Charlie Rangel Found Guilty on Ethics Charges, Now Awaits Sentencing

November 16, 2010

(ChattahBox Political News)–Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel (NY), having served in the House for 40-years, now faces a stain on his long service in the twilight of his career, at the age of 80. The House ethics committee just ruled that Rangel is guilty of violating 11 out of 13 ethics charges that included tax evasion for a Dominican beachfront property and fundraising improprieties. The panel will now decide on a punishment for the embattled lawmaker, a beloved fixture in New York politics,  who just easily won reelection to another term.

Rangel has already been forced to resign from his chairmanship of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, after receiving an admonishment for violating congressional gift rules.

Rangel could be hit with a reprimand, censure or outright expulsion from Congress.

“The subcommittee which found that Rangel had violated ethics law will now forward their convictions to the full ethics committee. The full committee will then hold another hearing, during which it will vote on whether to recommend a punishment for Rangel. If they do, they will send that recommendation — be it admonishment, censuring, expulsion or otherwise — to the full House for a vote.”

After the committee found yesterday, that no material facts were in dispute, it was all but certain that Rangel would be found guilty.

He dramatically stormed out of the proceedings on Monday, complaining that he couldn’t afford a lawyer and that the trial was unfair.

The counsel for the ethics panel acknowledged that Rangel’s actions did not rise to the level of corruption for personal gain, but he likely violated House ethics rules.


Comments

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of ChattahBox.com - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of ChattahBox.com or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.