Why is Rangel getting to try to make a deal?
By lilwonders
@lilwonders456 (8214)
United States
July 28, 2010 8:34pm CST
The ethics committee says there is evidence of wrong doing. But instead of it being fully investigated and vetted in a trial...Rangel is looking to make a deal.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday that "everyone would like for the Rangel issue to go away". WHy? Shouldn't the whole thing come out in public so the American people can see exactly what he did? Shouldn't be held accountable and possible kicked out of office? If this goes to trial this guy could be looking at jail time.
Yet....all you hear is they want it "go away", because it might hurt "their parties re-election changes in November". that is what is wrong with this whole process...When a politican gets caught being dirty they are protected by the others. Allowed to "make deals"...so that the whole truth does not come out and they don't get the full punishment for their crimes. So we don't know exactly what happened.
What do you think? Should he be allowed to make deals? Or should the whole thing go to a public trial so the public can decide for themselves and know what is going on? Isn't it unethical for them to put "party" in front breaking the law? Lets see what is more important...party or the law...party or the law? Well I say the law. They need to stop protecting him. It would go farther to showing THEY are ethical and will not tolerate unethical behavior...even from one of their own.
What do you think?
3 responses
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
30 Jul 10
To answer your title question, I guess he's getting to try to make a deal because they ALL do and MOST succeed! That included Mark Foley who may have been a pedophile. I'm not saying it's right or that I agree with it because it isn't and I don't but this isn't unique to Charlie Rangel or to the Democratic party. More often than not the "deal" involves the resignation of the person in question.
Of course the Democrats just want this to go away! If they didn't admit that they'd be called lying hypocrites, wouldn't they? I would guess that for the majority of the House Democrats it's not a matter of them protecting or wanting to protect Rangel but of them resenting the fact that they could be pulled down with him. Seriously, can you blame them, I mean if YOU knew you'd done nothing illegal or unethical would you want someone else's indiscretions to be the deciding factor in whether you keep YOUR job or not? Note, I'm not speaking of the House leadership but of the average Representative, some of whom are actually doing what they think is best for their districts.
In this case he's missed his chance to keep all the charges from being released to the public since they already have been. From what I understand he CLAIMS he's paid all taxes that are owed so I don't know if he's done anything illegal, or at least anything that could result in prison time. What the case may be I think it should all come out and he should be dealt with accordingly.
Annie
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
31 Jul 10
What I would like to see happen....but I know it won't. Is when someone is found to have been unethical....the rest (in both parties)turn on him or her so fast and kick that person out of office so fast it makes their head spin. After it has been proved of course. Reguardless of party lines.
That would actually help them in their re-election...they would be able to say...hey..look see...this guy was broke the rules and was unethical and we did not stand for it...we won't stand for it. We don't care if it is "one of our own". We won't stand for anyone being unethical. That would win them tons of brownie points with voters. Rangel would go down...but he would not hurt the party. But by protecting him and shielding him it makes them inabliers. Makes them look like they will protect unethical behavior "if" it does done by "their" side.
Of course the republicans are going to try to use this against them in the next election. And they will if he only gets a slap on the wrist. That WILL make the democrats look bad. But the democrats can turn it into a "win" for them if they handle it right and set an example out of him in and kick him out.
1 person likes this
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
11 Aug 10
Of course after they are found guilty. Politicans have been accused of things they have not done for political reasons...in that case teh people who accused them need to be held accountable. Ethics should not be used as a political weapon.
But I would like to see them hold each other more accountable for their behavior no matter what "party" they belong to.
@Buffalo1 (103)
• United States
29 Jul 10
When is old Charlie going to hang it up, we are tired of hearing about all his underhanded misdeeds over the years. Why can't he just bow out gracefully and retire to his villa in the Dominican Republic? He is way past retirement age already. Go away Charlie.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
29 Jul 10
If he has broke the law...I would rather see him go to trial and jail than see him retire to his villa. He is not above the law. None of our politicans are....and it is past time they get held accountable like the rest of us.
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
29 Jul 10
And we wonder why our country is in such horrible shape.
@nzinky (822)
• United States
30 Jul 10
Hey Nancy said when she took office of the House Of Repsentives she was going to get rid of all the grafte and she was going to close the flood gates.....But that must have just been for the Repulicans.......but when is she going to get rid of the ones who do all this graft.........
@lilwonders456 (8214)
• United States
11 Aug 10
It was typical campaign BS. She did not mean it when she said it. Neither side does. we have a culture of corruption on congress. We need to clean house.
