Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (44717)	8/10/2010 11:26:29 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 71588

Ethics Charges Cite Role of Waters's Grandson AUGUST 10, 2010. By BRODY MULLINS 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. At issue is whether Ms. Waters (D., Calif.) violated congressional ethics rules by urging the Treasury Department in October 2008 to give $12 million in government bailout funds to a minority-owned bank in which her husband owned stock. 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 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 role of Ms. Waters's grandson reveals new details of the events that prompted the probe, which, along with an ongoing ethics investigation of of Rep. Charles Rangel of New York, has created a headache for Democrats ahead of this fall's election. Ms. Waters denied breaking any rules and last week called on the ethics panel to make public the charges so she could defend herself. Waters' trial should take place this fall. The House ethics committee made public three formal charges against Ms. Waters in a 10-page document that summarizes the findings by the ethics committee during its year-long investigation. 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." Lawmakers aren't precluded from voting on issues that touch their financial interests, though congressional ethics rules urge lawmakers to be careful in such situations. 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. Because the House Ethics Committee doesn't reveal specifics of allegations until a trial begins, the details of the charges against Ms. Waters had been private until Monday. 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." 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." She also noted that she disclosed her husband's stake in the bank, as required. 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. Write to Brody Mullins at brody.mullins@wsj.com online.wsj.com