PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Witmo on January 03, 2017, 08:34:24 AM
-
Can't have something like ethics standing in their way.
-
The whole story:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-01-03/house-gop-votes-to-strip-ethics-office-of-independent-status
-
I wonder how effective that independent watchdog entity has been...
-
I wonder how effective that independent watchdog entity has been...
Apparently too effective,
-
Apparently too effective,
Can you actually cite any instances with regards to your remark?
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Congressional_Ethics
The Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), established by the U.S. House of Representatives in March 2008, is an independent entity charged with reviewing allegations of misconduct against members of the House of Representatives and their staff and, when appropriate, referring matters to the United States House Committee on Ethics. While currently composed of 5 Democrats, 1 Republican, and 1 Independent, the OCE remains a non-partisan organization.
Had to laugh on that one.
-
So fake news continues to dominate the minds of the left - talk about a misleading tag line.
That said, I agree with Trump that optics are poor, and the timing is not great - but the key issue is the history of partisan process abuse that must be addressed.
'Gimp
-
Not nearly the first liberal puppet mindlessly spouting the daily two-minutes hate. Tell me, do you sit or bend over with Nancy Pelosi's arm up your *** to her elbow? And do you enjoy it (NTTAWWT)?
-
Trump got them to drop this change.
-
Apparently too effective,
Do you have any evidence?
-
https://oce.house.gov/about/board-staff/
I agree with Trump. The first act of the 115th is to gut this office?
In the words of Lindsay Graham, "frickin stupid."
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Trump actually acted ethically and forced GOP to back off. I'm impressed. Good job.
-
Trump backed them down, don't agree with it, but it's nice they are at Trump's beck and call, maybe some good stuff will get done. Hopefully the republicans will restack the deck in that committee.
-
Apparently too effective,
You are utterly full of shit.... again.
The crackpot office is used to deny Congress members due process and allow 'investigative' techniques that would mke a junior grade detective blush with shame which is why you clowns of the progressive left love it so much.
-
You are utterly full of shit.... again.
The crackpot office is used to deny Congress members due process and allow 'investigative' techniques that would mke a junior grade detective blush with shame which is why you clowns of the progressive left love it so much.
Yeah, according to you the swamp is 100% populated by cleaner than the driven snow, upstanding citizens who are unfairly singled out for scrutiny by a partisan politically motivated group of leftist hacks. Too bad you're the one full of shit.
-
Oooos, I did it again - you're right, the only reason anyone would seek to do this is because they must be guilty or intent on doing bad things.
http://www.politico.com/story/2010/06/lawmakers-seek-to-gut-ethics-office-038345
Privately, Democratic and Republican lawmakers, and even some congressional leaders, acknowledge that there’s a strong sentiment to change rules that empower the office to publicize investigations and wreak havoc on lawmakers’ political lives.
“We might have to take a fresh look, at some point, at the authority of the OCE,” said North Carolina Democratic Rep. G.K. Butterfield, who is a member of both the CBC and the ethics committee.
Of course, nobody wants to be portrayed as loosening ethics in an election year, and Butterfield was quick to point out that change could come as members “promulgate rules for the 112th Congress” in January 2011.
That won’t stop lawmakers from venting.
The OCE is “out of control,” one House Republican told POLITICO. A Democrat close to Pelosi said the OCE was “way out of bounds” when it sent information to the Justice Department on an investigation into lawmakers’ ties to the defunct PMA lobbying group.
“They’re not supposed to be an independent prosecutor,” said one Republican lawmaker. “I think there’s a lot of regrets with having those people [OCE] there.”
Or is it racist to point out the Congressional Black Caucasians and Dem's tried to do essentially the same thing, 7 years ago - when they held all the levers of power in DC?
