GOP tax lobbyist defends Rep. Rangel, takes issue with accounts of meetings

A Republican tax lobbyist is taking issue with the crux of the latest allegations surrounding embattled Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.).

Ken Kies of the Federal Policy Group, one of the best-known tax lobbyists in Washington, called a story in The New York Times that has renewed questions about Rangel’s chairmanship of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee “completely false.”

{mosads}Kies said he, his client and Rangel did not discuss his client’s $1 million pledge to a Rangel pet project the same day they had a brief meeting about a tax-haven loophole Kies’s client, oil executive Eugene Isenberg, wanted to maintain.

“The central feature of the New York Times story, that the two meetings occurred back to back, is just not true,” Kies said.

The Times reported on Nov. 25 that Isenberg said he met with Rangel and Kies immediately after Issenberg and Rangel discussed a City College of New York project with Manhattan district attorney Robert Morgenthau. 

A spokesman for Morgenthau had no comment.

Kies’s defense of Rangel came a day after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-N.Y.) offered her strongest public support to the chairman since the story was published.

At a Hunter College forum with Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) in New York City, Pelosi waxed eloquent about Rangel’s service to his country and predicted he would keep his chairmanship after the House ethics panel completes a review of several charges involving Rangel.

“I think Mr. Rangel, who is a Korean War hero, who has been a great public servant in our country, deserves the opportunity to have his case heard and resolved by the ethics committee. And that, as I say, is not a long way off. It’s just a matter of weeks,” Pelosi said.

Asked if Rangel could lose his post after the panel finishes its work, Pelosi said, “We have to wait to see what the committee has to say,” before adding, “I don’t foresee that.”

The statement of support from Pelosi followed a more neutral statement released by her office at one of the deadest news times of the year: Wednesday evening before Thanksgiving. In that statement, Pelosi offered no support for Rangel but said she was “assured” that the ethics committee would act on the matter before the Congress ends.

According to Kies, he and Isenberg on Feb. 12 were waiting for Rangel to finish a breakfast meeting with Morgenthau, Rangel’s longtime friend and political ally. Afterward, Kies talked to Rangel about the tax-haven issue.

That version of events contradicts the New York Times report, which places Isenberg in the earlier meeting with Morgenthau and maintains that Rangel and Isenberg discussed his $1 million pledge to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Policy at the City College of New York.

“There was no discussion of the pledge that day. The article said that [Isenberg] first had breakfast and then walked Rangel over to sit and talk with me. That’s not true. [Isenberg] was sitting there having breakfast with me. The reason I can remember this so clearly is that [Isenberg] asked me how he should address [Rangel]. [Isenberg] was never at the table in the alleged first meeting,” Kies said.

Kies has since written a letter pointing out the inaccuracies to the editors of The Washington Post and The New York Times, both of whose editorial pages have called for Rangel to step down from his chairmanship.

The Times responded to a letter from Rangel taking issue with its story on Wednesday. In its response, the Times noted that Isenberg said the two meetings took place in succession on the same day.

GOP leaders have repeatedly called on Rangel to give up his gavel, putting Pelosi and Democrats in a bind.

After last week’s story in the Times, Pelosi was personally irritated that yet another Rangel ethics issue had surfaced, sources said.

Many Democrats faced with questions about Rangel are keeping quiet.

President-elect Obama, who campaigned on a vow to clean up Washington, has been notably silent on the latest allegations surrounding Rangel, who supported his home-state Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D) in the primary. Obama’s transition team office declined to comment when asked about Rangel’s plight.

{mospagebreak}As the man in charge of the House committee responsible for taxes, Rangel will play a key role in moving Obama’s economic plans forward in Congress.

Senior Democrats on the Ways and Means panel who would be positioned to take the gavel if Rangel were forced to relinquish it either did not respond at all to inquiries or responded very carefully.

In early November, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) told The Hill that he would run to replace Rangel as chairman of the committee should the New York Democrat decide to step down. But he was quick to say that he didn’t expect Rangel to leave the post anytime soon.

{mosads}Asked if he thought he would be challenged for the top spot on Ways and Means, Stark said: “I don’t know — depends on the circumstances.”

Asked if his thoughts had changed in the last week, Stark’s spokesman Brian Cook said only that Stark stands by his previous comments in their entirety, and emphasized Rangel is unlikely to leave the panel’s top position.

Reps. Sandy Levin (Mich.), Jim McDermott (Wash.), John Lewis (Ga.) and Richard Neal (Mass.), the highest-ranking members on the panel in descending order, all did not return calls seeking comment.

One Democratic tax lobbyist predicted that Rangel would not relinquish the gavel without a significant fight.

Stark also could face a tough time winning the chairmanship because so many Californians occupy top Democratic leadership jobs in the House, the lobbyist said.

California fatigue in the caucus grew stronger after Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.) successfully ousted Rep. John Dingell (Mich.) from his chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee after he had served as a senior Democrat there for decades. Turning to Levin also could help ease the pain of Michigan members still smarting from the Dingell loss.

“Some members of the caucus think that California has too much,” the lobbyist said. “They say, ‘Do we really need another Californian?’ ”

This story was updated on Wednesday at 2:56 p.m.