Can you believe they made him stand there and listen to the resolution be read aloud?!? Don't you think a reprimand would have been enough?
Oh the humanity!! Congress is really hard on it's own when the cheat on their taxes. After all our President gives his tax cheating friends jobs in the treasury department.
Watch your step in here I just puked with sarcasm
Veteran Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., today became the first U.S. House member in 27 years to be censured after a long trial that resulted in him being convicted on 11 counts of ethics violations.
The censure, the highest punishment short of expulsion, is reserved for serious offenses and requires the member in question to stand before his or her colleagues while a censure resolution is read.
An amendment reducing the punishment to reprimand prior to the final vote failed overwhelmingly.
The censure has been used only 23 times in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives. The last time a member of Congress was censured was 1983, when then-Rep. Dan Crane, R-Ill., and Rep. Gerry Studds, D-Mass., faced the penalty for having sexual relationships with minors.
Go cheat on your taxes and have sex with minors people, go ahead! You'll never withstand the penalty of listening to congress read a statement telling you how bad you are...outloud...on camera no less!!! Go ahead try it, you're no congressman, you'll never survive it!! You'll be begging for jail time you peon!!
What is really disgusting is our watchdog press wrote that article and used the word \"punishment\" with sincerity. That should be a sign of the coming of the end.
they should have slapped the cuffs on him right there in the House chamber. that would have been more appropriate.
thats what would have happed to you or me.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Charlie, your in some serious $h!t now. we're going to make you stand infront of Congress and tell everyone all the bad things you did and how you used your office to profit and evaded Taxes. then once thats done it's off to the council chambers for Coffee and Donuts
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
null0010 wrote:What really gets me is that he wanted more time to assemble a legal defense to prevent what is essentially name calling.
That is kind of weird. I'd like to think he wasn't sure of how bad he may suffer so he tried to postpone it like the perps driving the getaway car with a hundred cops on his trail and five helicopters....they know they won't get away but there is no way they can surrender.
Unfortunately for us citizens I think he did it out of pure self righteous ego. He thinks he is above the law (obviously) but further he thinks an 'escape' is possible for a special person like a congressman...he just needed enough time to broker a deal behind the scenes.
The failure of our press and our selves to be outraged at the way these elitist bastards think at their very core level is really disheartening to me. We are getting exactly the abuse we deserve, largely because any scrutiny put on a politician is immediately deflected by the manipulation of half the interested public as we volunteer to be divided along party lines FIRST, then only from the team perspective will we consider standing up for morality, ethics, and law. Only from the other team do we demand it or even expect it.
