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.
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.
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.