ptbw forever
Gold Member
- May 9, 2015
- 16,522
- 1,782
- 290
- Banned
- #21
This is their last stand before their brain trust dies and the right regains every facet of society.
Getting our country back!
- Thread starter Votto
- Start date
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
That’s why we need a fucking bloody-ass war.
BluesLegend
Diamond Member
The Trump win exposed how corrupt they are, including the vaunted FBI and DOJ. Have you noticed congress has sat on its hands watching this unfold?
Lysistrata
Platinum Member
- Oct 11, 2017
- 17,484
- 6,541
- 360
The problem with impeaching the orange whore is that the stupid fairy bitch from Indiana becomes president.
Norman
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2010
- 31,254
- 15,212
- 1,590
Fairy bitch? You mean Mike Pence? Sounds like a great guy from what I gather.
You have a bigger problem though, you would need evidence. So many problems in the way of your plan to destroy America, better have that butthurt salve...
Your claim of being a Republican under a decade removed from Democrats and the W administration just keeps getting more and more completely fucking hilarious
Lysistrata
Platinum Member
- Oct 11, 2017
- 17,484
- 6,541
- 360
So you love your fairy queen, who hates his woman, all women, and all LGBTs. He must loooovvvve trumpee-boy, though.
Votto
Diamond Member
- Oct 31, 2012
- 62,922
- 68,334
- 3,605
- Thread starter
- #30
Polls show that Americans now see their own government as the greatest threat to the country
Gallup Poll: America’s No. 1 problem is the government
Gallup Poll: America’s No. 1 problem is the government
Don't forget about Al Sharpton. He's a total tax cheat, but his black privilege keeps him out of jail.
Whats funny, looking down from a purely neutral position. The left and the right don't react all that differently when their candidate is under the gun. Lefties would defend their candidate to the death, and in fact did so when Bill Clinton was under scrutiny. The hypocrisy is astounding.
I am sure you would be the first to not be hypocritical across party divides. Without deflecting, answer this question-- Would you defend "your" candidate if they had potentially broken federal laws? Did you defend Hilary when confidential emails were found on her home server, or did you recommend the govt charge her with a felony? I am going to assume judging by your post history you were defending her making similar excuses that the right has made because of course, she was what was best for this country in your mind regardless of if she broke federal laws.
Both sides are a means to an ends type group. Neither side cares about morality when it is their candidate but by God, when it is the other candidate or president the morality police come out in droves to talk about how horrible a person is and that you would never stand for a politician breaking the law. And hey, I don't have a problem with you being that way, but if you are going to be that way at least ADMIT it. Don't try and hide under some morality cover.
Of course every democratic politician is squeaky clean, none have skimmed off of the top, none have made money or been paid off under the table. And before you lefties try and blast me, the same goes for the righties. The only difference between the hard right and hard left is ideology. You all react the exact same way.
Yes, if Hillary was elected she would have appointed people who's first over-all competency was the ability to protect her back.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 150,071
- 34,340
- 2,180
no, you will never get your country back. once the free stuff made it to the people, that was the end of it all. It's been downhill ever since. shame eh? the first thing one would have to have gotten done, is to revoke all free entitlements. until that day arrives, you have no country with which you can count on.
The Original Tree
Diamond Member
As I sit here watching person after person who has helped Trump is some form or fashion get eaten alive, I just sit and wonder, will we ever get our country back?
IF Trump had not gotten elected, we all know what would not have happened. The people around Trump, Flynn and company, would have been just fine. In fact, I'm almost certain that such people as Harvey Weinstein, who backed Hillary, would have not been rated out, neither would Stormy Daniels lost her marriage because of what she went through to get to Trump.
Who here disagrees?
Then we see the corruption in Washington and nothing is ever done about that. I mean, the head of the IRS failed to pay his taxes but Obama appointed him to the head of the IRS anyway.
I guess the poster boy for corruption in Charley Rangel. Here is a whole list of charges he was found guilty of, but was never arrested. No, Charley even later won his seat back.
