House Republicans vote to rein in independent ethics office

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,139
5,074
136
http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/02/polit...hics-oversight-of-ethics-committee-amendment/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...pendent-ethics-office/?utm_term=.954c4187a4da

Defying the wishes of their top leaders, House Republicans voted behind closed doors Monday night to rein in the independent ethics office created eight years ago in the wake of a series of embarrassing congressional scandals.

The 119-to-74 vote during a GOP conference meeting means that the House rules package expected to be adopted Tuesday, the first day of the 115th Congress, would rename the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) as the Office of Congressional Complaint Review and place it under the oversight of the House Ethics Committee.

Under the proposed new rules, the office could not employ a spokesperson, investigate anonymous tips or refer criminal wrongdoing to prosecutors without the express consent of the Ethics Committee, which would gain the power to summarily end any OCE probe.

The OCE was created in 2008 to address concerns that the Ethics Committee had been too timid in pursuing allegations of wrongdoing by House members. Under the current House ethics regime, the OCE is empowered to release a public report of its findings even if the Ethics Committee chooses not to take further action against a member.

The move to place the OCE under the Ethics Committee’s aegis stands to please many lawmakers who have been wary of having their dirty laundry aired by the independent entity, but some Republicans feared that rolling back a high-profile ethical reform would send a negative message as the GOP assumes unified control in Washington. President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly promised to “drain the swamp” and has proposed a series of his own ethics reforms.

House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) opposed the amendment to the House rules package, speaking out against it in the Monday evening conference meeting, according to two people in the room.

But the measure’s sponsor, Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), said in a statement that it “builds upon and strengthens” the current arrangement and that it improves the due process rights for the House members under investigation and witnesses interviewed in the course of OCE probes.

“The OCE has a serious and important role in the House, and this amendment does nothing to impede their work,” Goodlatte said.

Goodlatte’s amendment to the House rules “provides protections against any disclosures to the public or other government entities,” according to a summary provided by his office, and also mandates that the Ethics Committee — not the OCE itself — make any referral of a potential criminal violation to law enforcement.

“Feedback from Members and staff having gone through review by the OCE has been that those under investigation need increased protection of their due process rights, greater access to basic evidentiary standards, and a process that does not discriminate against them for invoking those rights,” the summary said. “The amendment seeks to strengthen each of these needs while maintaining the basic core of OCE’s functions.”

The measure also prohibits limits the OCE’s jurisdiction to the previous three Congresses, aligning its statute of limitations to the Ethics Committee’s.

An OCE spokeswoman declined to comment Monday. Because Monday’s vote was taken in a private party meeting, there is no public tally of how members voted on the proposal.

Ethics watchdog groups warned that the amendment could undermine public confidence in Congress.

“Threatening its independence is a disservice to the American people who need a nonpartisan body to investigate the ethical failures of their representatives,” said Jordan Libowitz, a spokesman for Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a watchdog organization. “The fact that they do not want an Office with ‘Congressional Ethics’ in the name is a pretty good metaphor for how ethics scandals will be dealt with if this rule passes.”

Democrats, then in the House majority, established the OCE in 2008 in the aftermath of the lobbying scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff to conduct ethics investigations free from political influence. But in recent years, some members of Congress have sought to limit the office and its work.

At the start of the last Congress, Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.) pushed for a rule change to stress that people being investigated by the OCE could not be denied their constitutional rights and had a right to counsel. According to media reports, Pearce raised the objection because he felt a staffer in his office had been treated unfairly.

The OCE’s rules permit people under investigation to work through a lawyer.

Last summer, Pearce repeated such complaints during comments on the House floor, when he proposed an amendment to limit the OCE’s funding, arguing that it was justified by government-wide budget restrictions and the need “to give notice to the OCE that we’re watching what you’re doing.”

The pushback hasn’t come only from Republicans. In 2011, Rep. Mel Watt (D-N.C.) — who had been subject to an OCE investigation — drafted an amendment to slash funding from the OCE by 40 percent, calling the office “redundant and duplicative” of the House Ethics Committee. That amendment was rejected.

Democrats pounced Monday on the Republicans’ move. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement that the GOP “has acted to weaken ethics and silence would-be whistleblowers” and that the proposed arrangement “would functionally destroy” the OCE.

“Republicans claim they want to drain the swamp, but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House GOP has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions,” Pelosi said. “Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress.”

The House Ethics Committee is composed of sitting members of Congress, five Republicans and five Democrats, while the Office of Congressional Ethics is run by a six-member board with two alternates. One alternate position is vacant.

It does not have subpoena power, but its reports and investigations are often a first vetting in situations where members are alleged to have violated the rules of congressional conduct. Several of the cases reviewed by the OCE have been referred to the House Ethics Committee for further proceedings.

Unlike most congressional committees, the Ethics Committee is evenly divided between the majority and minority parties. A senior GOP aide not authorized to comment publicly on the matter noted Friday that because of that, Republicans could not act unilaterally to protect members of their own party.

But in the decades before the OCE was created, the Ethics Committee was routinely criticized for protecting lawmakers of both parties by sanctioning members in only the most egregious and well-publicized cases.

In the Senate, there is no equivalent of the Office of Congressional Ethics.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,945
20,215
136
This is sick. These scum are preparing themselves for their inevitable run for corruption.

Disgusting posters like Imported must be loving this. Who needs ethics if your plan is to destroy the country
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,842
9,088
136
Welcome to your new single-party republic of Trumpmenistan, led by our great Trumperor and his viziers. Glory to the republic!

