- 11/15/10 03:51 PM ET
Embattled Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) struck a defeated tone Monday, hours after he walked out of his own ethics trial.
Rangel reiterated his claim that his due process rights had been violated over his lack of legal representation at the trial that began Monday morning.
"I hope that my colleagues in Congress, friends, constituents and anyone paying attention will consider my statement and how the committee has been unfair to me," he said in a prepared statement. "They can do what they will with me because they have the power and I have no real chance of fighting back."
The longtime lawmaker made waves when he threatened to leave the hearing after tussling with ethics committee chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) over the absence of his legal representation.
Rangel's attorneys parted ways with him in October, and the congressman said he could not afford to hire new representation after spending almost $2 million in legal fees over the past two years.
The adjudicatory subcommittee is meeting behind closed doors Monday afternoon to determine if Rangel committed the 13 counts of House ethics violations that are alleged against him.
If he is found guilty of the violations, he could face a full House vote on his expulsion or a lesser punishment. Rangel said he will continue to serve despite the proceedings.
"Now, I am going forward — not backwards — to do the job I was elected to do. That is to serve my district and to serve my country, as I have tried to do for the past 50 years," he said. "In the end, I hope that I would be judged by my entire record that determines that I have been a credit to the House and to my family, friend and supporters who have entrusted me with this honorable duty."
Rangel reiterated his claim that his due process rights had been violated over his lack of legal representation at the trial that began Monday morning.
"I hope that my colleagues in Congress, friends, constituents and anyone paying attention will consider my statement and how the committee has been unfair to me," he said in a prepared statement. "They can do what they will with me because they have the power and I have no real chance of fighting back."
The longtime lawmaker made waves when he threatened to leave the hearing after tussling with ethics committee chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) over the absence of his legal representation.
Rangel's attorneys parted ways with him in October, and the congressman said he could not afford to hire new representation after spending almost $2 million in legal fees over the past two years.
The adjudicatory subcommittee is meeting behind closed doors Monday afternoon to determine if Rangel committed the 13 counts of House ethics violations that are alleged against him.
If he is found guilty of the violations, he could face a full House vote on his expulsion or a lesser punishment. Rangel said he will continue to serve despite the proceedings.
"Now, I am going forward — not backwards — to do the job I was elected to do. That is to serve my district and to serve my country, as I have tried to do for the past 50 years," he said. "In the end, I hope that I would be judged by my entire record that determines that I have been a credit to the House and to my family, friend and supporters who have entrusted me with this honorable duty."
D.C. attorney's presence at Rangel trial raises questions
- 11/15/10 04:30 PM ET
Watchdogs are questioning the presence of power lawyer Abbe Lowell at Rep. Charles Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) ethics hearing, even as Rangel publicly bemoaned the absence of an attorney to represent him.
In contentious remarks before an adjudicatory ethics panel on Monday, Rangel asked the House ethics committee to delay his long-anticipated public ethics trial because he and his legal team had parted ways in October and he had been unable to secure an attorney.
One of the reasons Rangel said he did not have an attorney was that he had run out of funds to pay for legal services after spending nearly $2 million on lawyers over the past two years. House rules bar lawyers from providing pro bono work to members of Congress. Yet, Lowell accompanied Rangel to the hearing and departed with him, the conservative news site Human Events reported.
Lowell, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, often represents political figures who find themselves in hot water, such as lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.). He also worked for House Democrats during the impeachment process for President Clinton.
Rangel's office said Lowell was there as a friend.
"Abbe Lowell was at the hearing as a long-time friend and supporter of Congressman Rangel's. If the Committee had not violated Congressman Rangel's Constitutional right to counsel and effective representation, Mr. Lowell might have been selected to represent the Congressman. Mr. Lowell recognizes that under the dictates of the Committee, whoever represented Congressman Rangel would have too little time to adequately represent the Congressman," said Rangel spokesman Emile Milne.
Watchdogs want to know exactly what conversations have taken place between Lowell and Rangel and whether Lowell should have charged for them.
“Is Rangel going to have an ethics problem over how he has conducted his ethics trial?” asked Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Abbe Lowell is a very expensive lawyer and his presence there required at least one prior conversation.”
“It’s not like [Rangel] can’t hire Mr. Lowell if he wants to … but it’s downright unethical if you have Abbe Lowell there and you’re saying you don’t have an attorney. That’s like telling us black is white. He’s not sitting next to Mr. Rangel because they’re good buddies.”
Democracy 21’s Fred Wertheimer also questioned Lowell’s presence there and whether his conversations with Rangel constitute any kind of legal representation.
Rangel, however, insisted that Lowell was not his attorney.
“Trial lawyers want to give me counsel without a fee,” Rangel told reporters outside the hearing room, after he walked out of the trial as a protest to the committee’s refusal to postpone it.
Rangel said he knew he couldn’t accept any free legal advice because the ethics committee would consider it an illegal gift.
“They said that any free legal advice given to me by legal counsel … would be considered a violation of the gift ban,” Rangel said as Lowell stood next to him.
“I’m not his lawyer,” Lowell told Human Events. “I’m watching the same as you.”
Lowell sat in a reserved seat in the front row and shielded Rangel from reporters as the two walked down the hallway.
—This post was updated at 5:17 p.m.