'Gimp
-
I think the outrage stems from the closed door session and the cloak and dagger, more than the act of fixing what may or may not be a flawed system.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
I think the outrage stems from the closed door session and the cloak and dagger, more than the act of fixing what may or may not be a flawed system.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
There was just much more important stuff to begin working on than to bring this up this early in the game, if at all frankly. Don't do anything fishy and you have nothing to worry about.
-
There was just much more important stuff to begin working on than to bring this up this early in the game, if at all frankly. Don't do anything fishy and you have nothing to worry about.
Exactly.
So far, the 115th congress has both disappointed and not at all surprised me. Very sad.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Exactly.
So far, the 115th congress has both disappointed and not at all surprised me. Very sad.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Wait until they repeal Obamacare. Then you will be VERY disappointed. I won't be.
-
For those who are hyperventilating about the House GOP's aborted attempt to reign in the Office of Congressional Ethics, I linked the story above from 2010, only a couple years after the Democrat's created it - the fundamental issue is that the OCE has been weaponized and has no limitations on its ability to publicize any investigation at any stage.
I personally believe that was the intention all along when the Dem's created it, to use it against the Republicans, but it has been abusive of members from both sides of the aisle - the timing and optics of this latest attempt to curtail the OCE were poorly managed, and Trump was correct to encourage them to not make this their first act, but the change is needed to afford even congresscritters the same innocent until proven guilty protections the rest of us enjoy and that means OCE should be changed.
To clarify - there is already a House Committee on Ethics, the OCE was founded in 2007, by the Dem's, because they wanted to have a means to publicize ethics violations which the HCOE is unable to do - but only a couple years later they themselves sought to gut it because they were finding it could go after anybody.
'Gimp
-
Wait until they repeal Obamacare. Then you will be VERY disappointed. I won't be.
Obamacare repeal is the least of my concern.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Obamacare repeal is the least of my concern.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
Then you are farther gone than I thought. It is a huge drain on working people, and companies. It has forced many companies to either not hire, or hire only part time to avoid Obamacare costs. Again, you are either very naïve, or in way over your head, or both.
Obamacare is an economy, and job killer.
-
Then you are farther gone than I thought. It is a huge drain on working people, and companies. It has forced many companies to either not hire, or hire only part time to avoid Obamacare costs. Again, you are either very naïve, or in way over your head, or both.
Obamacare is an economy, and job killer.
Your thoughts of me are no business of mine.
Your lack of knowledge in the lawmaking process does concern me. Perhaps you should start perusing TheHill.com instead of Brietbart.com?
That being said, the 115th's Senate vote for the repeal of the PPACA was a certainty. If it makes it to the House before 1/19 then it will be a fruitless gesture. Even if it makes it to POTUS afterward, it must still be signed into law. Hence, I couldn't give a crap about it because nothing of substance happened. Yet.
I'm referring to the 115th's actions that have happened and have substance. You won't find that information on your "real" news sites.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
Then you are farther gone than I thought. It is a huge drain on working people, and companies. It has forced many companies to either not hire, or hire only part time to avoid Obamacare costs. Again, you are either very naïve, or in way over your head, or both.
Obamacare is an economy, and job killer.
It also brought about the 29 hour work week.
-
It also brought about the 29 hour work week.
Reference your comment.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/yes-some-companies-are-cutting-hours-in-response-to-obamacare/
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
The funniest thing is the Orange Overlord didn't object so much to the vote itself as to the priorities. Still, we know who's tune the Congressional GOP is following.
-
I think the outrage stems from the closed door session and the cloak and dagger, more than the act of fixing what may or may not be a flawed system.
I think the outrage stems from the false (spread by the Democrats) that Republicans were attempting to shut down the office.
-
I think the outrage stems from the false (spread by the Democrats) that Republicans were attempting to shut down the office.
you mean the liberals were spreading fake news?
-
you mean the liberals were spreading fake news?
Naw, never could happen......... ::)
-
The funniest thing is the Orange Overlord didn't object so much to the vote itself as to the priorities. Still, we know who's tune the Congressional GOP is following.
Why didn't you ever call Obama the "Black Overlord"? Or Chocolate Commie? C'mon Michael, immaturity seems to be your strongest suit lately.
-
Why didn't you ever call Obama the "Black Overlord"? Or Chocolate Commie? C'mon Michael, immaturity idiocy seems to be your strongest suit lately.
FTFY
-
I think the outrage stems from the false (spread by the Democrats) that Republicans were attempting to shut down the office.
The title of the thread tells it like it is. The rules changes that the GOP endorsed would have taken any power the OCE had away from it so that the majority party in the ethics committee could have buried any ethics violations where they wouldn't have ever seen the light of day. As it stands now, the OCE can at least publicize their findings so that the Ethics committee is answerable for its decisions to pursue or not pursue ethics violations.
-
The title of the thread tells it like it is. The rules changes that the GOP endorsed would have taken any power the OCE had away from it so that the majority party in the ethics committee could have buried any ethics violations where they wouldn't have ever seen the light of day. As it stands now, the OCE can at least publicize their findings so that the Ethics committee is answerable for its decisions to pursue or not pursue ethics violations.
Sorry, but you are an idiot. The change was endorsed by both parties because what seemed to be a good idea in 2007 actually wasn't. Your attempt to spin this as Republican malfeasance is as transparent as it is pathetic. When I said that you needed to get better this, this is. It an example.
-
Sorry, but you are an idiot. The change was endorsed by both parties because what seemed to be a good idea in 2007 actually wasn't. Your attempt to spin this as Republican malfeasance is as transparent as it is pathetic. When I said that you needed to get better this, this is. It an example.
Yeah, first order of business, let's eviscerate this pesky ethics watchdog so that we can get on with the business of being Democrat and Republican politicians policing ourselves. I'm sure there were plenty of crooked Democrats supporting crooked Republicans but only t he Republicans were stupid enough to try to do it this way.
-
I think the outrage stems from the false (spread by the Democrats) that Republicans were attempting to shut down the office.
The Democrats spread the outrage?
The Republican Party's standard bearer is the one who outed his party members via his favorite social media platform!
But, yeah, because Democrats. You go with that.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Why didn't you ever call Obama the "Black Overlord"? Or Chocolate Commie? C'mon Michael, immaturity seems to be your strongest suit lately.
My favorite is "Mocha Jesus." ;)
And Trump is the God-Emperor Ascendant to the Cherry Blossom Throne.
Jus' for fun. :)
-
I think the outrage stems from the closed door session and the cloak and dagger, more than the act of fixing what may or may not be a flawed system.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
I guess this rises to the same degree fo outrage that Hilary brought down on the Republicans when GWB let go DOJ seven lawyers, all appointed by Bill Clinton, to the point that she demanded hearings into it, forgetting - of course - that her husband fired EVERY lawyer left over from G.H.W. Bush.
-
I guess this rises to the same degree fo outrage that Hilary brought down on the Republicans when GWB let go DOJ seven lawyers, all appointed by Bill Clinton, to the point that she demanded hearings into it, forgetting - of course - that her husband fired EVERY lawyer left over from G.H.W. Bush.
Okay, ignoring the fact that it's difficult if not impossible to verify your claims, how does the firing of an administration's attorneys (an executive branch privilege) relate to gutting the power of an independent legislative ethics watchdog?
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
Okay, ignoring the fact that it's difficult if not impossible to verify your claims, how does the firing of an administration's attorneys (an executive branch privilege) relate to gutting the power of an independent legislative ethics watchdog?
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
I guess critical thinking skills is one of those things you must be forced to abandon to become a true blue progressive.
-
Yeah, first order of business, let's eviscerate this pesky ethics watchdog so that we can get on with the business of being Democrat and Republican politicians policing ourselves. I'm sure there were plenty of crooked Democrats supporting crooked Republicans but only t he Republicans were stupid enough to try to do it this way.
