CNN Breaking News — Ethics subcommittee finds Rep. Charlie Rangel guilty on multiple violations of House rules.
28 thoughts on “Twitter: CNN Breaking News …”
Joe Mama
And here I thought all of Pelosi’s “drain the swamp” rhetoric was just talk…
gahrie
They didn’t exacrly drain the swamp…it was more of a severe finger waggling….
Brendan Loy
Gahrie, as I understand it, the “sentence” remains to be determined. So, that said: what the hell are you talking about?
Joe Mama
It’s true that sentencing remains, but I’d be surprised if Rangel was penalized significantly over this (of course, I could be wrong).
I’d also be surprised if he doesn’t piss and moan about being denied his right to counsel.
Brendan Loy
You and gahrie might be surprised if something happens, but that doesn’t make gahrie’s statement — which is framed as an analysis of what’s already happened, not as a prediction of what will happen — accurate.
As for pissing and moaning by Rangel, that will certainly happen, but it doesn’t really speak to whether the Dems are draining the swamp, or merely paying lip service to doing so. To date, I am unaware of any actions the Dems (i.e., the leadership, the party) have taken (as opposed to actions or statements by isolated individuals, and/or actions you expect the Dems to take in the future) which indicate anything other than seriousness about cracking down on Rangel here. I mean, they convicted the guy, after all.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
David K.
Apparently gahrie is not a fan of due process, he just wants summary judgement and punishment. Which, you know as a supporter of torture/gitmo/etc. is probably not surprising.
Joe Mama
Rangel was convicted of House ethics violations alright … in a case where the facts were so clear and undisputed that he literally had no defense whatsoever. That doesn’t really speak to Democrats’ seriousness about “draining the swamp” either — Democrats on the Ethics Committee essentially had no choice but to find Rangel guilty or be regarded as a complete joke.
Again, I doubt Rangel will be penalized significantly over this, i.e., he won’t be expelled. He’ll be censured at most, and more likely he’ll just receive some type formal reprimand that in all likelihood won’t matter much to his constituents. This prediction isn’t based on any particular actions by the Democrat leadership, just the simple fact that Rangel has been a key Democrat leader in the House for decades with many friends and allies who will be voting on any punishment the Ethics Committee recommends.
That’s all well and good, Joe, but the fact remains that, by your own admission, the Dems have done nothing as of yet to justify your & gahrie’s suspicions. Perhaps you’ll be proven right; I’m not predicting otherwise. (I’m agnostic on what they’ll do. Haven’t followed it closely enough to really have an opinion.) Nevertheless, although you may not view his conviction as disproving your & gahrie’s point, it certainly doesn’t prove your point, either — at best for you, it’s simply neutral — so that’s why gahrie’s original comment remains odd and inaccurate.
Joe Mama
I can’t speak to gahrie’s comment, which I suppose you can read to assume that punishment has already been decided if you want to, but I didn’t say that the Dems have done nothing to justify my suspicions. Rather, I said only that my prediction wasn’t based on any particular actions on the part of the Dems. Pelosi could have been running interference for Rangel during the House investigation for all I know, and some commentators have said exactly that, but I didn’t consider such things when I made my prediction. My prediction is based simply on Rangel’s status and connections amongst the full House that will be voting on any recommendation of punishment, nothing more.
Really, my original comment was just mocking Pelosi for her “drain the swamp” and “culture of corruption” rhetoric that is somewhat ironic now given that it’s Rangel (and very possibly Maxine Waters) who is found to be corrupt.
gahrie
Tell you what Brendan, if the Dems do anything other than a meaningless censure of Rangel, I will come back here and admit I was wrong, which I Always do on the rare occasions I am wrong.
Brendan Loy
But gahrie, even if that happens, you were still wrong, because you said, today: “They didn’t exacrly drain the swamp…it was more of a severe finger waggling….” That’s past tense. You’re making a statement about, ostensibly, what has happened, not a prediction of what will happen in the future. Since the statement is not true YET, then by definition, it is wrong.
