OneUnited executives had donated $12,500 to Waters' congressional campaigns. Her husband, Sidney Williams, was an investor in one of the banks that merged into OneUnited. His stock holdings were estimated at $350,000. Waters meddled despite warnings from fellow Democratic Rep. Barney Frank to keep her nose out of the case.
E-mails obtained by public interest legal foundation Judicial Watch and more recently by the Washington Post reveal that federal bank examiners were livid about the intervention of muddied Waters. "There are some really good people expressing very strong opinions regarding what they view as a travesty of justice regarding the special treatment" OneUnited is receiving, acting regional director John M. Lane complained in a March 2009 e-mail to Christopher J. Spoth, a senior FDIC consumer protection official.
On Jan. 13, 2009, Brookly McLaughlin, then-Treasury Department deputy assistant secretary for public affairs, e-mailed her shock at Waters' apparent conflict of interest regarding OneUnited: "Further to email below, WSJ (Wall Street Journal) tells me: ...Apparently this bank is the only one that has gotten money through section 103-6 of the EESA law. And Maxine Waters' husband is on the board of the bank. ??????"
Another government agency had rapped the bank in October 2008 for "operating without effective underwriting standards and practices," "operating without an effective loan documentation program" and "engaging in speculative investment practices."
Tom Fitton, Judicial Watch president, reports that Waters' friend and fellow California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren helped delay her ethics trial by stalling subpoenas, "doing everything in her power to undermine the professional committee staff leading the investigation," and improperly firing two attorneys working on the investigation. Now, the GOP is mum on setting a date for the trial. Why?
This much is clear: Mad Maxine Waters' cronyism of color can't be whitewashed, no matter how long Washington stalls.