Ethically Challenged Maxine Waters Says American people do not appreciate double standards … No They Do Not

DRAIN THE SWAMP …

Some times your words come back to bite you, especially when a politician gleefully states that another is guilty, guilty, guilty of violating House rules. One never knows when that ethics things comes back to bite you.

Maxine Waters (D-CA) stated back in 1995 that the American people do not appreciate double standards and what is good for the goose is good for the gander. She also stated that no one should be able to break House rules or be above the law without suffering consequences.

Fast forward to 2010 and Maxine Waters finds her self in her own political hot water. I wonder if she will use her own words to describe her predicament? As fate would have it, Waters may also find herself guilty, guilty, guilty as she is charged with three ethics violations. What are the odds that Maxine Waters will find her self on the opposite end of a similar video this Fall? Does Waters still feel that there should be consequences to breaking rules?

VIDEO via C-SPAN

Of course the situation will be difference for Maxine Waters as opposed to those that she attacked who were found guilty of ethics charges. Because its the media’s fault that Waters has been charged with violating House ethics. Funny, when other are guilty, it is their fault, but when Maxine Waters is charged, it is the media’s fault. She just can’t admit she is a victim of her own greed and arrogence. Just what the Democrats need, a second Ethics trial for one of their own right before the November midterm elections.

The charges focus on whether Waters broke the rules in requesting federal help for a bank where her husband owned stock and had served on the board of directors. She denied the charges Monday.

Persons familiar with the case said Waters is accused of violating:

1. A rule that House members may not exert improper influence that results in a personal benefit.

2. The government employees’ ethics code, which prohibits granting or accepting special favors, for the employee or family members, that could be viewed as influencing official actions.

3. A rule that members’ conduct must reflect creditably on the House.

Hmm, a politician trying to gain political favor and using their position to help out a failing bank that their spouse just happens to be heavily invested in. Waters claims she is innocent and has done nothing wrong. Good luck Maxine.

The House ethics committee announced Monday that it was arranging a trial for Waters on allegations that she used her position to help out a failing bank in which her husband was heavily invested. Waters rejected a deal with the committee and claimed that she would go before a public trial.

“I have not violated any House rules,” Waters said in a statement released Monday, minutes after the ethics committee posted a report finding “substantial reason to believe” a violation occurred.

“Therefore, I simply will not be forced to admit to something I did not do and instead have chosen to respond to charges made by the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct in a public hearing,” she added.

Wouldn’t this be a kick in the pants if Barney Franks was asked to be a witness.

The report disclosed that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told investigators that Waters had approached him for advice on the potential conflict of interest involving her husband.
“She was in a predicament, because Sydney had been involved in the bank,” the report said, characterizing Frank’s interview with investigators. “But OneUnited people were coming to her for help. She knew she should say no, but it bothered her.” Frank said he urged her to “stay out of it” and arranged to have his staff take over the OneUnited issue from Waters.