From wiki, here is the list of crimes:
Letterhead use and Rangel Center fundraising[edit]
In July 2008, The Washington Post reported that Rangel was soliciting donations to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York from corporations with business interests before his Ways and Means Committee, and was doing so using Congressional letterhead.[113] Such companies and individuals included AIG, Donald Trump, and Nabors Industries, and by this time Rangel's efforts had helped raise $12 million of the $30 million goal for the center.[113] Government watchdog groups and ethics experts criticized Rangel's actions, with the dean of the George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management saying Rangel "has crossed the line".[113]
Rangel denied any wrongdoing and asked the U.S. House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, commonly known as the House Ethics Committee, to determine if his use of Congressional letterhead while arranging meetings to solicit contributions for the Center had violated any House rules.[103] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi agreed to Rangel's request.[103]
Renting Harlem apartments at below-market rates[edit]
The New York Times reported in July 2008 that Rangel rents four apartments at below-market rates in the Lenox Terrace complex in Harlem. It reported that Rangel paid $3,894 monthly for all four apartments in 2007. In contrast, the landlord's going rate for similar apartments in the building was as high as $8,125 monthly. Three adjacent apartments were combined to create his 2,500-square-foot (230 m2) home. A fourth unit is used as a campaign office, which violates city and state regulations that require rent-stabilized apartments to be used as a primary residence. Rangel received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from one of the landlords, according to the paper. Rangel said his rent does not affect his representation of his constituents.[67]
Congressional ethics experts said the difference in rent between what Rangel was paying and market rates, an estimated $30,000 per year, could be construed as a gift, exceeding the $100 House of Representatives gift limit.[67] In late July, the House voted 254–138 to table a resolution by Republican Minority Leader John Boehner that would have censured Rangel for having "dishonored himself and brought discredit to the House", by occupying the four apartments.[114]
House parking garage[edit]
A September 2008 New York Post article reported that Rangel had been using a House parking garage as free storage space for his Mercedes-Benz for years, in apparent violation of Congressional rules. Under Internal Revenue Service regulations, free parking (here, worth $290 a month) is considered imputed income, and must be declared on tax returns.[115] In July 2010 the House Ethics Committee ruled that Rangel had committed no violation, since in practice the parking policy was only applied to Congressional staff and not to members themselves.[116]
Taxes on Dominican villa rental income[edit]
Rangel was accused of failing to report income from his rental of a beachside villa he owns in Punta Cana in the Dominican Republic. A three-bedroom, three-bath unit, it has rented out for as much as $1,100 per night in the busiest tourist season.[117]
Labor lawyer Theodore Kheel, a principal investor in the resort development company and frequent campaign contributor to Rangel, had encouraged him to purchase the villa. Rangel purchased it in 1988 for $82,750. He financed $53,737.50 of the purchase price for seven years at an interest rate of 10.5%, but was one of several early investors whose interest payments were waived in 1990.[118]
In September 2008, Rangel's attorney, Lanny Davis, disclosed that Rangel had failed to report on his tax returns or in congressional disclosure forms $75,000 in income he had received for renting his Dominican villa. That month, Rangel paid $10,800 to cover his liability for the related back taxes.[119][120] He had owed back taxes for at least three years. The Ways and Means Committee writes the U.S. tax code, and as such his failure to pay taxes himself led to heavy criticism.[120]
A September 14, 2008, New York Times editorial called for Rangel to step down temporarily from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee while his ethical problems were investigated.[121]
On September 24, 2008, the House Ethics Committee announced that it would investigate whether Rangel had violated its code of conduct or any law or other regulation related to his performance of his duties.[122] On November 23, 2008, The New York Post reported that Rangel took a "homestead" tax break on his Washington, DC, house for years, while simultaneously occupying multiple New York City rent-stabilized apartments, "possibly violating laws and regulations in both cases."[123] In January 2009, Republican Representative John R. Carter introduced the Rangel Rule Act of 2009 (H.R. 735), a tongue-in-cheek proposal that would have allowed all taxpayers to not pay penalties and interest on back taxes, in reference to Rangel not yet having paid his.[124]
Defense of tax shelter[edit]
Rangel receives book written by US Consul General Gregory Slayton, in Bermuda in 2009
In November 2008, following reports by The New York Times, Republican Congressmen asked the House Ethics Committee to look into Rangel's defense of a tax shelter approved by his Ways and Means Committee. One of the four companies that benefited from the loophole was Nabors Industries, which opened headquarters in Bermuda as a foreign corporation.[125] Under the loophole, Nabors receives tens of millions of dollars in tax breaks. In 2004, Rangel had led opposition to the tax breaks.[125] Nabors donated $1 million in 2006, and $100,000 later, to the City College of New York school named after Rangel.
