- 11/15/10 12:35 PM ET
A House ethics panel has recessed to decide whether to consider a quick verdict on 13 counts of ethics violations against Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.).
Ethics committee attorneys asked the adjudicatory committee charged with deciding the outcome of the case to consider a motion for summary judgment, a move that would provide an immediate ruling in the Rangel matter and avoid the public spectacle of a lengthy trial that could last all week.
The adjudicatory committee’s recess will continue until at least 1 p.m.
Blake Chisam, the staff director and chief counsel for the full ethics committee, said there are no material facts in dispute and Rangel himself has not contested them.
“The record before you is the record,” he said. “The facts are the facts and the counts are ripe for a vote.”
Chisam moved forward with the case after the adjudicatory committee rejected a request by Rangel to delay the trial because he lacked counsel. Rangel’s team of attorneys told him they could no longer represent him in late October, and Rangel said he could not afford to hire a replacement right away after incurring almost $2 million in legal fees during the past two years.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, offered a motion to continue the trial after Rangel opened his remarks by pleading for a delay and complaining about the unfairness of proceeding with the trial while he lacks counsel.
Ethics committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said it is Rangel's "right not to participate in this matter, as mentioned earlier."
"No conclusion as to the facts of this matter can be drawn by the fact that Rep. Rangel has chosen not to participate in this hearing," Lofgren said.
Rangel said he received a letter last week from the committee telling him that he could open a legal defense fund. If he were to do that, he argued, he could hire an attorney.
He engaged in a contentious back-and-forth with Lofgren before the committee recessed.
"Fifty years of public service is on the line," he said. "I am entitled to a lawyer in this proceeding."
Lofgren reiterated before the committee recessed that Rangel had ample opportunities to prepare for his legal defense and has not been prevented from acquiring a new legal counsel.
Rangel conceded that it would be "very, very unwise" to represent himself.
House rules allow members of Congress to carry a running debt on their legal defense funds, so Rangel wouldn't necessarily need to raise the money before hiring a lawyer.
This story was posted at 10:34 a.m. and updated at 12:35 p.m.
Ethics committee attorneys asked the adjudicatory committee charged with deciding the outcome of the case to consider a motion for summary judgment, a move that would provide an immediate ruling in the Rangel matter and avoid the public spectacle of a lengthy trial that could last all week.
The adjudicatory committee’s recess will continue until at least 1 p.m.
Blake Chisam, the staff director and chief counsel for the full ethics committee, said there are no material facts in dispute and Rangel himself has not contested them.
“The record before you is the record,” he said. “The facts are the facts and the counts are ripe for a vote.”
Chisam moved forward with the case after the adjudicatory committee rejected a request by Rangel to delay the trial because he lacked counsel. Rangel’s team of attorneys told him they could no longer represent him in late October, and Rangel said he could not afford to hire a replacement right away after incurring almost $2 million in legal fees during the past two years.
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.), a member of the Congressional Black Caucus, offered a motion to continue the trial after Rangel opened his remarks by pleading for a delay and complaining about the unfairness of proceeding with the trial while he lacks counsel.
Ethics committee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said it is Rangel's "right not to participate in this matter, as mentioned earlier."
"No conclusion as to the facts of this matter can be drawn by the fact that Rep. Rangel has chosen not to participate in this hearing," Lofgren said.
Rangel said he received a letter last week from the committee telling him that he could open a legal defense fund. If he were to do that, he argued, he could hire an attorney.
He engaged in a contentious back-and-forth with Lofgren before the committee recessed.
"Fifty years of public service is on the line," he said. "I am entitled to a lawyer in this proceeding."
Lofgren reiterated before the committee recessed that Rangel had ample opportunities to prepare for his legal defense and has not been prevented from acquiring a new legal counsel.
Rangel conceded that it would be "very, very unwise" to represent himself.
House rules allow members of Congress to carry a running debt on their legal defense funds, so Rangel wouldn't necessarily need to raise the money before hiring a lawyer.
This story was posted at 10:34 a.m. and updated at 12:35 p.m.
No comments:
Post a Comment