Republicans Vote to Hobble Independent Ethics Office

[Stoked]

This. Read what Trump actually did.

He didn't say "this isn't right."

He said, "why are you doing this now?"

Big difference.

It's also highly telling that he hits him over something he didn't do and before he was in office. I'm not a fan of his either but this is as bad as reading some of the defense of him on here.

It's desperation to fling anything you can at the wall and hope something sticks. Its pathetic. And simply not needed IMO. Plenty of real things to attack him over. Desperation.

 

[Stoked]

I will openly say that from what I read of this I hope that every member of congress that voted for this is voted out.

 

[babe]

And the decision has been reversed.
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/03/5080...se-gop-drops-weakening-of-house-ethics-office

rumor has it..... well, talk radio comments.... that the proposed "gutting" of the powers of the OCE actually amounted to a measure to include due process rights for accused congressmen in OCE proceedings, which have in some instances essentially amounted to trials without jury, media trials, and have resulted in political decisions to resign from office rather than contest false charges.

who knows. It could amount to actual muzzling of the OCE. The FBI and many other arms of law enforcement could still pursue criminal investigations all they wish. The OCE has infamously protected Pelosi and other congressional officeholders and employees from criminal charges of insider trading operations of her husband acting on congressional insider information as well as information coming into congress from the corporate world lobbying and legislative influence peddlers. The OCE is selective "enforcement" releasing only a part of it's investigations, sometimes showing partisanship of a curious sort. It smacks of needing reform...... It's a fox guarding the henhouse sort of institution.

https://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/pelosi-stock-insider-60minutes/2011/11/13/id/417848/

Trump did not want this issue up first ahead of important things.

 

[Boris]

rumor has it..... well, talk radio comments.... that the proposed "gutting" of the powers of the OCE actually amounted to a measure to include due process rights for accused congressmen in OCE proceedings, which have in some instances essentially amounted to trials without jury, media trials, and have resulted in political decisions to resign from office rather than contest false charges.

who knows. It could amount to actual muzzling of the OCE. The FBI and many other arms of law enforcement could still pursue criminal investigations all they wish. The OCE has infamously protected Pelosi and other congressional officeholders and employees from criminal charges of insider trading operations of her husband acting on congressional insider information as well as information coming into congress from the corporate world lobbying and legislative influence peddlers.

Trump did not want this issue up first ahead of important things.

LOL what a joke this "COMMITTEE" is. Let them scoff in there ignorance.

THIS IS A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE TO OVERSEE CONGRESS! It is the fox in the henhouse. It is more government waste. This is not some independent group it is insiders protecting there own.

Remember Maxine Waters? She was allowed to stay in power for THREE LONG YEARS while they "investigated". Does this make sense to anyone? 3 years in office while under investigation for financial corruption. Than when the smoke blows over all charges are magically dismissed.

 

[Boris]

I will openly say that from what I read of this I hope that every member of congress that voted for this is voted out.

Oof

 

[JazzGal]

My concern is that this will embolden Trump to continue governing via Twitter after he is in office.

I have no idea if there are valid reasons for reviewing how the Ethics Committee does business, and if there are I hope they are dealt with appropriately. The worrisome thing to me is how the first act of this version of the House is conducted in secret to seemingly protect themselves from their own bad behavior. I completely agree with Trump that there are more important issues at stake.

I have been worried that too much power in the hands of one party will result in these types of actions, and I am encouraged that the Republican leadership, our Tweeter-in-Chief, and the thousands of phone calls and emails sent to the Representatives from the public caused this action to be reversed. Maybe we will survive the next four years after all.

 

[Stoked]

Oof

They voted to exempt every member of congress. That's a terrible idea IMO.

 

[babe]

LOL what a joke this "COMMITTEE" is. Let them scoff in there ignorance.

THIS IS A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE TO OVERSEE CONGRESS! It is the fox in the henhouse. It is more government waste. This is not some independent group it is insiders protecting there own.