Its CEO said the donations were unrelated to Rangel's February 2007 promise to oppose closing the loophole.[125] He denied there was any quid pro quo, and called the article about it "malarkey".[126] Rangel said The New York Times had ignored facts and explanations, and denied the charges.[125][127][128] The House Ethics Committee voted in December 2008, to expand its investigation of Rangel to the matter.[129] Eventually the Ethics Committee would not make a specific charge over this matter but did include it in the supporting documentation for the overall charge that Rangel had solicited Rangel Center donations from those with business before his committee.[130]
Unreported assets and income[edit]
On September 15, 2008, it was disclosed that: (a) Rangel had omitted from his financial reports details regarding his sale of a Washington, DC home; (b) discrepancies existed in the values he listed for a property he owns in Sunny Isles, Florida (varying from $50,000 to $500,000); and (c) inconsistencies appeared in his investment fund reporting. He apologized, saying "I owed my colleagues and the public adherence to a higher standard of care, not only as a member of Congress, but even more as the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee." Republicans called for his removal as chair. Rangel said there was no justification for that, as the mistakes were errors of omission, that would not justify loss of his position.[131]
In August 2009, Rangel amended his 2007 financial disclosure form to report more than $500,000 in previously unreported assets and income. That doubled his reported net worth. Unreported assets included a federal credit union checking account of between $250,000 and $500,000, several investment accounts, stock in Yum! Brands and PepsiCo, and property in Glassboro, New Jersey. Rangel also had not paid property taxes on two of his New Jersey properties, which he was required by law to do.
The ethics issues led by December 2008 to some loss of standing for Rangel, to Republicans trying to tie him to all Democrats, and to some Democrats privately saying it would be best if Rangel stepped down from his Ways and Means post.[132] In late 2008 and again in September 2009, the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington named Rangel one of the 15 most corrupt members of Congress.[133] Media pieces compared Rangel's woes with those unethical former Ways and Means chairs Wilbur Mills and Dan Rostenkowski.[81] Pelosi, a long-time friend of Rangel's, withheld any possible action against Rangel pending the House Ethics Committee report.[79] Rangel evinced impatience with that body, saying "I don't have a complaint now, except that it's taking too goddamn long to review this thing and report back."[81] On September 3, 2009, The Washington Post called on Rangel to resign his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee, given the ethical issues that had surfaced. Another Republican resolution was put forth to force him out of his chairmanship. However, Rangel stayed in place and mostly maintained his role in House leadership and policy discussions,[79] including the Obama health care reform plan[81] (opposition to which, he suggested, was partly due to racial prejudice against President Obama).[134] Nevertheless, his influence was diminished by the questions surrounding him.[81]
Caribbean trips[edit]
In May 2009, the non-profit National Legal and Policy Center filed an ethics complaint against Rangel and other members of Congress for trips, taken in 2007 and 2008 to Caribbean islands. The trips had been sponsored by Carib News Foundation, a New York non-profit funded by corporations with interests before Congress and the Ways and Means Committee.[135] This, combined with the duration of the trips, seemed to violate House rules. The Ethics Committee agreed the following month to investigate the matter.[136]
On February 26, 2010, the Ethics Committee issued its report.[137] It determined that Rangel had violated House gift rules, by accepting reimbursement for his travel to the conferences.[138] It found that he had not known of the contributions, but concluded that he was still responsible for them and was required to repay their cost.[138] Five other members were cleared of having violated rules, but were also required to repay their trips.[138] Rangel disagreed with the committee's finding, saying:
Because they were my staff members who knew, one of whom has been discharged, [the committee has decided] that I should have known. Common sense dictates that members of Congress should not be held responsible for what could be the wrongdoing, or mistakes, or errors of staff.[135]
