You call this 'punishment'?

The formal resolution of censure of Charles Rangel read by Nancy Pelosi was, at best, anticlimactic. Through the course of the build-up to same, one would have thought Rangel was facing pins being shoved under his fingernails or his feet being placed in a bucket of water with wires affixed to the most sensitive parts of his anatomy, with a switch to turn the current on and off.

Rep. Bobby Brown, D-Va., angrily argued that censure for Rangel was "rough and unfair" because it was based on the accumulation of offenses and not the character or intent of the offenses. I admit to being at a loss to fully comprehend the legitimacy of such an argument, but who am I?

Rep. Jerold Nadler, D-N.Y., said Rangel's offenses demanded a reprimand, not censure – he argued that the House has set in place an Ethics Committee to hold its members to a high standard and that the standard, in this case, demanded a reprimand. Once again I find myself at a loss. A reprimand for not paying taxes on a property for 17 years? Should we all be so privileged?

Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., based his call for a reprimand on Rangel himself having been the one who called for the trial. I think it's more accurate to say that Rangel's call for a trial was his hubris daring the Ethics Committee to hold the trial at all. One House member, speaking in support of a reprimand rather than censure, referenced Rangel's age – as if a censure would result in a prison sentence without hope of parole.

But the dramatic prose award goes to Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., who emphatically stated, "I implore you today to pause for a moment and step back … if expulsion is the equivalent of the death penalty – then censure is like life in prison."

TRENDING: Trump takes detour in middle of speech, absolutely tears 'dumb son of a b****' Mitch McConnell

There was talk of Rangel's military service in the Korean War and his having been wounded. The question that begs an answer pursuant to that argument is: How many persons serving prison sentences today, for far less serious crimes, are Purple Heart veterans? Would these same members of Congress be so inclined to plead this argument on their behalf?

All in all, it was a sickening display of obfuscation that's a prime example of why Congress enjoys such a low public-approval rating.

Rangel broke the law. He used his chairmanship of the powerful Ways and Means Committee to solicit money from lobbyists for the Charles B. Rangel Building at City College of New York, and he side-stepped the law because, having helped write the tax code, he knew what language to employ to avoid pesky legal ramifications in his own personal dealings. He misused congressional perks; he failed to pay taxes on an income property for 17 years; he failed to report assets properly for a decade; and he misused a rent-stabilized apartment as a campaign office. And let's not forget the $500,000-$600,000 found in a checking account he claimed to have forgotten about, just before he blamed his wife for it.

I don't believe in class warfare, but how many of us have ever experienced the embarrassment of forgetting we had that kind of money laying around in an account? He broke the law, and it is an indictment of Congress and those who argued for leniency that they seem unable and/or unwilling to grasp that fact in its totality.

To her credit, and to my surprise, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Ethics Committee, made it clear that Rangel had had numerous choices to "handle the matter differently," and he chose not to. He had been offered a deal that would have settled for a reprimand, but he chose instead to stick his finger in the eye of the Committee and dare them to try him – and try him they did.

"It's important to hold members to high standards," she said. "It's a sad day, but a necessary day. … It's an important vote for this institution and how we are seen by our employers, the American voters."

Peter King said, "I believe the findings don't warrant censure." In my opinion, he's right, they don't – they warrant time in prison. Rangel should be afforded time to fully appreciate what his actions say to those of us who pay for his congressional privileges – privileges we will likely never have the opportunity to enjoy.

Rangel argued that in none of the offenses did he think that he was enriching himself or doing "violence to the honesty that's expected of all of us in [the] House." In my mind that reasoning speaks more of dissociative arrogance than forgetfulness and sloppy bookkeeping, as he claimed.

He spoke of having recalled his infantry days during the Korean War – the sub-zero temperatures, the fighting, and his leading 40 men to safety. He spoke of his wondering if he would survive to return home. He spoke of the casualties.

My cousin served in Korea, and one of the only times I ever heard him mention his being there was to say that he and his military brothers had to use their own urine to cool whatever kinds of guns they where shooting. But when he returned home, he didn't break the law.

Rangel said, "I tell you that story not for sympathy, but to let you know that at that time, in every sense, I made up my mind that I could never complain to God for any event that occurred in my life." And he shouldn't – God allowed him to return home and blessed him to be able to serve others. Instead, he used his position and blessings to loot, extort and pillage. And today justice was served – or was it?

After all the theater, after all of the pleas, indignation and voicings of the penalty being too harsh – the vote for censure passed 333-79, with 23 not voting. And after that what happened? What was the terrible fate that confronted him?

A somber, ashen-faced Nancy Pelosi read the following: "House Resolution 1737 would resolve that: Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York be censured. Representative Charles B. Rangel forthwith present himself in the well of the House for pronouncement of censure. Representative Charles B. Rangel be censured with the public reading of this resolution by the Speaker – and Representative Rangel pay restitution to the appropriate taxing authorities or the U.S. Treasury for any unpaid estimated tax so outlined in Exhibit 066 on income received from his property in the Dominican Republic, and provide proof of payment to the Committee."

That was it. That was the extent of the punishment that was so decried by Rangel and his supporters. If only the well to which he was summoned had been filled with a disinfectant, perhaps that would have, in some small part, cleansed the people's Congress of the bacteria that resides there.