Charlie Rangel: Man of the People

[del]

Rep. Charles Rangel claimed on mortgage papers that a Harlem brownstone was his principal residence -- even though he was living elsewhere at the time, The Post has learned.

When the Democrat -- who is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee -- took out the mortgage in 1990, he said the property on West 132nd Street was his "principal residence," records show.

But Rangel has been living since the 1970s in Harlem's Lenox Terrace apartment complex, where he improperly amassed four rent-stabilized properties.

CHARLIE'S MORTGAGE BARES HOME UNTRUTH - New York Post

OOPS! CHARLIE FORGOT THIS $1M HOUSE - New York Post

 

[WillowTree]

I hope you are breathing.

 

[jillian]

Rep. Charles Rangel claimed on mortgage papers that a Harlem brownstone was his principal residence -- even though he was living elsewhere at the time, The Post has learned.

When the Democrat -- who is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee -- took out the mortgage in 1990, he said the property on West 132nd Street was his "principal residence," records show.

But Rangel has been living since the 1970s in Harlem's Lenox Terrace apartment complex, where he improperly amassed four rent-stabilized properties.

CHARLIE'S MORTGAGE BARES HOME UNTRUTH - New York Post

OOPS! CHARLIE FORGOT THIS $1M HOUSE - New York Post

Rangel's an idiot....

but the NY Post is still a rag.

They do have the best headlines in the business, though.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Another day, another prominent politician caught breaking the law.

 

[jillian]

cause if he's accused, he must be guilty, eh?

(not that I don't think he probably is...)

 

[RadiomanATL]

cause if he's accused, he must be guilty, eh?

(not that I don't think he probably is...)

Common sense must prevail in conversations at some point, no matter what the "letter of the law" says.

IOW: OJ was guilty.

 

[Sarah G]

Rangel has been a target for years. Maybe the NY Post will get lucky this time and one of their stories will suprisingly turn out to be true.

 

[jillian]

cause if he's accused, he must be guilty, eh?

(not that I don't think he probably is...)

Common sense must prevail in conversations at some point, no matter what the "letter of the law" says.

IOW: OJ was guilty.

yet the prosecution put on a terrible case.... leaving the jury no choice but to find him not guilty.

 

[jillian]

Rangel has been a target for years. Maybe the NY Post will get lucky this time and one of their stories will suprisingly turn out to be true.

yeah... Rupert doesn't like Charlie much.

...which is why I give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

 

[RadiomanATL]

cause if he's accused, he must be guilty, eh?

(not that I don't think he probably is...)

Common sense must prevail in conversations at some point, no matter what the "letter of the law" says.

IOW: OJ was guilty.

yet the prosecution put on a terrible case.... leaving the jury no choice but to find him not guilty.

Yes, you are correct.

My point was specific to common sense in conversations (such as this).

 

[Sarah G]

Rangel has been a target for years. Maybe the NY Post will get lucky this time and one of their stories will suprisingly turn out to be true.

yeah... Rupert doesn't like Charlie much.

...which is why I give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Anybody could be guilty of something like this but the NY Post would never print a retraction equivilant to the smear. Maybe in the middle of the paper in very small print.

 

[jillian]

Common sense must prevail in conversations at some point, no matter what the "letter of the law" says.

IOW: OJ was guilty.

yet the prosecution put on a terrible case.... leaving the jury no choice but to find him not guilty.

Yes, you are correct.

My point was specific to common sense in conversations (such as this).

Fair enough...and if it was anyone but the NY Post writing about anyone but Charlie Rangel, I'd probably agree with you.

Yes...I think IF the facts as they state them are accurate, it looks pretty bad for Charlie.

 

[xsited1]

Rangel is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee which writes the tax code. He has friends in high places. Even if guilty, he may never be convicted.

 

[WillowTree]

We are all quite certain the mr. rangel is as innocent as the driven snow. all accusations are just wild dreams from an over imaginative vast rwc.. and butterflies will shit democwat voters next election.

 

[jillian]

Rangel is the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee which writes the tax code. He has friends in high places. Even if guilty, he may never be convicted.

if it went to a jury, I doubt the powers that be could do anything for him.

But truth is they're all hooked up... doesn't mean it wouldn't be a feather in some prosecutor's cap.

 

[Sarah G]

We are all quite certain the mr. rangel is as innocent as the driven snow. all accusations are just wild dreams from an over imaginative vast rwc.. and butterflies will shit democwat voters next election.

Nobody is saying that.

 

[WillowTree]

We are all quite certain the mr. rangel is as innocent as the driven snow. all accusations are just wild dreams from an over imaginative vast rwc.. and butterflies will shit democwat voters next election.

Nobody is saying that.

 

[del]

Rangel has been a target for years. Maybe the NY Post will get lucky this time and one of their stories will suprisingly turn out to be true.

yeah... Rupert doesn't like Charlie much.

...which is why I give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Anybody could be guilty of something like this but the NY Post would never print a retraction equivilant to the smear. Maybe in the middle of the paper in very small print.

if you find any paper that prints a retraction/apology that is equal to the initial article in terms of placement and length, let me know.

it'll be a first.