Pelosi said she would not take any action against Rangel pending further committee findings, as his staff had been more at fault and he had not broken any law.[135] The Ethics Committee continued to investigate the charges against Rangel relating to obtaining rent-stabilized apartments, fundraising, and failure to disclose rental income from his Dominican villa.[135]
Stepping aside as House Ways and Means Chair[edit]
After a February 2010 House Ethics Committee report criticizing him for taking sponsored Caribbean trips, the White House backed off its prior support of Rangel somewhat, and within days 14 Democratic members of Congress publicly called on Rangel to step aside as Ways and Means chair.[139][140] Other Democrats were concerned that Rangel would impede Democrats' efforts to maintain their majority in the 2010 House elections, but did not say anything publicly out of respect and personal affection for Rangel.[139] Momentum quickly built against Rangel, with 30 or more Democrats planning to oppose his continued chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee, in a full House vote being pushed by Republicans.[141][142] Democrat Paul Hodes of New Hampshire noted:
I think we're in a zero-tolerance atmosphere, and I think ... Washington should be held to the highest ethical standards. I have the greatest admiration for Mr. Rangel's service to this country. He's been a great public servant. This is very, very unfortunate, but I think it's necessary.[141]
On March 3, 2010, Rangel said he would take a leave of absence as chair, pending issuance of the Ethics Committee's report.[143] Pelosi granted his request, but whether such a leave was possible was unclear and the House Speaker pro Tempore said that a resignation had taken place and that Rangel was no longer chair.[144][143] Observers opined that it was unlikely that Rangel would ever be able to regain the position.[142][143] Several Democrats said they would return or donate to charity campaign contributions given to them by Rangel.[142] Representative Sander M. Levin of Michigan took over as acting chair.[145]
House ethics committee charges[edit]
On July 22, 2010, a bipartisan, four-member investigative subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee indicated it had "substantial reason to believe" that Rangel had violated a range of ethics rules relating to the other charges.[146] The matter was referred to another, newly created, special subcommittee to rule on the findings.[146][147] Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said the action indicated the "process is working as it should, while Minority Leader John Boehner called the announcement "a sad reminder" of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's "most glaring broken promise: to 'drain the swamp' in Washington."[148]
Rangel negotiated with the Ethics Committee. But participants in the talks characterized him as unwilling to admit wrongdoing in connection with several of the charges, and anxious about preserving his legacy. No settlement was reached.[149]
On July 29, 2010, Rangel was charged by the committee with 13 counts of violating House rules and federal laws.[150] Rangel's lawyers continued to insist that he had not intentionally violated any law or regulation, had not handed out political favors, and had not misused his office for personal financial gain.[150] Rangel somberly said only this on the day the charges were announced:
Sixty years ago, I survived a Chinese attack in North Korea. And as a result I wrote a book that, having survived that, that I haven't had a bad day since. Today I have to reassess that.[151]
Re-election campaign of 2010[edit]
Rangel suggested that Andrew Cuomo's primary run in the 2010 gubernatorial election against incumbent David Paterson, who was the first African-American governor of New York, would undo years of work that Cuomo spent rebuilding his standing in the state Democratic Party after his bruising 2002 gubernatorial primary contest against Carl McCall, at the time the highest-ranking African-American and first major party candidate for governor in the state.[152] Rangel had been a staunch supporter of McCall against Cuomo in 2002.[153] For the upcoming 2010 gubernatorial race, Rangel suggested that for the white Cuomo to challenge the African-American incumbent would not be "the moral decision".[154] Rangel also said, "There might be an inclination for racial polarization in a primary in the state of New York. Since we have most African-Americans registered as Democrats, and since you would be making an appeal for Democrats, it would be devastating in my opinion."[152] Paterson fared poorly in polls due to several scandals and later abandoned his campaign re-election.[155] By this point, Rangel's continuing difficulties, together with the death a few months prior of Percy Sutton and the failure of Paterson (Basil Paterson's son), marked the end of the era of Harlem's "Gang of Four".[66][155]
