CNN & FOX: Second Democratic Lawmaker Faces High-Profile Ethics Trial - Polidicks

CNN: Waters will choose House ethics trial, source says [release]Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California has chosen to face a House ethics trial rather than accept a finding of wrongdoing by the House ethics committee, according to a source familiar with the process. The ethics committee has been looking into whether Waters violated any House rules when she helped arrange a meeting in September 2008 between a bank she and her husband had ties to financially and Treasury Department officials. The bank was seeking federal assistance. Waters is a senior member of the House Financial Services committee. Waters met with the House ethics committee Wednesday evening, but she declined to comment to CNN when she left the meeting. If Waters' trial goes forward, she would be undergoing the same sort of procedure begun just this week for another prominent House Democrat, Rep. Charles Rangel of New York. The ethics committee has accused Rangel, former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, of 13 violations of House rules involving alleged financial wrongdoing and harming the credibility of Congress.[/release] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/07/31/waters.ethics/index.html?iref=allsearch[/url] FOX: Second Democratic Lawmaker Faces High-Profile Ethics Trial [release]Rep. Maxine Waters has become the second House Democrat to face a high-profile ethics trial following Rep. Charlie Rangel, Fox News has confirmed, further complicating the midterm election outlook for Democrats as they battle to keep control of the House. The allegations against the California Democrat could be announced next week, people familiar with the investigation, who were not authorized to be quoted about unannounced charges, said. The House ethics committee declined Friday to make any public statement on the matter. Waters, 71, is accused of using her position to help arrange for federal bailout funds for a bank associated with her family. She was investigated for communicating with an executive at a bank in which her husband owned stock. The bank was applying for a federal bailout. She serves on the House Financial Services Committee. "I am confident that as the investigation moves forward the panel will discover that there are no facts to support allegations that I have acted improperly," Waters said in a prior statement. Waters' decision presents a rare, rather bizarre situation for House Democrats and two, public trials for members of the Congressional Black Caucus. Rangel, a New York Democrat, also faces an ethics trial this fall on separate charges that included failure to disclose assets and income, nonpayment of taxes and doing legislative favors for donors in order to have a college center named after him. President Obama said Friday he found the ethics charges against Rangel "very troubling," and expressed hope that the 80-year-old lawmaker can ride off into the sunset. "He's somebody who's at the end of his career. I'm sure that what he wants is to be able to end his career with dignity. And my hope is that it happens," Obama said in an interview that aired Friday on "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric." Dual ethics trials would be a major political liability for Democrats, forcing them to defend their party's ethical conduct during elections this fall. "It's an embarrassment, that's obviously true. And if you have more than one, it attracts the public's attention," Larry Sabato, the director of University of Virginia's Center for Politics, told Fox News."You need a critical mass for scandal to ever really have an impact on elections because to be blunt about it, most people...assume a certain percentage of politicians are crooked." Waters came under scrutiny after former Treasury Department officials said she helped arrange a meeting between regulators and executives at Boston-based OneUnited Bank without mentioning her husband's financial ties to the institution. Her husband, Sidney Williams, held at least $250,000 in the bank's stock and previously had served on its board. Waters' spokesman has said Williams was no longer on the board when the meeting was arranged. Sources familiar with the Waters inquiry indicate that the House Ethics Committee was prepared to issue a report in Waters case and was expected to dole out a punishment.[/release] [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/30/rep-maxine-waters-chooses-ethics-trial/?test=latestnews[/url] [quote]Dual ethics trials would be a major political liability for Democrats, forcing them to defend their party's ethical conduct during elections this fall. "It's an embarrassment, that's obviously true. And if you have more than one, it attracts the public's attention," Larry Sabato, the director of University of Virginia's Center for Politics, told Fox News."You need a critical mass for scandal to ever really have an impact on elections because to be blunt about it, most people...assume a certain percentage of politicians are crooked."[/quote] I'd like to see the Democrats get out of this come November. And speaking of November, I'll see you then. *Stops posting in the section temporary*

goddamn godless democrats and their lack of morals

[quote]*Stops posting in the section temporary*[/quote] change thread title to this, it's way more relevant

[QUOTE=Glaber;23754442]*Stops posting in the section temporary*[/QUOTE] Why not permanently? That's what we all want. [editline]06:38PM[/editline] Honestly, why haven't you been banned for trolling? It's obvious you post all this shit to get people riled up. You KNOW everybody is against you. And now [IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=136593&dateline=1280652667[/IMG] Yep.

