Information that forced postponement of Rep. 
Maxine Waters’ ethics trial raises new questions 
about an investigative panel’s charges that the 
California Democrat improperly tried to steer 
federal bailout money to a minority-owned bank 
where her husband is a stockholder and former director.

A newly discovered e-mail written by Waters’ 
chief of staff at the height of the 2008 
financial crisis may have thrown a cloud over the 
case rather than offering investigators a smoking 
gun. The surfacing of the e-mail written by staff 
chief Mikael Moore, who also is Waters’ grandson, 
has forced a delay in her ethics trial, which had 
been scheduled to begin Monday.

A key question is whether Waters instructed Moore 
to get assistance for OneUnited Bank. Her 
husband’s investment in the Boston-based bank was 
in danger of becoming worthless during the 
near-financial collapse of late 2008.

Waters has contended she was simply trying to 
help all minority banks in trouble — and 
specifically those, like OneUnited, that were 
hurt by their investments in the then-collapsing 
mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The House ethics committee last week postponed 
indefinitely a Nov. 29 trial for Waters. a senior 
member of the House Financial Services Committee, 
on three counts of violating House ethics rules 
and returned the case to an investigatory 
subcommittee to consider the new evidence.

Ethics trials are rare. Last week, the ethics 
committee recommended that the House publicly 
censure 20-term Rep. Charles Rangel of New York 
for fundraising and financial conduct that 
violated congressional rules. It was only the 
second House trial proceeding in the past two decades.

The recently discovered e-mail had been sent by 
Moore on Sept. 28, 2008, to staff aides for the 
committee who were writing legislation that 
became the Bush administration’s controversial 
$700 billion TARP — Troubled Asset Relief Program 
— bailout for banks, insurance companies, auto 
companies and other financial institutions

The e-mail never mentioned OneUnited.

Moore’s memo said the congresswoman was “under 
the explicit impression” that provisions 
affecting small and minority-owned banks were still in the bailout bill.

“If there is any material or technical changes to 
the language as last agreed upon, please alert me 
as soon as possible so that Rep. Waters has an 
opportunity to weigh in,” Moore wrote.

OneUnited did end up receiving $12 million in 
bailout money, in December 2008. But Treasury 
Department officials have told House 
investigators that Waters was not involved in that decision.

Investigators have not revealed a direct link 
between Waters’ conduct and the dispatch of 
bailout funds to OneUnited. And the ethics 
committee’s case is not helped by survey 
responses from 28 banks which said they were in 
similar circumstances as OneUnited.

The survey was conducted by the Independent 
Community Bankers of America, which represents 
smaller banks across the country. The banks 
responding to the survey are institutions that 
could have benefited from the provision that 
Waters — according to her chief of staff’s e-mail 
— was closely monitoring in the writing of the bailout bill.

Paul Merski, chief economist for the independent 
bankers, said the real number of banks in similar 
circumstances could be as high as 300, because 
only a fraction of the group’s members responded.

“This was for more banks than just one bank,” he said in an interview.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the 
Financial Services Committee, said in an 
interview that he inserted the provision for 
minority banks to protect OneUnited — because it is based in his state.

But he said of Waters, “I did not know she was 
watching” the drafting of the section. “We never 
discussed it,” he said. “I heard from people in Massachusetts.”

The provision sought by Waters — and inserted by 
Frank — told the Treasury Department that it 
should consider — for bailout money — banks that 
had an asset size of $1 billion or less, and 
whose size dropped to a lower range because they 
owned devalued, preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Asset size is the total dollar amount of 
everything a bank owns or controls, including 
loans, real estate holdings, securities and office equipment.

Another difficulty in proving the violations: the 
provision by itself did not qualify any bank for bailout money.

All banks applying for bailout funds had to meet 
a number of Treasury thresholds to get the 
assistance. The Fannie-Freddie section merely 
instructed Treasury not to overlook banks that 
lost money due to their investments in the 
mortgage companies. Both Fannie Mae and Freddie 
Mac were taken over by the government.

Waters has acknowledged that in early September 
2008, she asked then-Treasury Secretary Henry 
Paulson to arrange a meeting between Treasury 
officials and a trade group of minority-owned 
banks. The purpose was to assist institutions 
harmed by the devalued Fannie and Freddie stock, she said.

While Waters did not attend, the two 
representatives of the National Bankers 
Association at the meeting were OneUnited’s chief 
executive officer and its senior counsel — who 
also was chairman-elect of the association. No other bank was represented.

Waters has contended that she was acting solely 
on the request of the association, and argued 
that she never made any request to Paulson on what should be done.

According to the ethics committee charges, 
Waters’ husband, Sidney Williams, had an 
investment in OneUnited that was valued at more 
than $351,000 on June 20, 2008. It had dwindled 
to $175,000 by Sept. 30, 2008, the time period 
when Waters was monitoring the TARP legislation.

If OneUnited had not received federal financial 
help, the charges said, the investment could have become worthless.

Larry Margasak,AP



------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digest: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Help: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post: <mailto:[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to