Posted on 10/11/2020 12:30:56 PM PDT by george76
Republican Joe Collins, a Navy veteran challenging Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters in California’s 43rd Congressional District, launched a campaign ad Saturday blasting the congresswoman for residing outside the district she represents while her constituents “suffer the consequences” of her policies.
“Maxine does not live in her district. But I do. I was born right here in South L.A., in a place Maxine refuses to live,” Collins says in the ad. “Maxine Waters does not drink our water. She does not breathe our air. And while she sits here in her mansion, our district is in ruins.”
...
Do you know where I am? Maxine Waters’ $6 Million Mansion.
Do you know where I’m NOT? Her District.
Mansion Maxine Waters doesn’t live in her District — I do.
My name is Joe Collins and I’m running for Congress against Maxine Waters.
...
Collins begins by introducing Waters’ multimillion-dollar home, which is located just outside the 43rd District’s boundary in the wealthy area of Hancock Park.
Collins then proceeds to walk through the district he is campaigning to represent, highlighting the challenges it has continued to face for decades as a result, he claims, of the policies of Waters, who has served in public office for more than 40 years.
“And why doesn’t Maxine Waters want to live in her own district? Because she doesn’t want to suffer the consequences of her own policies,” Collins says, pointing to spikes in deadly crime, a massive homeless population, and lacking education opportunities specifically for Latino and black school-aged children.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
She’s running ads on the radio (they’re absurd). I never remember her ever doing that.
She must have more chance of losing than ever to be running these ads.
Watched and tweeted the link.
MadMaxibe has had years to move into her district. But a plantation owner doesn’t live in the slaves’ quarters
I really liked his ad.
Wish republicans could create something like that. All the ads I’ve seen from R’s are lame.
Go Smokin’ Joe!!
He has courage.
The gal running in Baltimore is doing the same thing and its hitting home.
Truly!
They need to do what Dems do—appeal to the gut, not the brain!!
I’ve always thought that one of the requirements to run for a seat in the House of Representatives is to ACTUALLY live in the district you are elected to represent. Obviously I’ve been misinformed or it is no longer required.
...about time they stand up and start acknowledge this — DEMOCRATS bring FAILURE !
STOP VOTING FOR THEM - & - VOTE THEM OUT !!!
Good ad, hope it reaches a lot of people.
Not sure I follow that. The video this guy did was full of statistics showing just how bad it is in the district. Plus he showed people where that old hang lives...in a high house in a beautiful neighborhood. those are facts.
We don’t need term limits.
We need an honest, unbiased media who would inform us truthfully about the performance of our political leaders.
We haven’t had such a media for at least the last hundred years, if ever.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/119099-bank-at-center-of-waters-controversy-got-12m-bailout
BY SUSAN CRABTREE - 09/15/10 11:53 PM
CIRCA 2010——Husband’s Bank at center of Waters controversy got $12 million bailout despite failing reviews
A community bank at the center of an ethics investigation that has ensnared Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) received a $12 million bailout even though Treasury Department officials knew it had a record of failing to serve its community’s lending needs.
Boston-based OneUnited Bank had a history of receiving poor performance evaluations, and officials at Treasury and the FDIC were aware of the negative ratings and discussed them before doling out the loan, according to e-mails and other documents Judicial Watch obtained from the Treasury Department through a Freedom of Information Act request.
Waters is accused of intervening to help OneUnited secure a meeting with Treasury officials, even though her husband owned stock in the bank and previously served on its board. After a months-long investigation, the House ethics committee charged Waters with three counts of violating House ethics rules. The committee’s report also said Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) warned Waters about the conflict of interest and then advocated on behalf of OneUnited himself.
Waters denied any wrongdoing, mounted an aggressive defense and has opted to make her case in a public trial to take place sometime this fall.
One e-mail produced from the FOIA request sent from former Treasury Senior Adviser Michael Scott to Director of the Office of Financial Institutions Mario Ugoletti is dated Sept. 15, 2008, months before banks were selected to receive bailout funds. The e-mail cites a 2004 evaluation criticizing the bank’s service to the state of Massachusetts. The report noted that in 2002 and 2003, the bank administered just one loan.
