Sorry Charlie

American politics

Democracy in America

Charlie Rangel

Sorry Charlie

by R.W. | NEW YORK

HE LOOKED like a million bucks as he stood alone without counsel before his colleagues presiding over day one of his ethics trial. With his hair slicked back, wearing a bright red handkerchief in his breast pocket and a matching red and blue striped tie, Charlie Rangel attempted to play the victim in a congressional investigation that was, he claimed, depriving him of his rights. He also claimed poverty—he needed more time to raise money for expensive lawyers. Mr Rangel has spent $2m on legal bills. Bill Clinton's impeachment lawyer was reportedly waiting to defend the Harlem-based politician, if he could raise the estimated $1m necessary to finish the case. For a moment, one almost felt sorry for the raspy-voiced octogenarian, but only for a moment. After two years of grandstanding and theatrics, these latest pleas were hard to swallow.

A bipartisan House ethics panel seemed to find his pleas for a delay equally distasteful. Today, eight of his peers found the 20-term Congressman guilty on 11 counts of ethics violations, including allegedly using public resources—House staff and stationery—to solicit donations for a college building named after him; failing to disclose (as all congressmen must) some $600,000 worth of assets and income; using a rent-subsidised apartment meant for residential use as a campaign office; and neglecting to pay taxes on $75,000 of rental income from a beach house in the Dominican Republic. The matter now goes to the full House committee, which will decide on a punishment. Mr Rangel, who once headed the powerful Ways and Means committee, could face a House vote condemning his behaviour, a fine or a denial of privileges. He does not face criminal charges or expulsion from the House.

As the chief counsel for the ethics committee, Blake Chisam, noted, Mr Rangel had previously owned up to some of his mistakes. But he never took full responsibility for his actions. He has adamantly denied intentionally violating any law or regulation, once saying, "You can't get so carried away with good intentions that you break the rules." If anything, he says, his only sin was "sloppiness". Last summer, he issued a 32-page rebuttal to the charges, claiming that other prominent politicians raised funds under "virtually identical circumstances", yet they were not accused of acting improperly. More recently he has lashed out against the ethics committee for being "unfair" and violating "the most basic rights of due process".

The affair has turned into a tiresome spectacle and Mr Rangel's strubborn refusal to apologise for his mistakes has tarnished his reputation. A simple admission of guilt would have likely cost him less in terms of both cash and character. The congressmen has spent his life doing many commendable things—fighting with valour in Korea, marching with Martin Luther King, tightening sanctions against apartheid South Africa, and so on. Unfortunately, during his over 50 years of service to America he also seems to have accumulated an overabundance of pride.