WASHINGTON – Once one of the most powerful members of Congress, veteran Rep. Charles Rangel of New York was reduced Monday to pleading with colleagues for more time to raise money for a lawyer before they took up misconduct charges against him. No, they said, and quickly began deliberations, saying the facts were so clear they didn’t need to call witnesses.
The panel met for several hours before quitting for the day. Deliberations were to resume today.
Rangel, 80 years old and a 20-term Democrat representing New York’s famed Harlem neighborhood, implored a House ethics committee panel to delay, declaring in an emotional address that “50 years of public service is on the line.” But the panel basically decided that the 2 1/2-year-old case had gone on long enough – and Congress had little time left to deal with it in the lame duck session that commenced Monday.
He faces 13 counts of alleged financial and fundraising misconduct that could bring formal condemnation. He left the hearing before his request was formally rejected, and the rare proceeding – only the second for this type of hearing in two decades – went on without him.
The panel of four Democrats and four Republicans is sitting as a jury in the case. If they decide Rangel violated any House rules, the most likely sanction would be a House vote deploring his conduct.
Rangel told them he had run out of money after paying his previous attorneys some $2 million and needed time to set up a legal defense fund to raise an additional $1 million.
Until last spring, Rangel had wielded great influence as chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee.
After Rangel left Monday’s hearing, House ethics committee chief counsel Blake Chisam pushed for a decision on the allegations that he had violated House rules. Chisam, assuming the role of prosecutor, played a video of Rangel’s speech on the House floor in August in which the congressman acknowledged that he’d used House stationery to raise money for a college center named after him, and that he’d been tardy in filing taxes and financial disclosure statements.
He said then that he never intended to break any rules.
Chisam told the panel that there were no questions “as to any material facts in this case. As a result the case is ripe for a decision.”
The chief counsel also said, “I see no evidence of corruption” by Rangel. Rather, he suggested, the congressman was “overzealous” and “sloppy in his personal finances.”
Chisam said Rangel could have legally raised money for the Charles B. Rangel Center at City College of New York by asking the ethics committee for permission to solicit nonprofit organizations. However, he would not have been able to use congressional letterheads or employees in the fundraising, as he is charged with doing.
The counsel also said Rangel used a subsidized apartment in New York City as a campaign office when the lease required that it be for residential use only.
Rangel’s former law firm of Zuckerman Spaeder disputed his assertion that he had been abandoned.
“This law firm did not seek to terminate the relationship and explored every alternative to remain as his counsel consistent with House ethics rules prohibiting members from accepting pro bono legal services,” the firm said. “Out of respect for Congressman Rangel and the House ethics committee, we will not comment further at this time.”
Earlier this fall, Rangel had pleaded for a quick decision before the November elections. He won re-election.
The ethics committee chairman, Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., told Rangel that time was an issue since this Congress will soon adjourn. He responded that his fate should not depend on the congressional calendar.
“I truly believe I am not being treated fairly,” Rangel said.