the trials of rep. maxine waters: ethics or payback?

7/28/2019 The Trials of Rep. Maxine Waters: Ethics or payback?

1/12

The trials of Rep. Maxine Waters: Ethics or payback?

August 20, 2010

by Joseph Debro

Congresswoman Maxine Waters testifies before the House Intelligence Commitee March 16,1998, then chaired by Congressman Porter Goss, on CIA involvement in drug trafficking. Goss,who stoutly resisted the full investigation of the CIA-crack connection that Waters pressed himfor, is now charging Waters with violations of House ethics rules stemming from her legitimateadvocacy for Black banks. She categorically denies the allegations and welcomes a House trial toclear her good name. Video frame: CitizenInvestigator

Congresswoman Maxine Waters waged a more successful war on drugs than the entire U.S.government. Maxine was concerned with those who made enormous profits from this trade, suchas Ronald Reagan. He used those profits to fight a war for which the Congress would not pay. Heflooded urban America with that poison. South Central Los Angeles was one of its targeteddestinations. South Central is the heart of Maxines district.

Former President George Bush, while serving as vice president in the Ronald Reaganadministration in 1981-89, presided over a Nicaraguan Contra cabal that was responsible forflooding the streets of Los Angeles South Central district with crack cocaine and fueling amurderous cycle of gang violence, wrote Jeffrey Steinberg in the Sept. 13, 1996, issue ofExecutive Intelligence Review. This is the most important conclusion to be drawn from Dark

Alliance, a series of articles by Gary Webb published in the San Jose Mercury News on Aug.18-20, 1996, and later as a book.

Maxine Waters was concerned about this high-level drug business. She invited Gary Webb toWashington to testify. I arranged for his airline ticket. Gary was ignored by the committeeinvestigating the issue, a committee headed by Porter Goss.


2/12

Mercury reporter Gary Webb provided a detailed account of how the Nicaraguan DemocraticForces (FDN, the Contras) financed their 1980s war against the Sandinista regime in Managua,through a cocaine pipeline that went from Colombia, to the San Francisco Bay Area, to thestreets of Los Angeles, placing crack cocaine and guns into the hands of the Crips and theBloods, Steinberg continues. For this piece of work, Gary was fired from the paper.

Porter Goss, who now heads the Office of Congressional Ethics that charged CongresswomanMaxine Waters with ethics violations, chaired the House Intelligence Committees March 16,1998, hearing on CIA involvement in drug trafficking. Here he smirks as he listens to Waterstestimony (recorded in four videos below). During the hearing, CIA Inspector General Fred Hitztestified that the CIA failed to cut off relationships with individuals supporting the Contraprogram who were alleged to have engaged in drug trafficking. Waters pressed Goss tocontinue the investigation, emphasizing that only Congress had the necessary subpoena power

not the CIA, the Justice Department nor the White House. "I believe the dramatic newdevelopments in this ongoing scandal make it imperative that the House Intelligence Committeehold full public hearings to be able to fully and adequately complete its investigation," wroteWaters. Finally in May 1999 Goss held another hearing, but it was closed and secret and Waterswas not even allowed to attend. Video frame: CitizenInvestigatorAll the time that this crack epidemic was being unleashed by the Contras, Vice President Bushwas the man in charge of the Reagan administrations Central America drug trading program,overseeing all of the activities of the CIA, the Pentagon and every other government intelligenceagency. Some of Bushs most immediate subordinates, Steinberg reported, including hisNational Security Adviser Donald Gregg, National Security Council staffer Lt. Col. OliverNorth, and ex-CIA officer Felix Rodriguez, were major players in the day-to-day cocaine-

Contra operations.