In contentious remarks before an adjudicatory ethics panel on Monday, Rangel asked the House ethics committee to delay his long-anticipated public ethics trial because he and his legal team had parted ways in October and he had been unable to secure an attorney.
One of the reasons Rangel said he did not have an attorney was that he had run out of funds to pay for legal services after spending nearly $2 million on lawyers over the past two years. House rules bar lawyers from providing pro bono work to members of Congress. Yet, Lowell accompanied Rangel to the hearing and departed with him, the conservative news site Human Events reported.
Lowell, a partner at McDermott Will & Emery, often represents political figures who find themselves in hot water, such as lobbyist Jack Abramoff and former Rep. Gary Condit (D-Calif.). He also worked for House Democrats during the impeachment process for President Clinton.
Rangel's office said Lowell was there as a friend.
"Abbe Lowell was at the hearing as a long-time friend and supporter of Congressman Rangel's. If the Committee had not violated Congressman Rangel's Constitutional right to counsel and effective representation, Mr. Lowell might have been selected to represent the Congressman. Mr. Lowell recognizes that under the dictates of the Committee, whoever represented Congressman Rangel would have too little time to adequately represent the Congressman," said Rangel spokesman Emile Milne.
Watchdogs want to know exactly what conversations have taken place between Lowell and Rangel and whether Lowell should have charged for them.
“Is Rangel going to have an ethics problem over how he has conducted his ethics trial?” asked Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “Abbe Lowell is a very expensive lawyer and his presence there required at least one prior conversation.”
“It’s not like [Rangel] can’t hire Mr. Lowell if he wants to … but it’s downright unethical if you have Abbe Lowell there and you’re saying you don’t have an attorney. That’s like telling us black is white. He’s not sitting next to Mr. Rangel because they’re good buddies.”
Democracy 21’s Fred Wertheimer also questioned Lowell’s presence there and whether his conversations with Rangel constitute any kind of legal representation.
Rangel, however, insisted that Lowell was not his attorney.
“Trial lawyers want to give me counsel without a fee,” Rangel told reporters outside the hearing room, after he walked out of the trial as a protest to the committee’s refusal to postpone it.
Rangel said he knew he couldn’t accept any free legal advice because the ethics committee would consider it an illegal gift.
“They said that any free legal advice given to me by legal counsel … would be considered a violation of the gift ban,” Rangel said as Lowell stood next to him.
“I’m not his lawyer,” Lowell told Human Events. “I’m watching the same as you.”
Lowell sat in a reserved seat in the front row and shielded Rangel from reporters as the two walked down the hallway.
—This post was updated at 5:17 p.m.
Rangel investigator disputes charges against veteran lawmaker
- 11/15/10 04:45 PM ET
A member of the committee that investigated Rep. Charles Rangel's alleged House ethics violations disagrees with the scope of the charges brought against the 20-term congressman.
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who also served on the investigatory subcommittee that authored the 13 violations of House rules Rangel (D-N.Y.) allegedly committed, said that the Harlem lawmaker did not act in a corrupt or self-serving manner and should be served only with a letter of reproval from the House.
Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who also served on the investigatory subcommittee that authored the 13 violations of House rules Rangel (D-N.Y.) allegedly committed, said that the Harlem lawmaker did not act in a corrupt or self-serving manner and should be served only with a letter of reproval from the House.
"I do not condone improper conduct by any member of the House but the circumstances of this case are not consistent with the precedents of the Standards Committee where a member has received or the committee has recommended a reprimand," Scott wrote in a letter dated Aug. 12.
The House ethics committee on Monday made public a 65-page dissent authored by Scott on the same day Rangel was brought to public trial by an adjudicatory subcommittee. The panel is now deliberating the charges against him.
Rangel made waves by walking out of the trial after he accused the committee of violating his due process rights by depriving him of legal representation. Committee chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said that Rangel failed to take advantage of chances to obtain counsel.
The congressman has maintained that he did not violate House rules, but only made sloppy mistakes.
Scott disputed the committee's recommendation that Rangel be formally reprimanded by the House, saying that a lesser penalty (a letter of reproval) would better fit his violations and bring an end to the saga more quickly.
Scott, who formerly served on the ethics committee, says that Rangel did not violate House rules by using a rent-controlled apartment as a campaign office. He also claimed that Rangel is only guilty of sloppiness for soliciting donations for the proposed "Rangel Center" at the City College of New York and mistakes on his tax returns and financial disclosures, which include back taxes on a Dominican villa.
The Virginia lawmaker said that those actions did violate House rules, but that Rangel did not intend to personally benefit from them.
"There is no evidence that Representative Rangel attempted to conceal a conflict of interest or engaged in any of the corrupt conduct that has traditionally warranted a reprimand, Scott wrote. "Representative Rangel's conduct is the result of good faith mistakes and misunderstandings of legal standards and the scope of his official duties. His violations of House rules were caused by his sloppy and careless record-keeping, but were not corrupt."
Scott's language echoes the chief counsel of the ethics committee who tried the case against Rangel, Blake Chisam, who said at the trial that he does not believe Rangel engaged in corruption. But Chisam still believes Rangel violated all the House rules he is accused of breaking.
"I see no evidence of corruption. It's hard to answer the question of personal financial benefit. The short answer is probably no," Chisam said. "I believe that the Congressman quite frankly was overzealous in many of the things that he did and at least sloppy in his personal finances."
No comments:
Post a Comment