Rangel Versus The New York Times
Charlie Rangel is not pleased with The New York Times.
Dogged by a Times reporter after a just-ended press conference in which the dean of the New York Congressional delegation claimed he did nothing wrong by combining a series of rent stabilized apartments into one residence, Rangel bristled at the suggestion that his low rent amounted to an illegal gift from his landlords.
“Paying the legal rent is not a gift. Are you doing this deliberately or are you just stupid? Listen -- if you are paying a legal rent and without the law the rent would be higher, just what school did you go to that could misinterpret that as a gift?”
When the reporter tried to push Rangel, asking if he declared the rent on his income taxes, Rangel said to the reporter, Jeremy Peters, “Don’t make yourself look more dumb than you want. They didn’t give me anything, I’m paying the highest legal rent that I can. So what questions are you making? Is it a gift? No.”
(The Times reported that the rent Rangel has been paying on three combined apartments plus a fourth that he uses as an office is far below market rate, and that he's paying it to a landlord who has aggressively sought to convert other rent-stabilized units -- ones not occupied by influential public officials -- into market-rate housing.)
The reporter said that representatives, by Congressional rules, weren’t allowed to accept gifts of more than $100 and that his rent far exceeded that limit.
“I’d like to think you are just starting out and I’m an old guy and I want to help you, but there is no gift if I’m paying the highest legal rent. What would the gift be?”
Another reporter asked if he had any plans to resign from the chair of the Ways and Means Committee, or Congress, as a result of the Times story.
Rangel responded with vitriolic sarcasm.
“I have to give that some serious thought. Yes, I may give up the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, give up the seat I’ve had for 38 years, and say woe, woe, woe, woe, how could this happen to me.”
After Rangel pulled away in his SUV, a man walked by the three Times reporters feverishly typing their story and said, “I wish I could get me one of those condos.”
(Pictured above, courtesy of Azi, is Sewell Chan receiving input from David Kocieniewski, who had the A1 byline on today's Rangel story.)
UPDATE: Chan and company have indignant reaction from some of Rangel's neighbors to the news that he's taking up four rent-stabilized apartments.
- Poll
- Obama (D)
- McCain(R)
- Spread
- RCP Average
- 49.8
- 42.5
- Obama +7.3
- Candidate
- Favorable
- Unfavorable
- Spread
- Obama
- 57.3
- 35.9
- +21.4
- McCain
- 50.1
- 42.3
- +7.8
I wonder who Rangel angered at the Times. Those reporters are a bunch of self-absorbed and venemous leeches who have little regard for facts. They're just interested in furthering their agenda. Where will this lead?
Actually the Times report is more factually correct than any of the blogs or other reports on this story. I was interviewed for the story (although not cited in the final version) and I know that the story started with the reporter looking at another politician and it then segued towards Rangel.
"(The Times reported that the rent Rangel has been paying on three combined apartments plus a fourth that he uses as an office is far below market rate, and that he's paying it to a landlord who has aggressively sought to convert other rent-stabilized units -- ones not occupied by influential public officials -- into market-rate housing.)"
The Dems. Hahaha. Some habits die hard, I guess. Can't actually get a real job in the real world to pay a market rent, so a little influence peddling and financial corruption to make your life a little more comfortable. Nice. Too bad the rest of us can't get the same deal.
Let me get this straight. The New York Times has done something wrong to ask how a self-proclaimed "tireless advocate" of the "people's interest" gets special treatment from a landlord who may be receiving special favors in return??? Right, right. You've done so much for our district that even to question your integrity or judgment is our failing. Right, right. No wonder you and Slick are such good friends. It can't be that the reporters are just doing what they are supposed to do: asking tough guys like you tough questions.
Got something to hide Charlie?
We finally see the man behind the curtain.
The New York Times ran nine separate stories on this Rangel apartment issue this week. Interesting that the reporters who got the tip (Chan and Peters) were also tapped when the load was dropped on Spitzer. Here, however, there was no smoking gun, no hookers club, just a rent stabilized joined and adjacent apartment that Rep. Rangel and his wife Alma live in and the kids and grandkids visit. But, to listen and read all the vitriol that's been pumping on this, you'd think it was Watergate.
As an African American and Rangel constituent who also stuck it out through the hard times in Harlem who pays a quarter of the rent that Rangel does, I just don't see the beef. The apartments up here are usually tiny, and joining as well as adjacent family member rental is traditional. Sorry all the outraged bloggers think it's so criminal. There's a blogger who calls himself "Mr. Manhattan" who has practically been given an editorial page to blog negative on Rangel since this straw dog hit the newsstands. "Mr. Manhattan" lives in Westchester, naturally, but he's 'outraged and disgusted' at the morality of Mr. Rangel wanting an adequately sized apartment, paying legal rent for it, and not being evicted by his landlord. Yeah, the Olnicks have gone after other folks not attorneys like Charlie, or David Paterson who also lives over at Lenox Terrace. But, landlords usually think twice before taking on pols. To imply that Rangel looked the other way in return for not being hassled, however, is purely slander and libel unless you can prove it EXCEPT if a public figure is involved, and notice that Peters and Chan have been counseled by the City desk counsel to use the phrase "appearance of impropriety." NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN PROPERLY CONVICTED IN A COURT OF LAW OVER APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY. The Times is on a Rangel hunt, the question is why.