Rep. Charles Rangel, denied trial delay, walks out |

Rep. Charles Rangel, denied trial delay, walks out

WASHINGTON — The long-awaited House of Representatives ethics trial of New York Rep. Charles Rangel began yesterday largely without Rangel, who walked out of the proceedings after his impassioned request for a postponement in order to get new lawyers was denied.

The 80-year-old Harlem Democrat, who’s charged with 13 counts of ethical and financial violations, told a special panel of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that his original legal team dropped him after his legal bills reached nearly $2 million, with an additional $1 million projected for his trial defense.

With Rangel absent, an eight-member panel concluded that the facts of the case against him weren’t in dispute, which effectively ended the trial phase of the case. The panel then went behind closed doors to deliberate.

Rangel, who relinquished the chairmanship of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee under pressure earlier this year, is accused of failing to report hundreds of thousands of dollars in income and assets, improper use of several rent-controlled apartments in his Harlem district, questionable fundraising efforts for a college center in New York that bears his name and failing to pay taxes on property he owns in the Dominican Republic.

If he’s convicted, the full ethics panel is likely to propose that he be reprimanded by the full House, the mildest of three forms of punishment after expulsion and censure. A reprimand would amount to a public embarrassment that would have no political impact on Rangel, who was elected to a 21st term earlier this month despite his legal troubles.

Blake Chisam, an ethics committee lawyer acting as a lead prosecutor in the case, seemed to provide ammunition for a mild punishment when he told the panel that there was little evidence that Rangel was corrupt or personally benefited financially from his alleged transgressions.

“I see no evidence of corruption — it’s hard to answer the question ‘personal financial benefit,’ ” he said. “I think the short answer is probably no. Do I believe, based on this record, that Congressman Rangel took steps to enrich himself based on his position in Congress• I do not.”

But evidence abounds that Rangel was “overzealous” in some areas and “sloppy” with his personal finances, Chisam said.

Earlier in the day, a weary-looking Rangel stood alone before the panel and declared, “I’m not being treated fairly.” He accused it of trying to wrap up a 21-month investigation too quickly, simply because the 111th Congress will adjourn soon.

Still, some committee members expressed concern over Rangel’s lack of legal representation. Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., compared the situation to “Bleak House,” Charles Dickens’ scathing novel about the British legal system in the 1800s.

“And the book ends when all the resources of the estate have been drained by the estate lawyer. … None of the problems of the estate have been resolved,” Welch said. “If this were a court of law, and a month before a capital case came to trial, after two years of preparation, the lawyer withdrew, a judge would not permit that to happen.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.