news/politics/rangel-censure-heads-to-house-floor-dpgonc-km-20101129_10850683
(NewsCore) - The House ethics committee Monday night sent its censure resolution of Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) to the House floor.
Committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) confirmed the move to Fox News Channel.
The resolution is "privileged," meaning it goes immediately to the front of the legislative line. The House either considers the resolution right away, or can wait no more than two days to debate
-
Democrats Give Rangel Standing Ovation at Censure
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixVgUEUNY3U&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]
Culture of corruption...
-
He blames the guilty votes on politics, saying that the members voted to censure him to appease their voters. Well Duh, you :censored: criminal. Everyone knows that any normal person would be facing jail time for just the tax evasion charges.
-
He blames the guilty votes on politics, saying that the members voted to censure him to appease their voters. Well Duh, you :censored: criminal. Everyone knows that any normal person would be facing jail time for just the tax evasion charges.
See, this what I don't understand. He's no better than you or I or anyone else. He did the crime, now he should do the time. If we did a third of what that crook had done, we'd be behind bars. He works for us. He's not above us. Sickening.
-
He did what any career criminal and bullshit artist did... he made it about something other than himself. "My momma didn't hug me enough." "The kids at school laughed at me."
Nothing surprising.
-
I'm too lazy/busy to look it up and post it this morning. There were actually TWO votes regarding the Rangel censure. Anyone got the time to find them in Thomas.loc and link them here? I'm curious to see how my soon-to-be-ex-moonbatcritter voted on both of those.
-
I'm too lazy/busy to look it up and post it this morning. There were actually TWO votes regarding the Rangel censure. Anyone got the time to find them in Thomas.loc and link them here? I'm curious to see how my soon-to-be-ex-moonbatcritter voted on both of those.
She voted against the amendment to change the censure to a reprimand.
Roll 606 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll606.xml)
She voted for the censure.
Roll 607 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll607.xml)
-
I'm too lazy/busy to look it up and post it this morning. There were actually TWO votes regarding the Rangel censure. Anyone got the time to find them in Thomas.loc and link them here? I'm curious to see how my soon-to-be-ex-moonbatcritter voted on both of those.
There was the censure vote itself and an amendment to reduce the punishment from censure to reprimand. The link to the censure vote doesn't seem to be working.
H.RES.1737
Title: In the matter of Representative Charles B. Rangel.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/~bdsbgA::|/home/LegislativeData.php| (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:2:./temp/~bdsbgA::|/home/LegislativeData.php|)
H.AMDT.784 (A001)
Amends: H.RES.1737
Sponsor: Rep Butterfield, G. K. [NC-1] (offered 12/2/2010)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to change the recommendation of censure contained in the resoluttion to that of reprimand.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll606.xml
-
Holy smokes--she actually voted to censure him? After all that money he gave her?
Guess she has a conscience after all. Too bad she discovered it just a bit too late.