AP sources: 3 charges filed against Rep. Waters

[The Northerner]

WASHINGTON — California Democrat Maxine Waters faces a House trial this fall on three charges of ethical wrongdoing, setting the stage for a second election-season public airing of ethics problems for a longtime Democratic lawmaker.

The charges focus on whether Waters broke the rules in requesting federal help for a bank where her husband owned stock and had served on the board of directors. She denied the charges on Monday.

Persons familiar with the case said Waters is accused of violating:

_A rule that House members may not exert improper influence that results in a personal benefit.

_The government employees' ethics code, which prohibits granting or accepting special favors, for the employee or family members, that could be viewed as influencing official actions.

_A rule that members' conduct must reflect creditably on the House.

The persons were not authorized to be quoted by name on allegations not yet made public.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hDI4mVRGI_S6IpuMPRl4eHrs44HAD9HBL23G1

[FBaggins]

1. The first could be tough to prove

The second could be tough to refute.

The third, if enforced, would leave only a few dozen members untouched in the House.

[gateley]

2. I was thinking any one of them could apply to many members (usually those

with and R behind their name, but not exclusively).

[DURHAM D]

3. Wow - That third rule is a joke. nt

[EFerrari]

10. It looks like she helped arrange a meeting

between Paulson and an association of minority bankers.

Is that all? Am I missing something?

[The Magistrate]

11. If Recollection Serves, Ma'an, Her Husband Held Stock In One Of the Banks

The whole thing seems over-blown to the point of high absurdity to me. There are people stil serving in the House who axccepted cash from lobbyists on the House floor during votes, and they are subject to no 'ethics' complaints. This entire thing is a sham.

[EFerrari]

12. I think it is. She arranged this meeting for a business group

when her husband held stock in one of the banks represented in that group.

Was she not supposed to advocate for minority banks because her husband held that stock?

What was her benefit?

This stinks to heaven.

[JDPriestly]

14. What about Jane Harman? Her husband must have stock

in every imaginable company. Does she do nothing to help companies in her area.

[JDPriestly]

15. Her husband held the stock?

Was the stock community property or her husband's sole property? There is a big difference in California.

[EFerrari]

22. Not always in practice. For example, I had a property in my name

but when I went to sell it, my husband had to sign some kind of deed to cover the buyers. But yes, the reporting is that she had sold her stock off but he still held some.

[Ysabela]

4. A narrative is being built by the GOP for the fall elections.

As Rachel Maddow showed, Fox has been building a narrative of scary black people stealing the election (acorn paranoia) and oppressing white people (Shirley Sherrod), and now they're building the narrative of corrupt black politicians fleecing the American taxpayers. The charges against Rangel and Waters, while if true are disappointing, they are also minuscule compared to the corruption of the Republicans who routinely have a revolving door of policymakers joining the corporate boards of the companies they secured millions, and sometimes even billions, of dollars for. Not that Democrats don't do the same thing with corporations, but it's systematic with the GOP.

[Warpy]

6. Yes, I find the sudden morality of the House suspect, too

since it seems to be only two people of color who have suddenly run afoul of it and it's right before an election.

[EFerrari]

9. Agreed. n/t

[Old and In the Way]

5. In theory, every Congress person could be implicated.

I guess only Trappist Monks should be candidates for office. Since Democratic policies tend to be family friendly and geared to the middle-class, I guess every Representative could be indicted for actions that benefit their families. Sorry, I hope she does fight this and lets see what she is really guilty of. What a perversion of the ethics rules. I'd dearly like to know who filed the complaint.

[dogday]

7. And they say Congress is not doing anything....

:sarcasm: :thumbsdown:

[earcandle]

8. Maxine is great, and knowing these rules are even greater! Got info on the Rethugs to accuse for?

Now is the time, when they are trying to do it. 
Like ships passing in the night, lets see who is left and then
start over!

[Hannah Bell]

13. how come waters is getting hit on this but pelosi & her hubby's war contracts aren't?

seriously, i'm mystified.

& i'd bet 5 minutes research would find lots more of the same.

like all the bushie shenanigans benefiting various members of the bush clan.

[JDPriestly]

16. There are a lot of people who could be vulnerable on these counts.

[DonCoquixote]

19. Ya want the answer

Yes, I know the race card can be played too much by some, but the truth is, the darker your skin, the less you can get away with.

[bigtree]

17. you make it sound like she's being prosecuted by Justice

It's utter hypocrisy for this Congress to 'try' her on these.

[DonCoquixote]

18. Fishy

Do not get me wrong, if Maxine is guilty of doing shady crap, I would want her to be slammed as hard as anybody else. However, unlike Rangel, Maxine has had a pretty clean rep, much more than your average Blue Dog Democrat, for example.

I find it pretty hard to believe there is not some ulterior motive. The GOP is milking racism for every drop, and sadly, there are many "independents"/Reagan Democrats that want to punish Afro-Americans for Obama. It is all too easy for the media to passively spin a narrative that many in the audience will buy, especially with Fox News and Tweety putting their pedal to the metal.

[LooseWilly]

20. Uhh, I'm confused...

"... House members may not exert improper influence that results in a personal benefit" ... does that make talking to lobbyists illegal? And what is the definitionof "improper influence"?

"The government employees' ethics code, which prohibits granting or accepting special favors, for the employee or family members, that could be viewed as influencing official actions." ... uhh, how is the possibility of bailing out a minority owned/community bank less an impingement on ethics than Paulson/Summers/Geithner's ties to Goldman Sachs &/or Wall St. in general? What the hell constitutes a "special favor"? If bailouts are going to be the rule... then leave her alone... if not, go after Obama and Pelosi and the lot of them.

"A rule that members' conduct must reflect creditably on the House." ... don't make me laugh.

[old mark]

21. How come Ensign's trial has been delayed so long ...if he were a black Dem,

the media would have never let it rest...


mark

[lunatica]

23. This won't go anywhere. It's just a ploy to smear the Black Caucus

and by extension the Democratic party. It'll all go away when the elections are over.