House GOP moves to weaken independent Ethics watchdog

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Such an empty page.

Um... I think you've mixed the United States House Committee on Ethics with the Office of Congressional Ethics.

- - - Updated - - -

And we saw how good that did, huh? Reality and people don't give a damn. Trump will be blasted for every single Republican controlled congress misstep and that's all there is to it.

I don't doubt a single second about it. It seems as though 2016 is a horrible year solely because Trump. As if he was the single reason the world is in this state.

But we'll survive.

[Daelak]

Um... I think you've mixed the United States House Committee on Ethics with the Office of Congressional Ethics.

- - - Updated - - -



I don't doubt a single second about it. It seems as though 2016 is a horrible year solely because Trump. As if he was the single reason the world is in this state.

But we'll survive.

No, it's the OCE.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

No, it's the OCE.

Although the office does not have subpoena power, it has played a significant role in 2010 investigations concerning alleged ethics violations by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), and former Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.)

In fact, the OCE has been called to be closed by both Democrats and Republicans, mostly because it was partisan, from the same wiki page.

I thought I'd bold that part, because your quote makes people think the OCE actually has any kind of power. They don't.

[NYC17]

In fact, the OCE has been called to be closed by both Democrats and Republicans, mostly because it was partisan, from the same wiki page.

I thought I'd bold that part, because your quote makes people think the OCE actually has any kind of power. They don't.

Is it's presence not power within and of itself?

Also, as per your reply regarding Trump, again, what actual meaning does it have? How was it a waste of time?

[Daelak]

In fact, the OCE has been called to be closed by both Democrats and Republicans, mostly because it was partisan, from the same wiki page.

I thought I'd bold that part, because your quote makes people think the OCE actually has any kind of power. They don't.

So why the urgency to close it? I guess the sunshine project and other ethics advocacy groups must be the corrupt ones right?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Is it's presence not power within and of itself?

Also, as per your reply regarding Trump, again, what actual meaning does it have? How was it a waste of time?

I can't speak for him. But my guess would be that there are more pressing matters to deal that a secondary office with very little impact. It feels more like spite than actual necessary action. But that's my word, not his and I won't defend this position either.

So why the urgency to close it? I guess the sunshine project and other ethics advocacy groups must be the corrupt ones right?

If we knew why we wouldn't have this debate now would we?

[Daelak]

If we knew why we wouldn't have this debate now would we?

Oh right, this is such an intractable, unknowable reason why republicans would want to close down a non-partisan ethics investigation office. Maybe they want to repeal it and replace it?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Oh right, this is such an intractable, unknowable reason why republicans would want to close down a non-partisan ethics investigation office. Maybe they want to repeal it and replace it?

"non-partisan" has been debated by both republicans and democrats and the consensus is that the OCE does not fulfill their duty in keeping neutrality. In fact, the claim is that they believe the people being prosecuted are not having their rights respected.

While I'm all for a neutral non-partisan organization, let me doubt that one led by 5 democrats, 1 republican and 1 independent will be able to do so.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

They will regret it. One thing I have learned is when one said takes steps like this eventually they do lose and when they are the small guy all the laws they passed to keep people out when they were the big boy work directly against them.

[NYC17]

I can't speak for him. But my guess would be that there are more pressing matters to deal that a secondary office with very little impact. It feels more like spite than actual necessary action. But that's my word, not his and I won't defend this position either.



If we knew why we wouldn't have this debate now would we?

If the office has "very little impact" why was it such a high priority?

Strange, huh?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

If the office has "very little impact" why was it such a high priority?

Strange, huh?

Because the very little impact it had was partisan.

But, like Trump, I share the feeling that it's not high priority. No doubt some people are looking to protect their arses. They're in for a little surprise if they think that'll protect them, though.

[Daelak]

"non-partisan" has been debated by both republicans and democrats and the consensus is that the OCE does not fulfill their duty in keeping neutrality. In fact, the claim is that they believe the people being prosecuted are not having their rights respected.

While I'm all for a neutral non-partisan organization, let me doubt that one led by 5 democrats, 1 republican and 1 independent will be able to do so.

When both sides complain that means it is doing it's job. Why are you so surprised that democrats can effectively lead an objective office?

[ezgeze]

This move prevents people from making baseless anonymous accusations in order to start an investigation.

Don't start claiming the sky is falling unless you actually see evidence, a good 99% of the people here didn't even know this office even existed until it was blasted all over the media today. Give me a break.

[NYC17]

Because the very little impact it had was partisan.

But, like Trump, I share the feeling that it's not high priority. No doubt some people are looking to protect their arses. They're in for a little surprise if they think that'll protect them, though.

Something of such very little impact, whether partisan or not, wouldn't be such a high priority. This is basic logic. The impact it has was large enough to make it an immediate priority, one that they wished to hide in a night time vote in a rules package.

So again, strange huh?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

When both sides complain that means it is doing it's job. Why are you so surprised that democrats can effectively lead an objective office?

Like republicans, they've proved time and time again that they cannot. Obama's propaganda law is the perfect example of it, but their lack of ethics in the past election is probably even more damning.

A neutral ethic organization needs to be made of people outside the parties nominees. Simple as that.

- - - Updated - - -

Something of such very little impact, whether partisan or not, wouldn't be such a high priority. This is basic logic. The impact it has was large enough to make it an immediate priority, one that they wished to hide in a night time vote in a rules package.

So again, strange huh?

What you've just said is a complete and utter fallacy. You're according meaning to something that perhaps have none. It can be a simple retaliation against the democrats in a bid to remove what they've done in a significant move, even though the direct impact is not their objective.

[Zmaniac17]

You know, I don't even understand why people think this is a problem.

There are so many platforms now available online to leak government files - and I've seen Wikileaks do the same for the Republicans in the past. I see no reason for them not to do it again for the Republicans today.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people have already disagreed with you but let me add my voice to the pile.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

I'm pretty sure a lot of people have already disagreed with you but let me add my voice to the pile.

The only logical reason for distrust against Wikileaks is, quite frankly, only related to the fact that one party got bit over another. It's misplaced and a good example of how partisanship can blind people.

[Zmaniac17]

This move prevents people from making baseless anonymous accusations in order to start an investigation.

Don't start claiming the sky is falling unless you actually see evidence, a good 99% of the people here didn't even know this office even existed until it was blasted all over the media today. Give me a break.

It also prevents people from making legitimate anonymous accusations.

[TZucchini]

This move prevents people from making baseless anonymous accusations in order to start an investigation.

Don't start claiming the sky is falling unless you actually see evidence, a good 99% of the people here didn't even know this office even existed until it was blasted all over the media today. Give me a break.

It also deters insiders, aware of corruption, from coming forward, since they can no longer remain anonymous.

These are the individuals who would be most aware of any corruption occurring, and who would most need anonymous protection.

Great job, Congress!

[Daelak]

Like republicans, they've proved time and time again that they cannot. Obama's propaganda law is the perfect example of it, but their lack of ethics in the past election is probably even more damning.

A neutral ethic organization needs to be made of people outside the parties nominees. Simple as that.

A non-partisan ethics panel has annoyed by both parties, founded by a democrat, yet you think it's not operating well, when there has already been investigations linked in this thread. This panel has been supported by outside ethics advocacy group, but that isn't enough for you. Your threshold is artificially high because you don't want to admit that this office has been an effective deterrent in the legislative branch.