Rangel stepped down as chair of the committee this March after accusations against him began to reach a fever pitch. It’s not yet known what additional penalties, if any, the Ethics Committee may levy against him.

Rangel’s argument that he is entitled to counsel is somewhat odd. He retained counsel until a few weeks ago, paying his lawyers handsomely out of his campaign and political action committee accounts. As the New York Post reported yesterday:

On top of the $393,000 in PAC funds, records show Rangel yanked $1.4 million from his campaign coffers in 2009 and 2010 to pay the firm Zuckerman Spaeder, his main legal-defense team, and $100,000 in 2009 to pay Davis’ firm.

He also spent $147,577 for Washington, DC, lawyer John Kern and $174,303 for Watkins, Meegan, Drury & Co., a firm that offers forensic accounting and legal services.

In addition, the House also allows lawmakers to set up legal defense funds — something Rangel has thus far not attempted to do. Having exhausted his ability to pay for counsel, however, Rangel is arguing that he hasn’t had enough time to take an alternative approach and the proceedings are denying him due process. Despite Butterfield’s motion, the hearing is likely to continue following a closed-session vote in the Adjudicatory Subcommittee.

The charges against Rangel have been known for months, but the Adjudicatory Subcommittee — which is charged with weighing their merit — was delayed until after the midterm elections. Republicans, eager to use Rangel’s ethics woes as evidence that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had not “drained the swamp” of corruption in Washington as she had promised, pushed for the trial during the summer months. Democrats, meanwhile, wanted no such thing, and managed to delay the trial phase of Rangel’s case until this morning. The Sunlight Foundation has a live feed — and live commentary — of the proceedings here.

Despite the 13 ethics charges hanging over his head, Rangel beat an array of Democratic primary challengers for his seat in September and then cruised to re-election with 80 percent of the vote on Nov. 2.

The fundraiser breakfast at Bistro Bis in downtown DC might be the first time, reports the Sunlight Foundation’s Party Time blog, that Rangel has attempted raising funds in Washington since March, when he was forced to step down as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee on account of the ongoing ethics investigation into his congressional dealings:

Last year, he planned to attend numerous fundraisers for himself and his colleagues. Also, some longtime donors, including Pfizer, have said they are no longer contributing to him while other lawmakers have donated the money Rangel gave their campaigns to charity.

Indeed, in the lead up to the Ethics Committee’s announcement before the August recess of the charges against Rangel, a whole host of Democratic lawmakers began donating the campaign funds they had received from Rangel’s PAC to charities in order to avoid being tarred by Republicans for accepting potentially dirty money.

As a result, it will be interesting to monitor who showed up this morning to contribute, as well as what Rangel plans to do with the money. With his own district looking relatively secure now that he’s gotten past the hurdle of his primary, and other lawmakers hesitant to accept his largess, it’s not immediately clear for whom or what, exactly, Rangel is even engaged in raising funds in the first place.

So far, GOP leaders are attempting to stay mum on the issue. Having gotten a lot of mileage out of decrying the ethics cases surrounding Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), repeatedly accusing Pelosi of not actually “draining the swamp” in Washington as she had promised, Republicans are attempting to avoid headlines that they would seek to loosen up ethics scrutiny in Washington should they take power:

Boehner’s spokesman tried to change the topic when asked whether his boss would keep the OCE if Boehner has the Speaker’s gavel in 2011.

“We are listening to the American people, who are focused on jobs and spending,” said Michael Steel. “This sort of hypothetical hasn’t come up.”

Minority Whip Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) spokesman responded similarly.

“Eric is focused on cutting spending and bringing an end to the cloud of uncertainty that continues to hang over job creators, families, and investors so that people can get back to work,” said Brad Dayspring.

While Boehner and Cantor won’t say anything for certain at present, they both opposed the OCE’s creation and tried to block the measure in March of 2008. The bill passed by a single vote (207-206), and requires reauthorization at the beginning of each congress. Many House Democrats, as well, are hardly pleased with the new office, especially members who faced a recent investigation into their conduct on the eve of the financial reform vote in December, as well as members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC):

CBC members have introduced legislation that would curtail the powers of the OCE, but those proposed modifications were swiftly lambasted by watchdog groups, including Democracy 21 and the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington.

Republicans and Democrats in recent weeks have openly ripped the OCE’s investigative tactics amid an investigation into the fundraising activities of a bipartisan group of eight members during the Wall Street reform debate.