Remember Maxine Waters? She was allowed to stay in power for THREE LONG YEARS while they "investigated". Does this make sense to anyone? 3 years in office while under investigation for financial corruption. Than when the smoke blows over all charges are magically dismissed.

sorry I was editing my post while you quoted it, actually pursing online links on the subject, and came to the same estimation of "fox guarding the henhouse". It may be more than that, an actual tool for enforcing compliance voting on members who are not going along with "leadership" legislative pushes. . . . . A way insiders can effectively muzzle members who care to vote in line with their constituents' wishes instead of the "Agenda du jour"

 

[Boris]

They voted to exempt every member of congress. That's a terrible idea IMO.

So you believe a CONGRESSIONAL committee regulating CONGRESS is going to be productive, not bias, "independent"?

 

[babe]

They voted to exempt every member of congress. That's a terrible idea IMO.

Please tell us what you are talking about, and what you are reading. I suspect misinformation is behind what you're saying. You mean they voted to exempt themselves from all investigations of the OCE, or did they just vote for a procedural measure enabling them to respond to allegations and defend themselves from charges?

 

[Boris]

sorry I was editing my post while you quoted it, actually pursing online links on the subject, and came to the same estimation of "fox guarding the henhouse". It may be more than that, an actual tool for enforcing compliance voting on members who are not going along with "leadership" legislative pushes. . . . . A way insiders can effectively muzzle members who care to vote in line with their constituents' wishes instead of the "Agenda du jour"

Excellent point but those outraged do not care about the details. Only hate at republicans. If they read in to this for just five minutes they would see what a bad idea the OCE is.

 

[Stoked]

Please tell us what you are talking about, and what you are reading. I suspect misinformation is behind what you're saying. You mean they voted to exempt themselves from all investigations of the OCE, or did they just vote for a procedural measure enabling them to respond to allegations and defend themselves from charges?

With the current "media" that is always a possibility.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/poli...hics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/

Specifically this part:

"The proposal would have barred the panel from reviewing any violation of criminal law by members of Congress, requiring that it turn over complaints instead to the House Ethics Committee or refer the matter to an appropriate federal law enforcement agency. The House Ethics Committee would also have the power to stop an investigation at any point and bars the ethics office from making any public statements about any matters or hiring any communications staff."

The referral to law enforcement lessens it somewhat but I hold no faith in Congress to police themselves. None. This would completely neuter them in relation to congress.

Obviously due process, representation and all that are well and good and something they should have access and rights to.
[MENTION=970]babe[/MENTION] [MENTION=4486]Boris[/MENTION]

 

[green]

It's desperation to fling anything you can at the wall and hope something sticks. Its pathetic. And simply not needed IMO. Plenty of real things to attack him over. Desperation.

Huh? Have you even read what Trump wrote?

I'm not trying to fling anything and hope it sticks. I'm just writing what Trump wrote.

He didn't say he was against it. He said that making it the #1 priority was not a good thing.

This is where Trump is smarter than your average failed lawyer republican. Trump knows this is an issue you sneak through over the summer after you've won some good publicity points. It's not an issue you take up in January when you have no goodwill built up.

Again, He didn't say "this isn't right."

He said, "Why are you doing this now?"

I'm not attacking. I'm just restating what he wrote. If you don't like that, then your beef is with Trump and you and I feel the same.

Or do you not recognize this?

 

[Stoked]

Huh? Have you even read what Trump wrote?

I'm not trying to fling anything and hope it sticks. I'm just writing what Trump wrote.

He didn't say he was against it. He said that making it the #1 priority was not a good thing.

This is where Trump is smarter than your average failed lawyer republican. Trump knows this is an issue you sneak through over the summer after you've won some good publicity points. It's not an issue you take up in January when you have no goodwill built up.

Again, He didn't say "this isn't right."

He said, "Why are you doing this now?"

I'm not attacking. I'm just restating what he wrote. If you don't like that, then your beef is with Trump and you and I feel the same.

Or do you not recognize this?

lol, I recognize Thriller's need to blame him for everything that happens whether he did it or not. I have read what he tweeted so I know what was said. What he did was draw attention to it and make the Rs back down without throwing them all the way under the bus.

This law was not his doing and Thriller showed his desperation by taking a shot at him. Perhaps you don't understand that.

