'I haven't stolen enough to afford a lawyer!' -- Accusations that racism is behind Rangel's convictions to begin in 3... 2...

Longtime Democrat crook Charlie Rangel was convicted on 11 of 13 ethics charges today despite his claim that he'd had only two years to prepare a defense.

Harlem Rep. Charlie Rangel did break the rules and was convicted this morning of 11 of the 13 ethics violations leveled against him by a House panel. The decision came a day after the 80-year-old lawmaker and former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee walked out of the proceedings to protest his lack of a lawyer.”

Devil is in the punishment details, of course.

Full House ethics committee will determine consequences. I know. Don’t hold your breath.

...Flashback: The House Ethics Committee is a corruption-enabling cesspool

...Flashback: House ethics committee foxes guard the corruptocrat henhouse

...Flashback: Charlie’s angels:

...the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him...

...Charlie’s “angels” on the committee include Congressmen Ben Chandler of Kentucky, G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina and Peter Welch of Vermont. All have received donations from Rangel.

If the system were working correctly, Rangel would be wearing an orange jumpsuit and breaking rocks in Leavenworth.

As it is, he'll probably retire in a few years with a full pension and all of the cash he's magically accumulated as a devoted public servant.

No matter what sort of slap on the wrist Rangel receives, expect the usual cadre of race hustlers to elbow each other out of the way to get some face-time on legacy media.

But everyone knows that things need to change in Washington. And race has nothing to do with it. Corruption does. And plunging the likes of Rangel, Waters and Feinstein out of the bowl represents only the beginning.

Nice: Charlie Rangel Broke House Ethics Rules by Paying Defense Lawyers With PAC Money In His Trial for Breaking House Ethics Rules

The ethics trial of Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) is slated to begin tomorrow. Curiously, the Democrat leadership scheduled it to begin just after his reelection and just before control of the House flips over to the GOP in January.

Rangel is accused of violating more than a dozen ethics rules including failure to report huge financial transactions, failure to pay thousands in taxes, and drowning a woman at Chappaquiddick. Oh, wait -- that last one was a different Democrat. My mistake.

Rangel tapped his National Leadership PAC for $293,000 to pay his main legal-defense team this year. He took another $100,000 from the PAC in 2009 to pay lawyer Lanny Davis.

Two legal experts told The Post such spending is against House rules... "It's a breach of congressional ethics," one campaign-finance lawyer said... Washington, DC, political lawyer Cleta Mitchell said there is "no authority for a member to use leadership PAC funds as a slush fund to pay for personal or official expenses."

..."Accepting money or payment for legal expenses from any other source, including a PAC, would be a gift and is barred by the House rules," the lawyer said.

On top of the $393,000 in PAC funds, records show Rangel yanked $1.4 million from his campaign coffers in 2009 and 2010 to pay the firm Zuckerman Spaeder, his main legal-defense team, and $100,000 in 2009 to pay Davis' firm... He also spent $147,577 for Washington, DC, lawyer John Kern and $174,303 for Watkins, Meegan, Drury & Co., a firm that offers forensic accounting and legal services...

Rangel probably figures the ethics trial on these new charges won't take place until mid-November 2012, at which point he'll already have been reelected for the 75th time in a row.

We call this phenomenon Schadenfraud (translated: "Nancy Pelosi's 'most ethical Congress evah'").


Linked by: Michelle Malkin. Thanks!

Taking valuable time away from regulating salt, NYC Mayor Bloomberg Endorses Charlie Rangel (D-NY), the Only Man With a Rent-Controlled Mansion

The laundry list of ethical violations reportedly committed by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) requires a database to keep straight. The man is a career politician who somehow amassed a huge fortune while in office. Not only that, he 'forgot' to report all of his income to the IRS. No matter. He's royalty and we're peons. He's like Steven Seagal -- above the law.