It would be like if I said today, “Boise State was really exposed as a fraud by Fresno State. They didn’t show up to play.” Even if that happens on Friday, it still makes no sense to say today. Unless I’ve got Marty McFly’s sports almanac and I forgot what day it is, I guess.
Look, I’m not trying to harp on this like it’s some sort of capital offense; I’m just explaining my position, which was borne of genuine confusion as to what you were saying. I assume perhaps you mistakenly thought the Dems had already given Rangel the “meaningless censure” you expect they will eventually give him, and so you made that comment with that incorrect belief in mind. Am I wrong? If that’s what happened, it’s hardly a big deal. Like I said, I was just confused when I initially read your comment, and the answer that “I’m convinced this is what the Dems will do” doesn’t really alleviate that confusion.
gahrie
No, my position is that censure was the only outcome since the beginning of the process. If Charley Rangel committed murder on the capitol steps in front of news cameras the worst a Democratic controlled Congress would do is censure him.
Remember what a big deal people made about the Foley incident? It arguably lost the 2006 election for the Republicans, and that was after he resigned!
What was the reaction to Stubbs who was accused (and admitted to) actuall sexual contact with 17 pages? The Democrats weren’t even going to censor him, merely reprimand him until Newt Gingrich objected and demanded that he be expelled. They finally censored him, let him keep his committee, and he continued to be re-elected by Democratic voters for 13 more years.
Compare how Republicans treated Nixon to how Democrats treated Clinton.
There is a clear and consistent record of Democrats protecting other Democratic politicians…….
gahrie
sorry..it should read “..actual sexual contact with 17 year old pages….”
gahrie
Wow..I just found out the case is even more illustrative of my point:
Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.)
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages – Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane’s conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds’s more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.
So both a Conservative Republican and a Liberal Democrat were involved, and the gears were in motion to sweep the cases under the rug by a Democrat Congress until a Republican demanded real accountability.
Crane apologizes, Studds remains defiant, and Republicans hold Crane accountable were Democrats reward Studds……..
That still doesn’t explain your erroneous use of the past tense to describe something that hasn’t happened yet. (“They didn’t exacrly drain the swamp…it was more of a severe finger waggling….”) No matter how confident you are that censure is “the only [possible] outcome,” and that “the worst a Democratic controlled Congress would do is censure him” because the Democrats have a “clear and consistent record” of protecting their own, the fact remains that, in this case, which is what we were talking about, it hasn’t happened yet, so your earlier comment makes absolutely no logical sense.
To make a better sports analogy — i.e., to something I actually think will almost certainly happen — it would be like saying, “Man, TCU really slaughtered New Mexico! They just absolutely pummeled them.” I am 99.999999% sure TCU, which is a really great team, will, in fact, pummel New Mexico, which is an abysmally awful team. But it hasn’t happened yet, so no matter how confident I am that it will — no matter how much I believe a slaughtering of New Mexico is “the only outcome” that can possibly happen, based on TCU’s “clear and consistent record” of slaughtering vastly inferior teams — it’s still not a past-tense event at this point.
gahrie
*Where
(sorry ..late night after a long day..and I am fired up….)
gahrie
OK…for the pedantic among us ….
They didn’t exacrly drain the swamp…it is going to be more of a severe finger waggling….
gahrie
Now..instead of addressing my form…how about the underlying issue?
Do you think he is guilty?
Do you think there is a chance in heal anything worse is going to happen then a censure?
Do you think there was ever a chance of anything worse than a censure?
gahrie
Now..instead of addressing my form…how about the underlying issue?
Do you think he is guilty?
Do you think there is a chance in hell anything worse is going to happen then a censure?
Do you think there was ever a chance of anything worse than a censure?
gahrie
damn it..I’m going to bed now…
Brendan Loy
I haven’t followed the case closely enough to have an informed opinion about that. I believe I said earlier that I’m agnostic as to what they’ll do. I was just confused by your original comment, not just its “form” but its content (the whole thrust of the comment, in substance, was an assertion something had already happened a certain way, which is false) and so I piped up on that limited issue.
