But don’t just take RS McCain’s word for it, check out that fantastically conservative publication the Washington Post
Senators collected $469,000 from the financial industry the day before, the day of and the day after that key Sept. 16 vote, a Post review of donations shows. The biggest recipient was Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who shepherded the legislation and faced a tight reelection race.
The article only focus is on fairly new stuff but the best line from it is this response from Harry Reid’s spokesman:
Reid spokesman Zac Petkanas said the timing was not of Reid’s making. The vote was supposed to come months earlier but was delayed by Republican obstruction, Petkanas said.
Oh the timing wasn’t of Reid’s making. After all he is only the Senate Majority Leader.
Of course now that the election is long over this stuff can safely be reported. May I suggest to incoming republicans that the media are not likely to show such deference in timing for them. So do the right thing, it is usually the smart thing too.
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.
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.
…Never give Robert Stacy McCain a legitimate reason run a photo of an attractive blonde in a bikini.
Conveniently enough, she managed to get herself involved in a serious political news story:
She’s certainly is a pretty young lady, I can certainly understand how a man could be tempted in this regard but I’ll have to defer to Harry Reid to establish her “hotness level” (BTW D.K Jamaal says this about Reid’s assertionMaybe Harry Reid has a point? ) oh and there is some bribery to be talked about as well.
Jessie Jackson Jr. Bringing rule 5 Four days early.
memorandum thread here, I understand the other story was the lead but this one has a song reference.
P.S. Is it not a shame that it takes something like this for us to notice a fine candidate for congress like Ill-2 Isaac Hayes? The fact that the address of his site is “www.issac4honesty.com” is priceless.
…for revealing that in the face of corruption we intend to give Charlie Rangel a stern reprimand!
The Texas Democrat said he intended to call the head of the full ethics committee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), to apologize for telling reporters that the subcommittee recommended reprimanding Rangel for allegedly breaking House ethics rules. The revelation was not included in the lengthy documents on the charges faced by Rangel that were released on Thursday.
So says Rep Steve Green.
Let me translate this for the general public.
“Rep Lofgren: I’m so sorry I let the cat out of the bag that we plan on punishing Rep Rangel; who over nearly 40 years in the house likely knows more secrets about members of the house than the CIA ever will; with only a reprimand rather than any actual punitive action. I’m sorry I’ve revealed that the ethics committee is not about to punish the man who writes the tax law for avoiding taxes thus putting all of us in an embarrassing position of having to explain why to the voters in a year when we are already in trouble.”
End translation.
If anyone was wondering why Rangel isn’t cutting a deal, you now know. And what will that mean for Rangel, lets look at some history:
A reprimand carries no consequences. A censure doesn’t either, except for the perception that it’s a stronger reprimand; Barney Frank got censured in 1990 for using his influence to fix parking tickets for his partner, but he still became chair of the House Financial Services committee. However, a Representative who gets censured has to stand in the well of the House to have the language read aloud, which at least causes momentary embarrassment. A fine would carry more sting, but an impeachment or expulsion would send a clear message about following the rules.
Or as Captain Ed closes:
Yes, this would mean that Rangel would get the exact same punishment that Joe Wilson got for exclaiming, “You lie!” during Obama’s speech to Congress last fall.
After all corruption and tax evasion is one thing, but defying THE ONE? That is unthinkable!
Krauthammer just said he is surprised that he would turn down a reprimand deal. Why should he make any deal? If they are afraid of doing more than a reprimand then he knows they aren’t willing to challenge him, and like I said, he knows where 40 years of secrets.
What does the Rangel case tell you about the democratic congress? They are more afraid of Charlie Rangel than the American people.
Update: I couldn’t help but think of the 4th doctor Episode City of Death and the Doctor and Duggen. Jump to 3:25 and you’ll see that in at least one respect the Democratic Ethic committee and the 4th doctor have one thing in common:
The text of the exchange is as follows:
The Doctor: If you do that one more time Duggan I’m going to take very very severe measures!
Gosh darn it, it was supposed to be a surprise! Perhaps a nice surprise, tied up in a little bow, and delivered on August 11th when Democratic Party leaders throw a big birthday fundraiser — er, party — for the man whose birthday passed two months earlier. Who knows? The combination celebratory good feelings, hard campaign cash, and the softball reprimand might have convinced Charlie to shut the hell up and take a pass on the ethics trial slated now for the middle of the campaign season.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 