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
Sounds like the GOP, now that they've found some power again, are going to spend endless days fucking with Nana.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,272
103
106
The house ethics committee is split evenly between R's and D's, so if I understand it correctly that prevents either party from using the ethics committee to shut down investigations into its members. Not quite sure about the implications of this amendment and why those who voted for it are for it, but the optics and timing of it don't look good.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The house ethics committee is split evenly between R's and D's, so if I understand it correctly that prevents either party from using the ethics committee to shut down investigations into its members. Not quite sure about the implications of this amendment and why those who voted for it are for it, but the optics and timing of it don't look good.
Problem is that neither party wants its dirty laundry aired, so the House Ethics Committee tends to prosecute only the very worst cases. Unless a scandal is limited to one party, neither party really wants it to come out. And if it's just one CongressCritter, unless it's really juicy and has legs, the HEC tends to say "boys will be boys" and sweep it under the table.

Before we drain the swamp, we're going to block it off with a big fence. But rest assured, on the other side of that fence there'll be some serious draining going on. You'll just have to wait until we drain it to find out what was in it.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
Well it appears nothing is to shameful for Republicans. The future looks bleak.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,890
642
126
The house ethics committee is split evenly between R's and D's, so if I understand it correctly that prevents either party from using the ethics committee to shut down investigations into its members. Not quite sure about the implications of this amendment and why those who voted for it are for it, but the optics and timing of it don't look good.

Let me build on what you've stated.

Two articles are linked in the OP but only one is quoted. Read the other article. First off, it's a proposal. Secondly, power in these matters may be shifted to other governmental agencies under certain circumstances which could be a good thing in that the House won't be policing its own.

"The proposal would bar the panel from reviewing any violation of criminal law by members of Congress, requiring that it turn over any complaint 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

And the ethics office would no longer be able to accept or investigate any anonymous reports of alleged wrongdoing by members of Congress."

Regardless, it's a good thread for the rage du jour. We'll have these frequently for the next eight years.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,812
49,498
136
Two articles are linked in the OP but only one is quoted. Read the other article. First off, it's a proposal. Secondly, power in these matters may be shifted to other governmental agencies under certain circumstances which could be a good thing in that the House won't be policing its own.

"The proposal would bar the panel from reviewing any violation of criminal law by members of Congress, requiring that it turn over any complaint 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

And the ethics office would no longer be able to accept or investigate any anonymous reports of alleged wrongdoing by members of Congress."

Regardless, it's a good thread for the rage du jour. We'll have these frequently for the next eight years.

Leave it to boomerang to try and deceptively spin this as a good thing.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,289
28,144
136
Sounds like Republicans are prosing to make the swamp bigger thereby looking like the swamp is being drained.

Of course the excuse makers will proceed in 3...2...1...

The one thing you can say compared to Republican administrations Obama's remained relatively scandal free.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,867
34,813
136
Making good on that pledge to reign in government.

Especially the parts of it that look at congresspeople doing shady shit.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,703
15,951
136
Problem is that neither party wants its dirty laundry aired, so the House Ethics Committee tends to prosecute only the very worst cases. Unless a scandal is limited to one party, neither party really wants it to come out. And if it's just one CongressCritter, unless it's really juicy and has legs, the HEC tends to say "boys will be boys" and sweep it under the table.

Before we drain the swamp, we're going to block it off with a big fence. But rest assured, on the other side of that fence there'll be some serious draining going on. You'll just have to wait until we drain it to find out what was in it.

The problem is the current office's investigations are public record (after a moderate amount of time) and the new office's record will be private.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,634
8,778
146
What I see wrong with this is that the complaints that the Republicans, and some Democrats, have raised about the OCE could have been addressed without the steps taken with this vote. Granting the House Ethics Committee the authority to wipe away any investigation they don't like is a step way too far and unnecessary in addressing the concerns that are being marched out this morning.

Let's remember what happened that lead to this panel being set up in the first place. The House Ethics Committee lacked the ability to properly address and investigate issues of ethics. Hell even the GOP speak and majority leader are against this. Open the matter to debate publicly and let the chips fall where they may.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,049
38,552
136
How funny is this bullshit coming from the 'Crooked Hillary' crowd?

Republicans are morally compromised idiots, and this news is a case in point. Disgusting.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,685
24,998
136
Investigations of crooked Hillary should be public. Investigations of the GOP house should be in secret.

Sounds like the swamp is being filled with sewage.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,215
6,818
136
Regardless, it's a good thread for the rage du jour. We'll have these frequently for the next eight years.

Four... or less, given that Trump seems bent on the kind of unethical behavior that even a Republican-led Congress would have to address. Assuming eight is the same kind of hubris that led the left to believe that Clinton would surely win given Trump's hatred, ignorance and gross incompetence.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,596
29,300
136
I seriously hope the entire rust belt crumbles into a fracking sink hole.
 
Feb 4, 2009
34,703
15,951
136
Four... or less, given that Trump seems bent on the kind of unethical behavior that even a Republican-led Congress would have to address. Assuming eight is the same kind of hubris that led the left to believe that Clinton would surely win given Trump's hatred, ignorance and gross incompetence.

This brings up the awkward questions, would Democrats rally to save Trump or would they prefer President Pence.
If Trump was "saved" by Democrats would he replace a bunch of cabinet people with Democrats?
Interesting thing to think about.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,596
29,300
136
This brings up the awkward questions, would Democrats rally to save Trump or would they prefer President Pence.
If Trump was "saved" by Democrats would he replace a bunch of cabinet people with Democrats?
Interesting thing to think about.
Doesn't matter. Every GOP politician is pure shit. They don't have a single policy that is good for the nation. They may focus on different priorities but every single one of them is bad for everyone that isn't loaded. As someone who is essentially loaded, I'm going to laugh and laugh as the GOP buttfucks every idiot that voted for him or refused to vote for Clinton. As for the people who did vote for Clinton but are still going to get buttfucked? Sorry, I did what I could, it's out of my hands. Direct your anger to the other two groups.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |