You know if democrats keep giving us so many gifts we might spoiled:
The House ethics committee recommended on Thursday by a vote of 9-1 that Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) be formally censured by the full House for 11 counts of violating ethics rules.
Of course there is no guarantee it will actually be done:
A majority of the full House would have to vote to censure Rangel or lawmakers could opt for a lighter punishment. That vote likely will wait until after the Thanksgiving recess.
If the House votes in favor of censure, Rangel most likely would have to stand in the well of the House for a formal rebuke and reading of the censure resolution by outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). A reprimand would only require the House to formally adopt the investigative committee’s report on Rangel’s activities.
Charlie Rangel withstood some of the most horrific combat in Korea 60 years ago, if you think he will be bothered by a bunch of pampered pols whose every secret he likely knows staring at him in the well is going to bother him you are kidding yourself.
Dissenting Justice details the political calculus of Rangel’s decision to take it:
It is highly likely that Rangel calculated that the House would not expel him. The Speaker of the House cannot refuse to sit a representative simply because the individual has committed ethical violations. The Constitution, however, permits expulsion of House members by a 2/3 vote.
Rangel successfully ran for reelection with the ethics charges pending. Rangel probably believed that if he won the election, he could escape the ethics proceedings with a punishment short of expulsion. The committee’s recommendation that Rangel face a censure suggests that his gamble worked.
Gamble smamble if anyone thinks there was any chance that the democratic party would expel a senior member of the congressional black caucus when they are totally dependent on the black vote to win any national election, particularly when his own district didn’t care is delusional. Rangel has been in congress for 40 years he knows how to count.
Stacy is a bit more blunt:
In other words, a meaningless verbal scolding. He gets to keep his job, his pension, etc. Michelle Malkin live-blogged the hearings, complete with Rangel claiming he had been “smeared” and John Lewis calling Rangel a civil rights hero.
I don’t actually see an issue there. Rangel is a genuine war hero and I’m sure was active in the civil rights movement. Being a war hero and a civil rights hero doesn’t make it impossible for you to be corrupt in financial matters.
It will be interesting to see how the left handles this.
