11-15-2010, 07:13 PM
Washington (CNN) -- The House panel looking into ethics accusations against a key Democratic representative stopped deliberations for the day late Monday afternoon and will return to its executive session deliberations Tuesday morning.
Embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-New York, walked out of the House ethics subcommittee trial on Monday, complaining he has not had sufficient time to hire a new legal team to respond to corruption allegations.
The subcommittee rejected Rangel's request to delay the hearing until a new defense team is assembled.
Rangel faces 13 allegations, include failing to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic, misuse of a rent-controlled apartment for political purposes and improper use of government mail service and letterhead.
"Fifty years of public service is on the line. And I truly believe that I am not being treated fairly," he declared. "I deserve a lawyer."
Rangel told the subcommittee members he has already spent $2 million defending himself from the charges, and had been advised the trial could cost him another $1 million.
He complained that he was not being given enough time to raise funds to hire new lawyers because the committee was rushing to complete its work before the conclusion of the current lame-duck Congress.
Rangel's original defense team left him in September.
"What theory of fairness would dictate that I be denied due process ... because it is going to be the end of this session?" he asked.
He later released a statement calling the committee's decision to proceed without delay a violation of "the most basic rights ... guaranteed to every person under the Constitution."
"The [ethics committee] has deprived me of the fundamental right to counsel and has chosen to proceed as if it is fair and impartial and operating according to rules, when in reality they are depriving me of my rights," he said.
Ethics committee chair Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, replied that it was Rangel's responsibility to assemble his legal team. She also noted that Rangel had received advice numerous times from the committee on how to raise funds for his defense.
"Retention of counsel is up to the respondent," she said.
Several subcommittee members, however, also blasted Zuckerman Spaeder, the law firm originally representing Rangel.
It is "fundamentally unfair" for lawyers to abandon a client on the eve of a trial, said North Carolina Democratic Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a former trial judge. "That would not have happened in my courtroom." We need to "make sure that this firm explains its conduct to the committee."
Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, expressed his "astonishment at Zuckerman Spaeder for taking the money ... and then kicking their client to the side of the road when it came time for the actual hearing."
In a statement issued in response to the criticism, a spokeswoman for the firm said it "did not seek to terminate the relationship [with Rangel] and explored every alternative to remain as his counsel consistent with House ethics rules prohibiting members from accepting pro bono legal services."
haha he wanted them for free.
Embattled Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-New York, walked out of the House ethics subcommittee trial on Monday, complaining he has not had sufficient time to hire a new legal team to respond to corruption allegations.
The subcommittee rejected Rangel's request to delay the hearing until a new defense team is assembled.
Rangel faces 13 allegations, include failing to pay taxes on a home in the Dominican Republic, misuse of a rent-controlled apartment for political purposes and improper use of government mail service and letterhead.
"Fifty years of public service is on the line. And I truly believe that I am not being treated fairly," he declared. "I deserve a lawyer."
Rangel told the subcommittee members he has already spent $2 million defending himself from the charges, and had been advised the trial could cost him another $1 million.
He complained that he was not being given enough time to raise funds to hire new lawyers because the committee was rushing to complete its work before the conclusion of the current lame-duck Congress.
Rangel's original defense team left him in September.
"What theory of fairness would dictate that I be denied due process ... because it is going to be the end of this session?" he asked.
He later released a statement calling the committee's decision to proceed without delay a violation of "the most basic rights ... guaranteed to every person under the Constitution."
"The [ethics committee] has deprived me of the fundamental right to counsel and has chosen to proceed as if it is fair and impartial and operating according to rules, when in reality they are depriving me of my rights," he said.
Ethics committee chair Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-California, replied that it was Rangel's responsibility to assemble his legal team. She also noted that Rangel had received advice numerous times from the committee on how to raise funds for his defense.
"Retention of counsel is up to the respondent," she said.
Several subcommittee members, however, also blasted Zuckerman Spaeder, the law firm originally representing Rangel.
It is "fundamentally unfair" for lawyers to abandon a client on the eve of a trial, said North Carolina Democratic Rep. G.K. Butterfield, a former trial judge. "That would not have happened in my courtroom." We need to "make sure that this firm explains its conduct to the committee."
Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vermont, expressed his "astonishment at Zuckerman Spaeder for taking the money ... and then kicking their client to the side of the road when it came time for the actual hearing."
In a statement issued in response to the criticism, a spokeswoman for the firm said it "did not seek to terminate the relationship [with Rangel] and explored every alternative to remain as his counsel consistent with House ethics rules prohibiting members from accepting pro bono legal services."
haha he wanted them for free.