BREAKING: Charlie Rangel convicted of 11 of 13 counts of violating House ethics

Breaking at 12:00 EST, the House Ethics Subcommittee has convicted Congressman Charlie Rangel of 12 11 of 13 counts of violating House Ethics code.  The subcommittee reached consensus on all but the last count, which was merged into a single count by the subcommittee.

His fate is now in the hands of the full Ethics Committee, which will decide the penalties to be applied.

Full Story Here.

Sorry Charlie: Rangel walks out of Committee hearing after being denied an extension

I caught parts of Congressman Charlie Rangel’s pleas before the House Ethics Subcommittee hearing today.  While I didn’t catch the gavel-to-gavel coverage, the stuff I saw impressed me greatly.

After that performance, Rangel should be nominated for and be a slam dunk to win a Daytime Emmy Award for best dramatic performance for his “Poor Me” Soap Opera shtick.  Nobody does it better.

Immediately after his lamentation that he had no representation, that he was out of money and that life just wasn’t fair, dammit.  He excused himself and left the chamber.

---

Embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-New York, walked out of his House ethics subcommittee hearing Monday, complaining that he has not had sufficient time to hire a new legal team to respond to corruption allegations.

The subcommittee rejected Rangel's request to delay the hearing until a new defense team is assembled.

Rangel faces 13 allegations, include failing to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic, misuse of a rent-controlled apartment for political purposes and improper use of government mail service and letterhead.

"Fifty years of public service is on the line. And I truly believe that I am not being treated fairly," he declared. "I deserve a lawyer."

---

Shocka!

Call me unsympathetic.  People in public office misuse their position and power a little bit. It’s human nature, just like everyone traveling on the freeway exceed the speed limit by 5-10 mph, depending on the eagerness of the local constabulary. Just because “everyone does it” doesn’t make it right, but if we had to stop every minor transgression or every technical violation of the rules, whole systems grind to a halt whilst people are charged, tried and penalized. It’s those first class pains in the ass who routinely go 15-20 mph over the limit while weaving through traffic and giving fellow travelers the finger that everyone wants to see get the Blue Light Special.  And, in this case, Rangel’s getting it.

By now, you’ve already seen the pictures of Rangel passed out on the beach. The imagery became the iconic representation of the Harlem Icon.  Shirtless, probably drunk, with not a care in the world except where his next payola was coming from.

Now, he’s mangled his own defense and used money from a prohibited PAC to pay for legal representation, compounding his ethics case with still more ethical lapses.  No one is this stupid, or this arrogant, by accident.

No, this kind of pathetic behavior is a finely honed, well practiced craft. 

Going on trial over violating ethics, Charlie Rangel violates ethics to pay for his defense

Rangel is acting like a man who probably realizes he won’t have a job much longer. The NYPost.com is reporting that Rangel “raided” his own National Leadership PAC for a total of $393,000 to pay for his defense in the upcoming House ethics trial, which begins this week.

Legal experts have said that this violates House ethics policy.

---

Leadership PACs are typically used by politicians to donate money to other candidates.

But Rangel seems to have run afoul of House ethics rules. Lawmakers are generally allowed to use campaign cash to pay their lawyers, but this is limited to money in their personal campaign committee and they must ask permission first, the campaign-finance lawyer said.

"The only campaign funds that a member may use to pay for congressional expenses are funds of his or her principal campaign committee -- not the funds of a leadership PAC or a multicandidate committee," according to the House Ethics Manual.

Legal fees tied to a campaign, election or performance of official duties are considered congressional expenses.

"Accepting money or payment for legal expenses from any other source, including a PAC, would be a gift and is barred by the House rules," the lawyer said.

---

It boggles the mind that a corrupt politician, going on trial for a host of transgressions of Congress’ ethics rules, would breach Congress’ ethics rules to pay for his defense.

Or, does it?

Progressives and the race card

It's a decades-old ploy that the progressive left have nearly perfected.  If any debate or controversy can be framed in race, it is.  Our President was supposed to have been the "post-racial" regime.  It has been anything but.  From the day he announced his candidacy for the highest office in the land, right through the recent weeks' announcements that two prominent black Democrats would face ethics charges, allegations of racially-motivated opposition surface as soon as the progressive left realizes that the targets are black Democrats.

Progressives use race first as a weapon.  They wield it as a massive club, seeking to bludgeon opponents into shamed silence.  "How dare you oppose Barack Obama's policies.  You are obviously a RACIST." Progressives fetch that weapon with such regularity because it works so bloody well, especially against other liberals.  White guilt is a prominent psychological malady among Caucasian upper-middle class liberals.  They're ashamed of slavery.  They're ashamed of Jim Crow.  They're ashamed of the white backlash against the Civil Rights movement, and not just in the south.  The weapon is also effective against moderates, who would rather be caught dead than be accused of having ulterior motives in supporting or opposing a policy matter.  Thus, use of racial bias is effective in cobbling together the however slight majority is needed to implement new progressive policies or seat progressive advocates in positions of power.  Opposition to healthcare reform was framed as racist.  Opposition to Justice Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court was framed as racist.  The ethics allegations against Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters are being framed as racist.  It goes on and on because it's effective.

The Rangel and Waters cases demonstrate another way that the progressive left uses race.  When their bludgeoning has failed to produce a desired result, progressives use race as a shield and quickly retreat behind it.  The plummeting approval ratings of both Congress and the White House, according to progressives, have nothing to do with the public's rejection of the radical leftist agenda.  It's because Barack Obama is black.  The charges against Rangel and Waters are racially motivated because well, it's Congress and everybody does it and why single out blacks?  And who can forget what the first allegations against Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and her state's new immigration enforcement law were?


Enough moderate and conservative black citizens have decided to take their own stands.  People like Anita Moncrief, Deroy Murdock, Thomas Sowell, Colonel Allen West and a host of others are weathering "Uncle Tom" and Oreo criticism for recognizing the flaws in progressive policy and standing up as Americans.

Moderates, swing voters and ordinary Americans can stop the race-card foolishness by joining Moncrief, Murdock, Sowell, West et al by simply refusing to play along with the progressives. If you are opposed to a policy change or a candidate, or if you believe charges of corruption are founded in basic American principles of freedom, smaller government and the rule of law, you state that and steadfastly defend your views. Articulate your reasoning and calmly explain the logic behind your position.  Snatch the bludgeon--or the shield--from the progressives' hands, and toss it aside.  Make them defend their views on the merits of their arguments.  If black conservatives can do it, the mushy middle can too, if they decide to use the spine their Creator placed in their backs.

Gimme some feedback in the comments.