Maxine Waters (D-CA) waiving some kind of card…

The ethics case against Rep.Maxine Waters, one of Los Angeles’ most enduring politicians, took another strange turn Friday as six members of the House Ethics Committee recused themselves from considering the charges against her.

As mentioned later, there was not any misdoings on behalf of the members of the distinguished committee. We believe that this may have been because they were in office while Waters was also in office.

Waters came under scrutiny for calling then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson during the financial crisis to set up a September 2008 meeting between his staff and representatives of minority-owned banks.

The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent body that referred the case to the House Ethics Committee, said the discussion at the meeting “centered on a single bank, OneUnited.” Three months later, OneUnited received $12 million in federal bailout funds.

All things being equal what other proof does anyone need? Rep. Maxine Waters is just about enshrined on Capitol Hill, having “served” her congressional district from almost a half century ago.

In addition, Waters’ husband, Sidney Williams, served on the OneUnited board from January 2004 to April 2008.

The ethics panel also accused Waters’ chief of staff, Mikael Moore, who is her grandson, of working to help the institution, even as Frank, then chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, urged Waters to “stay out of it” because of her husband’s ties to the bank.

Waters has defended her actions, saying she didn’t benefit financially and was acting on behalf of minority banks in general, not just OneUnited.

All five of the panel’s Republicans, including Chairman Jo Bonner of Alabama, and one Democrat took the unusual step of recusal from further involvement in the long-running case “out of an abundance of caution and to avoid even an appearance of unfairness,” Bonner wrote in a letter read from the House floor. Six new lawmakers were immediately assigned to the committee to help determine how to proceed on the Waters case.

Waters, a South Los Angeles political fixture since the 1970s, has been accused of intervening on behalf of a bank where her husband owned stock and served on the board. She declined to comment Friday but has denied wrongdoing and contended that the committee turmoil demonstrates that the case against her is weak. The case has taken on greater importance for the 73-year-old lawmaker, who is in line to succeed retiring Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts as the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee.

And that’s precisely what she’ll get…we wish we we’re half-joking but hey, insider trading, a president who spends recklessly on defunct energy companies, not to mention Charlie Rangel a representative just like Maxine Waters whose been serving in congress for roughly the same amount of time.

The investigation has been sidetracked twice — once by the committee’s decision to put off a trial to conduct further investigation and then by allegations of misconduct against the ethics staff, including charges that they communicated only with Republican committee members and withheld information from Waters’ defense team.

An outside lawyer was hired in July to examine the conduct of the secretive committee and its staff.

Though Washington lawyer Billy Martin has yet to complete his report, which will help determine whether the case against Waters proceeds, he recommended the recusals, according to Bonner’s letter.

“These recusal requests are not based on any indication of any wrongdoing or inappropriate partisanship by members,” the letter says, adding that the investigation has “not discovered any evidence to indicate actual bias or partiality by any current member or staff.”

But Bonner said that he and the other members were recusing themselves to “assure the public, the House and Rep. Waters that this investigation is continuing in a fair and unbiased manner.”

Current committee members and staffers have cooperated with the inquiry into of the panel’s conduct, according to Bonner. But, complicating matters, the letter said that “one necessary witness,” who was not named but is believed to be a former committee staffer, refuses to answer questions, citing the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination.

For further reading, research, and magnificent writing please see Michelle Malkin’s site for futher details. Mrs. Malkin is a long standing expert on matters relating to Maxine Waters as well as Rep. L. Sanchez another (D-CA).