Rumors abound:

New York Congressman Charles Rangel has reportedly cut a deal to admit to ethical wrongdoing and avoid a potentially humiliating public trial.”

He’s too arrogant to resign and the Dems don’t have the balls to throw him out.


But the two sides were unable to reach an agreement because Mr. Rangel would not agree to acknowledge that he misused his position as chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee in early 2007 by helping to preserve a tax break for an oil executive who pledged $1 million to help build the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York.

Let the trial begin!


17 Responses to Deal Struck?

  1. JMPrince says:

    A different take on ‘ol Charlie from a friend:

    Making an Example of Charlie Rangel

    By Danny Schechter
    August 1, 2010


  2. JMPrince says:

    I’m there with you just a NYC classic. Won’t be the same w/o him too. But the reason ACP 11 had to make recordings from Bimini? He was under indictment & serving at the same time. So the seat’s always been, well ‘unusual’. JMP

  3. Aleq Boyle says:

    Charlie is a classic. This New York Congressman must have ticked another Democratic Rep off in a big way. Now, lets be fair- he must not be all that bad or he would not be left in the 111th. Remember the FBI had the New Orleans Congressman he did resign or just not seek re-election. I look for this guy to be around at least another five or nine terms. I think he is a Korean War Veteran, by the way for all of you folks who do not know, we are still at War with Korea.

    Aleq Boyle

  4. JerryT says:

    This is a “punishment to fit the crime” deal. These charges just don’t seem that serious to me. If he’s already lost his committee chair, and he gets humiliated for months in the press, and he’ll lose his seat anyway even if he runs again, and he pays a fine, let’s call it a day. The guy is 80 years old. Make him listen to Abba for 8 hours a day for 7 days. No need to crucify the guy.

    • Aleq Boyle says:

      Well Said JerryT, it is a shame more people do not look at the so called facts or even the relevant information before they jump on the proverbial band wagon.

    • Sara says:

      Yeah, it’s not bribe money in the freezer. However, I think having the appearance of the party coddling someone who has admitted to ethical violations is bad juju for November and completely contrary to what won Democrats the majorities in 2006…so to some extent this is about much more than just what Charlie Rangel did. It’s about establishing zero tolerance for unethical behavior, trading access for donations, etc.

  5. The Ed says:

    No deal.

  6. JMPrince says:

    No deal yet, unlikely, actually. But still ‘Keep the Faith, Baby!’ There might be an ACP running:


  7. Jules says:

    @Steve, NY has signature requirements and it would be too late (likely) to get anyone on ballot this cycle.

  8. Steve Golden says:

    Rangel always votes right, so I like him, but I think it’s time for him to go. Not in 2012, now. I can’t stand for Nathan Deal’s ethical violations, and I won’t stand for Chuck’s.

  9. Jules says:

    I think he should announce he’s not going to run in 2012, and let David Patterson run for his seat. Then he gets 2 more years of seniority and David gets a gig.. Patterson isn’t that bad, and I think he’d represent that district well.

  10. Sara says:

    Will they strip him of his committee assignments like they did Jefferson?

    Hopefully the voters in his district will do the job for everyone. I have no mercy for corrupt Democrats, they make it harder for everyone else to do good work.