Ethics probe of Rep. Rangel takes new turn

An attorney for Rep. Charles Rangel said he hopes the House ethics committee doesn’t launch a full investigation into his client.

Rangel attorney Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton, noted that the New York Democrat has been “proactive” in seeking guidance from the committee about whether his activity has broken any ethics rules.

{mosads}As a result, he said, he’s hopeful the panel will not launch a full probe into whether Rangel misused his office and violated House rules by sending letters under congressional letterhead seeking support for an educational center bearing his name, or by renting four rent-controlled apartments in a luxury apartment building in Harlem.

“It’s our hope that since we were proactive and fully transparent — because there isn’t a single fact that has been alleged that involves personal financial gain — that [ethics committee Chairwoman Stephanie Tubbs] Jones [D-Ohio] would use the full committee to conduct an inquiry rather than do anything more than that,” Davis said, “but we would have no objection to whatever she decides to do.”

Davis is a contributor to The Hill’s Pundits Blog.

Davis’s comments could be seen as a step back from two weeks ago, when Rangel held a press conference to say he’d welcome an ethics investigation. Rangel spoke days after stories in The New York Times and The Washington Post raised questions about whether he improperly used his power.

The Times story focused on his rent-controlled apartments, while the story in the Post centered on whether he’d misused congressional letterhead to seek donations for a City College of New York (CCNY) educational center bearing his name.

When asked about Davis’s comments, Rangel said he was not used to having someone speak for him and wasn’t “going to get into” whether Davis was wrong. He said the only thing he cares about is that the ethics committee reaches a determination one way or the other.

“I don’t care what language is used,” he said in an interview. “I just want to get rid of this whole thing one way or another. I don’t care whether it’s a review or an investigation … whatever language makes you feel comfortable. As long as they agree [on a resolution.] If they reach a conclusion that I went over the line — which I find [a] difficult [argument to make] — then others members who are similarly situated will know what the rules are.”

Rangel added that as a safe incumbent and powerful chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, he’s glad he’s the one “taking the political hit” and “providing the political education,” rather than a new member who could be politically damaged or lose his seat over a similar ethics controversy.

House GOP aides have salivated over Rangel’s ethics controversy and pledged to brand all House Democrats with the same brush, much as Democrats did with then-Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s (R-Texas) ethics troubles in the 2006 election.

{mospagebreak}Tuesday’s indictment of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) on seven felony counts, however, could hinder those efforts.

“Being indicted on felony charges is not equivalent with facing an ethics investigation,” said Meredith McGehee, an ethics expert and policy director of the Campaign Legal Center. She predicted the Stevens case would make it tough for Republicans to get traction with Rangel.

“Having this [Stevens] atmospheric as the background music makes it harder for Republicans to stanch the bleeding or hold onto their seats,” she said.

One House GOP leadership aide rejected that view.

{mosads}“The allegations against Chairman Rangel are serious, and have nothing to do with any other member of the House or Senate,” the staffer said. “Even Chairman Rangel has said that an ethics investigation is necessary.”

Rangel followed up the mid-June press conference by submitting a letter to the ethics committee requesting a “most comprehensive review” of his use of letterhead. The letter did not use the word “investigation,” which in ethics committee parlance usually entails the launching of an investigative subcommittee composed of a subset of the panel’s members to look into specific allegations.

Rangel also submitted examples of the letters he sent to major executives and foundation heads seeking help for the Charles Rangel Center for Public Service at CCNY. In the letters, Rangel sought to set up meetings between CCNY officials and potential donors.

Rangel has acknowledged that the goal of these meetings was to generate donations to the center, but the letters did not ask for donations outright. As a result, Rangel argues he was operating within House rules.

Davis said an ethics committee staffer recently had requested all of the roughly 150 letters Rangel sent out on the topic.

“I promised 100 percent cooperation,” Davis said. “We’re gathering the rest of the copies of the letters right now.”

Rangel’s first letter did not touch on the rent-controlled apartments, but the congressman late last week submitted a second, more defiant letter calling on the committee to “review” that matter as well.
Although Rangel asked the committee to also “review” whether his apartments violated gift rules, he emphatically argued that there is “no basis for these allegations.”

“I am in compliance with House ethics rules regarding my rentals at Lenox Terrace,” he asserted. “In each of the apartments I have rented, I have paid the maximum legal rent and have never benefited from a ‘gift’ from the landlord.”

He also pointed out that he is vacating an apartment unit he used as a campaign office, which critics argue may violate New York state laws, which allow rent-controls only for a primary residence, in addition to House gift rules. But Rangel did not acknowledge any wrongdoing in his decision to end his office lease, explaining that he was doing so to seek “a larger space elsewhere.”

He noted that he has sent a letter asking the Federal Election Commission to review the rental of the apartment for campaign office space.