“Another potential embarrassment for the Congressional Black Caucus,” sub-headlined the New York Times, which news story went on to note:
“At no time in at least two decades have two sitting House members faced the public hearing detailing allegations against them.”
And later, in this report of California Democrat Maxine Waters facing an ethics trial:
“The prospect of two trials playing out as the November election approaches will certainly be seized upon by Republicans who have already been attacking Democrats’ moral leadership and questioning whether Speaker Nancy Pelosi had lived up to her promise to ‘drain the swamp’ of ethics violations in Washington.”
Ladies and gentlemen: Please note that New York Times’ wording: “seized upon by Republicans.”
“Seized upon” also means “grabbed” – neither of which terms really implies reasonable judicial behavior, so much as the suggestion of biased partisanship.
Also, there is nowhere in this Times article any mention of the regrettably outrageous fact that the Congressional Black Caucus is a racially segregated organization. These racists have repeatedly turned down membership applications from members of Congress who were born with insufficiently dark skin shade.
Seventy-one-year-old 10-term Rep. Waters is one of the most militant of these congressional black racists.
In a House Ethics Committee investigation begun last fall, she was accused of intervening on behalf of One United, a Boston-based bank. The Times reported that she called Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in 2008, to ask him to host a special meeting of executives of black-owned banks. When Paulson agreed to this (racial) request, he was unaware Rep. Waters’ husband, Sidney Williams, owned stock in and had even served on the board of One United.
The chief executive of One United turned this Treasury headquarters meeting into a special appeal for bailout assistance – asking for $50 million in federal aid.
This led the Office of Congressional Ethics to begin an inquiry.
Can anyone imagine what the two ethics trials in September of these two Democrats will mean – in their full extent and content – to other congressional Democrats running for election when polls open on Tuesday, Nov. 2?
Already there are reports that the House Ethics Committee panel is recommending that Harlem’s incredible Charles Rangel be merely reprimanded rather than expelled – as he and Maxine Waters surely should be.
If the House Ethics Committee is so inexcusably soft on such massive unethical behavior, what national conclusion can be reached considering the fact that the only two members of Congress who have been expelled in the past 145 years have both been white men?
The Washington Post reported in headlines that the (Congressional Black) “Caucus alleges racial bias”:
“The Caucus has long complained that the House process disproportionately targets blacks in the chamber. Since its 2009 inception, the Office of Congressional Ethics – an independent watchdog set up at the behest of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – has investigated at least eight members of the Black Caucus.”
“Earlier this summer, Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, a member of the Caucus, introduced a resolution that would strip the ethics panel of some of its power and allow House members to keep unflaterring reports from public view.”
This astonishingly outrageous proposal raises the question as to why Rep. Fudge and her fellow racists in the segregated Black Caucus believe there should be any Ethics Committee at all.
There is also Webster’s New World Dictionary’s first definition of “FUDGE”: “empty, foolish talk; nonsense.”