I hope Rangel gets the book thrown at him, because he seems like a slimeball, but I can’t say much more than that.
The Dems have had control of both houses of Congress for four years, so yes, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to remark that “they didn’t exactly drain the swamp” during that time frame. Under Dem control, the House and Senate — and specifically the ethics committees — have moved like molasses on investigations, proposed ethical reforms, and earmark reform.
The Dems won control in 2006 for two basic reasons:
1. People were increasingly unhappy with the progress of the Iraq war (not to say that a majority were opposed and wanted to withdraw — certainly a very large liberal minority felt that way, along with a few more across the spectrum — just that a very large majority were unhappy with the direction the war was going).
2. People had felt the Republicans had been in control and were thus: A. becoming too corrupted by power, as evidenced by Foley, Craig, and DeLay; and B. reckless with spending.
The Dems had a clear mandate coming into Congress to turn up the heat on these issues. Instead, the Dems outspent and outcorrupted their predecessors, and instead of supporting the surge that led to success in Iraq, they fought it tooth and nail.
That’s what you would call an unfulfilled mandate.
gahrie
I hope Rangel gets the book thrown at him, because he seems like a slimeball,
The tragedy of this case is the fact that Rangel isn’t a slimeball. He’s a decorated war hero, and in the beginning of his career, an honorable politician.
The problem here is an age old problem: power, corruption and hubris.
Rangel was simply allowed to serve too long.
Joe Mama
Agree 100% with gahrie.
gahrie
Mmm, yeah, so basically a very firm talking to. There might even be a wagging of the finger involved. Color me unimpressed.
CNN Breaking News — Ethics subcommittee finds Rep. Charlie Rangel guilty on multiple violations of House rules.
And here I thought all of Pelosi’s “drain the swamp” rhetoric was just talk…
They didn’t exacrly drain the swamp…it was more of a severe finger waggling….
Gahrie, as I understand it, the “sentence” remains to be determined. So, that said: what the hell are you talking about?
It’s true that sentencing remains, but I’d be surprised if Rangel was penalized significantly over this (of course, I could be wrong).
I’d also be surprised if he doesn’t piss and moan about being denied his right to counsel.
You and gahrie might be surprised if something happens, but that doesn’t make gahrie’s statement — which is framed as an analysis of what’s already happened, not as a prediction of what will happen — accurate.
As for pissing and moaning by Rangel, that will certainly happen, but it doesn’t really speak to whether the Dems are draining the swamp, or merely paying lip service to doing so. To date, I am unaware of any actions the Dems (i.e., the leadership, the party) have taken (as opposed to actions or statements by isolated individuals, and/or actions you expect the Dems to take in the future) which indicate anything other than seriousness about cracking down on Rangel here. I mean, they convicted the guy, after all.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Apparently gahrie is not a fan of due process, he just wants summary judgement and punishment. Which, you know as a supporter of torture/gitmo/etc. is probably not surprising.
Rangel was convicted of House ethics violations alright … in a case where the facts were so clear and undisputed that he literally had no defense whatsoever. That doesn’t really speak to Democrats’ seriousness about “draining the swamp” either — Democrats on the Ethics Committee essentially had no choice but to find Rangel guilty or be regarded as a complete joke.
Again, I doubt Rangel will be penalized significantly over this, i.e., he won’t be expelled. He’ll be censured at most, and more likely he’ll just receive some type formal reprimand that in all likelihood won’t matter much to his constituents. This prediction isn’t based on any particular actions by the Democrat leadership, just the simple fact that Rangel has been a key Democrat leader in the House for decades with many friends and allies who will be voting on any punishment the Ethics Committee recommends.
Joe Mama was a little more lenient with Republicans in the case against Tom DeLay back in the day:
http://www.brendanloy.com/wp/2006/04/tom-delay-resignation-watch.html#comment-64812
And for good reason.