But that laundry list of skulduggery matters not to Bloomberg (the idiot Mayor, not the news service). With no other pressing matters of city management weighing him down -- other than regulating salt consumption in the city -- Bloomberg has taken the time to vocally back Rangel, ethics be damned.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is giving beleaguered Representative Charles B. Rangel a boost with a recorded phone message urging voters to support him. “Tough times require tough leadership, and that is what Charlie Rangel has provided for us, and will continue to provide for us going forward,” Mr. Bloomberg says in the robocall expected to flood Mr. Rangel’s district on Sunday.

In related news, a SWAT team raided Delmonico's early this afternoon and arrested the maître d'.

Andrew Cuomo's Great Escape

Ed Morrissey, reporting at Hot Air:

For a man who made time to stand up on stage with Charlie Rangel at his fundraiser/birthday party to be seen by Democratic bigwigs and party donors, Andrew Cuomo sure didn’t want to let New Yorkers see him at the event...

Cuomo left the Plaza Hotel by an underground tunnel and popped up a block away — but not far enough to elude trackers with cameras. Cuomo hailed Rangel while in the Plaza as a man who “delivered” for his constituents, but didn’t have much to say to constituents as he raced for his car, as GOP gubernatorial hopeful Rick Lazio notes on his site today...

Cuomo, a gubernatorial hopeful who also wavered on whether he would attend, had kind words for Rangel. “Charlie delivered for New York,” Cuomo said. “He delivered for this nation.”

GOP gubernatorial contender Carl Paladino slammed Cuomo for standing by Rangel while promising to clean up Albany.

“How can New Yorkers believe Cuomo’s the man to correct the course of our corrupt ship of state when he’s laying in bed with Ripoff Rangel at the The Plaza hotel?” asked Paladino.

Heck, they can’t even ask Cuomo to answer that question; he runs too fast to get an answer.

The current Attorney General has little to say about alleged corruption and ethics violations when it comes to Democrats, except to raise funds for those colleagues. Shouldn’t his office be investigating the allegations specified by the House rather than partying with the defendant in that trial?

Ouch.

If you're unfamiliar with Cuomo's outrageous background -- namely the fact that he should be wearing an orange jump suit in Leavenworth -- I'd suggest reading Architect of Ruin, his illustrated resume.

Washington Post's Eugene Robinson imitates Custer, claims 'Charlie Rangel is no crook'

One need only read the latest op-ed by the sixties retread named Eugene Robinson to comprehend the depths to which the Washington Post has descended. I did not make up the title of his most recent piece. Perhaps the Post, in its efforts to cut costs, outsourced title editing to The Onion.

Charlie Rangel is no crook

Charlie Rangel is no crook. He’s right to insist on the opportunity to clear his name, because the charges against him range from the technical all the way to the trivial...

...Rangel apparently was careless in filling out his required financial disclosure forms; he should have known better than to take that important exercise so lightly. And he’s accused of using a rent-controlled Harlem apartment as a campaign office -- which, I suppose, makes him the first New Yorker to look for loopholes in the city’s Byzantine rent-control laws. But where’s the old-fashioned venality? Where’s the out-and-out graft? Where’s even the hint of avarice?

...What’s missing is any allegation that Rangel bent or broke a single House rule -- or even a New York city ordinance -- for his own gain... ...Rangel was trying to satisfy his ego, not line his pockets. The real crime would be if such a long, distinguished, important public career ended in disgrace.

Eugene Robinson is a very, very disturbed individual. Rangel's dozen-plus charges would have landed any normal citizen in prison for a decade-long stint. The list of House ethics violations include, but are not limited to:

• Rewrote tax law to benefit a company that donated money to his namesake center;
• Used four rent-controlled apartments (violating NYC's rent-control laws) including using one as an office, not a residence (also violating NYC's laws), which also raises the question of an improper in-kind campaign contribution
• Improperly reported his ownership interest in a Dominican Republic condominium and failed to pay income taxes on $75,000 in rental income
• 'Intentionally failed to report' hundreds of thousands -- or millions -- of dollars in mysteriously acquired assets -- including an IRA, mutual fund accounts and equities

The full story will probably never come to light, thanks to the Journolistic practices of DNC PR hacks like Robinson.

Gee, look what I found: a Eugene Robinson op-ed from 2005!

