Banking Law

The ethics investigation into Maxine Waters' activities on behalf of a savings bank in which her husband had an ownership interest has gone off the rails, through the looking glass, and into a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. We're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. We've just crossed over into the Twilight Zone.

When we last looked into this investigation, Rep. Waters was busy raising money for her defense fund. Since then, the whole affair has proved the truth of Hunter S. Thompson's adage that "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

The Friday prior to Thanksgiving, the two attorneys on the Ethics Committee who were handling the Waters investigation were put on administrative leave, and on that same day the Ethics Committee indefinitely postponed Ms. Waters' hearing (set for November 29) on the grounds that "new evidence" had been discovered (reportedly, a couple of e-mails from members of Waters' staff) that "required" that the investigation be reopened. Waters showed up in the empty hearing room on November 29 and held a press conference, during which she wailed about being denied due process because she won't be tried this year, claimed that the delay "demonstrates in no uncertain terms the weakness of their case against me,'' and "castigated the Ethics Committee for 'lack of decency.'" Ironically, when an LA Times reporter then asked her some "specifics" about her case, she responded that "I'm not going to try this case out here.'' In other words, she's only going to try the defense side of the case "out here."

Nobody associated with the Ethics Committee will comment on why the two attorneys were placed on leave, although their attorney told reporters his clients haven't done anything to justify the action.

"My clients were inexplicably placed on administrative leave by the chairman of the House Ethics Committee. These two highly regarded former federal prosecutors have performed their duties for the committee in a manner consistent with the highest ethical and professional standards, and any suggestion that they have done anything inappropriate is false and defamatory. We are working within the committee process to resolve these issues."

What do you expect their lawyer to say? Something that might shed some actual light on the situation? Not in this convoluted SNAFU.

Waters, of course, read into the attorneys' suspension the "fact" that she's as clean as the driven snow and that the forces arrayed against her are the spawn of the demon seed.

Waters, in a statement Wednesday, said that the lawyers' removal may have occurred because their conduct was "egregious." She said it suggests that "something has gone wrong in the ethics process," adding that "the committee must reveal immediately the circumstances that prompted its action."

Or, perhaps, they were removed because the head of the Ethics Panel, a California Democrat, thought that they were getting too close to "the truth" (whatever that is) and didn't want "the truth" revealed. Perhaps their conduct, rather than being "egregious," as Rep. Waters suggests, was exemplary. We don't know that anymore than Maxine Waters does, but since that also "may have occurred," let's everyone engage in public rank speculation and call a press conference.

Today, Rep. Waters asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to introduce a resolution asking the House to appoint a bipartisan task force to investigate the personnel moves and report back by the end of the year. In response, I think I saw Nancy knocking back jello shots with Jagermeister chasers this afternoon at a local Georgetown watering hole, but perhaps that was a case of mistaken identity. She could have responded that way, so let's all just assert that sighting as a plausible possibility.

Whatever the eventual ending of this circus act might be, the credibility of the House Ethics Committee is shot.