Joe Conason wonders why partisan witch hunts, a rhetorical question I’m sure
The House Ethics Committee is far from concluding its investigation of Rep. Charles Rangel, despite his resignation from the Ways and Means chairmanship, as the Republicans will no doubt remind everyone repeatedly in the months ahead.
Near the top of the ethics docket, they are sure to mention, are allegations concerning the Harlem congressman’s fundraising for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, a $30 million project at his alma mater. Rangel has acknowledged using his congressional stationery to solicit funds for the center, a violation of House rules. But he has denied more serious charges — based on an investigative report in the New York Times — that he may have exchanged legislative favors for corporate donations to the center.
When ranting on about Rangel, however, what the Republicans surely won’t mention is that he’s not alone in questionable fundraising for a vanity academic institution that bears his name. Leaders on both sides of Capitol Hill have done likewise for years — notably including the odious Trent Lott — but the most troubling example is none other than Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who now holds Lott’s former post. If the term “Senate Ethics Committee” weren’t an oxymoron, he would be enduring an intense investigation, too.
[Click to continue reading Why probe Charlie Rangel — but not Mitch McConnell? – Joe Conason – Salon.com]
Actually both of these seemingly corrupt politicians should be probed, preferably by alien invaders