Immoral Majority

...It may be too much to hope that the former House majority leader [Tom Delay] -- and how good it feels to write "former" -- will actually be convicted and do jail time. The indictment for criminal conspiracy returned by a Texas grand jury on Wednesday is for alleged campaign finance violations that are the rough equivalent of money laundering, which is not the easiest crime to prove in court.

But DeLay's problems are bigger than Texas. His golf-buddy relationship with Jack Abramoff, a fat-cat lobbyist under federal indictment, will face months of scrutiny. DeLay's resignation from the House leadership is supposed to be temporary, but Republicans ignored his wishes and picked a strong successor who could serve out the rest of this Congress if necessary. Clearly they believe their former leader will be distracted for some time.

Which makes me feel like it's morning again in America.

It's little wonder that the Washington Post is hemorrhaging readers faster than a door-to-door encyclopedia salesman.

It's the intellectual dishonesty, stupid.

Charlie Rangel -- 'Statement of Facts in Support of Alleged Violations' -- the Compleat Text (Part I)

I. SOLICITATION OF POTENTIAL DONORS TO THE CHARLES B. RANGEL CENTER FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AT THE CITY COLLEGE OF NEW YORK.

1. In 2004, Respondent became interested in creating an institution, similar to the Clinton Presidential Center, in part, to preserve Respondent's legacy.

2. Respondent discussed the idea with Gregory Williams, the president of City College of New York ("CCNY").

3. In December 2004, Respondent wrote Williams and stated:

As I informed you, during our participation in the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center several colleagues encouraged me to begin to think of the creation of an institution that would preserve the work of my public life and make it available to the public, especially to students and scholars. I am receptive to this idea if it pennits me to locate these aspects of my legacy in my home Harlem community at the City College. The creation of a Rangel Center at the City College of New York would pennit me to continue my career long interest in the promotion of education and the motivation of young people towards careers in public service.

1. In the December 2004 letter to Williams, Respondent further stated that "I will be exploring with my Congressional colleagues how best to move this idea through the appropriations process ...."

2. In early 2005, fundraising efforts for the Charles B. Rangel Center at the City College of New York ("Rangel Center") began.

3. CCNY prepared a 20-page glossy brochure for use in fundraising for the Rangel Center. That brochure includes a description of the Rangel Center Building. It described the Rangel Center Building as including a library to house and archive the Respondent's congressional papers, an archivist/librarian, and a "well-furnished office for Congressman Rangel."

7. The brochure estimated the cost ofthe archivist/librarian to be $46,550 per year.

8. In April 2005, a memo to Respondent was prepared by Jim Capel, his district director, regarding the proposal prepared by CCNY for the Rangel Center. The memo states,

"[iln the proposal, the last page is a request for $30 million or $6 million each year for the next

five years. Do we need more to advance to our Appropriations process?"

1. In May 2005, Respondent sent letters to members of the Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development requesting eannarks in the amount of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

2. An eannark in the amount of approximately $445,000 to the City College of New York for the planning, design, and construction of the Center for Public Service was included in the Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-115, 119 Stat. 2397 (2006). That bill became law on November 30, 2005.

3. In May 2005, Respondent sent letters regarding the Rangel Center to individuals who served as co-trustees of the Am1 S. Kheel Charitable Trust ("Kheel Trust"). Each of the letters states, "Since we are developing a relationship between the Ann Kheel Charitable Trust and the City College and City University of New York, I want to make you aware, tlu'ough this letter and the enclosed proposal, of the Rangel Center for Public Service as another promising development at the City College."

4. The May 2005 Kheel Trust letters were sent on congressional letterhead, bearing the words "Congress of the United States" and "House ofRepresentatives."

5. Respondent has been a trustee of the Atm S. Kheel Charitable Trust since its inception in February 2004. The Kheel Trust is a private foundation as defined by 26 U.S.c. § 509(a).

14. The trustee agreement for Kheel Trust contains a prohibition against self-dealing.

Respondent signed that agreement.

1. Members of Respondent's congressional staff worked with CCNY officials to obtain the grant from the Kheel Trust for the Ann S. Kheel Scholars Program.

