The House Ethics Panel began Rangel's trial yesterday, and the first thing Rangel did was ask for a postponement because he had no legal counsel. According to Rangel, he's pretty much broke, and his legal team left him a month ago because of it.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45134.html
"I am being denied to the right to have a lawyer right now because I don’t have the opportunity to have a legal defense fund set up," Rangel complained to the “adjudicatory subcommittee” hearing the case. "And because I don’t have a million dollars to pay my counsel."
As an aside, the law firm in question denies that they left Rangel, but refuses to comment further.
“It has been a privilege for Zuckerman Spaeder to represent Congressman Rangel, who has had a long and distinguished career in public service,” the firm said. “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. Out of respect for Congressman Rangel and the House Ethics Committee we will not comment further at this time.”
But wait... It gets better!
In response to Rangel's request, the panel debated his motion privately, then returned to the chamber and denied Rangel's request for a postponement. Personally, I think that was a good call. He's had a month since he and his lead attorney parted ways, and he found out two weeks ago that he could set up a legal defense fund... the fact that he didn't bother to set up the fund or get a new attorney tells me he is looking for a way to delay this thing.
Anyway, the panel denied his request, and Rangel calmly sat down and prepared to defend himself.
Just kidding. No, that would be the mature and intelligent thing to do. In reality, Rangel pitched a royal fit and walked out! The ethics committee watched him go, then continued the trial. With Rangel's seat at the defense table empty, the charges were read and a motion for summary judgement was offered. After a lengthy debate in private, the ethics panel accepted the motion.
The ethics committee will now hold private deliberations on their own time, and will hopefully issue a decision soon. The fact that Rangel wasn't present for all of this will allow him to claim he's being railroaded and retain, if found guilty, at least a semblance of legitimacy. "I wasn't guilty," he can say, "they just had it out for me."
Now, the big question is, will the ethics panel find Rangel guilty of anything? That's a hard thing to predict.
Let me say that I don't believe the facts of the case will matter much to the ethics panel. As with most cases of public corruption being decided by other lawmakers, political considerations will outweigh the facts. Some of the Republicans may want to convict him merely to show how bad Democrats are. Some Democrats may want to acquit him in order to avoid blemishing the name of their party. On the other hand, some Democrats may be keenly aware that this is expected of them, and so they may be inclined to convict in order to show how fair they are. And for the same reason, some Republicans may vote to acquit.
In other words, the two major considerations are to appear fair or advance the interests of the panel member's political party. Which motivation will win out? Only time will tell.
But it should make for a good show!
0 comments:
Post a Comment