House ethics panel considers Rep. Charles Rangel's fate

Update at 5 p.m. ET: Zuckerman Spaeder, which previously represented Rangel, issued a statement on its relationship with the congressman and why one of its lawyers is no longer at his side. "This law firm did not seek to terminate the relationship and explored every alternative to remain as his counsel, consistent with House ethics rules prohibiting members from accepting pro bono legal services," the firm said.

Update at 2:45 p.m. ET: USA TODAY's Fredreka Schouten sends word that the trial is now over. The ethics subcommittee is now deliberating in private the 13 charges against Rangel.

Update at 2:39 p.m. ET: The panel came back briefly and is now in closed, or executive, session to consider each of the 13 charges against Rangel. Lawmakers are trying to determine if there is "clear and compelling" evidence on each charge. It's unclear when there will be another public session.

Update at 1:55 p.m. ET: Fredreka reports that we're waiting for the committee to come back from its break.

She explains there is a chance the committee will agree to the facts as outlined and then stop the public hearing while members debate privately each count against Rangel.

What has been going on today involves an eight-member "adjudicatory" subcommittee -- think of them as a panel of judges in a trial. Fredreka reports that if there is no public hearing then the subcommitee will send a written report to the full ethics committee recommending sanctions, if necessary, against Rangel. Then the ethics committee sends a report to the full House, with recommendations.

Our original post begins here:

Rep. Charles Rangel is not participating as the House ethics committee resumes its trial-like hearing to determine whether the New York Democrat violated 13 ethics charges.

"I am being denied the right to a lawyer right now because I don't have the opportunity to have a legal defense fund," Rangel told the committee. "Fifty years of public service is on the line ... I am not being treated fairly."

Blake Chisam, the committee's staff director and lead prosecutor, said the panel has enough evidence to quickly decide the case that centers on charges that Rangel misused his office, failed to pay taxes and report income and assets. The committee is now on a break to decide how to proceed.

Rangel "has not contested the evidence nor has he indicated he intends to put on a case," Chisam said.

When Chisam was asked whether Rangel engaged in corrupt acts, he responded: "I see no evidence of corruption. ...Do I believe he took efforts to enrich himself? ... I do not. I think the congressman was overzealous ... and sloppy in his personal finances."

Earlier in the day, Rangel walked out after making a passionate statement that his due process rights were being denied. The congressman said that people were willing to represent him for free, but accepting such free legal advice would have violated the house ban on gifts.

Rangel told reporters, "I have always hoped for justice and fairness."

Rangel, 80, stepped down in March as chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee as he was being investigated. He has spent about $2 million, mostly from campaign funds, during the investigation and his previous lawyers indicated the hearing or trial phase would cost another $1 million.

He easily won re-election on Nov. 2 to a Harlem-based district that he has represented since 1970. His trial overshadows the start of a lame-duck session, in which lawmakers will tackle a host of spending issues and hold orientation sessions for newly elected members of Congress.

Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, the top Republican on the committee, said today no lawmaker likes to sit in judgment of a colleague. But the ethics committee's duty, he said, is an important step in restoring credibility to the House.

"My hope is these public and televised hearings will restore much-needed trust to the House," said McCaul, a former federal prosecutor.

The last ethics trial in the House was in 2002 for Rep. James Traficant, an Ohio Democrat later expelled from Congress. Traficant served seven years in prison, was released and tried unsuccessully this month to get re-elected to his old district as an independent.

In July, a bipartisan ethics panel formally charged that Rangel improperly solicited donations for a public center and library bearing his name at the City College of New York. The charges also allege Rangel failed to report income and assets, did not pay federal taxes on rental income from a Dominican Republic villa and accepted a rent-stablized apartment in Manhattan for use as his campaign offices.

Among the specifics outlined in the 40-page statement of charges: From 2005 to 2007, Rangel used his official letterhead to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center from organizations that had business before his tax-writing committee.

Rangel rebutted the charges in writing and asserted that colleagues in both parties have also solicited corporate donors with interests before Congress for similar functions. He named Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and the late Democratic senator Robert Byrd as examples of lawmakers who have solicited donations for charities and have not been punished.

In a defiant speech to the House in August, Rangel said he may have made some mistakes in his personal and public business. But he insisted, "It's not corrupt. It may be stupid. It may be negligent. But it is not corrupt."

Rangel's problems played a role in some Democratic campaigns for Congress, as Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., and others in the party sought returned Rangel's campaign donations.

In 2006, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi helped bring Democrats into power in Congress in part by promising to "drain the swamp" of ethics violations. It is unclear whether House speaker-to-be John Boehner will keep an independent Office of Congressional Ethics when Republicans take control in January.

(Posted by Catalina Camia)