2. Respondent knew his staff was working with CCNY officials to obtain funds fi'om the Kheel Trust.

3. Respondent was present at all meetings of the Kheel Trust Board of Trustees from its first meeting on February 19, 2004, tlu'ough June 3,2005.

4. At various board meetings, the trustees of the Kheel Trust discussed tile CCNY proposal and the Rangel Center.

5. The Kheel Trust Board of Trustees approved a grant to CCNY to fund the AIm S. Kheel Scholars on June 3, 2005.

6. The Ann S. Kheel Scholars Program has consistently been listed under the "Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service" section of the CCNY web site.

7. CCNY officials consistently represented to Respondent and his staff, potential donors, and tile public the donation from the Kheel Trust as a grant to the Rangel Center in its fimdraising for the Rangel Center.

8. In 2005, Respondent directed that his congressional staff develop a list of potential donors to the Rangel Center. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

9. In June 2005, Respondent's staff prepared a fonnletter (the "June 2005 letter") to be sent under Respondent's signature to potential donors to the Rangel Center. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

1. In the June 2005 letter Respondent stated, "I will be exploring with my Congressional colleagues how best to move this idea through the appropriations process and am optimistic about securing funds for the plmming phase of the creation of the Center. I request your advice mId assistance conceming how to approach the donor community, particularly private and corporate foundations interested in education. I look fOlward to entering into a dialogue with you on the funding of the Rangel Center concept in the coming weeks atld months."

2. The June 2005 letter was sent to over 100 foundations, including, inter alia, the Verizon Foundation, New Yor1e Life Foundation, The Starr Foundation, Ford Foundation, AT&T Foundation, Citi Foundation, JPMorgml Chase Foundation, Merrill Lynch & Co. Foundation, MetLife Foundation, Bristol-Meyers Squibb Foundation, Goldman Sachs Foundation, and Wachovia Foundation.

3. The ltme 2005 letter was sent to several foundations that serve as the philanthropic arm of related corporations, including, inter alia, Verizon COlllinunications, Inc. and New York Life Insurance CompmlY.

27. Respondent personally signed each of the June 2005 letters.

28. The June 2005 letters were written on congressional letterhead bearing the words "United States Congress" and "House of Representatives." Enclosed with each of the letters was a 20-page glossy brochure that requested a gift of "$30,000,000 or $6,000,000/year for five years."

29. The June 2005 letters, with enclosed brochures, were sent through the United

States mail using Respondent's frank.

1. In June 2005, the Ford Foundation expressed to Respondent its interest in leanling more about the Rangel Center.

2. In August 2005, Respondent sent a letter to Roger Balmik of The Balmik Foundation regarding the Rangel Center (the "Bahnik letter").

3. The Bahnik letter was written on congressional letterhead. The letter stated, "[ w ]hile I am disappointed that you will not be able to fund the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, I thank you for consideration ofmy request."

4. In August 2005, Respondent sent another round of letters (the "August 2005 letters") to foundations, which were similar in content to the June 2005 letters.

5. The August 2005 letters were written on congressional letterhead bearing the words "United States Congress" and "House of Representatives." Enclosed with each letter was a "presentation."

6. In September 2005, Respondent sent a letter to Senator Robert Byrd seeking an earmark in the amount of $3 million in order "to launch the Charles B. Rangel Center at the City College of the City University of New York."

7. In September 2005, Respondent sent a letter to Donald Trump (the "Trump letter") requesting a meeting to discuss the Rangel Center.

8. The Trump letter was sent on congressional letterhead bearing a substantial portion ofthe Great Seal ofthe United States and the words "House of Representatives."

38. In September 2005, Respondent sent letters to the Carnegie Corporation of New

York and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (the "September 2005 letters"), which were similar in content to the June 2005 letters.

1. The September 2005 letters were sent on congressional letterhead bearing a substantial portion of the Great Seal of the United States and the words "House of Representatives." Enclosed with each letter was a "presentation."

