At last, the long - 2 1/2 years - and frustrating ethics investigation into New York's Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel is coming to a close. His legislative trial on 12 charges of violating rules in the U.S. House is over, with ethics committee members recommending the 20-term lawmaker receive a formal censure from his colleagues for his repeated misconduct, the strongest reprimand possible short of kicking him out of Congress.
At last, the long - 2 1/2 years - and frustrating ethics investigation into New York's Democratic Congressman Charlie Rangel is coming to a close.
His legislative trial on 12 charges of violating rules in the U.S. House is over, with ethics committee members recommending the 20-term lawmaker receive a formal censure from his colleagues for his repeated misconduct, the strongest reprimand possible short of kicking him out of Congress. It's more than we'd expected, given the penchant of political peers for offering up a slap on the wrist when far sterner punishment is called for. He may yet face formal, criminal prosecution for some of the allegations.
The violations he was accused of include not paying taxes for rental income he made on a rental house in the Dominican Republic; asking folks who had business before the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee he chaired for donations to the Charles B. Rangel Center at a college in New York; misusing congressional letterhead to raise money for the Rangel Center; and filing misleading financial disclosure forms to hide assets worth hundreds of thousands. He was found "guilty" - though it's not a technical, legal trial in a court of law - of 11 charges in total.
Despite all that Rangel still has his defenders from more than 40 years on Capitol Hill, including at least one on the committee who thought an official censure went a bit far. They apparently didn't get the memo four years back when then-incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to "drain the swamp" of corruption.
Rangel's behavior wouldn't fly outside of Congress, and it's doubly unfitting for an elected representative, especially one who was tasked with writing the tax laws that apply to the rest of us. With at least one more high-profile ethics trial on the horizon - for Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA, accused of using her influence to help her husband's foundering bank - it's time for a clear statement that the "rules for thee, but not for me" culture has come to an end.
Don't make the mistake of thinking that censure is simply a talking-to, either. It will be no picnic, particularly for a man as proud as Rangel. Should the House OK the censure - and its members ought to - he will have to stand in the well of the House floor, facing his colleagues as the formal document, outlining his misdeeds and the necessity for punishment, is read aloud. Effectively it's a ritual in public humiliation, tarring him forever as a member who gave in to scandal. He and a mere 22 others will share that unwelcome distinction.
We understand there will likely be howls of protest from folks arguing that Rangel ought to be bounced from the halls of Congress. It doesn't take much in the way of "throw the bums out" spirit to see how that would sound appealing. Nothing about his behavior or his defense - his repeated attempts at obstruction, his unwillingness to accept any deal that required him to admit culpability, his impassioned but entirely too-late wheedling and cajoling of committee members as his trial commenced - brought dignity or respect to himself or his colleagues.
Still, more than two centuries of history and precedent suggest that an expulsion isn't quite fitting. That punishment has been limited and very specifically doled out. Of the five members of the House removed from office that way, three supported the Confederacy - took up arms against their own nation - and the other two were actually convicted of crimes in a court of law. Censure has more typically been reserved for major breaches in ethical or personal conduct that haven't produced criminal convictions.
That said, criminal investigations outside of Congress ought to continue into Rangel's behavior. The congressman has only himself to blame for his choices, and absolutely he ought to have known better. Voters had their crack at removing him from office, but alas, those New Yorkers turned aside five primary challengers and then overwhelmingly re-elected the man despite his lapses. As always, voters deserve at least a measure of blame for giving a clearly ethically challenged politician their stamp of approval.