House GOP guts ethics panel

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Nope just because you refuse to see he played you all like a fiddle myself and others will be here for at least the next four years pointing it out.
My question is at what point will you all realise this and stop defending him? If ever?.
Heck you all should be demanding he releases his tax records to make sure he doesn't make money by being the president but noooo you all ignore it just because it aint Clinton.

I know I voted for Trump not because he will MAGA but so he can tear things down. One thing I have seen in my life is that those in positions of high power will always seek more power. My hope is that more people will wake up to politics and get pissed off enough to get involved.

More of the masses have already seen a total reversal in his rhetoric during the campaign. Things like this story, right or wrong, are incredibly bad optics. I am sure more topics will come which are bad to look at.

I know Trump is very narcissistic as well as Clinton. But if Clinton ran against the devil himself I would have voted for the devil. I could not bare to usher in another 4 years of the same so I voted the nuclear option in hopes Trump blows things up and though he isn't even POTUS yet Trump and crew are doing exactly one of the things I knew he would do. Grab more power.

Like the Tom Cruises remake of War of the Worlds when the Martian machine crawled out of the ground and started revving up its weapons. I can hear that awesome gut buzzing ascending whine and I know soon things are going to get blasted for all citizens to see.

Yeah...do away with the ethics committee, it was only for show anyway. Checks and balances, pfft! Too inconvenient. It beggars belief, the arrogance and the conceit of this move. Anything goes now, with no real law or legislation that can be applied to stop it.

For the ordinary man and woman it is do as they say, not as they do. I would suggest you all please yourselves, because the republicans have just declared anarchy on ethics and morals, so why should you stick to them? In fact, you would be utterly foolish to do so. This is tearing up the social contract. There is no consensus, no agreement, and absolutely there can be no trust at all.

It has always amused me, that politicians take public money and simply do with it as they please, and no oversight whatsoever.

"How many chickens are there in the coop?", you ask the fox.
"Plenty!" The fox replies, licking his lips.
"Oh okay. I'll just give it a quick check, then." You say.
"Actually, that is not allowed, you need to go through the proper channels first, before you look.!
"So who do I go and see so I can check."
"No one."
"So there's no oversight, then?"
"Of course there is, you ask me." Says the fox. "You can trust me."

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: DeathSlayer
Nope just because you refuse to see he played you all like a fiddle myself and others will be here for at least the next four years pointing it out.
My question is at what point will you all realise this and stop defending him? If ever?.
Heck you all should be demanding he releases his tax records to make sure he doesn't make money by being the president but noooo you all ignore it just because it aint Clinton.

Get used to hearing "at least it's not Clinton". A lot of people will do well under Trump, but I'm not sure that he will prove to be the savior that 'the great unwashed' are expecting. It also seems like that is starting to sink in. Despite all of this crowing about liberal butt-hurt...am I the only one that is picking up a growing sense of unease from the right? They'll continue to blame Hillary so that they won't have to blame themselves.

As to the OP? The Donald may not have written the ethics legislation, but he will surely be judged by his response to it.

...and in other news, Corn futures continue to rise.

originally posted by: liveandlearn
a reply to: Metallicus



If Bob Goodlatte has not been investigated it needs to start now.

We also need to pay attention to those who vote for this amendment.

The Amendment was voted on in a secret ballot..and won approval to be included in the new congressional rules.
We know Bob Goodlatte sponsored the amendment..
And several outlets reported that Paul Ryan opposed the amendment..
But we will never know who voted for or against it..

More detail as to what they did here..

The amendment also makes other changes to the OCE, requiring that the office get permission from the ethics committee in order to release its findings to the public and prohibiting the office from employing any press or communications staffer.

It also prohibits the OCE from accepting anonymous tips from citizens,
as well as congressional staff and other potential whistleblowers.

It prevents the office from investigating any potential violations of criminal law, which they must instead pass on to the committee (congress), which would then vote on whether to send those complaints to law enforcement.

If adopted, the amendment also requires the new OCE to stop investigating any potential violations if they receive a written request from the committee. (Congress).

www.buzzfeed.com...

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

The blame Hillary card can only work for so long. Even Obama wasn't able to ride the "I inherited a bad situation from Bush" card forever. I imagine that the blame Hillary card will work for even LESS time than the blame Bush card did too, only because Hillary wasn't actually elected. So any comparisons to how she'd run the country would be purely speculative and thus irrelevant to reality.

a reply to: 3daysgone

If you can't see why this is bad then you must not be doing much thinking. You probably think deregulation is a good thing as well.

This is just a coincidence that gutting ethics is the first law out of gate. Lol.

a reply to: Tardacus

They have convicted a few. The committee creates and enforces ethical rules to help avoid corruption and bribery. Which was beginning to run rampant throughout congress and will continue and only get worse off they get this passed. Saying we don't need this committee is like saying a low crime area needs zero police enforcement. Which would never happen. So why should we let our law makers go un policed

A quick google search shows they can remove those individuals found guilty from Congress and effectively end their political careers.

originally posted by: Indigo5
The Amendment was voted on in a secret ballot..and won approval to be included in the new congressional rules.

Well then, what could possibly go wrong?

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck_javascript:news()

originally posted by: Indigo5
The Amendment was voted on in a secret ballot..and won approval to be included in the new congressional rules.

Well then, what could possibly go wrong?

"Drain the Swamp" Donny...In his leaked New Years Eve speech at his $500 per plate party...Gave a speech thanking the Dubai Business man paying him millions in "Licensing Deals" this year (guess he only likes Muslims who bribe him) and gave the speech on stage while standing next to Joey "No Socks" Cinque...Mobster and Gambino Family associate.

It's a steady stream...The next 4 years will make Nixon look like the Pope..

www.nydailynews.com...

theweek.com...

Edit to add: I alternate between fascination and revulsion in observing that any single one of Trump's weekly/daily bold displays of "untouchable" attitude regarding "unprecedented" ethical breeches, conflicts of interest and corrupt associates would have had the right wing spinning for years here on ATS...and yet NONE of Trumps proud corruption warrants even a passing glance because he simply stroked them ideologically. It was never about corruption or draining the Swamp...The right wing just wanted to feel good about their anger, they wanted affirmation...and Trump rightly predicted if he gave that to them, he could get away with anything. This doesn't end well for we the people or Trump. I think he has underestimated the American public. We will see.

a reply to: 3daysgone

No that just makes the people that voted for him idiots. It is no coincidence that many of his voters are from less educated rural areas. Sorry but being the king of the idiots isn't much an accomplishment nor does it mean he is smart in any way.

The only way I would ever call him smart. Is if the way he behaves "off script" is all an act to appeal to the ever growing mass of idiots in this country. Ya know the ones that say " I like him he speaks to my ideals" or in other words he speaks at a 4th grade level so I can understand what he is saying. Oh and he yells and waves his hands which helps keep short attention spans at bay.

I just got an alert on my phone from NY TImes, about a tweet from the Donald. In response to the news of gutting the Ethics Office;

"We have more important things to do than weaken the Ethics Office."

That's it? That's the stand he takes on the issue? Is that going to be his standard response, just blow the issue off as "unimportant"? Ethics oversight must be below his top 100 list of priorities! Is anyone really surprised?

In this entire thread no one has rebutted, nor even mentioned, the GOP's arguments for removing this committee, instead using the issue to smear in the spirit of Nancy Pelosi.

GOP Rep. Hal Rogers, the Appropriations Committee chairman, told reporters he backed the proposal because "it's the right thing to do." Rogers said there were "numerous examples" of members "who were falsely accused by this group who had to spend a fortune to get their good name restored so I think there's been an abuse."

Texas Congressman Bill Flores also backed the change, saying the panel is "out of control‎, we don't even get constitutional rights, constitutional protections. They don't tell us who accuses us and they leak the data -- they are out of control."

According to Rogers and Flores, members have been using the anonymous accusations in an unethical fashion, falsely accusing their peers.

originally posted by: Indigo5
It's a steady stream...The next 4 years will make Nixon look like the Pope.

In truth, I don't anticipate a Russian-style kleptocracy a la Putin, nor do I wish for it. What I do expect is that Donald Trump will not be of a mind to extricate the middle and lower classes from this current economic morass. Nor do I think that the social conservatism that looms behind him will help matters, either.

But then, I have the luxury of peeking over the fence at the neighbours, don't I? I'll be watching with interest.

a reply to: testingtesting

Which is why I don't understand why there wasn't an uproar. As a billionaire with business ties all over the world his taxes are just as important, if not significantly more so. Yet all you hear from trump supporters is that it is a pointless tradition and that they don't even understand why it should be done.

This is what the dumbing down of America gets I guess. As long as we don't start watering crops with Gatorade or start a nuclear war. Ican only hope and pray we are able to make it through the next 4 years.

originally posted by: MOMof3
This is just a coincidence that gutting ethics is the first law out of gate. Lol.

Putin is laughing all the way to the Kremlim.....seems he now has the formula for creating massive upheaval in politics of western countries......he knows how to give dumbasses a voice

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
According to Rogers and Flores, members have been using the anonymous accusations in an unethical fashion, falsely accusing their peers.

Certainly in that case you must have multiple examples of where members of congress were unfairly smeared or accused?

Can you provide one?

ALSO...How outright corrupt does this move have to be when the indisputably conservative and partisan JUDICIAL WATCH calls it a corrupt action by the GOP?

Judicial Watch Calls Upon House to Retain Congressional Ethics Office
twitter.com...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I think the rest of us see it as self preservation. They saw how well gossip and lies destroyed Hillary Clinton's reputation.

a reply to: Indigo5

Like I said, the arguments of the GOP haven't been addressed nor rebutted, and they were conveniently left out of the OP. Surely offering both sides of the story is the ethical thing to do, especially before engaging in a smear campaign that suspiciously resembles Nancy Pelosi's.