2. In September 2005, a meeting occUlTed between Respondent, representatives of the Ford Foundation, and CCNY officials.

3. In December 2005, CCNY submitted a proposal to the Ford Foundation (the "December 2005 Ford Foundation proposal") regarding a potential contribution to the Rangel Center.

4. The December 2005 Ford FOUlldation proposal stated that "City College anticipates that the United States Congress will suppOli this initiative with a seed grant."

5. The Ford Foundation tentatively scheduled a lUllcheon for other foundations regarding the Rangel Center for May 5, 2006.

6. In March 2006, the Ford Foundation postponed the luncheon due to concerns about the lack of funding, including congressional appropriations, for the Rangel Center.

7. In March 2006, Respondent sent letters to members of the Subcommittee on Transpoliation, Treasury and Housing and Urban Development requesting earmarks in the amoUllt of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

8. In March 2006, Respondent sent letters to members of the SubcOlmnittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education requesting earmarks in the amount of $6

million to "help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my

Congressional District."

1. In March 2006, Respondent sent letters to members of the Senate seeking support for an earmark in the amount of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

2. In early 2006, Respondent suggested that CCNY officials contact AIG regarding the Rangel Center.

3. In July 2006, Respondent sent another letter (the "July 2006 letters") to approximately 47 ofthe foundations he previously solicited, including the Ford Foundation.

4. The July 2006 letters were prepared by Respondent's staff. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

5. The July 2006 letters were also written on congressional letterhead bearing the words "United States Congress" and "House of Representatives." The letters infonned potential donors that Respondent had secured eannarks of $3.6 million for the Charles B. Rangel Center project.

52. Respondent personally signed each of the July 2006 letters.

1. As of July 2006, Respondent had secured, in 2005, one eannark in the amount of $445,000 for the Rangel Center.

2. As of July 2006, earmarks in the total amount of $3,150,000 for the Rangel Center for fiscal year 2007 were included in appropriations bills coming out of the respective subcommittees of jurisdiction. Those eannarks were ultimately not included in any appropriations bills for fiscal year 2007.

3. In September 2006, Respondent met with CCNY officials and Eugene Isenberg, CEO of Nabors Industries, in the offices of Robert Morgenthau, then District Attomey for New York County to discuss the Rangel Center.

4. In November 2006, Isenberg pledged a personal contribution of $500,000 to the Rangel Center. Nabors Industries pledged a matching contribution of $500,000.

5. In February 2007, Respondent met with Eugene Isenberg and KelU1eth Kies, a federally-registered lobbyist, at the Carlyle Hotel in New York. They discussed tile issue of retroactivity of tax provisions related to inverted companies.

6. In June 2007, Respondent met with Eugene Isenberg at Respondent's office to again discuss the issue ofretroactivity of tax provisions related to inverted companies.

7. In October 2006, CCNY officials represented to the Ford Fonndation that tiley had obtained "the seed money the Congressman promised."

8. In October 2006, the Ford Foundation encouraged CCNY to submit a proposal for $1 million to fund academic programs at the Rangel Center.

9. In January 2007, the Ford Foundation hosted a luncheon (the "Ford Foundation lunch") to bring together Respondent and CCNY officials with other potential donors to tile Rangel Center.

10. Respondent made a presentation about the Rangel Center at the Ford Foundation lunch.

11. Other potential donors that attended the Ford Foundation lunch included, inter alia, Verizon Foundation, New York Community Trust, and Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

12. In March 2007, the Ford Foundation approved a grant in the amount of $1,000,000 for the Rangel Center.

13. In March 2007, Respondent sent letters to Donald Trump, David Rockefeller, and Maurice "Hank" Greenberg (the "March 2007 letters") requesting meetings to discuss the Rangel Center.

14. The March 2007 letters were sent on congressional letterhead bearing a substantial portion of the Great Seal of the United States and the words "House of Representatives. "

67. Respondent personally signed each of the March 2007 letters.

1. The March 2007 letters were prepared by Respondent's staff. This work was done on property of the House of Representatives, on official House time, and with the use of official House resources.

