It could be a historic day in the halls of the U.S. House of Representatives, and not in a good way, as the House will consider ethics punishment against Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY).
Rangel was found guilty of thirteen charges of violating House rules, stemming from financial dealings that left hundreds of thousands of dollars in income unreported to the Congress and the feds and more.
The New York Democrat has been working behind the scenes, trying to convince fellow Democrats to help reduce his possible penalty to a written reprimand, which his supporters believe better represents his ethics dealings.
"Censure is a very harsh remedy that I don't think is merited given the lack of corruption," said fellow Black Caucus member Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA).
It has been 27 years since a member of the House was censured. If that is Rangel's penalty, he will have to stand in the Well of the House and face his colleagues, while Speaker Pelosi reads the charges against him.
It is more of a public humiliation than anything else.
As I did interviews and checked the traps in the Speaker's Lobby yesterday, veteran black Democrats were in deep conversations on the House floor, which many reporters felt were most likely about the Rangel situation.
"I think that we can find a lesser punishment, such as a reprimand, to fit the infractions" of Rangel, Johnson added.
It wasn't clear how much traction that plan was getting.
From experience, the presentation of an ethics case like this on the floor of the House is never a happy time.
There is always a group of members who rally to the defense of the lawmaker involved, and plead for leniency. Sometimes, it feels like momentum is beginning to swing against the Ethics Committee, whose senior members are then forced to more publicly rap the member involved.
Few stood in support of Rep. Jim Traficant (D-OH) when his case came to the House floor back on July 24, 2002.
I remember camping out in the Speaker's Lobby, waiting to get a last glimpse of the Ohio Democrat, as he plead his case on the House floor, and then left in disgrace.
The vote to expel Traficant was 420-1. You probably don't remember who the one vote was for Traficant - Rep. Gary Condit (D-CA), who had been swarmed over by the press in the disappearance of his former intern Chandra Levy. Condit was never charged - in fact, last week - another man was convicted in her murder.
Before the Traficant case, you have to go back to January of 1997, when the House debated the case of Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was hit with a reprimand and a penalty of $300,000 for giving the Ethics Committee inaccurate information.
The vote against Gingrich was 395-28.
We'll see what kind of vote there is today. One would expect that allies of Rangel will try to force a vote to reduce the penalty against him, but they may have little support.
No matter what happens, it will be a historic day in the House of Representatives, as lawmakers sit in judgment of one of their own, maybe their most distasteful job as a member of Congress.
It could be a historic day in the halls of the U.S. House of Representatives, and not in a good way, as the House will consider ethics punishment against Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY). Rangel was found guilty of thirteen charges of violating House rules, stemming from financial dealings that left ...
About the Author
