Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 last
To: Sub-Driver
Rangel: 'I have no real chance of fighting back' You've stalled, lied and dodged for years. If you've finally run out of ways to dance away from responsibility for your crimes it's still years late.
56 posted on
11/15/2010 4:59:36 PM PST by
highlander_UW
(Education is too important to abdicate control of it to the government)
To: Sub-Driver; SunkenCiv; ml/nj; firebrand; rmlew; ExTexasRedhead; Cicero; Clemenza; The Mayor; ...
If Rangel wants to get out of the House Ethics Committee charges, all he needs to do is resign from the House, so that the committee will no longer have jurisdiction over him.
In the meanwhile, he's merely playing games over the issue of legal representation in an attempt to garner sympathy from the public. Rangel undoubtedly knows that the procedural rules for the committee are determined by the committee itself.
The constitutional guarantee of legal representation applies to criminal defendants in criminal courts only. In other proceedings, the right to counsel may or may not be granted depending upon the specific rules of the authority presiding over the proceeding and/or the applicable law.
To: Sub-Driver
That’s because the arrogant demigod is guilty, guilty and guilty.
To: Sub-Driver
I agree we should help Rangel delay until next year when the new republican majority takes office, then we can insure not only a conviction but an expulsion.
I honestly think that is why liberals won’t give their friend Rangel more time, they don’t want a Republican controlled House to decide his fate.
lol
To: Sub-Driver
Poor Chuckie. He’s got such a raw deal.
/sarc
67 posted on
11/15/2010 6:53:32 PM PST by
Tzimisce
(No thanks. We have enough government already. - The Tick)
To: Sub-Driver
Go to jail, Charlie. Go directly to jail. Do not pass “Go.” Do not collect $2,000,000.
70 posted on
11/15/2010 7:14:46 PM PST by
stboz
To: Sub-Driver
73 posted on
11/15/2010 8:02:14 PM PST by
Kozak
("It's not an Election it's a Restraining Order" .....PJ O'Rourke)
To: Sub-Driver
My defense is that I did it.
77 posted on
11/16/2010 2:22:12 AM PST by
stevem
To: Sub-Driver
Rangel: 'I have no real chance of fighting back' And no need to. Absent a criminal conviction on his tax evasion charges, the worst the ethics panel will do is slap his wrist a little.
To: Sub-Driver
I see no evidence of corruption. Its hard to answer the question of personal financial benefit. I think the short answer is probably no. Do I believe that based on the record that Congressman Rangel took steps to benefit himself based on his position in Congress? No. I believe that the congressman, quite frankly, was overzealous in many of the things he did. And sloppy in his personal finances.- Mr Chisam, Ethics Committee Atty.
I often wondered if it were possible to bribe an attorney on the Ethics Committee. Now I just wonder how much was paid.
84 posted on
11/16/2010 6:57:01 AM PST by
theDentist
(fybo; qwerty ergo typo : i type, therefore i misspelll)
To: Sub-Driver
Play the victim card, Charlie.
85 posted on
11/16/2010 7:03:33 AM PST by
Redleg Duke
(We didn't limit out, but we nailed a bunch of RATS!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-51 last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson