RedStateVT Breaks Down the Charlie Rangel Ethics Hearing

"I am being denied the right to have a lawyer," he complained.

How could this happen in America? Rangel is denied legal representation! But wait….

Fresh off winning a 21st term, Rangel said he has spent more than $2 million from his campaign account on two legal teams, forensic accountants and media advisers.

Oh, so it turns out Rangel did have lots and lots of legal representation. Could it be that he didn’t like their likely suggestion to him to plead guilty and resign?

Unconvinced by his pleadings - Rangel had spent the past several months demanding a speedy trial - the subcommittee continued with its work after he left.

So first he wants a speedy trial…..

He pleaded for a delay so he could find time and financing for a new legal team.

…and then he wants a delay!

Rangel, the once-powerful committee chairman who oversaw tax and trade policy, walked out of the proceedings in protest less than an hour into the process.

What does this tactic of walking out of the hearing bring to mind? Exactly right! The Delta Tau Chi fraternity walking out of their disciplinary hearing in the movie Animal House, with Charlie Rangel playing the part of Flounder!

With the New York Democrat absent for much of the process, the panel agreed unanimously that Rangel had inappropriately housed his political committees in a rent-controlled building, had used his congressional office to raise millions of dollars from corporations with business before his committee, and did not pay some taxes and fully disclose his assets.

So the subcommittee agrees unanimously on Rangel’s guilt. So far, so good. However, read on…..

But the subcommittee determining Rangel's fate did not reach a verdict on whether those actions broke congressional rules. After three hours of deliberation behind closed doors, the eight-member panel, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, announced that it would resume talks Tuesday morning.

So while agreeing that Rangel did these horrible things, the subcommittee could not agree whether they broke the rules! The disagreement followed party lines. Let’s see, which side thought that Rangel had, in fact, broke the rules and which side did not?

(All quotes from the Washington Post.)