Now, if all I say is get Norm, it would look like a witch hunt, something it is not.
My outrage at the possibilities of what Coleman may have done equals my outrage over the DFL and its running Elwyn Tinklenberg, a lobbyist, for congress.
And, since Charles Rangel appears to have heat and light surrounding his life aside from the halls of Congress - and arguably how he may have used his office to favor one of the offshore fraternity, a Kazeminy brother in the trade, then Rangel should go too.
Clean house, in each major party - with William "Cold Cash" Jefferson the latest to go, not by ethics investigation by Congress, but by losing an election.
So, Coleman's situation is known in Minnesota, Texas and east coast lawsuits and all, Nieman-Marcus suits, $75,000 allegedly to Laurie Coleman (to Hays Companies with it unclear what happened after reaching Twin Cities hands at Hays) with the last installment of $25,000 held up (per paragraphs alleging all that publicly for the first time in the opening filing in the Texas Kazeminy litigation).
That means Rangel is the present focus, with adverse reporting from both coasts; LA Times and NY Times; excerpting the NY Times item first since it involves the offshore oil firm:
Representative Charles B. Rangel has helped raise $11 million for a City College of New York school of public service to be named in his honor.
Congressional records and interviews show that Mr. Rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited an oil-drilling company last year, while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the project, the Charles B. Rangel School of Public Service at C.C.N.Y.
The company, Nabors Industries, was one of four corporations based in the United States that were widely criticized in 2002 and 2003 for opening offices in the Caribbean to reduce their federal tax payments. Mr. Rangel was among dozens of representatives from both parties who bitterly opposed those offshore moves and, in 2004, pushed unsuccessfully for legislation to make the companies pay more tax.
But in 2007, when the United States Senate tried to crack down on the companies, Mr. Rangel, who had recently been sworn in as House Ways and Means chairman, fought to protect them. The tax shelter for the four companies was preserved, saving Nabors an estimated tens of millions of dollars annually and depriving the federal treasury of $1.1 billion in revenues over a decade, according to a Congressional analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation.
Mr. Rangel said he stood with Nabors because, as much as he was offended by the company’s attempts to get around some of its United States taxes, he thought it wrong to impose a retroactive tax increase. The congressman said he has long believed that retroactive punishments are bad public policy.
Mr. Rangel also said that the pledge from the Nabors chief executive, Eugene M. Isenberg, one of the largest the school received, played no role in his decision to protect the loophole, and maintained that he did not even know about it until this summer, more than a year later. His aides said he also later pushed tax legislation that would have adversely affected Nabors and hundreds of other offshore companies, though those efforts came to naught.
Mr. Isenberg said that he pledged the money — $200,000 of which he has already paid — because the school is a worthy cause, and that he never sought or received special treatment from Mr. Rangel.
“There was no quid pro quo,” Mr. Isenberg said in an interview on Friday.
So, more money spent than in the Coleman scandal, but with no allegations of any of the disputed cash going directly into the Congressman's pocket, or his spouse's, unlike the Coleman-Kazeminy situation.
LA Times reports:
Rep. Charles Rangel's ethics inquiry may put Pelosi in a bind
As chairman of the key House Ways and Means Committee, he could gain a higher profile as an economic rescue is planned. The congressman says he's done nothing wrong.
By James Oliphant - December 8, 2008
Speaker Nancy Pelosi took stewardship of the House two years ago with a pledge to "drain the swamp" and clean up ethical abuses in Congress. Now an investigation of one of her party's best-known members is putting her in an uncomfortable spot.
Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York is the subject of an investigation by a House ethics panel over his ownership of several rent-controlled apartments in New York, his failure to pay taxes on an offshore rental property, and his use of office letterhead to solicit donations for a public-policy school that would bear his name.
Last month, a story in the New York Times pointed to another potential problem. It suggested that Rangel preserved a tax break for an oil-drilling company in exchange for a $1-million contribution to the planned public-policy school. Since then, calls have increased for Rangel to step back from chairing the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, at least while the investigation continues.
All this has left Pelosi in something of a bind, as a new Congress takes over in January with an emboldened Democratic majority eager to work with President-elect Barack Obama to enact an economic stimulus plan.
Rangel, 78, is poised to be a highly visible player in rushing the stimulus package through the House. The committee he leads considers tax legislation, and the stimulus plan is expected to include some form of middle-class tax relief.
But Rangel could be assuming the limelight just as the ethics panel issues its report, risking political embarrassment for Pelosi, who had criticized the corruption scandals that plagued Republicans such as Reps. Bob Ney of Ohio and Randy "Duke" Cunningham of Rancho Santa Fe while the GOP controlled Congress.
Rangel has strongly denied that any legislative action benefiting the oil-drilling company came in return for a donation to a school named after Rangel at the City College of New York. The 37-year House member has challenged the New York Times story in a letter to the newspaper, and House leadership aides say they fear a rush to judgment before the facts are clear.
The congressman asked for the ethics investigation in a bid to clear his name. "I really don't believe that making mistakes means you have to give up your career," he said at a September news conference.
Ethics investigators are thought to be looking into Rangel's ownership of four rent-controlled apartments in New York, one of which he used as a campaign office, possibly in violation of renting laws. Among other things, the investigators are also thought to be looking into Rangel's failure to pay taxes on unreported income from a property in the Dominican Republic.
Pelosi has demonstrated that she isn't afraid to take on senior members of her party. Last month, for instance, she stood by as Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) successfully unseated veteran Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) as head of the Energy and Commerce Committee. And Pelosi has been willing to bypass committee chairs by bringing key bills directly to the House floor, diminishing their influence in the legislative process.
But if Pelosi were to ask Rangel to surrender his chairmanship, she would risk the wrath of the Congressional Black Caucus. Some in the caucus were unhappy when Pelosi forced the indicted Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) from the Ways and Means Committee. Rangel, popular with his constituents and well known on the national stage, would not be easy to push aside.
Compounding the matter: Next in line behind Rangel to chair the Ways and Means Committee is Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), one of the most liberal and outspoken members of the House. Stark famously said last year that troops were being sent to Iraq to "get their heads blown off for the president's amusement," and he might prove to be an awkward fit with Pelosi's vow to "govern from the middle" following last month's Democratic gains in Congress.
"I think [Pelosi] has quite a problem on her hands," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Pelosi, in the eyes of some critics, muddied the waters last month when she said she expected the ethics inquiry to conclude before the new Congress was sworn in. Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) sent Pelosi a letter suggesting that her remarks might coerce the independent committee into reaching a premature conclusion.
Each party owes it to us to muck out its own stable. The GOP with Coleman, the Dems with Rangel. And, it might still prove that one or the other is without fault. But premature closure, or half-aimed effort deserves attention and scorn.
And I will let readers decide, with comments if they'd like, whether the Coleman situation is more or less serious than that of Rangel, should allegations in each prove true upon a full investigation. And decide whether where the money ends up, how close to home, how close to an officeholder's pocket, is a decisive factor in assessing degree of blame.