Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Get Ready For The Charlie Coverup


From the AP:

New York Democrat Charles Rangel made a last-minute effort Tuesday to settle his ethics case and prevent a House trial that could embarrass him and damage the Democratic Party.

The talks between Rangel's lawyer and the House ethics committee's nonpartisan attorneys were confirmed by ethics Chairman Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif. Lofgren said she is not involved in the talks, and added that the committee's lawmakers have always accepted the professional staff's recommendations in previous plea bargains.

Rangel, a 40-year House veteran who is 80 years old, would have to admit to multiple, substantial ethics violations for any plea bargain to be accepted. Earlier negotiations broke down when Rangel would only admit to some allegations — not enough to satisfy the committee lawyers, according to people familiar with those talks who were not authorized to be quoted by name.

If the talks are not successful, trial proceedings for the Harlem congressman would begin Thursday with a reading of alleged ethics violations that are still confidential.

Now, tell me if you can: why exactly should Charlie Rangel get to choose whether or not evidence of his dirty deeds get to remain confidential? Would you get that choice if you'd been indicted for (oh, I don't know) tax fraud and then copped a plea? Hell, no--all the evidence against you would be a matter of public record. Why should Rangel get to hide his own sins just to prevent embarrassment--or to limit the damage to the Democratic Party in the midterms?

Personally, I hope old Corrupt Charlie fights to his last nickel here--and after four decades of handing out favors, he has a whole hell of a lot of nickels. I remember how much damage Rangel's predecessor, old Dirty Dan Rostenkowski did in 1994, and it'd be a shame if yet another corrupt Ways And Means Chairman got off with a wrist-slap--and a coverup.

9 comments:

  1. "could embarrass him" ???

    How about get him removed from the House ... I suppose that would be embarrassing ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. No huge surprise here. Especially considering they write the rules as to who gets to watch the watchman.

    One solution, term limits. Obviously they can't be trusted to remain honest, so don't give them a chance at being dishonest. Hell, the president is limited, why the hell can't all congressCritters?

    ReplyDelete
  3. He'll be able to cop a plea and keep his illegal activities secret...because he's a DEMOCRAT!

    I've added your blog to my blog roll. Good stuff here. thanks.

    Rich vail

    ReplyDelete
  4. "... why exactly should Charlie Rangel get to choose whether or not evidence of his dirty deeds get to remain confidential?"

    I'll tell you why Will: Because this is the United States of America.

    And in America, the powerful have a set of rules they live by that don't include police, or prosecutors or jails.

    In America, the powerful and the powerless live by two different sets of laws. The powerful - folks like Charlie Rangel and John Kerry and Tim Geithner - are allowed to cheat on their taxes. If they get caught ... then they pay up and go along on their merry way. Mostly, they don't get caught.

    If you cheat on your taxes, you go to jail.

    Mr. Rangel hasn't even been charged with a crime. And he won't be because he's a powerful man.

    This is America, sir. In America, the powerful don't go to jail. You no longer live in a free country where everyone lives by the same set of laws. Where nobody is above the law. You now live in a country where the rich and powerful are beyond the reach of the law.

    Get used to it. It won't chaff so much.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Charlie will be permitted to cut a very favorable deal. He knows where the bodies are buried, and can take a lot of powerful people down with him.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One solution, term limits. Obviously they can't be trusted to remain honest, so don't give them a chance at being dishonest.

    Yep. Congresscritters won't be considered nearly as good of an investment if they're only going to be in DC for 12 years instead of 40+.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Congresscritters won't be considered nearly as good of an investment if they're only going to be in DC for 12 years instead of 40+."

    I don't believe this to be the case but at any rate, we already have term limits. If you're voting for an incumbent ... ANY INCUMBENT ... then you're just begging to have a corrupt government.

    If they're already in office ... don't vote for them. Republican or Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Charlie Rangel is going to "skate" because his interlocutors in our Democratic Congress are nearly as corrupt as he is. Shame!

    The voters in November will begin "House" cleaning.

    ReplyDelete