Waters accuses ethics panel of having weak case after calling off her trial
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) accused the ethics committee of having a weak case that is unraveling after the panel abruptly cancelled her public trial.
“The committee’s decision to cancel the hearing and put it off indefinitely demonstrates that the committee does not have a strong case and would not be able to prove any violation has occurred,” she said in a lengthy statement Friday reacting to the announcement.She also said she was disappointed the committee once again postponed the hearing and said it showed “a complete disregard for due process and fairness.”
“For over a year, I have cooperated with the investigation and I have consistently asked for a public hearing on this matter,” she said. “I remain eager to present my case and demonstrate to my constituents and all Americans that I have not violated any House rules.”
The House ethics committee announced Friday it has delayed indefinitely Waters trial because the panel had discovered new evidence in the case.
It is unclear from the committee's statement whether the trial will move forward and what evidence was discovered.
According to a joint statement from Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), who chairs the ethics committee, and ranking member Jo Bonner (R-Ala.), the case is being referred back to the subcommittee investigating the matter. Waters's trial was set to begin on Nov. 29.
"The committee voted to recommit the matter regarding Representative Maxine Waters to the investigative subcommittee due to materials discovered that may have had an effect on the investigative subcommittee's transmittal to the committee," they wrote. "As a result, the adjudicatory subcommittee no longer has jurisdiction over this matter and the adjudicatory hearing previously scheduled for November 29, 2010 will not be held."
Waters, a member of the Financial Services Committee, is accused of using her position to arrange a meeting between Treasury Department officials and the National Bankers Association regarding OneUnited Bank. At the time, Waters's husband was a significant shareholder in the bank and had formerly served on its board of directors.
The California congresswoman has strongly denied the ethics charges against her and has repeatedly argued that she was acting on behalf of all small and minority owned banks, not just OneUnited, as she has done for other minority-owned businesses throughout her career.
Waters’s preparations for the public trial stand in stark contrast to Rep. Charles Rangel’s (D-N.Y.) experience this week. Unlike Rangel, who faced a jury of his peers without legal representation, Waters planned to have an experienced legal team by her side and was prepared to mount a vigorous, detailed defense.
Her chief of staff, Mikael Moore, attended the Rangel trial and took voluminous notes during the proceedings. Moore figures prominently in the investigation; the ethics committee has scrutinized his e-mail contacts with the Federal Reserve, as well as One United executives. But Moore, Water’s grandson, also has spent months preparing a legal defense and assisting her attorneys, well-known ethics expert Stanley Brand and his associate Andrew Herman, in preparing the case.
Waters had planned to rely mainly on Brand and Herman to present her defense before the ethics adjudicatory committee, but she and Moore were also planning to serve as witnesses and make their case directly to the panel.
Rangel this week complained about not having a chance to set up a legal defense funds so he could afford to hire a new attorney when he and his legal team parted ways in October after he paid them more than $2 million over the course of two years. In contrast, Waters opened a legal defense fund in September and held a fundraiser in October that raised nearly $100,000, according to a knowledgeable source.
Waters had planned on the entire legal defense costing $300,000, a small fraction of Rangel’s legal bill. Rangel’s case was far longer, involving 13 counts of House ethics violations, compared to the three charges Waters faces. Yet, Waters also chose a more pared down legal team consisting of two attorneys who focus primarily on Congressional ethics, instead of a legal team from a pricey firm specializing in white-collar crime.
The decision is a setback for the ethics committee, which had hoped to conclude the Waters trial during the lame-duck session of Congress. The announcement comes one day after the committee recommended the House censure Rangel for committing 11 violations of House ethics rules.
In her statement Friday, Waters said the new material in question was a document the committee has had since Oct. 29, and argued that it didn’t provide any new “significant” information. Without spelling out exactly what the document is, Waters said it shows only that she was working to ensure that the bill that awarded the money to OneUnited was drafted to assist small and minority institutions generally.
“The document does not reflect any action on behalf of any specific company,” she said. “Although the Committee continues to insist that the ‘small bank language’ was drafted to benefit only one institution, the facts do not support that assertion; in fact, the documentary record directly contradicts it.”
Waters also said she is puzzled by the committee’s delay.
“If this evidence is so <snip>ing, the Committee should present its case before the public, as we asked them to do when I first learned of their desire to postpone the hearing,” she said. “Apparently the Committee now recognizes, as I have maintained, that there was no benefit, no improper action, no failure to disclose, no one influenced, and there is no case.”
Late in August, Waters demanded that the ethics committee stop gathering new evidence against her. The ethics committee's announcement Friday may have to do with additional evidence discovered during this process — either evidence that would have helped exonerate her or material that complicates the case because it was discovered after formal charges were made against her.
Waters's attorneys sent a letter to the ethics committee taking issue with the panel's ongoing investigative activities after the formal probe was over and Waters was charged with violating House rules.
“Such inquiry violates both the Committee’s rules and comparable federal criminal procedure and raises significant questions about the sufficiency of the evidence that the Investigative Subcommittee replied [sic] upon when it issued the charges contained in the SAV [statement of alleged violation],” wrote Brand and Herman. “Most alarmingly, it calls into question the impartiality and good faith of the Investigative Subcommittee.”
The lawyers cited an ethics committee document request to Waters’s office that aides received Aug. 17 and ongoing contacts and interviews with witnesses. The information requested, they argue, relates solely to matters addressed in the statement of alleged violation.
In addition, a top ethics committee aide threatened Waters with a subpoena if she did not voluntarily provide the documents in question, according to Brand and Herman.
In her statement Friday, Waters accused the committee of breaking its own rules that prohibit any amendments to the statement of alleged violation, a charging document akin to an indictment, after it is transmitted to the adjudicatory committee.
“There is no provision or authority for the committee to take this action, but the same body which is charged with interpreting the rules now seems to be guilty of making them up as it goes along,” she said. “Neither the letter sent to me nor the statement on the committee website cites any rule or clear rationale for this decision.”
—This story was updated at 5:40 p.m.
Jordan Fabian contributed to this reportSource:
June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008