Lets face it, this is some pretty petty stuff compared to Republican ethics violations of the last decade.

This just in: he's allowed to post what he wants. It sure is Democratic of you to suggest that he shouldn't post something because no one agrees with him. Not that that's true anyway.

[QUOTE=Canesfan;23759436]This just in: he's allowed to post what he wants. It sure is Democratic of you to suggest that he shouldn't post something because no one agrees with him. Not that that's true anyway.[/QUOTE] this is a fucking internet forum not fucking parliament

[QUOTE=MisterMooth;23754786]Why not permanently? That's what we all want. [editline]06:38PM[/editline] Honestly, why haven't you been banned for trolling? It's obvious you post all this shit to get people riled up. You KNOW everybody is against you. And now [IMG]http://www.facepunch.com/image.php?u=136593&dateline=1280652667[/IMG] Yep.[/QUOTE]Oh no. Someone posted a story that's not in favor of the Democrats. BAN THEM!

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;23760435]Oh no. Someone posted a story that's not in favor of the Democrats. BAN THEM![/QUOTE] You're an idiot. Have you seen every single thread Glaber has shat out here?

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;23760435]Oh no. Someone posted a story that's not in favor of the Democrats. BAN THEM![/QUOTE] Dear god you people. No one cares that his opinions is one on the right, I don't give a fuck that he's a republican. What we do care about is the fact he posts fox news articles which clearly leave out key parts of the story, or he'll post fox news articles that are just vague enough to get people riled up. It's not THAT he's posting, it's why he's posting it. [editline]12:36PM[/editline] You fucking republicans and your persecution complexes, they never cease to amaze me.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;23763290]Dear god you people. No one cares that his opinions is one on the right, I don't give a fuck that he's a republican. What we do care about is the fact he posts fox news articles which clearly leave out key parts of the story, or he'll post fox news articles that are just vague enough to get people riled up. It's not THAT he's posting, it's why he's posting it. [editline]12:36PM[/editline] You fucking republicans and your persecution complexes, they never cease to amaze me.[/QUOTE] I'll agree that Fox does tend to distort things but it's not exactly easy to find reliable sources that would dare say anything that would make the Democrats look bad. Besides, half the threads on the News section are something bashing either the Conservatives or religion. [quote]I don't give a fuck that he's a republican.[/quote] [quote]You fucking republicans and your persecution complexes, they never cease to amaze me.[/QUOTE] Yes, you're clearly not biased.

[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;23764045]I'll agree that Fox does tend to distort things but it's not exactly easy to find reliable sources that would dare say anything that would make the Democrats look bad. Besides, half the threads on the News section are something bashing either the Conservatives or religion. Yes, you're clearly not biased.[/QUOTE] Me pointing out that you guys use every chance you possibly can to point out you're "attacked" for your views here is hardly me showing my bias. And conservatives make news, you can't pretend Palin, Ron, and Rand Paul, and whoever else don't say some fucking stupid things.

I love how this thread is basically about how retarded some people feel republicans are when the OP was about possible corruption among a couple Democrats.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;23765257]Me pointing out that you guys use every chance you possibly can to point out you're "attacked" for your views here is hardly me showing my bias. And conservatives make news, you can't pretend Palin, Ron, and Rand Paul, and whoever else don't say some fucking stupid things.[/QUOTE] Especially on this site, there are a lot of people who will take almost every thread in the News section and just rant on about how stupid and stubborn Republicans are when it has nothing at all to do with the thread itself.(Take this one for example) It's ironic really.