Rangel faced several Democratic primary challengers for his seat in 2010: Vincent Morgan, whose grassroots campaign bore many resemblances to Rangel's own against the scandal-plagued Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., in 1970;[156] Adam Clayton Powell IV, who had previously challenged Rangel in 1994; labor activist and past primary candidate for statewide office Jonathan Tasini; and former Obama campaign official Joyce Johnson.[49][146] While Rangel's fund-raising was down from previous years, and he had paid nearly $2 million in legal fees, he still had far more cash available for the campaign than any of his challengers.[49][146]
On September 14, 2010, Rangel prevailed in the primary election, gaining 51 percent of the vote against Powell's 23 percent and lesser amounts for the other contenders.[157] He then won the November 2, 2010, general election easily, garnering 80 percent of the vote against Republican Michel Faulkner's 10 percent and smaller amounts for third-party candidates.[158]
House ethics trial and censure[edit]
On November 15, 2010, Rangel's formal ethics trial began.[159] He walked out of the hearing at the start, saying that he was unable to afford representation after having paid his previous lawyers over $2 million, and arguing unsuccessfully that the proceeding should be delayed until he could arrange for a legal defense fund.[159]
On November 16, 2010, Rangel was found guilty on 11 of the 12 standing charges against him by the adjudicatory subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee.[160][161] Two of the charges were focused on his actions with regards to soliciting funds and donations for the Rangel Center from those with business before the Ways and Means Committee; four were for improper use of Congressional letterhead and other House resources in those solicitations; one was for submitting incomplete and inaccurate financial disclosure statements; one was for using one of his Harlem apartments as an office when he had Congressional dealings with the landlord; one was for failing to pay taxes on his Dominican villa; and two reiterated these charges in describing general violations of House rules.[162]
Two days later, a near-tears Rangel pleaded for "fairness and mercy", but to no avail;[163] the full Committee voted 9–1 to recommend that the full House approve a sanction of censure upon Rangel.[164] The committee stated that "Public office is a public trust [and Rangel] violated that trust."[163] Censure is the strongest penalty the House can impose short of outright expulsion from Congress.[164] The Committee also said that Rangel should make restitution for any unpaid taxes.[164]
Supporters of Rangel argued that by comparison with previous cases, a reprimand would be a more fitting punishment for Rangel's trangressions than censure.[165] Rangel repeatedly insisted, as he had all along, that nothing he had done was with the aim of enriching himself.[166] It was to no avail. On December 2, 2010, a motion was made in the full House to censure Rangel. Ethics committee chair Zoe Lofgren emphasized that it was Rangel's "accumulation of actions" that warranted the stiffer penalty, and said that the treatment of Rangel should set a new precedent, not follow old ones.[167] A motion to amend the resolution in favor of reprimand was voted down 267–146; most of Speaker Pelosi's allies rejected it and over 105 Democrats voted the resolution down.[166][168] The House of Representatives then voted 333–79 to censure Rangel.[167] Per custom, Rangel went to the well of the House to hear Speaker Pelosi solemnly read the formal measure of censure.[169] It had been 27 years since the last such measure and Rangel was only the 23rd House member to be censured.[169] Rangel asked to speak and said, "I know in my heart I am not going to be judged by this Congress. I’ll be judged by my life in its entirety."[166]
So this guy is not in jail.
Neither is Al Sharpton.
Nor Hillary Clinton.
And we have Mueller going after people for jay walking offenses and trumped up charges of "we don't think you paid enough in taxes."
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Democrat Dick Durbin goes all out to bring down Trump nominee
- Started by lennypartiv
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
You can now read about the origins of Covid on the White House website
- Started by lennypartiv
- Replies: 3
Latest Discussions
-
The video of Israel slaughtering its own citizens on Oct 7 is trending again on X- Latest: Andrew_Jackson_FTW
-
-
-
