Posted on 07/29/2010 5:15:17 PM PDT by Grunthor
WASHINGTON – House investigators accused veteran New York Rep. Charles Rangel of 13 violations of congressional ethics standards on Thursday, throwing a cloud over his four-decade political career and raising worries for fellow Democrats about the fall elections.
(rest of article at source)
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Is that all the excerpt that we are allowed? Sheesh, I hate this one sentence articles.
I would be happy if the committee hit him with a Louisville Slugger. Several times.
Something on the order of 300 to 500 too low.
Tar and feathers for 535...excluding bureaucrats and "judges".
Bah!
Forty years of “service”and all they could find were 13 charges to put on Charlie?I don’t think that they dug deep enough.
F’in tits of Aphrodite they aren’t going to charge him with 300 counts!!! Like any good prosecution they’re going to go after the ones they know they can get. I don’t think he’s going to get past lucky number 13.
Don’t worry folks, even if the slime is kicked out of Congress, he will still get all of his rip off retirement funds. 100% of his pay+ all he can steal from the taxpayers.
Just in time......for the mid terms. The slimes, played the people again, they knew this for years.
We seriously, seriously need term limits.
[i]Forty years of “service” and all they could find were 13 charges to put on Charlie? I don’t think that they dug deep enough.[/i]
I don’t understand this. Is there some sort of Dem powerplay going on behind the scenes? Or is this just a feint by them to muddy the waters for real [i]serious[/i] ethics charges? I haven’t been following this story closely, other than to see Rangel snap at Russert for asking if he might resign, and I cannot understand why a Dem Congress would pursue allegations of this caliber.
I’d like to see Rangel go down like any other Republican, but not for crap like ‘improper use of stationary’ and not paying taxes on rental property overseas. Seriously, who cares? Certainly not his constituents, they’ll re-elect him regardless of chump-change charges like these. This offers him sort of a martyrdom in Harlem. ‘Proof’ that even with BO as pres ‘The Man’ is still after him.
What’s [i]really[/i] going on here? Are the Dems trying to retire the old man to bring in some fresh blood?
Oh sure, AP, until the charges were officially levied everyone thought Mr. Rangel was Mr. Clean.
I am sure they left out a 0, and really meant a 103 charges.
I'm with you. I call them driveby posters. One or two sentences, sometimes having little to do with the article subject, and they are gone.
The following is my understanding. I have copied Jim Rob on this reply. Jim, if I get any of this wrong, please jump in and correct.
Some articles do not have to be excerpted at all if the copyright owner has not objected to Free Republic.
For articles that need to be excerpted, we are allowed 300 words. The AP is an exception. Jim has requested we excerpt their articles to no more than 100 words.
To determine if the article must be excerpted, you can check the list here. However, that list is not always up to date. So how else can you determine if an article has to be excerpted? The software that you use to post an article is the final arbiter. If you try and post an unexcerpted article that should be excerpted, the software will catch that and insist you excerpt the article. How do it know? By the article's URL.
That's it in a nutshell, AFAIK.
But I agree with you, there's way too much driveby posting going on here. IMHO, if you can't properly post an article don't bother.
Good to know I’m not alone, upchuck.
There have been thirteen threads announcing 13 charges. But none have them listed. It should be really easy for the media to detail 13 bullet points.
Did they charge him for HR 5741?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.