That’s all well and good, Joe, but the fact remains that, by your own admission, the Dems have done nothing as of yet to justify your & gahrie’s suspicions. Perhaps you’ll be proven right; I’m not predicting otherwise. (I’m agnostic on what they’ll do. Haven’t followed it closely enough to really have an opinion.) Nevertheless, although you may not view his conviction as disproving your & gahrie’s point, it certainly doesn’t prove your point, either — at best for you, it’s simply neutral — so that’s why gahrie’s original comment remains odd and inaccurate.
I can’t speak to gahrie’s comment, which I suppose you can read to assume that punishment has already been decided if you want to, but I didn’t say that the Dems have done nothing to justify my suspicions. Rather, I said only that my prediction wasn’t based on any particular actions on the part of the Dems. Pelosi could have been running interference for Rangel during the House investigation for all I know, and some commentators have said exactly that, but I didn’t consider such things when I made my prediction. My prediction is based simply on Rangel’s status and connections amongst the full House that will be voting on any recommendation of punishment, nothing more.
Really, my original comment was just mocking Pelosi for her “drain the swamp” and “culture of corruption” rhetoric that is somewhat ironic now given that it’s Rangel (and very possibly Maxine Waters) who is found to be corrupt.
Tell you what Brendan, if the Dems do anything other than a meaningless censure of Rangel, I will come back here and admit I was wrong, which I Always do on the rare occasions I am wrong.
But gahrie, even if that happens, you were still wrong, because you said, today: “They didn’t exacrly drain the swamp…it was more of a severe finger waggling….” That’s past tense. You’re making a statement about, ostensibly, what has happened, not a prediction of what will happen in the future. Since the statement is not true YET, then by definition, it is wrong.
It would be like if I said today, “Boise State was really exposed as a fraud by Fresno State. They didn’t show up to play.” Even if that happens on Friday, it still makes no sense to say today. Unless I’ve got Marty McFly’s sports almanac and I forgot what day it is, I guess.
Look, I’m not trying to harp on this like it’s some sort of capital offense; I’m just explaining my position, which was borne of genuine confusion as to what you were saying. I assume perhaps you mistakenly thought the Dems had already given Rangel the “meaningless censure” you expect they will eventually give him, and so you made that comment with that incorrect belief in mind. Am I wrong? If that’s what happened, it’s hardly a big deal. Like I said, I was just confused when I initially read your comment, and the answer that “I’m convinced this is what the Dems will do” doesn’t really alleviate that confusion.
No, my position is that censure was the only outcome since the beginning of the process. If Charley Rangel committed murder on the capitol steps in front of news cameras the worst a Democratic controlled Congress would do is censure him.
Remember what a big deal people made about the Foley incident? It arguably lost the 2006 election for the Republicans, and that was after he resigned!
What was the reaction to Stubbs who was accused (and admitted to) actuall sexual contact with 17 pages? The Democrats weren’t even going to censor him, merely reprimand him until Newt Gingrich objected and demanded that he be expelled. They finally censored him, let him keep his committee, and he continued to be re-elected by Democratic voters for 13 more years.
Compare how Republicans treated Nixon to how Democrats treated Clinton.
There is a clear and consistent record of Democrats protecting other Democratic politicians…….
sorry..it should read “..actual sexual contact with 17 year old pages….”
Wow..I just found out the case is even more illustrative of my point:
Reps. Dan Crane (R-Ill.) and Gerry Studds (D-Mass.)
The House ethics committee on July 14, 1983, announced that Crane and Studds had sexual relationships with teenage congressional pages – Crane with a 17-year-old female in 1980, Studds with a 17-year-old male in 1973. Both admitted the charges that same day, and Studds acknowledged he was gay. The committee voted to reprimand the two, but a back-bench Georgia Republican named Newt Gingrich argued that they should be expelled. The full House voted on July 20 instead to censure the two, the first time that ever happened for sexual misconduct. Crane, married and the father of six, was tearful in his apology to the House, while Studds refused to apologize. Crane’s conservative district voted him out in 1984, while the voters in Studds’s more liberal district were more forgiving. Studds won reelection in 1984 with 56 percent of the vote, and continued to win until he retired in 1996.
