Waters Ethics Case Has Porter Goss (!) Arguing on Other SideBy: David Dayen Monday August 2, 2010 1:52 pm
<snip>
The Office of Congressional Ethics complaint against Maxine Waters,
which they completed a year ago but has only just now been unsealed, is available here:
http://ethics.house.gov/Media/PDF/Waters%20OCE%20Report.pdf I think you have all you need to know about this complaint by learning that disgraced former CIA Director Porter Goss, no stranger to ethics violations, is the co-chair of the Office of Congressional Ethics.Anyway, here’s how they describe Waters’ violation:
NATURE OF THE ALLEGED VIOLATION: Representative Maxine Waters made a request in September 2008 to then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson that Treasury Department officials meet with representatives from the National Bankers Association. A meeting was in fact granted shortly thereafter. However, at the meeting, and in the follow-up activity that occurred through Representative Waters’ Congressional office, the discussion centered on a single bank—OneUnited. Representative Waters’ husband had been a board member of OneUnited from 2004 to 2008 and, at the time of the meeting, was a stock holder of the bank. Representative Waters’ conduct may have violated House Rule 23, clause 3 (by permitting compensation to accrue to her beneficial interest) and House precedent regarding conflicts of interest.
The potentially damning material here, noted by the New York Times (which desperately wants its initial hit piece on Waters to bear fruit), is that Waters allegedly told a fellow House member that there was a problem with OneUnited Bank, due to their massive purchase of shares in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the time.
But Waters told this unnamed Representative that she didn’t know what to do about the problem because (her husband) “Sydney’s been on the board.” That suggests that Waters knew that working on behalf of OneUnited would be a conflict of interest. It’s clear from context – “Representative A” is cited as a male, and OneUnited Bank is in Boston, and Representative A seeks to take over the issue from Waters – that Representative A is Barney Frank.
But Waters says that this is why she didn’t advocate on behalf of OneUnited, but on behalf of bank associations, not OneUnited, and furthermore, the meeting she helped set up went nowhere: Starting with the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) report released today, the record will clearly show that in advocating on behalf of minority banks neither my office nor I benefited in any way, engaged in improper action or influenced anyone. Additionally, the OCE acknowledges that I have fully disclosed my assets as required by House rules, even going above and beyond the requirements by disclosing my assets at several Financial Services Committee hearings. In sum, the case against me has no merit.
The accusations against me stem from work I have done throughout my decades of public service as an advocate for minority communities and businesses in California and nationally.
As the financial crisis was unfolding, jeopardizing the health of banks large and small, the National Bankers Association (NBA), a trade organization which represents the interests of more than 100 minority-owned banks, requested a meeting with Treasury Department officials. It is important to clarify that this meeting was requested and scheduled on behalf of the NBA, not on behalf of OneUnited Bank as has been suggested.
A letter from NBA to Treasury, included in the OCE report (see page 39), dated September 6th, 2008, requesting the meeting indicates the intent of the meeting and the dire concern expressed by the association on behalf of its members. The NBA contacted Treasury directly, just as other trade associations did, to request a meeting so that its members could discuss their concerns regarding the crisis facing minority banks. I followed up on the association’s request by asking then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to schedule such a meeting, as did other members of Congress. Secretary Paulson recognized that the NBA’s concerns about the future of minority banks were valid and arranged for a meeting.
I did not attend the meeting and thus did not participate in the conversation. The OCE focuses on concerns expressed during the meeting between NBA and Treasury on behalf of a single bank. However, NBA’s follow up letter, dated September 10, 2008 and also included in the OCE’s report (see page 59), to Treasury reiterates the organization’s concerns about the fiscal health of its members generally.
Despite this evidence, the committee is arguing that I was not acting to help minority institutions and the constituents they serve but instead that I was trying to help OneUnited (in which my husband held investments) — and that doing so violated House rules related to personally benefiting from official actions and conflict of interest.
Basically, we have a he said/she said situation here, though the evidence militates in favor of Waters. And it’s important to remember that the “he said” in this case is, among others, Porter Goss.<snip>
Link:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/08/02/waters-ethics-case-has-porter-goss-arguing-on-other-side/:wtf:
:banghead:
:kick:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