And who is to say that the OCE doesn't need some reform? I'm not informed enough and I seriously doubt anyone here is.

Why not hit him on things he actually proposes?

In short all I see is the desperate need to attack him over anything that can be spun against him. And no I am not a supporter, never was. I spoke on that often and loudly.

 

[Boris]

With the current "media" that is always a possibility.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/poli...hics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/

Specifically this part:

"The proposal would have barred the panel from reviewing any violation of criminal law by members of Congress, requiring that it turn over complaints instead to the House Ethics Committee or refer the matter to an appropriate federal law enforcement agency. The House Ethics Committee would also have the power to stop an investigation at any point and bars the ethics office from making any public statements about any matters or hiring any communications staff."

The referral to law enforcement lessens it somewhat but I hold no faith in Congress to police themselves. None. This would completely neuter them in relation to congress.

Obviously due process, representation and all that are well and good and something they should have access and rights to.
[MENTION=970]babe[/MENTION] [MENTION=4486]Boris[/MENTION]

Yah. This is like when Tea Baggers screamed that Obamacare put a special provision on congress TO STRIP THEM of there congress healthcare benefit an FORCED them on to Obamacare. What did Tea Baggers do? They claimed congress got a special subsidy even tho it is part of there compensation anyway. I heard them complaining for two months!

Oh an the vote was like 120 to 80 so not like "republicans" tried to push this through in secret.

 

[Stoked]

Yah. This is like when Tea Baggers screamed that Obamacare put a special provision on congress TO STRIP THEM of there congress healthcare benefit an FORCED them on to Obamacare. What did Tea Baggers do? They claimed congress got a special subsidy even tho it is part of there compensation anyway. I heard them complaining for two months!

Oh an the vote was like 120 to 80 so not like "republicans" tried to push this through in secret.

uh...ok?

 

[RJF]

My concern is that this will embolden Trump to continue governing via Twitter after he is in office.

I have no idea if there are valid reasons for reviewing how the Ethics Committee does business, and if there are I hope they are dealt with appropriately. The worrisome thing to me is how the first act of this version of the House is conducted in secret to seemingly protect themselves from their own bad behavior. I completely agree with Trump that there are more important issues at stake.

I have been worried that too much power in the hands of one party will result in these types of actions, and I am encouraged that the Republican leadership, our Tweeter-in-Chief, and the thousands of phone calls and emails sent to the Representatives from the public caused this action to be reversed. Maybe we will survive the next four years after all.

Kind of like how ACA was passed?

 

[Boris]

uh...ok?

Not everthing congress does that relates to congress HAS to be politicized an biased to the tenth degree.

also almost half of republicans in this "secret" meeting dissented, so...

 

[Stoked]

Not everthing congress does that relates to congress HAS to be politicized an biased to the tenth degree.

also almost half of republicans in this "secret" meeting dissented, so...

I never claimed it was secret. I agree it doesn't have to be but it is.

None of your comments really have anything to do with what I have said. Adios vato

 

[The Thriller]

Kind of like how ACA was passed?

Nonsense. You need to study history.

The ACA was the GOP's health care reform until a black democrat proposed it. Just google Heritage individual mandate. Or look at the plans that Sen Hatch proposed in response to Hillarycare in 93. Or what Romney did in Mass. or what Gingrich said about a Romneycare like model applied on a federal level. It's pretty obvious to those who care where the ACA was developed and by whom.

Furthermore, this notion that democrats refused to reach across the aisle is utterly dumbfounding.

Democrats invited republicans to participate in the legislative process. But they refused to participate because they wanted no part in helping to pass any bill that obama would get credit for. Remember, the very senate minority leader declared that their whole job was to make obama a one term president.

So republican media soured the public on the public option (which would've helped to keep costs down) and Justice Roberts declared that Medicaid expansion would be determined by individual states. Meaning, a state like Utah could have the option of refusing Medicaid expansion money and leave 100,000 Utahns too wealthy to qualify for regular Medicaid and too poor to purchase insurance even on the Obamacare market.

The misinformation on this subject is staggering. It's like republicans are already rewriting history that most of us lived through and still remember quite well.