Last week, the OCE recommended that the House ethics committee further review Reps. John Campbell (R-Calif.), Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) and Tom Price (R-Ga.) for fundraisers they held in the days leading up to the House financial reform vote last December. The OCE recommended dismissal of the probes against the five other members.

An ethics office that has roused the ire of both parties would appear to be living up faithfully to its independent watchdog mission. Unfortunately, it serves at the pleasure of the Congress it is tasked with investigating, putting it in a perilous spot come the beginning of the next session.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) recently launched a new ad linking his right-wing primary challenger, former Arizona Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth, to Abramoff. And Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Robin Carnahan used McCain’s attacks as a renewed opportunity to hit her Republican opponent Roy Blunt for his ties to the lobbyist-turned-convicted-felon.

Hayworth and Blunt are not the only active politicians to have accepted donations from the tainted lobbyist. In all, 37 current congressional candidates and sitting members of Congress received money from Abramoff, according to a review of campaign finance data by the Center for Responsive Politics.

It’s the same strategy that Republicans are attempting to employ in the case of Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.), tying every Democrat who’s received contributions from the embattled representative to his present alleged ethics violations. And with all the mileage that politicians have gotten out of the Abramoff scandal, it looks to be a pretty effective one.

For a full breakdown of all Abramoff’s beneficiaries, the Center for Responsive Politics has a spreadsheet you can download here.

Sloan doesn’t exactly give an answer in her op-ed, but she hints that politics might have something to do with it:

With control of the House likely up for grabs, some — including Rangel — have said that Republicans on the ethics committee have refused to reach a settlement with Rangel specifically because of a desire to focus national attention on Democrats’ ethics problems and to gain an edge in the election. [...]

Intentional or not, releasing charges against Rangel and Waters so close to the midterms lends credence to those who assert that the charges are political. The timing undermines the ethics committee’s already weak credibility and jeopardizes the legitimacy of the ethics process. As a result, we may see members reluctant to buy in to a process they view as a politically motivated. Already, we have heard members of both parties call for the OCE to be dismantled, or at least to have its (limited) power severely reduced.

The Hill reports that Waters had originally considered holding a press conference on Tuesday, then later cancelled — placing her in sharp contrast with Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y), who delivered a 37-minute floor speech about his own ethics investigation the day the House was back in session.

Waters did draw parallels between the two investigations on Tom Joyner’s radio show, however:

“The OCE [Office of Congressional Ethics] is poorly constructed,” Waters said. “You don’t know who is charging you with what or brought a claim against you or who brought the information to the OCE … of all the information claimed or accusations brought to them, they think that African-Americans are the only ones who they move further with investigation on.”

In truth, the OCE has recommended that a number of congressmen, both black and white, be further investigated, but the House Ethics Committee has chosen only to pursue those cases against Reps. Rangel and Waters. Waters’ attacks against the OCE reflected a general distaste that members of Congress share for the independent ethics body. In this case, however, it seems her indignation would be better directed against her peers on the ethics committee.

The New York Democrat and 40-year House veteran had a sharp message in dismissing fellow Democrats who, worried about election losses, want him to quit: “If I can’t get my dignity back here, then fire your best shot in getting rid of me through expulsion.”

It wasn’t so much what Rangel said, but when he chose to do it, that infuriated Dems. Already worried about the impact of his ongoing trial on their upcoming House races, Democrats were doubly annoyed that Rangel’s rant held up an important vote and threatened to distract from the main messages Democrats were trying to promote yesterday: saving jobs.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) attempted to cut Rangel’s remarks short, reminding him that their proper forum was before the House Ethics subcommittee, but Rangel persisted. He may very well have too many friends in the House to resist any effort to remove him, but outbursts like the one he engaged in yesterday certainly aren’t wining him any more.

Chuck Grassley worries about scientists looking at porn.

An Elvis Presley impersonator — named Elvis Presley — is running for Arkansas governor.

McConnell also hopes the president will become a “born-again moderate.”

…while Bill O’Reilly wonders why Obama hasn’t come out in support of same-sex marriage.

Nobody wants to come to Charlie Rangel’s birthday party.

Wolves are back on the endangered species list.

In Virginia, Rep. Tom Perriello’s opponent wants to get rid of the IRS.

Rush Limbaugh thinks health care and beach houses are the same.

Milwaukee teachers want their insurance to cover Viagra.