House GOP guts ethics panel

[Rotobeast]

(01-03-2017, 02:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You're on the top, mister.

I never figured you for a "Power Bottom".


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[GMDino]

So now what?

Are they gutless? Did they ACTUALLY listen to the people?  Or are the really listening to PE Trump?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2017/01/03/trump-slams-house-move-ethics-watchdog/96103514/

Quote:After public denunciations from watchdogs and criticism from President-electDonald Trump, House Republicans on Tuesday reversed course and dropped plans to gut an independent agency that polices potential ethical wrongdoing by lawmakers.


The controversy over GOP plans to sharply curtail the powers of the Office of Congressional Ethics overshadowed the opening day of Congress, where Republicans control both chambers and soon will welcome a Republican president for the first time in eight years.

The about-face came a day after House Republicans met behind closed doors and moved to rein in the office, approved by Congress in 2008 as an independent arm to investigate lawmakers after scandals sent three lawmakers and high-flying lobbyist Jack Abramoff to prison.

"House Republicans made the right move in eliminating this amendment that should never have seen the light of day," said David Donnelly, president and CEO of Every Voice watchdog group, on Tuesday. "Not one voter went to the polls in November hoping Congress would gut ethics oversight."

The reversal came after Trump took to Twitter to slam the timing of House Republicans' move, saying lawmakers should focus on other priorities.

"With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it may be, their number one act and priority," the incoming president tweeted Tuesday morning.

"Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS," he added, using an abbreviation for one of his campaign mantras, "drain the swamp."

Quote:[/url]

 Follow
Donald J. Trump 

@realDonaldTrump
With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it
10:03 AM - 3 Jan 2017

• 
  
   
• 
   5,8195,819 Retweets
   
• 
   19,04019,040 likes
  

Quote:

 Follow
Donald J. Trump 

@realDonaldTrump
........may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, healthcare and so many other things of far greater importance! #DTS
10:07 AM - 3 Jan 2017

• 
  
   
• 
   5,2835,283 Retweets
   
• 
  [url=https://twitter.com/intent/like?tweet_id=816300003442495488] 19,80819,808 likes
  

The plan to rein in the independent ethics body, known as OCE, was approved by House Republicans on Monday night and had been slated to go to the full House on Tuesday afternoon. The overhaul, crafted by House Judiciary Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., would have subjected the watchdog to oversight by the lawmaker-controlled House Ethics Committee and bar OCE from investigating anonymous complaints against House members.

It also sought to bar the ethics agency from reviewing potential criminal acts by members of Congress and instead would have required that it hand over those complaints to the House Ethics Committee or law enforcement.

Trump's objections to the House Republican action appeared to center more on timing of the move, rather than the substance of the decision to rein in the independent watchdog.

Asked whether Trump wanted House Republicans to strengthen the ethics office, Trump spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday morning that “it’s not a question of strengthening or weakening.”

“It's a question of priorities” and Trump’s “belief that with all that this country wants … to have happen, this really shouldn't be the priority," Spicer said.

His comments came before House Republicans reversed course

[Griever]

(01-03-2017, 12:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You start out saying "with respect", and then at no time do you address me as "Lord".  I have no idea if it's good or not, bt there seem to be some complaints from both sides of the aisle that it is not non-partisan.  I will add that I am not in favor of an outside group being able to levy any sort of punishment on Congressional members.  

he almost made it through with 0 typos

almost

[Bengalzona]

(01-03-2017, 01:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Alright you just made the list.  Ask Dino how much fun that is.

How is it an outside ethics committee if it's made up of congressional members?  Does that just mean it's not under control of Congress itself?

I did call you 'Lord' as you requested/demanded. 

My understanding is that the difference between this group and the Ethics Committee is primarily that this office has to be bi-partisan, whereas the Ethics Committee can be populated by the party in power in House and doesn't have to be bi-partisan. 

[Bengalzona]

(01-03-2017, 02:54 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I never figured you for a "Power Bottom".


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

I just had an image in my mind of what you were describing and I must say that I am now very disturbed! 

[Griever]

looks like they arent scrapping it now

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/index.html

[Bengalzona]

(01-03-2017, 05:24 PM)Griever Wrote: looks like they arent scrapping it now

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/index.html

Yeah. Just saw that. Apparently, there wasn't uniform support throughout the GOP for this (I heard that Paul Ryan was against the changes). 

Trump tweeted he was against it, and now claims that his tweet changed their minds. Not sure if that is true, but I do give him credit for picking the better side on this issue. 

[Rotobeast]

(01-03-2017, 05:14 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I just had an image in my mind of what you were describing and I must say that I am now very disturbed! 

Was the anus AC or DC ?
I need to know if you are a Tesla man.

[Bengalzona]

(01-03-2017, 05:46 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Was the anus AC or DC ?
I need to know if you are a Tesla man.

Is that how you got the name "Roto-beast"? 

[Rotobeast]

(01-03-2017, 05:50 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Is that how you got the name "Roto-beast"? 

It did come from a girl in high school.
I only got to test 2 of the 3 outlets though.