I would agree it was politically stupid. But if you believe that only crooked politicians supported this then you are either a massive pessimist or an arrogant Pollyanna.
-
The Democrats spread the outrage?
The Republican Party's standard bearer is the one who outed his party members via his favorite social media platform!
But, yeah, because Democrats. You go with that.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
So now Trump is your source of all media information? The liberal (Democrat) "news" people had spun this long before Trump weighed in on it.
-
I guess critical thinking skills is one of those things you must be forced to abandon to become a true blue progressive.
I guess when one is a partisan hack with the world view not unlike passing through Bernoulli's tube, he can make claims about anything and it will make sense.
To him at least.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
So now Trump is your source of all media information? The liberal (Democrat) "news" people had spun this long before Trump weighed in on it.
No, Trump is my source for information about the POTUS-e.
My sources for news information reported his tweets and congressional actions at the same time. I don't know which happened first, but I do credit Trump for what he did. And he did the right thing.
Sent from my iPhone . Squirrel!!
-
I guess critical thinking skills is one of those things you must be forced to abandon to become a true blue progressive.
I just realized why I visit this board--it's to get a good laugh. "Critical thinking skills" being touted by Number7, priceless.
-
I just realized why I visit this board--it's to get a good laugh. "Critical thinking skills" being touted by Number7, priceless.
Did or did not the Congressional Black Caucus, 100% Democrat, seek the same thing in 2010.
This is a yes or no question.
'Gimp
-
Did or did not the Congressional Black Caucus, 100% Democrat, seek the same thing in 2010.
This is a yes or no question.
'Gimp
But the Russians tried to influence them!
(sorry, couldn't help myself)
-
Did or did not the Congressional Black Caucus, 100% Democrat, seek the same thing in 2010.
This is a yes or no question.
'Gimp
No, it is not simply a yes or no question. You know the answer to this question, and I know why you are asking. The answer is more convoluted than you think.
YES, CBC members in 2010 introduced a resolution to limit the power of the OCE. It had no support from House Democratic leadership, and at the proposal of the bill, twenty of the forty two members of the CBC supported the resolution. Less than half of the CBC. House Whip Jim Clyburn, a CBC member in 2010, didn't support the measure and neither did Speaker Pelosi. It never made it further than a headline or two for a day and fulfilled a week's worth of programming on conservative media outlets (I'm just spitballing on this one). The resolution died soon after introduced.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
No, it is not simply a yes or no question. You know the answer to this question, and I know why you are asking. The answer is more convoluted than you think.
YES, CBC members in 2010 introduced a resolution to limit the power of the OCE. It had no support from House Democratic leadership, and at the proposal of the bill, twenty of the forty two members of the CBC supported the resolution. Less than half of the CBC. House Whip Jim Clyburn, a CBC member in 2010, didn't support the measure and neither did Speaker Pelosi. It never made it further than a headline or two for a day and fulfilled a week's worth of programming on conservative media outlets (I'm just spitballing on this one). The resolution died soon after introduced.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
Mark I appreciate the answer but it is yes or no - that they failed or that it did not have 100% support at the time is irrelevant other than that is the same situation as the recent GOP approach, also not 100% supported, and also not successful. Simple fact is that the first attempt to gut this office was from the Democrats themselves, 7 years ago.
The real issue is that the Dem's created OCE, in 2008, for the express purpose of weaponizing ethics investigations because it is against the law for HCOE to share details during an investigation - the only problem is, as it always has been, they expected to always be in control of everything but the OCE actually investigated ethics breaches of Dem's as well as Republicans, the CBC felt singled out and pushed for similar limitations as were recently proposed, in 2010.
There is already an office responsible for handling these types of issues (HCOE), and it actually has rules similar to the innocent until proven guilty protections we mere proles enjoy - that was not enough for the Dem's and so they created OCE thinking they could use it against Republican's by making accusations, in public.
