By Jill Colvin, Jeff Mays and Olivia Scheck
DNAinfo Staff
MANHATTAN — Harlem Rep. Charles Rangel walked out of a public hearing on a series of alleged ethics violations against him, claiming he had run out of money to pay his legal fees and saying it would be unfair for the trial to continue until he was able to get representation.
But Monday's hearing continued without the congressman, and while House Ethics Committee Chief Counsel Blake Chisam, acting as prosecutor, said that each of the 13 violations Rangel is accused of are based on "uncontested facts in our record," he also said he believed the violations were a result of sloppiness, not corruption.
"I see no evidence of corruption," Chisam said during the public hearing. "I believe that the Congressman, quite frankly, was overzealous in many of the things that he did" and was "sloppy in his personal finances."
"He could have done this right," Chisam added.
The alleged violations include soliciting donations from organizations with business before the Ways and Means Committee — which he had chaired — for the creation of a public service center at City College to be named in his honor, improperly using a rent-controlled apartment as a campaign headquarters, and failing to disclose personal income.
The subcommittee will now decide in closed-door deliberations whether or not Rangel is guilty of violating House ethics rules.
The hearing started Monday at 9 a.m. and adjourned briefly while the Adjudicatory Subcommittee of the House Ethics Committee met to consider Rangel's request for a delay in the proceedings so he could retain a lawyer.
"Fifty years of public service is on the line," Rangel told the Committee in an emotional plea.
"I truly believe that I'm not being treated fairly," he added. "I think I’m entitled to more."
Rangel chose to remove himself from the proceedings after claiming that the rules of the committee had prevented him from retaining counsel.
"I have lawyers from New York and Washington, D.C. who have said they would represent me for free," Rangel told the committee during his opening statement. "[But] they tell me if they do it for free, it’s a violation of the laws."
Rangel later amended his statements, conceding that there was a legal recourse for him to obtain representation, but insisting that the committee had not given him time to do so.
Rangel parted ways with his former lawyers in October, after spending $2 million in legal fees.
"I'm being denied the right to have a lawyer right now … because I can’t afford another million dollars," Rangel insisted Monday.
The law firm, Zuckerman Spaeder, issued a statement Friday saying that the firm had "explored every alternative" to remain as Rangel's counsel "consistent with House ethics rules prohibiting Members from accepting pro bono legal services."
Attorney Kenneth Gross, who specializes in government ethics rules, said he was surprised that Rangel chose to forgo his chance to mount a public defense.
"He hasn’t really take advantage of his day in court, which is what we thought we were waiting for," Gross said.
Still, he said, because similar hearings are so few and far between, it's hard to know what to expect.
Rangel, who was reelected to his 21st term in the U.S. House of Representatives in a landslide victory earlier this month, has steadfastly denied that he intentionally violated any laws or regulations and insisted that he did not misuse his office for personal gain.
Harlem residents had mixed reactions Monday to the congressman's decision to walk out on the proceedings.
Braimah Eleshin, 56, a home health aide worker, said he does not believe Rangel is being treated fairly, but said that he should not have left the hearing.
"He shouldn't have walked out because no one is above the law. You have to respond. If you walk out you risk alienating those who support you," Eleshin said.
Vickie Carter, 53, a computer programming student, was shocked to hear that Rangel had left the hearing.
"He walked out! He can't do that," Carter said. But she also said she believed the congressman deserved better treatment.
"They are getting too rough with him and making a mountain out of a mole hill," Carter said.
Jackie Devonish, 58, a homemaker, said she fully supported Rangel.
"I think it's terrible. They need to leave him alone," she said, as she passed by the Community Democratic Club a block from where Rangel lives.
"Where was he supposed to live, a rat-infested tenement? He was living in the community with us," Devonish said.
Linda Smith said she believed Rangel should be punished if he did anything wrong, but said it would be hard for him to get a fair trial in this highly political atmosphere.
"I'm nervous. Charlie Rangel is a mainstay in this community," said Smith. "If you do wrong you should be punished but in today's political environment, how do you get a fair deal?"
An ethics hearing of this kind has happened only once before, in 2002, ending in the expulsion of Ohio Rep. James Traficant from the House of Representatives.
Gross said that he anticipates the subcommittee will be lenient with Rangel and expects him to be reprimanded instead of censured or expelled.
"He’s already suffered a lot of punishment already," he said, noting the loss of his chairmanship.
The members of the subcommittee will deliberate and vote on each of the charges, sending their findings to the full Ethics Committee. The Committee will then decide about what steps, if any, should be taken against Rangel. The entire House will have to vote on any severe punishment to the congressman.