2. In March 2007, Respondent wrote a letter to the Chair of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education requesting earmarks in the amount of $6 million "to help establish a Center for Public Service at the City College of New York in my Congressional District."

3. In March 2007, Respondent wrote a letter to the Chair of the Subconnnittee on TranspOliation and Housing and Urban Development requesting an eannark "to make structural and rehabilitation work a [sic] Center for Public Service."

4. An eannark in the amount of approximately $245,000 for the City College of New York for "the planning, design, construction, renovation and buildout of a multipurpose educational facility" was included in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat 1844 (2007).

5. An eannark in the amount of approximately $1.915 million for "the City College of New York for the Charles B. Rangel Center to prepare individuals for careers in public

service, which may include establishing an endowment, library, and archives for such center" was included in the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007).

1. In May 2007, Respondent spoke with Melvin NOlTis, a fonner House employee in Respondent's district office. NOlTis was then working as a New York state lobbyist for Verizon Communications, Inc. Respondent requested an update on the status of the Verizon Foundation donation to the Rangel Center.

2. In June 2007, Respondent spoke with George Nichols, a federally-registered lobbyist for New York Life Insurance Corporation, at a breakfast campaign fundraiser. Respondent requested that New York Life consider contributing to the Rangel Center.

3. On June 4,2007, Respondent met with Hank Greenberg, Chainnan of the Board ofthe StalT Foundation regarding a possible donation to the Rangel Center.

4. On June 12, 2007, the StalT Foundation approved a grant to the Rangel Center in the amount of $5,000,000.

5. In August 2007, Verizon Foundation approved a grant to the Rangel Center in the amount of $500,000. NOlTis infonned Respondent that the grallt had been approved.

6. In APlil 2008, Respondent met with CCNY officials and AIG officials (the "AIG meeting"), including Edward "Ned" Cloonan, a federally-registered lobbyist, regarding the Rangel Center. The briefing memo prepared for Respondent by CCNY stated the objective of the meeting was to "close $1 OM gift for the Rangel Center to create AIG Hal1."

7. At the AIG meeting, a potential donation to the Rangel Center was discussed. AIG raised concems about a potential donation, including the potential headline risk. Respondent asked AIG, at least twice, what was necessary to get this done.

8. On numerous occasions during 2005 through 2008, Respondent attended several meetings with CCNY officials and potential donors. These potential donors included Eugene Isenberg, Hank Greenberg, David Rockefeller, Donald Trump, the Ford Foundation, and AIG.

81. In addition to the contributions noted above, the following entities and individuals

solicited by Respondent made pledges and contlibutions to the Rangel Center:

1) Rhodebeck Chalitable Fund ($25,000); 2) David Rockefeller ($100,000); 3) New York Community Trust ($130,000); and 4) Rockefeller Brothers Fund ($50,000).

1. On numerous occasions during 2005 through 2008, Respondent and his staff used official House resources, including telephones, emails, and facsimile machines, to communicate with CCNY and others regarding fundraising for the Rangel Center.

2. During the relevant period, George Dalley, Jim Capel, and Dan Berger were House employees on Respondent's personal staff. Jon Sheiner was a House employee on the Ways and Means Committee staff.

3. During the relevant period, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the duties of the Joint COimnittee on Taxation were the following: (1) to investigate the operation and effects of internal revenue taxes and the administration of such taxes; (2) to investigate measures and methods for the simplification of such taxes; (3) to malce reports to the House Committee on Ways and Means and the Senate Committee on Finance (or to the House and the Senate) on the results of such investigations and studies and to make recommendations; and (4) to review any proposed refund or credit of income or estate and gift taxes or certain other taxes in excess of $2,000,000, as set forth in § 6405 of the Internal Revenue Code.

• Click here for Part II
• Click here for Part III

Charlie Rangel -- 'Statement of Facts in Support of Alleged Violations' -- the Compleat Text (Part Deux)

4. Pursnant to House Rule X, cl. 1(1)(8), the House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over tax exempt foundations and charitable trusts.

5. Pursuant to House Rule X, cl. 1(t)(2), the House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over reciprocal trade agreements.