As the result of wide public exposure of the San Jose Mercury charges, U.S. Sen. BarbaraBoxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) called for a full federal investigation of theContra-crack connections. Sen. Boxer, on Aug. 28, wrote to CIA head John Deutch, asking himto investigate the Mercury allegations, which emphasized the role of the CIA in directing theFDN. On Sept. 4, Deutch wrote Boxer that he had ordered the Agencys Inspector General to


3/12

conduct an internal review of the allegations and report back to him within 60 days. No suchreport was ever seen.

In 2004, Gary Webb was found dead from two gunshot wounds to the head, which the coronersoffice called a suicide.

Prior to the Mercury series, there was massive evidence that the Reagan-Bush-North Contraapparatus was involved in flooding the United States with cocaine, through Mena, Arkansas, andother locations. Repeated efforts by Maxine Waters and honest agents of the Drug EnforcementAdministration and other law enforcement agencies to investigate were systematicallysuppressed by Porter Goss for national security reasons. Maxine appeared before the Gosscommittee many times in her effort to unmask the drug kingpins that were in the U.S.government and the major banks of the United States.

Porter Goss, now a non-member of the United States Congress, is co-chair of the ethicscommittee investigating Maxine Waters. If Mr. Goss is as successful in investigating her as he

was in covering up the drug misdeeds of two presidents, Maxine is in deep doo-doo.

Maxine is the go to person for Black and Brown people who seek economic justice. The NationalBankers Association went to her for access. She arranged the access. She had no authority in thedecisions made by the government. She had no control over the claims made by the bankers. Shehad made disclosures about her interest on several public occasions in the required venues.

Joseph Debro is president of Bay Area Black Builders, co-founder of the National Association of

Minority Contractors, a general engineering contractor and a bio-chemical engineer. He can be

reached [email protected].

Rep. Waters speaks out on current ethics charges

Congresswoman Maxine Waters was the guest for a 39-minute interview Aug. 18, 2010, onKPFAs Letters to Washington, hosted by Mitch Jeserich. They discussed the allegations ofethics rules violations she currently faces and the ethics investigation process.

Letters to Washington August 18, 2010 at 10:00am

Click to listen

Videos

When the Nicaraguan Contras began to covertly fund their war against the Sandanistas by sellingdrugs and guns to California street gangs, the Central Intelligence Agency turned a blind eye.While Black neighborhoods were being ravaged by the crack cocaine plague, CIA operatives


4/12

actively participated in this devastating drug explosion, protected from prosecution by a secretagreement between the Department of Justice and the CIA. Video:http://www.prisonplanet.com/

On March 16, 1998, the House Intelligence Committee heard testimony concerning a report onCIA involvement in drug trafficking. The testimony of Congresswoman Maxine Waters isrecorded in these four videos.

http://sfbayview.com/2010/the-trials-of-rep-maxine-waters-ethics-or-payback/

(go to the original article to watch the videos)

You may also like -

Black leaders stand strong for Congresswoman Maxine Waters, champion of economicjusticeBlack leaders stand strong for Congresswoman Maxine Waters, champion of economicjustice

Ethics case: Debro reveals probe's motives, Waters fights back with the factsEthics case: Debroreveals probe's motives, Waters fights back with the facts

Douse the firestorm, let Maxine Waters get back to the peoples businessDouse the firestorm, letMaxine Waters get back to the peoples business

http://sfbayview.com/2010/the-trials-of-rep-maxine-waters-ethics-or-payback/


5/12

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-fiderer

August 4, 2010

How the Charges Against Maxine Waters

Were Fabricated Out of Next to Nothing

It's not hard to figure out why the allegations against Maxine Waters seem bogus. You simplyneed to read the 80-page House Ethics Report carefully. In order to concoct a case against her,the authors of the report twisted the meaning of the House Ethics rules and embellished theunderlying facts. The report was first published one year ago, but is now being released shortlybefore the 2010 campaign season. The timing alone makes you wonder.

http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/Waters%20OCE%20Report.pdf

The specific charge is easy to understand: "Maxine Waters requested a meeting." That's it. That'sall of it. No charge that Waters ever interfered with the execution of anyone's legal duties, or thatshe applied undue pressure on anyone, or that she engaged in any inappropriate financialtransactions. Only that she requested a meeting. At worst, she wasted people's time. The meeting,with officials at the Department of Treasury, got no results.

