Rangel recuses himself from ethics hearing

[AROCES]

The House ethics trial for New York Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel is now missing one important figure in the case: Charlie Rangel.

The congressman showed up without his lawyers for the first day of the proceeding, saying that the committee had dragged the inquiry out so long that he could not afford representation.

He asked for a delay, but the request was denied.

Rangel, who faces 13 ethics violations, said he had paid $2 million over the past two years for lawyers but could not afford the estimated $1 million in legal feels required for the present House ethics trial.

"Fifty years of public service are …on the line. ... I truly believe I'm not being treated fairly," Rangel said. "I am entitled to a lawyer during this hearing."

Rangel blasted the committee, saying that he would have preferred that the panel settle the charges against him before his Democratic primary or even before the general election.

A House investigation concluded in June that Rangel improperly solicited donations for his center and New York's City College, failed to provide complete financial disclosure information, and improperly used a rent-controlled apartment for campaign purposes.

Committee rules state that a member facing violations may choose to hire counsel but is not required to do so. But Rangel said he would be at a disadvantage without representation.

"I've been a lawyer long enough to know it's very very unwise for any person … to be his own lawyer at a proceeding like this," Rangel told the committee.

He further denounced the committee by saying that it had claimed it lacked time to begin the trial, yet that the panel is now suggesting its members would find it convenient to quickly resolve the matter. Rangel said he had been offered free representation but had been informed that such advocacy would constitute a gift -- and a violation of House rules.

Rangel suggested he would recuse himself, so members moved into a closed session to decide how to proceed after this surprise development.

They returned less than an hour later to announce that the trial would proceed. But they also laid into Rangel's lawyers, saying that Rangel's legal team had ditched the lawmaker on the eve of the hearing.

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) expressed his "astonishment" with the litigation specialists Rangel had retained at Zuckerman Spaeder "for taking the money, draining the money and then kicking their client to the side of the road."

http://news.yahoo.co...-ethics-hearing

Edited November 15, 2010 by AROCES

[FlamingLiberal]

He is right: he does deserve representation. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire trial was thrown out after the fact because he wasn't afforded any.

Edited November 15, 2010 by FlamingLiberal

[Agent X]

Regardless of the circumstances, you do not run from an ethics investigations. If you do so you're guilty, no matter what.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Agent X

[questionmark]

The question to be asked here is: why does it cost $3 million to defend yourself against "ethics violations"?

[danielost]

They are going to go ahead without him. i bet he shows up with a lawyer now.

[Col. Kurtz]

He is right: he does deserve representation. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire trial was thrown out after the fact because he wasn't afforded any.

Wishful thinking,,he is just prolonging the inevitable,,hes a crook and you know it,,he has about 17 ethics violations and hes taking total advantage of new yorkers.

But they still keep electing him,,makes me wonder what cool- aid they are drinking.

[danielost]

Wishful thinking,,he is just prolonging the inevitable,,hes a crook and you know it,,he has about 17 ethics violations and hes taking total advantage of new yorkers.

But they still keep electing him,,makes me wonder what cool- aid they are drinking.

the same cool-aid that got reid reelected

[Travelling Man]

His legal team quit in SEPTEMBER - not on the evening of the trial. He had more than ample time to get lawyers.

And it's all moot - as he's now been found in violation of 11 of 12 charges. Looks like Charlie will need a new job.

[Agent X]

Yet he'll still be forgiven while Palin will not.

I see a conspicuous lack of criticism of him.

And the difference is the claims of ethics violations against Palin were dismissed but liberals still can't seem to forgive her and will take every single opportunity to bash her in some way.

How telling.

This is always the way in partisan politics.

And so much for the superior morality of liberals.