6. Pursuant to House Rule X, cl. 1(t)(3), the House Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over revenue measures generally.

7. During the relevant period, issues before Congress affecting foundations included, inter alia, private foundation payout rules, excise tax rates on investment income, potential caps on foundation executive pay, IRA charitable rollover provisions, unrelated business income tax, and other charitable contribution and charitable governance issues.

8. During the relevant period, Nabors Industries lobbied members of the House of Representatives on tax issues, including retroactivity of corporate inversion tax treatment.

9. During the relevant period, Verizon lobbied members of the House of Representatives on numerous Issues, including, inter alia, tax Issues related to telecommunications.

10. During the relevant period, AIG lobbied members of the House of Representatives on numerous issues including, inter alia, subpart F of the Internal Revenue Code, treatment ofincome received by partners for perfol1ning investment management services, treahnent of mortgage insurance premiums as interest, deferral of income on executives' domestic income, and several treaty and free trade agreement issues.

11. During the relevant period, New York Life Insurance Company lobbied members of Congress on numerous issues including, inter alia, intemational trade agreements, tax treatment of long term care insurance, tax treatment of estate assets and lifetime aI111uities, tax on insurance products, aI1d executive compensation.

II. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENTS AND AMENDMENTS FILED IN CALENDAR YEAR 2009 BY OR ON BEHALF OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES B. RANGEL

93. Respondent filed an annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 1998 on May 17,1999.

94. Respondent filed an almual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 1999 on May 26, 2000.

95. Respondent filed an almual Financial Disclosure statement for calendal' year 2000 on May 16,2001.

96. Respondent submitted a letter, dated June 5, 2001, amending his Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2000.

97. Respondent filed an annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2001 on May 15, 2002.

98. Respondent filed an almual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2002 on May 14, 2003.

99. Respondent filed an annual Final1cial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2003 on May 13, 2004.

100. Respondent filed an almual Final1cial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2004 on June 15, 2005. Respondent was graJ1ted aJ1 extension to file his Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2004 beyond the May 16, 2005 deadline, and filed within that extended deadline.

101. Respondent filed an amendment to his FinaJ1cial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2004 on May 12, 2006.

102. Respondent filed all annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2005 on May 12, 2006.

1. Respondent filed an atumal Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2006 on June 15, 2007. Respondent was granted an extension to file his Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2006 beyond the May 15, 2007 deadline, atld filed within that extended deadline.

2. Respondent filed an atnendment to his Financial Disclosure statement for the calendar year 2006 on December 26,2007.

3. Respondent filed an annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2007 on May 14, 2008.

4. Respondent filed an annual Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2008 on August 12, 2009. Respondent was granted an extension to file his Financial Disclosure statement for calendat' year 2008 beyond the May 15, 2009 deadline, and filed within that extended deadline.

5. Respondent's Financial Disclosure statements contained numerous errors and omissions, including failure to disclose rental and other unearned income, understating rental income and other unearned income, failure to disclose earned income, failure to disclose tratlsactions, failure to disclose cancellation of debt income, and failure to disclose a reportable position.

6. Respondent's Financial Disclosure statements were prepared by members of his congressional staff.

109. Respondent personally signed each ofhis Financial Disclosure statements.

11 O. Respondent failed to ensure that the infonnation repOlied on the Financial Disclosure Statements was accurate or complete.

111. Respondent filed amended Financial Disclosure statements for each of calendar years 1998 through 2007 on August 12, 2009.

112. Respondent personally signed each of his amended Financial Disclosure statements.
113. Respondent owned a brownstone rental unit, located at 74 West 132nd Street in New York ("Brownstone"). The Brownstone was sold in 2004.

1. Respondent disclosed ownership of the Brownstone on his original Financial Disclosure Statements for the calendar years 1998 through 2004.

2. Respondent failed to disclose his rental income from the Brownstone on his original Financial Disclosure Statements for calendar years 1998, 1999,2000, and 2004.

3. For Respondent's original Financial Disclosure statements related to calendar years 1998 and 1999, the box for "none" under "amount of rental income" was checked. For calendar year 2000, the boxes under amount of rental income were left blank.

