The clock struck thirteen for Charlie Rangel yesterday.
Listing 13 counts in its bill of par ticulars, the House Ethics Committee declared that there exists “substantial reason to believe that a violation of the code of official conduct, or of a law, rule, regulation or other standard of conduct,” was committed by the dean of New York’s congressional delegation.
Let us note right up front that the findings represent an indictment — not a conviction. For the moment, it seems Rangel will have every opportunity to make his case in public.
But, at the end of the day, Rangel wasn’t charged in a court of law. A panel of his peers has examined his conduct — and found it grievously wanting.
Yesterday’s action is the latest in a chain of events going back to 2008, when The Post revealed that Rangel had failed to report rental income — or pay taxes — on a swank Dominican villa he owned.
The Post and others subsequently reported Rangel’s:
* Failure to disclose financial assets over a several-year period.
* Maintenance of four rent-stabilized apartments — one used as a campaign office — in violation of New York City law.
* Use of House resources to raise money for the proposed Charles B. Rangel Center housed at CCNY.
These are the core charges — and, in dry Washingtonese, the committee said it had found a “pattern of submitting inaccurate and incomplete financial disclosure statements.”
Plain-English translation: Charlie Rangel is a serial offender.
Regarding the CCNY center, for example, it’s alleged that he used congressional staff “to develop a list of potential donors.” He then mailed that list solicitation letters from his House office — on official stationery.
The “list of potential donors” hit up by Rangel includes a veritable Who’s Who of corporate America: AT&T, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Verizon, Ford and so on — as Rangel sought as much as $6 million from each for the center.
Not coincidentally, nearly all of these targets would have business before the tax-writing committee upon which Rangel sat as ranking member and chairman during this period.
The conflict of interest speaks loudly for itself.
Rangel may well cut a deal to avoid further embarrassment, but we hope not.
As it stands, his constituents — indeed, all Americans — will have an up-close view of how one veteran member of Congress so badly abused his office.
Given Congress’ 11 percent approval rating, the public probably thinks that Rangel is more the norm than the exception.
Sadly, there’s no real reason to think they are wrong.