« | »

Waters Used Her Grandson As Go-Between

From the Wall Street Journal:

Ethics Charges Cite Role of Waters’s Grandson

By BRODY MULLINS
August 10, 2010 

A central figure in the ethics controversy surrounding Rep. Maxine Waters is her chief of staff, who is also her grandson, according to formal charges unveiled by a House committee Monday

Of course one would think hiring one’s grandson for a lucrative government job would qualify for another ethics violation – but this is Congress. The House Ethics Manual’s (a pdf file) section on nepotism (page 272) does not define grandchildren as a “relative.”

Instead, it lists any “individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.”

But the ethics manual leaves grandchildren out. Which shows just how thorough Congressmen are in their thinking.

Documents released Monday by the House ethics committee showed Ms. Waters had few personal contacts with the bank, Boston-based OneUnited Bank. Ms. Waters personally arranged for a meeting with officials from the Treasury Department and bank executives.

But subsequently, Mikael [sic] Moore, her chief of staff and grandson, handled most of the communications in the fall of 2008 between Ms. Waters’s office and bank officials

The committee said Ms. Waters broke congressional ethics rules by failing to rein in her aide. The lawmaker’s "failure to instruct her chief of staff to refrain from assisting OneUnited after [Ms. Waters] realized that she ‘should not be involved’ was inconsistent with the spirit" of House rules, according to the formal charges.

Ethics investigators said Mr. Moore’s "continued involvement in assisting OneUnited created an appearance that [Ms. Waters] was taking official action for [her] personal benefit."

An “appearance” of taking official action for [her] personal benefit”? Mr. and Mrs. Waters stood to lose at least $350,000 in stock if OneUnited went under, as it was sure to do otherwise.

Investigators say Mr. Moore exchanged several emails and telephone calls with officials from the bank. Mr. Moore, who hasn’t been accused of wrongdoing, didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. It was unclear from the documents whether he was acting at the request of Ms. Waters or on his own

Oh, sure. It was all her grandson’s idea.

Ethics investigators said the value of the bank stock owned by Ms. Waters’s husband had plunged 50% to $175,000 by the fall of 2008 amid the financial meltdown. Without help from the government, the report said, the bank would have failed and the "investment in OneUnited would have been worthless."

But there is just the “appearance” of “personal benefit.”

In her formal rebuttal to the charges, Ms. Waters said that account is inaccurate. She said the OneUnited Bank was not, in fact, on the verge of failing.

She said the charges against her are "ambiguous and convoluted."

Oh, well, maybe she should not hold such a lofty position if she can’t figure such basic things out.

The government’s $12.1 million investment in OneUnited in December 2008 has not brought big returns for taxpayers. The bank has made just one dividend payment of $93,823 on the government’s investment, according to government records. It missed at least five other payments and is operating under heightened scrutiny from regulators.

But, you see, the OneUnited was not and is not “on the verge of failing.”

By the way, Ms. Water’s 35th Congressional (California) district voted 84.4% for Obama. In case you were wondering.

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, August 10th, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

3 Responses to “Waters Used Her Grandson As Go-Between”

  1. wardmama4 says:

    Big surprise.

  2. Right of the People says:

    “By the way, Ms. Water’s 35th Congressional (California) district voted 84.4% for Obama. In case you were wondering.”

    They voted 80.8 for Feinstein and 80.4 for Boxer, surprise, surprise.

    We get the representation we vote for, I wish we could convince the people of that so they’d stop voting in these paragons of virtue like Waters, Fwank, Boxer, Pelosi, etc, etc,etc.

  3. canary says:

    Do they have a socialized jail for Ms. Waters who wants socialism?


« Front Page | To Top
« | »