4. Respondent's original Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 2001, 2002, and 2003 each listed the amount of income derived from the Brownstone rental in the range of $2,501 -$5,000.

5. Respondent's original Federal tax returns reported income from the Brownstone rental as follows:

Brownstone - Original Tax Returns
1998 $29,852
1999 $20,449
2000 $28,938
2001 $21,416
2002 $19,603
2003 $23,036
2004 $3,406

119. Respondent purchased a rental villa at the Punta Cana Yacht Club in the

Dominican Republic in March 1987. The purchase price of the Punta Cana villa was $82,750. Respondent made a down payment of $28,962.50, and financed the remaining portion of the purchase price.

1. Respondent financed the purchase through a mortgage. The mortgage was payable over 7 years at 10.5% interest.

2. Respondent repOlied the purchase of the Pmlta Cana villa on his initial Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 1987, although he assigned an incorrect value to the property. Respondent submitted an amendment to that Financial Disclosure statement on June 10, 1988, re-categorizing the purchase.

3. Respondent issued a statement on Febrnary 2, 1989, regarding the incorrect valuation on his original Financial Disclosure statement for the Punta Cana villa, as well as the associated mortgage and distribution from his retirement account used to finance the down payment. Respondent stated that he "amended my Financial Disclosure to include these items as soon as the oversight was brought to my attention."

4. Respondent received income from a Punta Cana rental pool. The rental pool was detennined by taking all revenues fi'om the gross rentals of all the units. From that amount, deductions were made for agent commissions, Dominican Republic taxes, and a 10% maintenance fee. From that balance, 53% was paid to Punta Cana and 47% was paid to the owners in the rental pool. Each owner's share of the rental pool payments was determined on a point system, with a 3 bedroom beach villa receiving 3 points. All of the owner's points were totaled, and each owner's share of the rental pool income was based on that owner's number of points as a percentage of all points.

124. No later than February 1993, management of the Punta Cana Yacht Club informed Respondent that it was forgiving any remaining interest due on Respondent's mortgage.

1. Respondent failed to repoli the forgiveness of interest on his Financial Disclosure statements.

2. In January 1993, Respondent wrote to the Punta Cana Yacht Club requesting infoTInation about his unit. In that letter, he stated, "As I mentioned to you, the House Ethics Committee requires the disclosure by members of Congress of any assets and lU1earned income and while I enjoy a good relationship with the Committee's Chairman it certainly would be politically embalTassing if I were unable to provide an accurate accounting of my holdings."

3. Respondent did report ownership of the Punta Cana villa on his original Financial Disclosure statements for each of calendar years between 1998 through 2008.

4. Respondent failed to report any rental income from Punta Cana on his original Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998, 1999,2000,2006, and 2007.

5. Respondent failed to report any rental income from Punta Cana on his original Federal income tax retums for calendar years between 1998 through 2006.

6. For Respondent's original Financial Disclosure statements related to calendar years 1998, 1999, 2006, and 2007, the box for "none" under amount of rental income was checked. For the year 2000, the boxes under amount of rental income were left blank.

7. In June 2001, Respondent wrote a letter to the Standards Committee amending his Financial Disclosure statement for calendar year 2000. In that letter he stated, "Thank you for calling to inform me of the omission in my recent Financial Disclosure Statement of information concerning the income derived during the year 2000 fi·om the two propeliies in New York City

and the Dominican Republic jointly owned by my wife and me and the New England Mutual Life Insurance policy listed by me as assets in the repOlt. There was no income detived by us from these assets during the year 2000 and that fact should have been noted in my Financial Disclosure Statement."

1. Respondent did report income from Punta Cana on his original Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 2001 through 2005, but the amounts reported were incorrect.

2. Respondent reported income from Punta Cana on his original and amended Financial Disclosure statements, as well as his original and, where applicable, amended Federal income tax returns as follows:

3. Respondent failed to report earned income from IRA disttibutions on his original Financial Disclosure statements for calendar years 1998 through 2007.