Maxine Waters - I don't know nuttin' bout no bank, ain't dat right Charlie?
Posted on 07/31/2010 3:09:37 AM PDT by Scanian
Here’s your Friday night news dump — move over Charlie Rangel:
"Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has chosen to go through an ethics trial, like the one lined up for New York Rep. Charles Rangel, rather than accepting charges made by an ethics subcommittee, a source familiar with the process tells POLITICO.
The back-to-back trials of a pair of black lawmakers represent an unprecedented use of an ethics adjudication system that has rarely been used by House members accused of breaking House rules.
Waters’ case revolves around allegations that she improperly intervened with federal regulators to help a bank that her husband owned stock in and on whose board he once served."
The Politico piece also notes that Waters’ decision to stand trial might have something to do with accusations of racism being hurled at the House ethics committee, given that Waters and Rangel are both African American:
"The Waters case also presents a test of the Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent body that takes complaints from the public and chooses which ones to forward to the House ethics committee.
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus have complained that the OCE has unfairly and disproportionately targeted them, and many have signed onto a legislative effort to de-fang the office.
Waters’ case was referred to the ethics committee by OCE."
If Waters does plan to cry racism, it’s hard to say how receptive the public will be to that message. Even The New York Times ran lengthy piece in February suggesting that the Congressional Black Caucus is a hotbed of privilege and corruption.
Further, the Politico piece doesn’t really spell out what the charges against Waters are in detail, but this old Wall Street Journal piece does:
"When Rep. Barney Frank was looking to aid a Boston-based lender last fall, the Massachusetts Democrat urged Maxine Waters, a colleague on the House Financial Services Committee, to 'stay out of it,' he says.
The reason: Ms. Waters, a longtime congresswoman from California, had close ties to the minority-owned institution, OneUnited Bank.
Ms. Waters and her husband have both held financial stakes in the bank. Until recently, her husband was a director. At the same time, Ms. Waters has publicly boosted OneUnited’s executives and criticized its government regulators during congressional hearings. Last fall, she helped secure the bank a meeting with Treasury officials."
Suffice to say, OneUnited later ended up with a federal bailout despite some serious allegations of misconduct by the bank executives:
"In October, regulators demanded that OneUnited raise fresh capital and name an independent board. The bank was ordered to stop paying for a Porsche used by one of its executives and its chairman’s $6.4 million beachfront home in Pacific Palisades, Calif., a luxury enclave between Malibu and Santa Monica."
Waters’ defiant stance could result in yet another high-profile ethics scandal that House Democrats would rather not see happen in an election year.
Their motto is “Hey, the “brother” won and there ain’t no way we’re going down”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3I-PVVowFY&feature=PlayList&p=BD99FD0B3D2C517B&playnext=1&index=16
Ping for pic above.
“Could this be a strategy to whitewash Democrat ethics and portray the charges as racist attacks...”
Ding, ding, ding, ding ding.
“Could this be a strategy to whitewash Democrat ethics and portray the charges as racist attacks...”
I wonder how many others of the black caucus will now come forward and put themselves on “trial” for massive corruption to prove their victimhood?
I’ll believe THAT when I see it.
The House Ethics Committee is investigating Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles), who has come under scrutiny because of her husband's ties to a bank that received federal bailout funds. The panel's chairwoman and ranking member announced the committee was extending by 45 days a determination on whether it would conduct a more thorough review of Waters' conduct, but they declined to say what was being investigated. Waters, one of Los Angeles' most enduring liberal politicians, also declined to comment. (Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Elected officials are held to a higher legal authority---what is acceptable behavior for citizens might be a crime for elected legislators under oath of office. It appears Cong Waters may have colluded to deceive constituents and could have facilitated govt fraud.
FBI TIP PAGE http://tips.fbi.gov/ (you may remain anonymous)
The FBI should interrogate Cong Waters to determine if the bank received anything else of value ---such as political cover, and whether collusion to misuse Congessional influence was involved.
POSSIBLE CHARGES FACED BY CONG WATERS Official acts prohibited, misuse of Congressional funds, abuse of public office, violating oath of office, misuse of government position, abuse of government power; conflict of interest; influence buying; conspiracy to deceive; misuse of elective office, collusion, conspiracy to collude.
Waters' official campaign finance records filed with the FEC, and state election commission, should be scrutinized for possible violations. Determine if names of Waters' contributors are legit and whether Waters illegally used campaign funds, and/or whether Waters received campaign contributions to influence Congressional votes.
Waters may have colluded to give something of value, a govt gratuity, a job, etc, in exchange for getting govt monies to her husband.