According to the report, Waters violated House Rule 23, Clause 3 because she received somenonexistent "compensation" that accrued from the meeting that went nowhere. The rule states:

A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may notreceive compensation and may not permit compensation to accrue to his beneficial interest fromany source, the receipt of which would occur by virtue of influence improperly exerted from hisposition in Congress.

A meeting is not compensation. It's a courtesy. If the meeting did not result in financial gain toWaters, then the rule does not apply. Similarly, neither a request for a meeting, nor an expressionof a particular policy concern, is an "improper exertion of influence," which involves some kindof interference with the performance of a government official's duties. The authors of the reporttwist the meaning of the words in order to fabricate a case out of thin air.

On September 8, 2008, Waters asked that Treasury officials meet with representatives of theNational Bankers Association, an 80-year-old organization of minority-owned banks. The NBAwas concerned about the fallout of Treasury's decision to put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac intoconservatorship. On September 9, Robert Cooper, chairman-elect of the NBA, expressed thoseconcerns at a meeting attended by 20 people, primarily staffers for Treasury and "various bankregulatory agencies." The meeting lasted 45 minutes to an hour, and about half of the time wasused by Treasury Department officials to explain why the government took the actions it did


6/12

with regard to Fannie and Freddie. According to Cooper, "The meeting took the form of adialogue with everyone speaking."

Cooper was also Senior Counsel for OneUnited, a minority-owned bank headquartered inBoston. He brought along two others from OneUnited, which was used "as an exemplar of the

impact the Treasury Department's decisions would have on minority-owned banks." Waters wasnot at the gathering. The authors of the report allege that "the discussion at the meeting centeredon a single bank -- OneUnited," though they offer zero evidence, from any of the 20 attendees, tocontradict the claim that OneUnited was referenced for illustrative purposes, as part of ageneralized policy request. OneUnited also has five branches in the greater Los Angeles area, notfar from Waters' district.

Five months earlier, Waters' husband had resigned from OneUnited's board, though he still heldshares of OneUnited. Had Treasury adopted the NBA proposal, many of its member banks wouldhave benefited, including OneUnited. The authors of the report go to great pains to insinuate thatthe NBA proposal would have benefited OneUnited exclusively.

In fact, Waters declined to help out OneUnited when it sought out government assistance thatwas above and beyond that afforded other banks. A few weeks after the meeting, she sought theadvice of a colleague because she wanted to help the firm but felt conflicted. The colleague toldher to "stay out of it," and she did.

The report's authors falsely claim that:

The rules and precedent cited above clearly enunciate a standard that restricts Members fromadvocating for a matter in which they have a personal financial interest. Therefore, ifRepresentative Waters advocated for OneUnited while her husband maintained a significant

investment in the bank, then she may have violated House Rule 23 and House standardsregarding conflicts of interest.

That's not correct. The standard regarding advocacy and financial conflicts of interest is notclearly enunciated at all. The standard for voting on legislation, which is very clear cut, makes astrong distinction between laws that benefit a general class of people versus a law directed at asingle business in which a member may have a financial interest. So long as the matter pertainsto a general class, as opposed to a specific business, members are free to vote as they choose:

Since legislation considered by Congress affects such a broad spectrum of business andeconomic endeavors, a Member of the House may be confronted with the possibility of voting onlegislation that would have an impact upon a personal economic interest. This may arise, forexample, where a bill authorizes appropriations for a project for which the contractor is acorporation in which the Member is a shareholder, or where a Member holds a kind of municipalsecurity for which a bill would provide federal guarantees.