So both a Conservative Republican and a Liberal Democrat were involved, and the gears were in motion to sweep the cases under the rug by a Democrat Congress until a Republican demanded real accountability.
Crane apologizes, Studds remains defiant, and Republicans hold Crane accountable were Democrats reward Studds……..
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/congress.htm
That still doesn’t explain your erroneous use of the past tense to describe something that hasn’t happened yet. (“They didn’t exacrly drain the swamp…it was more of a severe finger waggling….”) No matter how confident you are that censure is “the only [possible] outcome,” and that “the worst a Democratic controlled Congress would do is censure him” because the Democrats have a “clear and consistent record” of protecting their own, the fact remains that, in this case, which is what we were talking about, it hasn’t happened yet, so your earlier comment makes absolutely no logical sense.
To make a better sports analogy — i.e., to something I actually think will almost certainly happen — it would be like saying, “Man, TCU really slaughtered New Mexico! They just absolutely pummeled them.” I am 99.999999% sure TCU, which is a really great team, will, in fact, pummel New Mexico, which is an abysmally awful team. But it hasn’t happened yet, so no matter how confident I am that it will — no matter how much I believe a slaughtering of New Mexico is “the only outcome” that can possibly happen, based on TCU’s “clear and consistent record” of slaughtering vastly inferior teams — it’s still not a past-tense event at this point.
*Where
(sorry ..late night after a long day..and I am fired up….)
OK…for the pedantic among us ….
They didn’t exacrly drain the swamp…it is going to be more of a severe finger waggling….
Now..instead of addressing my form…how about the underlying issue?
Do you think he is guilty?
Do you think there is a chance in heal anything worse is going to happen then a censure?
Do you think there was ever a chance of anything worse than a censure?
Now..instead of addressing my form…how about the underlying issue?
Do you think he is guilty?
Do you think there is a chance in hell anything worse is going to happen then a censure?
Do you think there was ever a chance of anything worse than a censure?
damn it..I’m going to bed now…
I haven’t followed the case closely enough to have an informed opinion about that. I believe I said earlier that I’m agnostic as to what they’ll do. I was just confused by your original comment, not just its “form” but its content (the whole thrust of the comment, in substance, was an assertion something had already happened a certain way, which is false) and so I piped up on that limited issue.
I hope Rangel gets the book thrown at him, because he seems like a slimeball, but I can’t say much more than that.
The Dems have had control of both houses of Congress for four years, so yes, I think it’s perfectly legitimate to remark that “they didn’t exactly drain the swamp” during that time frame. Under Dem control, the House and Senate — and specifically the ethics committees — have moved like molasses on investigations, proposed ethical reforms, and earmark reform.
The Dems won control in 2006 for two basic reasons:
1. People were increasingly unhappy with the progress of the Iraq war (not to say that a majority were opposed and wanted to withdraw — certainly a very large liberal minority felt that way, along with a few more across the spectrum — just that a very large majority were unhappy with the direction the war was going).
2. People had felt the Republicans had been in control and were thus: A. becoming too corrupted by power, as evidenced by Foley, Craig, and DeLay; and B. reckless with spending.
The Dems had a clear mandate coming into Congress to turn up the heat on these issues. Instead, the Dems outspent and outcorrupted their predecessors, and instead of supporting the surge that led to success in Iraq, they fought it tooth and nail.
That’s what you would call an unfulfilled mandate.
I hope Rangel gets the book thrown at him, because he seems like a slimeball,
The tragedy of this case is the fact that Rangel isn’t a slimeball. He’s a decorated war hero, and in the beginning of his career, an honorable politician.
The problem here is an age old problem: power, corruption and hubris.
Rangel was simply allowed to serve too long.
Agree 100% with gahrie.
Mmm, yeah, so basically a very firm talking to. There might even be a wagging of the finger involved. Color me unimpressed.
http://patterico.com/