|
|||
|
House Subcommittee Settles on a Reprimand for RangelPosted on Jul 30, 2010
On Friday, a House subcommittee decided to dish out an official reprimand to Rep. Charles Rangel as punishment for running afoul of ethics rules, but his fate still remains to be decided by a panel of his peers. —KA
Advertisement Previous item: Troop Deaths in Afghanistan Hit High Mark Next item: There Is No Joy in Pyongyang ... New and Improved CommentsWe are launching a major overhaul of our comments section. In addition to more robust spam filtering and moderation, new features include the ability to rate other comments, sort how they are displayed and respond directly via e-mail or in a thread. Unfortunately, commenters will lose their existing Truthdig identities. It's a pain, we know, but on the plus side you will now be able to log in with a plethora of options, including Google, Twitter, Facebook and Disqus accounts. Before launching this system we spent months in discussion with our top commenters. We listened to the feedback and we hope you like what we've come up with. Please direct any problems or concerns to us via our contact page. |
By grumpynyker, July 31, 2010 at 5:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
I blame Rangel (along with David Dinkins,Basil
Report thisPaterson, Herman Farrell) for removing Adam Clayton
Powell from office AFTER the southern politicians got
him out the chairmanship of the House Ways and Means
committee. Do a comparison of the bills/programs
Powell pushed through versus Rangel. Also, I blame
Rangel for jump starting the gentrification (ethnic
cleansing) of Harlem by inviting that Arkansa cracker
to open his office there after Giuliani barred him
from opening one in midtown Manhattan. How has doing
the bidding of the Clintons versus your constituents
worked out for you?!
By Aethera, July 30, 2010 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment
Just a question here: Could this be some kind of payback for the public remarks he made during the presidential primaries in which he said something to the effect that he could not believe how stupid Clinton was for a remark she made in an interview about having broad support among racist whites?
Has anyone looked into those responsible for bringing on this ethics investigation to see what their connections to Clinton might be?
If I recall correctly it was right around the time he made his remark about Clinton that her chances of winning the nomination went up in smoke. I could very much see her or some of those affiliated closely with her as being rather pissed at what he said although I have no idea if this is actually the case.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, July 30, 2010 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment
Bad Rangel, Bad.
Report thisBy rico, suave, July 30, 2010 at 4:46 pm Link to this comment
Calls for Rangel’s resignation are 100% racially motivated! Can you imagine a white congressman resigning for…
Never mind.
Report this