Longstanding House precedents have not found such interests to warrant abstention under theabove-quoted House Rule that instructs Members to vote on each question presented unless theyhave a direct personal or pecuniary interest in the event of such question. Rather, it has


7/12

generally been found that where legislation affected a class as distinct from individuals, aMember might vote.

As shown by more recent applications of the rule, however, even where one corporation or entityis primarily affected by legislation, a Member's interest in such corporation or entity might not

be found to be a disqualifying interest in the subject matter."

When the actions extend beyond voting on legislation, to advocacy, there is no express standard,only a vague requirement for "added circumspection."

The provisions of House Rule 3, clause 1, as discussed in this section, apply only to Membervoting on the House floor. They do not apply to other actions that Members may normally takeon particular matters in connection with their official duties, such as sponsoring legislation,advocating or participating in an action by a House committee, or contacting an executive branchagency. Such actions entail a degree of advocacy above and beyond that involved in voting, andthus a Member's decision on whether to take any such action on a matter that may affect his or

her personal financial interests requires added circumspection. Moreover, such actions mayimplicate the rules and standards, discussed above, that prohibit the use of one's official positionfor personal gain. Whenever a Member is considering taking any such action on a matter thatmay affect his or her personal financial interests, the Member should first contact the StandardsCommittee for guidance.

True, Waters did contact the Treasury Department without first clearing it with the StandardsCommittee. Except the request was made on September 8, 2008, when things were evolving sorapidly at Fannie and Freddie that it would have been imprudent for her to wait for theCommittee's guidance. (After all, they waited a year to release this completed report.)

Again, the report illustrates how you can fabricate an ethics charge out of next to nothing.


8/12

Investigator backs Rep. Maxine Waters in ethics probe

The House Ethics Committee expects to end the case against Rep. Maxine Waters, accused

of aiding a bank with ties to her husband.

September 22, 2012|By Richard Simon, Los Angeles Times

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) is shown with her husband, Sidney Williams, (J. ScottApplewhite / Associated)

WASHINGTON For three years, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles) steadfastly

maintained that during a call with the Treasury secretary in the midst of the nation's financialcrisis she was looking out for the interests of all minority-owned banks not just one with tiesto her husband.

She did nothing wrong, she said repeatedly.

On Friday, the House Ethics Committee investigator agreed. His recommendation, expected tobe approved by the panel, would bring to an end a long and often tumultuous ethics case againstWaters, who was accused of improperly helping a bank in which her husband owned stock.

"The evidence in the record does not support a knowing violation of ethics rules or any otherstandard of conduct with respect to Rep. Maxine Waters by a clear and convincing standard,"said Billy Martin, the Washington attorney hired by the committee.

He presented his findings at a rare public session of the usually secretive panel, whose ownbehavior came under scrutiny during the Waters probe.


9/12

Rep. Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va.), acting chairman of the committee in the Waters case, saidthat the panel, evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, was prepared to acceptMartin's recommendation. The committee met behind closed doors Friday before adjourning.Officials declined to comment.

An announcement, along with Martin's 150-page report, is expected early next week.

The recommendation is bittersweet for the veteran South Los Angeles congresswoman, one ofLos Angeles' most enduring liberal politicians. She declined to comment after the meeting, butleft smiling with her husband.

The expected exoneration of the outspoken 74-year-old lawmaker clears the way for her tobecome the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee in the next Congress,succeeding the retiring Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).

But the ethics committee was considering its lightest form of punishment against Waters' chief of

staff and grandson, Mikael Moore, for seeking to help OneUnited Bank. Waters' husband, SidneyWilliams, served on the OneUnited board from January 2004 to April 2008 and owned stock inthe institution.

Moore, appearing before the committee, denied any wrongdoing.

Waters did not speak during the meeting and said she would not talk about the investigation untilafter the committee announces its final decision.

Frank issued a statement saying that he was "pleased but not surprised that the House EthicsCommittee found no reason to bring any charges against my colleague."