==============================================
CONG WATERS' HUSBAND HAS TIES TO BANK THAT RECEIVED FEDERAL BAILOUT FUNDS. Authorities need to determine whether Mr Waters colluded to engage in money-laundering activities which may have involved (1) violating state and federal RICO statutes; (2) securities fraud, (3) mail fraud (4) electronic fraud, (5) corporate theft (6) failing to report wrongdoing (7) breach of fiduciary duty (8) running a non-profit as an illegal racketeering enterprise, (9) accounting fraud, (10) using and creating slush funds.
ACTION NEEDED An external audit might uncover millions missing through government fraud.
Investigators might find that charges could be filed, subsequent to an investigation of financial documents, together with testimony of cooperating witnesses who may have participated in years-long embezzlement schemes. Prosecutors might use RICO as a lever to pry open the massive cover-up of government corruption that is available through “discovery” within the named entities. The RICO device might refresh the memories of recalcitrant wrongdoers, and might expose primary evidence.
L/E might prosecute individuals along with their co-conspirators, and subsets of them, on RICO charges, on grounds that they conspired to keep taxpayers from learning of the scope and dimension of government fraud, and schemes designed to cheat taxpayers.
One government fraud modus operandi might involve conspiracies with entry-level personnel, perhaps handymen, janitors, maintenance personnel, child care employees, or drivers, that might have been bribed by unusually high salaries, bonuses, or other emoluments, in exchange for secretly cashing government checks and then depositing them in the hidden personal bank accounts of insiders.
Another scheme might work like this: a legitimate vendor’s account number would be used on checks payable to individuals, while a co-conspirator would sign all checks without question. After the check was issued, the name of the payee would be electronically changed back in computer records to the legitimate vendor to conceal fraudulent payments in connection with government fraud to siphon off public monies.
Phony official financial reports may have hidden theft; accountants and bookkeepers may have been employed that would keep thievery secret.
Taxpayers demand to know if govt officials received money from banks and other financial institutions in the form of loans, bonuses, equity positions in business entities doing business with agencies, due to the fact that govt officials colluded with officials who held power over tax assets, and were in positions to decide where tax assets might be allocated.
Did Mr Waters file false bank loan applications to take equity positions in companies doing business with his bank, then conspire to payoff the bank loans by rigging and inflating bids for government contracts, then paid off bank loans when the tax monies rolled in?
In raids of the suspects' homes and offices, law enforcement might find evidence of the financial trail that linked government fraud and monies to personal payments for cars, trips, luxury items.
Investigations may find that others signed off on paperwork and financial forms prepared or verified as true by others (Mr Waters?).
Remember, it is not whether it is true or not, it is the seriousness of the accusation!
OR
they can wait until the GOP seize control of the House and Senate and go to jail.
And Eric Holder was right about the cowardice of Americans in not talking about race. It's just that he's going to be disappointed in the direction this conversation is going to take.
Obama's use of racial privilege to sneakily hide the details of his life all the way to the White House has finally tipped the scales. America has at long last had enough.
It is time for this country to take a good long look at the inequities (perhaps iniquities would be a better choice of word) of all those who have hidden their dirty dealings behind the color of their skin.
Thanks to Obama, America now realizes that the only significant remaining racism in in our country exists among African America race baiters (Democrats all, BTW).
Like Obama, they hate Whites, Europeans, Jews, Christians and America.
They have (like Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, the NAACP) made their living fomenting racial hatred. And they (like Rangel, Waters, etc) have feathered their beds hiding behind the curtain it provides.
Obama was right for all the wrong reasons...it is truly time for a post racial America!
Targeting blacks will be their outcry.
God help America.
Consider it their “get out of jail free card.” If they come forward now, and all stand together, they cannot have the book thrown at them. It’s the same as the brazen illegals “They can’t send us all home.”
We can do both if we’re not afraid of the liberal backlash. The “in your face” corruption shows that we, as a nation, are in our death throes.
Can these admissions of wrong-doing be used by the IRS as evidence in a criminal or civil case?
I personally think the democrats want to hurry and get these “trials” done before the election so they can do it with democrats in charge.
What a crock. Elected officials get away scott free with behavior the average citizen would be punished severely for. Instead of being held to a higher standard, as they should be for violating the public trust, they use their position to shield them from the law.
As Shirley Sherrod found out, Barack Obama hates black people. No other explaination possible.
The irony is, with Bush in White House and a Republican Congress, they were as safe a babe in its mothers arms.
Not a theory——elected officials ARE legally liable using a higher standard than ordinary citizens.
That they frequently slither away from the long arm of the law shows why they need to be held to a higher standard.
Culture of corruption!
Trial by WHO? Dems won’t convict Dems. This is a show by the dems to make people think that they are somehow ethical.
