House GOPers Vote to Take Vote to See if Laws Apply to Them

Is there really any such thing as "an independent non-partisan watchdog group" in Washington DC?

 

"The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) is an independent, non-partisan entity charged with reviewing allegations of misconduct against Members, officers, and staff of the United States House of Representatives and, when appropriate, referring matters to the House Committee on Ethics. In all but one set of circumstances, the report and findings of the OCE Board must be publicly released. The OCE has a professional staff (hyperlink to staff bios) consisting primarily of attorneys and other professionals with expertise in ethics law and investigations. The mission of the OCE and its Board is to assist the House in upholding high standards of ethical conduct for its Members, officers, and staff and, in so doing, to serve the American people. Governed by an eight-person Board of Directors, Members of the OCE Board are private citizens and cannot serve as members of Congress or work for the federal government."

"The OCE reviews allegations of misconduct against House Members, officers, and staff and, when appropriate, refers investigations to the House Ethics Committee for further review."


So they already refer their findings to the committee.

How does this new proposal change that?

 

"The Goodlatte amendment still would allow the OCE to accept and review complaints, but it would bar the consideration of anonymous complaints."


While Speaker Ryan spoke out against the move to his fellow GOP lawmakers, his office defended the amendment, saying it provides "greater due process rights, clear timelines for consideration of complaints, and a basic level of oversight by the evenly-split bipartisan ethics committee. It does NOT remove the responsibility of the office to review complaints, carry out investigations, and make referrals to the ethics committee. The office will continue to operate in the new year and provide public accountability to Congress."



I see both positives and negatives in this change. The problem I see with publicizing unproven complaints from an anonymous is that it is an opportunity to smear the reputation of a congressman that may not have done anything wrong.

On the fence here.

 

Yes, I was pleased to see that Trump condemned the move. That shows some positive moral leadership. If he can continue this track, we will be the better for it.

 

Reacted without knowing all the details, maybe.

 

Trump's condemnation of this has helped my opinion of him, though I would not be surprised if we find that he has an angle somewhere.

 

I don't really care one way or the other. The House Committe on ethics is a joke. So is the so called "non partisan" Office of Congressional Ethics that allows themselve to be used to ruin reputations bsed on unproven anonymous allegations with no evidence of wrongdoing at all.