[Stewy]

(01-03-2017, 05:24 PM)Griever Wrote: looks like they arent scrapping it now

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/politics/office-of-congressional-ethics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/index.html

(01-03-2017, 05:29 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah. Just saw that. Apparently, there wasn't uniform support throughout the GOP for this (I heard that Paul Ryan was against the changes). 

Trump tweeted he was against it, and now claims that his tweet changed their minds. Not sure if that is true, but I do give him credit for picking the better side on this issue. 

I saw Trumps tweet about it on CNN.  Seemed to me, he wasn't necessarily against the action, but was against the timing.  He basically said paraphrasing "Don't you guys have better thing to do at this point?"

Personally, I don't have a problem with reforms that limit potential partisan witch hunts, but the committee has an important job I think, and needs to stay.

[Benton]

for years the GOP has said they needed both houses, the presidency and the scotus. They had to have it to do anything other than just vote no.

well... They got it. First thing they do? Move to take away what little oversight they have now that there's no balances.

[Belsnickel]

(01-03-2017, 06:22 PM)Stewy Wrote: I saw Trumps tweet about it on CNN.  Seemed to me, he wasn't necessarily against the action, but was against the timing.  He basically said paraphrasing "Don't you guys have better thing to do at this point?"

Personally, I don't have a problem with reforms that limit potential partisan witch hunts, but the committee has an important job I think, and needs to stay.

I agree with your assessment of Trump's opinion, that was my take as well. It should be noted, though, that the purpose of the OCE is to investigate ethics violations without partisan witch hunts. The bill would have made the OCE a more partisan tool rather than maintaining independence. MCs dislike the OCE because it is sometimes overzealous, which some reforms could help with, but the issue isn't with it being partisan.

[GMDino]

(01-04-2017, 03:35 AM)Benton Wrote: for years the GOP has said they needed both houses, the presidency and the scotus. They had to have it to do anything other than just vote no.

well... They got it. First thing they do? Move to take away what little oversight they have now that there's no balances.

...and then they voted no to changing it.  

[Belsnickel]

Goodlatte, and his 5th district counterpart whose name I cannot remember currently, have said the basis for the move is that every person, even MCs, are entitled to due process, which I agree with. I don't think the bill would have achieved anything other than neutering the OCE, though.

[Bengalzona]

(01-04-2017, 08:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I agree with your assessment of Trump's opinion, that was my take as well. It should be noted, though, that the purpose of the OCE is to investigate ethics violations without partisan witch hunts. The bill would have made the OCE a more partisan tool rather than maintaining independence. MCs dislike the OCE because it is sometimes overzealous, which some reforms could help with, but the issue isn't with it being partisan.

(01-04-2017, 03:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Goodlatte, and his 5th district counterpart whose name I cannot remember currently, have said the basis for the move is that every person, even MCs, are entitled to due process, which I agree with. I don't think the bill would have achieved anything other than neutering the OCE, though.

Yeah, the intent of the OCE was to create a non-partisan environment to review ethics complaints. But its other purpose is to make the information from ethics violations and complaints available to the public and to actually pursue investigation of complaints. Obviously, no one has a problem with information on a politician already convicted of an ethics violation being released to the public. The problem politicians have is with the public being notified about the complaints and investigations. Apparently, there have been some incidents where politicians were in campaign years and they have been investigated for unfounded complaints. There is a feeling that the announcements of the investigations have hurt the politician's chances of winning.

[GMDino]

(01-04-2017, 04:47 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah, the intent of the OCE was to create a non-partisan environment to review ethics complaints. But its other purpose is to make the information from ethics violations and complaints available to the public and to actually pursue investigation of complaints. Obviously, no one has a problem with information on a politician already convicted of an ethics violation being released to the public. The problem politicians have is with the public being notified about the complaints and investigations. Apparently, there have been some incidents where politicians were in campaign years and they have been investigated for unfounded complaints. There is a feeling that the announcements of the investigations have hurt the politician's chances of winning.

Like using private emails and running a child pron ring from a pizza shop?

[Bengalzona]

(01-04-2017, 05:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Like using private emails and running a child pron ring from a pizza shop?

Well, these would be actual official investigations of members of the House.

[GMDino]

(01-04-2017, 08:05 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Well, these would be actual official investigations of members of the House.

Benghazi then?

[Belsnickel]

(01-04-2017, 04:47 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah, the intent of the OCE was to create a non-partisan environment to review ethics complaints. But its other purpose is to make the information from ethics violations and complaints available to the public and to actually pursue investigation of complaints. Obviously, no one has a problem with information on a politician already convicted of an ethics violation being released to the public. The problem politicians have is with the public being notified about the complaints and investigations. Apparently, there have been some incidents where politicians were in campaign years and they have been investigated for unfounded complaints. There is a feeling that the announcements of the investigations have hurt the politician's chances of winning.

I definitely think there is some room for change with the OCE, but its independence is necessary. I have no doubt you agree, just kind of summing up my opinion. If Goodlatte's office would answer the phone I'd let him know, too. If only I weren't too lazy to walk the 30 yards to his district office.