'Gimp
-
Mark I appreciate the answer but it yes or no - that they failed or that it did not have 100% support at the time is irrelevant other than that is the same situation as the recent GOP approach, also not 100% supported, and also not successful. Simple fact is that the first attempt to gut this office was from the Democrats themselves, 7 years ago.
The real issue is that the Dem's created OCE, in 2008, for the express purpose of weaponizing ethics investigations because it is against the law for HCOE to share details during an investigation - the only problem is, as it always has been, they expected to always be in control of everything but the OCE actually investigated ethics breaches of Dem's as well as Republicans, the CBC felt singled out and pushed for similar limitations as were recently proposed, in 2010.
There is already an office responsible for handling these types of issues (HCOE), and it actually has rules similar to the innocent until proven guilty protections we mere proles enjoy - that was not enough for the Dem's and so they created OCE thinking they could use it against Republican's by making accusations, in public.
'Gimp
Gimp, I don't disagree with you about the OCE. I don't disagree that a small fraction of Democrats attempted gutting the office seven years ago. But the comparison isn't as clear cut, at least in my eyes. It's not the same situation. In 2010 the resolution was public from the first minute it was introduced. In 2016 the public didn't know of the resolution until after the closed door session terminated.
My beef is with how it went down. Politically, it was stupid. And it made GOP representatives look stupid. It took the electorate's phone calls to their representatives and the POTUS elect to get GOP representatives to realize this, but realize their stupidity they did.
And as a result the POTUS elect has earned some of my respect.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
-
I just realized why I visit this board--it's to get a good laugh. "Critical thinking skills" being touted by Number7, priceless.
It is quite impossible for you to contemplate.
-
Gimp, I don't disagree with you about the OCE. I don't disagree that a small fraction of Democrats attempted gutting the office seven years ago. But the comparison isn't as clear cut, at least in my eyes. It's not the same situation. In 2010 the resolution was public from the first minute it was introduced. In 2016 the public didn't know of the resolution until after the closed door session terminated.
My beef is with how it went down. Politically, it was stupid. And it made GOP representatives look stupid. It took the electorate's phone calls to their representatives and the POTUS elect to get GOP representatives to realize this, but realize their stupidity they did.
And as a result the POTUS elect has earned some of my respect.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
For at least the second time today, I agree with you. If the R's wanted to take down the OCE, they should have first made their case in front of the public. I also agree with Trump that with all the problems we are facing today, this action was not something that should have been taken on so early . There are more important issues to address.
-
Gimp, I don't disagree with you about the OCE. I don't disagree that a small fraction of Democrats attempted gutting the office seven years ago. But the comparison isn't as clear cut, at least in my eyes. It's not the same situation. In 2010 the resolution was public from the first minute it was introduced. In 2016 the public didn't know of the resolution until after the closed door session terminated.
My beef is with how it went down. Politically, it was stupid. And it made GOP representatives look stupid. It took the electorate's phone calls to their representatives and the POTUS elect to get GOP representatives to realize this, but realize their stupidity they did.
And as a result the POTUS elect has earned some of my respect.
Sent from my iPad . Squirrel!!
We can disagree about the minor elements, I also felt it was a poor first action and that the optics were bad, not surprising since the Republicans don't seem to learn a damn thing about how to manage public image - had they explained it I think it would not have been objected to.
I also stated very early that Trump was right to point out there are far more important things to deal with - but I think fundamentally OCE needs to go and I hope that the House does get back around to dealing with it, but in a more intelligent way.
'Gimp
-
Why didn't you ever call Obama the "Black Overlord"? Or Chocolate Commie? C'mon Michael, immaturity seems to be your strongest suit lately.
I liked the Obaminator too much to use anything else.
-
I liked the Obaminator too much to use anything else.
But that's not derogatory like your names for Trump who ISN'T EVEN IN OFFICE YET. Obama has done eight years of catastrophic damage to the U.S. that now Trump has to try to undue. Nice that you won't acknowledge that.