The case stemmed from a telephone call that Waters, a senior member of the congressionalcommittee that oversees banking, made to then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson during thefinancial crisis to set up a September 2008 meeting between his staff and representatives ofminority-owned banks.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent body that referred the case to the HouseEthics Committee, said the discussion at the meeting "centered on a single bank, OneUnited."

Three months later, OneUnited received $12 million in federal bailout funds, which had not yet

been repaid as of Monday.

Waters, a prominent politician who has held elective office in Sacramento or Washington formore than three decades, insisted that her efforts were consistent with her longtime work topromote opportunity for minority-owned businesses and lending in underserved communities.She said that she also had fully disclosed her husband's ties to the bank.


10/12

Martin said that after reviewing more than 150,000 pages of documents and the transcripts of 41witnesses and conducting his own interviews, he concluded that Waters, in seeking the Treasurymeeting, "believed she was acting on behalf of all minority banks which she believed had beenseriously affected by the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

"Because the evidence supports that she was acting on behalf of a large group of banks, wefound no evidence in the record to support that her phone call to arrange the meeting violatedany House rule or any other standard of conduct," Martin said.

If Waters, accused of three ethics violations, had been found guilty of improper behavior, shecould have faced a range of punishments, including reprimand, censure or even expulsion, all ofwhich require votes of the House.

The committee was considering sending a letter of reproval to Moore for efforts to specificallyaid OneUnited, including sending a September 2008 email to House Financial ServicesCommittee staff that said "OU" meaning OneUnited "is in trouble."

Moore, appearing before the committee with Waters seated behind him, denied that he knewabout the congresswoman's husband's investment in OneUnited.

"The work that I did in September of 2008 was not on behalf of any one bank," he told thecommittee.

But Martin said that he found Moore's assertions "incredible and doubted the credibility of histestimony generally."

Moore, though, expressed relief.


11/12

Sep 21, 2012

Rep. Waters cleared of ethics violations

By Catalina Camia, USA TODAY

Updated 2012-09-21 11:47 AM

The House Ethics Committee cleared Rep. Maxine Waters,D-Calif., today of wrongdoing after an investigation of two-plus years that was marred by scandal within the committeeitself.

The committee held a rare public hearing, announced lessthan 24 hours ago, to discuss the Waters case and hear fromMikael Moore, her grandson and chief of staff. The panel

found there is insufficient evidence "to prove violation by aclear standard which is necessary for formal sanctions."

The ruling brings to a close a case based on meetings with federal regulators that took place fouryears ago.

In August 2010, the Ethics Committee unveiled charges against Waters alleging that she andMoore intervened with federal regulators in 2008 to secure a loan for OneUnited, a communitybank in which her husband held hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of shares.

Waters has long argued that she was advocating on behalf of all minority-owned banks.

Waters, first elected in 1990, is in line to become the top Democrat on the House FinancialServices Committee next year upon the retirement of Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts. IfDemocrats win majority control in November, Waters would be in line to become the chairmanof the committee, which holds broad sway over Wall Street.

The Waters case was headed for the equivalent of an "ethics trial" in November 2010, but thepublic hearing was canceled when the committee discovered that evidence in the case had beenmishandled by staff.

The committee suspended two attorneys and hired an independent investigator to review its own

handling of the Waters case.

In June, 19 months after the original hearing was scheduled, the committee informed Waters thatthe congresswoman's rights had not been violated and the case could proceed -- even though itbelieved staff members made unauthorized disclosures about the case.


12/12

At various times since the charges were first announced, Waters has demanded a public hearingso that she could clear her name. She maintained the long delay was a violation of herconstitutional right to a speedy trial. The committee disagreed.

The ethics panel found that Moore took actions he should not have to advocate on behalf of

OneUnited. He is expected to receive a letter admonishing him for his actions but not face areprimand or other sanctions by the House, the Associated Press reports.

(Contributing: Paul Singer)

the trials of rep. maxine waters: ethics or payback?

Documents