I’m so sorry Rep Lofgern…

Readability

I'm so sorry Rep Lofgern...

…for reveal­ing that in the face of cor­rup­tion we intend to give Char­lie Rangel a stern rep­ri­mand!

The Texas Demo­c­rat said he intended to call the head of the full ethics com­mit­tee, Rep. Zoe Lof­gren (D-​Calif.), to apol­o­gize for telling reporters that the sub­com­mit­tee rec­om­mended rep­ri­mand­ing Rangel for allegedly break­ing House ethics rules. The rev­e­la­tion was not included in the lengthy doc­u­ments on the charges faced by Rangel that were released on Thursday.

So says Rep Steve Green.

Let me trans­late this for the gen­eral public.

Rep Lof­gren: I’m so sorry I let the cat out of the bag that we plan on pun­ish­ing Rep Rangel; who over nearly 40 years in the house likely knows more secrets about mem­bers of the house than the CIA ever will; with only a rep­ri­mand rather than any actual puni­tive action. I’m sorry I’ve revealed that the ethics com­mit­tee is not about to pun­ish the man who writes the tax law for avoid­ing taxes thus putting all of us in an embar­rass­ing posi­tion of hav­ing to explain why to the vot­ers in a year when we are already in trouble.”

End trans­la­tion.

If any­one was won­der­ing why Rangel isn’t cut­ting a deal, you now know. And what will that mean for Rangel, lets look at some history:

A rep­ri­mand car­ries no con­se­quences. A cen­sure doesn’t either, except for the per­cep­tion that it’s a stronger rep­ri­mand; Bar­ney Frank got cen­sured in 1990 for using his influ­ence to fix park­ing tick­ets for his part­ner, but he still became chair of the House Finan­cial Ser­vices com­mit­tee. How­ever, a Rep­re­sen­ta­tive who gets cen­sured has to stand in the well of the House to have the lan­guage read aloud, which at least causes momen­tary embar­rass­ment. A fine would carry more sting, but an impeach­ment or expul­sion would send a clear mes­sage about fol­low­ing the rules.

Or as Cap­tain Ed closes:

Yes, this would mean that Rangel would get the exact same pun­ish­ment that Joe Wil­son got for exclaim­ing, “You lie!” dur­ing Obama’s speech to Con­gress last fall.

After all cor­rup­tion and tax eva­sion is one thing, but defy­ing THE ONE? That is unthinkable!

meme­o­ran­dum thread here.

Krautham­mer just said he is sur­prised that he would turn down a rep­ri­mand deal. Why should he make any deal? If they are afraid of doing more than a rep­ri­mand then he knows they aren’t will­ing to chal­lenge him, and like I said, he knows where 40 years of secrets.

What does the Rangel case tell you about the demo­c­ra­tic con­gress? They are more afraid of Char­lie Rangel than the Amer­i­can people.

Update: I couldn’t help but think of the 4th doc­tor Episode City of Death and the Doc­tor and Duggen. Jump to 3:25 and you’ll see that in at least one respect the Demo­c­ra­tic Ethic com­mit­tee and the 4th doc­tor have one thing in common:

The text of the exchange is as follows:

The Doc­tor: If you do that one more time Dug­gan I’m going to take very very severe measures!

Dug­gan: Yeah? Like what?

The Doc­tor: I’m going to ask you not to!

Send that time lord to congress!

Update 2: Hotair has fun with it:

Gosh darn it, it was sup­posed to be a sur­prise! Per­haps a nice sur­prise, tied up in a lit­tle bow, and deliv­ered on August 11th when Demo­c­ra­tic Party lead­ers throw a big birth­day fundraiser — er, party — for the man whose birth­day passed two months ear­lier. Who knows? The com­bi­na­tion cel­e­bra­tory good feel­ings, hard cam­paign cash, and the soft­ball rep­ri­mand might have con­vinced Char­lie to shut the hell up and take a pass on the ethics trial slated now for the mid­dle of the cam­paign season.

gotta love stuff like that.

…for revealing that in the face of corruption we intend to give Charlie Rangel a stern reprimand!

The Texas Democrat said he intended to call the head of the full ethics committee, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), to apologize for telling reporters that the subcommittee recommended reprimanding Rangel for allegedly breaking House ethics rules. The revelation was not included in the lengthy documents on the charges faced by Rangel that were released on Thursday.

So says Rep Steve Green.

Let me translate this for the general public.

“Rep Lofgren: I’m so sorry I let the cat out of the bag that we plan on punishing Rep Rangel; who over nearly 40 years in the house likely knows more secrets about members of the house than the CIA ever will; with only a reprimand rather than any actual punitive action. I’m sorry I’ve revealed that the ethics committee is not about to punish the man who writes the tax law for avoiding taxes thus putting all of us in an embarrassing position of having to explain why to the voters in a year when we are already in trouble.”

End translation.

If anyone was wondering why Rangel isn’t cutting a deal, you now know. And what will that mean for Rangel, lets look at some history:

A reprimand carries no consequences. A censure doesn’t either, except for the perception that it’s a stronger reprimand; Barney Frank got censured in 1990 for using his influence to fix parking tickets for his partner, but he still became chair of the House Financial Services committee. However, a Representative who gets censured has to stand in the well of the House to have the language read aloud, which at least causes momentary embarrassment. A fine would carry more sting, but an impeachment or expulsion would send a clear message about following the rules.

Or as Captain Ed closes:

Yes, this would mean that Rangel would get the exact same punishment that Joe Wilson got for exclaiming, “You lie!” during Obama’s speech to Congress last fall.

After all corruption and tax evasion is one thing, but defying THE ONE? That is unthinkable!

memeorandum thread here.

Krauthammer just said he is surprised that he would turn down a reprimand deal. Why should he make any deal? If they are afraid of doing more than a reprimand then he knows they aren’t willing to challenge him, and like I said, he knows where 40 years of secrets.

What does the Rangel case tell you about the democratic congress? They are more afraid of Charlie Rangel than the American people.

Update: I couldn’t help but think of the 4th doctor Episode City of Death and the Doctor and Duggen. Jump to 3:25 and you’ll see that in at least one respect the Democratic Ethic committee and the 4th doctor have one thing in common:

The text of the exchange is as follows:

The Doctor: If you do that one more time Duggan I’m going to take very very severe measures!

Duggan: Yeah? Like what?

The Doctor: I’m going to ask you not to!

Send that time lord to congress!

Update 2: Hotair has fun with it:

Gosh darn it, it was supposed to be a surprise! Perhaps a nice surprise, tied up in a little bow, and delivered on August 11th when Democratic Party leaders throw a big birthday fundraiser — er, party — for the man whose birthday passed two months earlier. Who knows? The combination celebratory good feelings, hard campaign cash, and the softball reprimand might have convinced Charlie to shut the hell up and take a pass on the ethics trial slated now for the middle of the campaign season.

gotta love stuff like that.