The Dems are not going to commit political suicide. How does filing charges against Rangle and Waters help them in the upcoming elections?
Yes, it is a theory, cause in real life it just ain't so.
Guess it depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.
REAL LIFE: US Sen Harrison Williams (D-NJ) lost his seat and went to jail b/c he took a gift of stock (in a sting setup with an Arab sheik).
Ordinary citizens can take gifts of stock without penalty.
When an elected offical does so, the implication is that he will use the power of gov’t to benefit the gift-giver.
Both are black... both will walk... both will make millions off of this.
LLS
Barry’s sending a message to the CBC.
jack murtha was filmed taking what he thought was a saudi bribe. It was the FBI and Abscam. He never was prosecuted and became one of the most powerful criminals in the federal gooberment.
LLS
There has been a so-called ethics truce between the parties in force on the Hill for years. If the Waters thing really is the result of Barry playing hardball with the CBS, wonder what that’ll do to the ethics truce?
Maxine seems to think that socialism is just swell for everybody except her and her old man.
Somebody better get the Reverend Al Sharpton on the line!
What i find most puzzling about the Rangel case is he broke the law and should probably be investigated by the FBI. If he loses his seat he loses its inherent protection. The ethics committee knows this and yet discussed a reprimand?
I can see why he refuses to admit guilt because the feds can use that if they charge him. Why the committee is giving him cover is beyond me. They get tarred as well as he if they are too easy on him. Surely they know this.
Maxine intervened where she had a financial interest. I’m sure we will all have the hope that she rises up to where we all hoped Blago would go and didn’t. She may cry racist,of that i have no doubt but beyond that she probably knows of a few cases just like her own where politicians intervened for financial gain. Like Rangel this is probably a prosecutable offense so expect her to do what she can to hang onto her seat and its ability to afford some protection.
The FBI videotaped Murtha responding to an offer of $50,000...."I'm not interested... at this point. [If] we do business for a while, maybe I'll be interested, maybe I won't," right after Murtha had offered to provide names of businesses and banks in his district where money could be invested legally. The US Attorney's Office concluded that Murtha's intent was to obtain investment in his district. The tape shows Murtha citing prospective investment opportunities that could return "500 or 1000" miners to work.
NOTE: The purported bribes were gifts of stock in titanium mines.
That’s a whole lot of investigating to do. Isn’t this a case of her using her influence to save a bank that her husband worked for and they held an equity position in? She used her seat for financial gain (yes,they all do just not this directly)and that’s the crime. If they find more that will just be gravy on the meat.
I don’t think it helps them in a 100 day time frame. Sure they will point out how tough they are in ‘draining the swamp” as madame speaker put it but without a resolution to the cases its sort of a weak claim. Voters will want to see if they go all the way with the cases. Since neither case is likely to be resolved prior to the elections i can only assume its about 2012 and taking the excess baggage off the table for Obamas next run. There’s no way he wants to be linked to those two or any other corrupt officials. He has never hesitated to throw anyone under the bus before and i don’t think he will hesitate in the future.
I agree its about Barry but not sure hes sending a message. He is just making sure they won’t taint him in 2012.
That’s why Rangel won’t admit guilt and accept a reprimand. If he goes on record it can be used against him later. The only reason he has not been prosecuted yet is his seat and his lack of admission. If he loses either he could spend his remaining days in jail.
It's Barry's way, or the highway.
Barry says Charlie's gotta go. But the CBC has Charlie's back. Well then it's gonna suck to be the CBC.
Two down, two hundred to go!
WHAT ABOUT BARNEY FRANKS?
I don’t disagree with your conclusion but i think it matters not what race they are. Watch how this plays out. They go after corrupt dems today and early 2012 they find a pubbie or two to drag through the mud.
I have a feeling i should save this post for when it plays out exactly this way. Barry didn’t become the President on a whim. He started planning the day after the convention speech in 2004.
So will Waters have to stand in the well, get the same "naughty, naughty" lecture that Rangel will? 'Cause really, what big a deal is it, abuse of power, abuse of public office, violating the oath anyway? [/s]
It’s being done now to get these pig’s breaking the law out of the way as they may not have another chance in the future.
Let’s face it.
She can claim ignorance, and win, easily.
I hope so. But it’ll be labeled as a witch hunt/lynching, whatever, in order to try and get people to sympathize with these criminals.
She has changed. She did a “360” using her own words.
“Could this be a strategy to whitewash Democrat ethics and portray the charges as racist attacks...”
I’m not a racist.
I could care less if a persons skin is white or black.
I could care less if their hair is straight or kinky.
I could care less if their nose is flat or pointed.
I could care less if their lips are fat or thin.
But I do care when I am discriminated against because my skin is white.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.