Tuesday, December 30, 2014

Why Michael Grimm Shouldn't Resign


Congressman Michael Grimm (R-NY), the lone GOP representative in the New York City area (Staten Island) has announced that he will resign effective Jan. 5, two weeks after he pleaded guilty to felony tax evasion.

What Grimm actually did was to under-report his employees’ wages while he was owner of the Manhattan restaurant Healthalicious.

Grimm's decision was apparently made after a conversation with Speaker John Boehner.

I think this was a huge mistake on Grimm's part.Instead of caving, he should have looked Boehner in the eye and told him, 'I'll resign right after Charlie Rangel does.'

Why should he disenfranchise his constituents or be held to a higher standard than Charlie Rangel?

Tax evasion is a crime, no doubt. But if you compare what Michael Grimm did to what Charlie Rangel got away with, Rep. Grimm would have been far better off not pleading guilty and taking his chances with the House.

If nothing else, that would have pointed out, yet again, that Democrats, particularly black Democrats are held to far different standards than Republicans by their peers and especially by the media.


John said...

Grimm plead guilty to hiring illegal immigrants, cooking the books, hidin $1 million from the government and illegally donating it to campaigns.

Rangel was accused of minor ethics charges that weren't against the law.

Pretty much every republican wants this guy gone and a solid republican put in his place. You're staking out a very strange position for someone who says he wants what's best for the Republican Party.

louielouie said...

is boehner still speaker?
i can't understand how mr. grimm could have had this conversation with boehner. boehner's nose is six inches up hussein butt. that would make this conversation physically impossible.

Rob said...

"Minor ethics violations?"

Lessee..blatant and recurring Federal and State tax fraud, illegal use of four rent-controlled apartments in New York City,(in other words, stealing money from the taxpayers who subsidize those much lower rents) using his Congressional letterhead to illegally solicit funds for his private foundation from lobbyists for companies he was writing tax regs on, misusing that private foundation to provide tax free income for himself and members of his immediate family with what amounts to extortion, outrageous conflict of interest, failure to declare over $600,000 in income from his little hideaway in the Dominican Republic..it all adds up to make what Grimm did minor by comparison.

Maybe in your biased world, that's minor,but not in the real world. These are FELONIES. Any one of them would get you or I put in the slammer,but as I point out, Rangel is an influential black congressman.

And he wasn't 'convicted'. His penalty if you can call it that was to be censured by the Democrat-majority House, which consisted of a finger wagging - no fines, no jail time, nada.He's still befouling the halls of congress thanks to his racially gerrymandered district.

As far as I'm concerned,I could care less about what's 'good for Republicans.' This isn't a partisan issue, except to point out that Boehner was willing to pressure Grimm to resign while Nancy Pelosi was perfectly OK to protect Charley Rangel.

That double standard is both racist and unethical, and as I said, if I were Grimm I would have told Boehner that I'd resign right after Charley Rangel did.

John said...

What Rangel did was not illegal. You may think it was, but the facts say otherwise. He never faced jail time because there was nothing to prosecute. Michael Grimm on the other hand.

I know that this destroys your equivalency, but until Pelosi has the power to prosecute a legal action, your argument is just silly.

Rob said...

Of course what he did was illegal.You try it some time and watch what happenes to you.

On the one hand, you claim that Grimm should resign because he was guilty of tax evasion, which is illegal. Rangel did exactly the same thing,through his failure to declare rents on his Dominican properties.

What's the dif, except in your mind?

Rangel also used his foundation to extort companies with pending biz before his committee..they had tapes of the phone calls as well as solicitations written using his official congressional letter head. Both are illegal.

Finally, New York State Law as well as the New York City municipal code limits rent controlled apartments to people whom use them as a primary residence. That means Rangel had people fronting for him in order to get the reduced rent. That's fraud according to the law, and it is likewise a felony..provided the DA decides to prosecute, which they didn't for obvious reasons.

However, since chuckles was using the apartments as campaign HQs (likewise against the Rent Stabilization law which prohibits use of rent controlled apartments for anything but owner occupied dwellings) the The Federal Election Committee decided that the subsidized rents were an illegal campaign contribution, and Rangel settled with them for a fine of $23,000 'without admitting guilt.'

I think you've wasted enough of my time and everyone else's, 'John.'