“While the institution received a CRA rating of ‘Low Satisfactory’ on an overall basis, OneUnited Bank’s CRA rating for Massachusetts was ‘Needs to Improve’ for both the Lending Test and the Investment Test,” evaluators wrote in their report. “Under the Lending Test, the report stated that ‘OUB has done a poor job of meeting the credit needs of its [Boston, MA] assessment area. A review of the 2002 and 2003 HMDA
data revealed a total of one loan. There were no reported Community Development Loans (CDL) and any innovative or flexible lending programs were apparently ineffective.”
The report was equally critical of the bank’s failure to invest in any Boston-area entities, calling it a “concern.”
“In Florida, the institution received a CRA rating of ‘Substantial Noncompliance,’ which also represented the subordinate rating for the Lending Test…”
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) requires the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council to assess the institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The front page of each of the evaluation notes that it should not “be construed as an assessment of the financial condition of this institution.”
The Treasury documents, which were heavily redacted, also include a memo titled “Regulatory Financial Highlights” that contains detailed financial information related to OneUnited, as well as a summary of information collected by Treasury during its investigation of the bank. The documents show OneUnited was seeking government assistance because the company owned $52 million in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stock, which was “irrevocably impaired” when the government seized control of the two GSEs.
On Sept. 11, 2008, Scott e-mailed Ugoletti an e-mail that noted the CRA reports and also appeared to criticize OneUnited Bank for purchasing stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the first quarter of 2008, well after the negative CRA reports, when the housing market was already hemorrhaging.
“Also, it appears from her note below that they purchased all of heir [sic] Fannie/Freddie stock in the first quarter of this year. Interesting, huh?” he wrote.
Ugoletti later e-mailed an article to colleagues about an FDIC crackdown on OneUnited for unsound lending and excessive executive perks that included a 2008 Porsche and a housing allowance for a beach-front home in California.
A subsequent e-mail dated Dec. 30 from Ugoletti highlights OneUnited’s inclusion on an announced list of local banks receiving Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds.
Treasury has produced 639 pages in response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, but withheld 203 pages.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the documents suggest that without the powerful intervention of Frank and Waters, OneUnited would not have received the $12 million bailout.
“And these documents show that this so-called community bank wasn’t actually lending much to the ‘community’ that Frank and Waters were purporting to help,” he said.
The ethics committee did not criticize Frank in its report.
Waters did not comment for this article. She has admitted that she arranged a meeting between Treasury officials and the National Bankers Association (NBA), a trade association that represents 140 minority-owned banks, including OneUnited. But she said she would “never take extraordinary steps” to protect her husband’s investments.
Waters has claimed her only motivation for setting up the Treasury meeting was helping minority banks, an issue on which she has long been active. In the Wall Street reform bill, for example, Waters added several provisions to protect women and minorities.
“Neither my staff nor I engaged in any improper behavior; we did not influence anyone; and we did not gain any benefit,” Waters said. “This case is not just about me. This case is about access, about access to those who are not heard by people in power.”
Waters has asserted she had no role in OneUnited’s eventual receipt of more than $12 million in TARP funds and she was unaware of any poor credit and lending ratings it had received. She has also said members of Congress depend on regulatory agencies to investigate and ferret out bad practices in financial institutions.
Mikael Moore, Waters’s chief of staff and grandson, said e-mails he exchanged with OneUnited officials in late September cited in the ethics committee’s report do not indicate he was trying to help them secure TARP funds. He said an e-mail he sent to OneUnited contained a publicly available draft of the TARP legislation, not language drafted specifically to help the bank.
Moore pointed to an e-mail he received from Neel Kashkari, who at the time in question was the assistant Treasury secretary in charge of the Office of Financial Stability, which was established to buy troubled financial assets under TARP.
In the e-mail, Kashkari said the Sept. 9, 2008, meeting between OneUnited executives and Treasury officials did not in any way influence his decision to award the bank $12 million in federal funds.
“MadMaxibe has had years to move into her district. But a plantation owner doesn’t live in the slaves’ quarters.”
You can’t blame her, it’s dangerous there....
“We haven’t had such a media for at least the last hundred years, if ever.”
The wheels started to come off in 1965 or so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.