On November 16th, the House ethics panel declared Representative Charlie Rangel guilty of 11 out of 13 counts of corruption. Rangel used a rent-stabilized apartment for campaign activities, failed to pay taxes on rental property in the Dominican Republic, and improperly used congressional letterhead to raise funds for a City University center to be built in his name. These were not small infractions.
Many such infractions might find an ordinary American being audited by the Internal Revenue Service, paying exorbitant fines, or worse, going to jail. The rule of law states that the law applies equally to citizens and public officials alike, and that neither may break the law. Therefore, whatever prosecution and incarceration the common citizen might have expected for Rangel’s conduct should apply equally to Rangel.
So, what did Rangel get? On November 18th, the panel recommended the House sentence him — to a censure. What’s that? It’s a lot like a reprimand, but according to a Congressional Research Service report, also “will generally involve a verbal admonition, such as a reading of the resolution, to be administered by the Speaker of the House to the Member at the bar of the House. In the case of a ‘reprimand,’ however, the resolution is merely adopted by a vote of the House with the Member ‘standing in his place,’ or is merely implemented by the adoption of the committee’s report.”
That’ll show him. Rangel will have to stand in front of the House, in front of a national audience on C-Span, and… listen to a resolution condemning him. Such a timid punishment is what one might expect in a 3rd grade classroom. How about a dunce cap, too?
Get full story here.
No comments:
Post a Comment