An opinionated look at current events, culture and faith, since 2005 telling you what to think and why to think it about everything that really matters.
From the article:"Obama commented Friday just hours after a subcommittee of the House ethics committee recommended that the Harlem Democrat be reprimanded."..."A reprimand would be a relatively light punishment, compared with censure and expulsion.""Other charges involve alleged income tax ... violations, as well as improper use of government mail service... ." Why just a reprimand? Are these not felony offenses? (This is an honest question. I really don't know.)
Here's my favorite part of the article:"Asked about the recommendation, Rangel initially told CNN on Friday that it's 'untrue.' Rangel's attorney, however, later said that the embattled congressman 'misspoke.'...I wonder, has Rangel's lawyer considered the possibility that he simply misspoke on his tax returns, too? And what about the other 12 violations he's accused of? Can they not also be explained away as so many misspoken misunderstandings? Why doesn't Rangel's lawyer just have him unspeak himself on all those (alleged) offenses and make it so they never took place to begin with? Assuming he could unspeak such a retraction without again misspeaking, wouldn't Congress (and the President) smile favorably on such a dignified defense?
Post a Comment