Sunday, June 24 , 2018, 9:58 am | Overcast 65º

 
 
 
 

Michelle Malkin: The Enablers of Charlie Rangel

Democrats continue a long pattern of disregard for clean, transparent government

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is the world’s worst cleaning lady. How has she fulfilled her vaunted promise to “drain the swamp” and preside over the “most ethical Congress in history”? By shrugging her shoulders, downplaying the gravity of myriad ethics charges against corruptocrat Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., and waiting for the “political chips” to “fall where they may.” Imagine a custodial service that fixed toilet clogs by letting the overflowing waste and polluted waters “fall where they may.”

Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin

At a news conference to preempt the bipartisan House ethics panel’s announcement of 13 ethics and federal regulation charges against Rangel on Thursday afternoon, Pelosi claimed to take “great pride” in her swamp-draining record. Unblinkingly, she cited the House trial against Rangel as proof that the “process” is working. But that beleaguered panel has been pathetically understaffed, has dragged its feet for two years on the Rangel case and has administered more halfhearted wrist-slaps than all the pushover parents on a season of Nanny 911.

Clinging bitterly to the moral equivalence card, Pelosi carped about Bush-era Republican corruption. (Cue a chorus of “Let’s do the time warp again!”) Her lips were sealed, however, on the continuing wheeling and dealing behind the scenes between Rangel’s lobbyist-funded lawyers and the ethics panel on a deal to avoid a congressional trial.

A full-blown public trial would thoroughly air his self-dealing, habitual bad-faith failures to report income, multiple House gift ban and solicitation ban violations, flouting of franking privilege and letterhead rules, and a fundamental “pattern of indifference or disregard for the laws, rules and regulations of the United States and House of Representatives,” as the House ethics statement of violations put it. But, hey, what about that President George W. Bush, eh, Pelosi?

Bush-whack all you want. The Rangel stench is overwhelming. Along the way, Rangel has obstructed House investigators, failed to produce documents and refused previous settlement offers — prompting one House ethics investigative subcommittee member, Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Ala., to reject the Rangel-as-victim narrative.

Misfortune didn’t befall Rangel. He chose his path. While bleeding-heart lefties in the media, such as The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, mourn entrenched incumbent Rangel’s sudden fall (he “took 36 years to climb to the top, only to lose it all in an instant”), there is nothing sudden about the entitlement sclerosis that took hold of his career.

And there is nothing ethical about the Democratic enablers who have shown their own long pattern of indifference or disregard for clean, open, transparent government.

I remind you that in March, Speaker Mop & Glo was minimizing Rangel’s mountain of alleged transgressions by pooh-poohing that “it was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way.” Rep. Mike McCaul, R-Texas, a member of the House ethics investigative subcommittee, begged to differ. “Credibility is what’s at stake here; the very credibility of the House itself,” he said at the hearing announcing the baker’s dozen of ethics charges. Echoing Pelosi’s nonchalance, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., sniffed that “many members” of the House are as habitually sloppy and apathetic toward House ethics rules as Rangel — her good friend and Congressional Black Caucus ally.

Since Day One, the identity-politics caucus that Rangel helped found has stood by his side and blamed anti-black bias for Rangel’s troubles. Rangel likened media scrutiny of his shady rent-controlled apartment deals and tax troubles to a “lynching.” Rep. Chaka Fattah, D-Pa., a CBC member, called it a “witch hunt.” And an unidentified, tinfoil-hatted black House Democrat told Politico: “It looks as if there is somebody out there who understands what the rules (are) and sends names to the ethics committee with the goal of going after the (CBC).”

Never mind that the supposedly bigoted House ethics panel exonerated four CBC members of their participation in corporate-funded tax junkets to the Caribbean. When the polls are down and damning evidence keeps mounting, first yell “BUSH!” Then yell “RAAAAACIST!”

As last-minute deal-making between Rangel and the foxes guarding the congressional henhouse continues, more and more Americans are coming to the same conclusions: House-soilers can’t be cleaners. Voters, not Washington politicians, are the ultimate ethics committee.

Michelle Malkin is author of Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies. Click here for more information. She can be contacted at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Noozhawk Supporter

First name
Last name
Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >