The OCE has no judicial power, it just exists to review information and make recommendations to the House Committee on Ethics. It looks like all this accomplishes is making it harder for ethics violations to come to light.

Quote:Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.

“This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/pol...epage&_r=1

(01-03-2017 12:40 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The OCE has no judicial power, it just exists to review information and make recommendations to the House Committee on Ethics. It looks like all this accomplishes is making it harder for ethics violations to come to light.

Quote:Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.

“This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/pol...epage&_r=1

I'm sure to Mssr Morgan, and his ilk, this IS yuuuge. He figured he'd now be cashin in on his work at the OCE and that now, apparently, this one swamp is being drained. Good.

Time the K street casinos, taxpayers paid gravy train and neighborhood rolling cocktail parties were put to an end.

Gonna put a lot of people into uncomfy situations, but that's ok too.

(01-03-2017 01:47 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 12:40 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The OCE has no judicial power, it just exists to review information and make recommendations to the House Committee on Ethics. It looks like all this accomplishes is making it harder for ethics violations to come to light.

Quote:Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.

“This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/pol...epage&_r=1

I'm sure to Mssr Morgan, and his ilk, this IS yuuuge. He figured he'd now be cashin in on his work at the OCE and that, apparently, this one swamp is being drained. Good.

Time the K street casinos, taxpayers paid gravy train and neighborhood rolling cocktail parties were put to an end.

Gonna put a lot of people into uncomfy situations, but that's ok too.

Less visibility is a good thing? That's literally all this is accomplishing, considering that the OCE still exists. They just have their hands tied now.

(01-03-2017 01:48 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 01:47 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 12:40 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The OCE has no judicial power, it just exists to review information and make recommendations to the House Committee on Ethics. It looks like all this accomplishes is making it harder for ethics violations to come to light.

Quote:Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.

“This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/pol...epage&_r=1

I'm sure to Mssr Morgan, and his ilk, this IS yuuuge. He figured he'd now be cashin in on his work at the OCE and that, apparently, this one swamp is being drained. Good.

Time the K street casinos, taxpayers paid gravy train and neighborhood rolling cocktail parties were put to an end.

Gonna put a lot of people into uncomfy situations, but that's ok too.

Less visibility is a good thing?

Of course not, big fan of the release of the DNC corruption, you?

But no, do you honestly believe "visibility" is the motive here?

This grifter worked in the "Office of Congressional Ethics" (talk about the height of what? Hypocrisy? Irony? Silliness, or perhaps redunkulousness?) but now wants to cash in on defending the same folks he was charged with investigating a scant 18 months ago?

C'moooooooon, man. Really?

What we need is real oversight, real visibility, real DOJ and for once in a long time, real honesty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ3aDrn7P4M

(01-03-2017 02:01 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 01:48 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 01:47 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 12:40 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The OCE has no judicial power, it just exists to review information and make recommendations to the House Committee on Ethics. It looks like all this accomplishes is making it harder for ethics violations to come to light.

Quote:Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.

“This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/pol...epage&_r=1

I'm sure to Mssr Morgan, and his ilk, this IS yuuuge. He figured he'd now be cashin in on his work at the OCE and that, apparently, this one swamp is being drained. Good.

Time the K street casinos, taxpayers paid gravy train and neighborhood rolling cocktail parties were put to an end.

Gonna put a lot of people into uncomfy situations, but that's ok too.

Less visibility is a good thing?

Of course not, big fan of the release of the DNC corruption, you?

But no, do you honestly believe "visibility" is the motive here?

This grifter worked in the "Office of Congressional Ethics" (talk about the height of what? Hypocrisy? Irony? Silliness, or perhaps redunkulousness?) but now wants to cash in on defending the same folks he was charged with investigating a scant 18 months ago?

C'moooooooon, man. Really?

What we need is real oversight, real visibility, real DOJ and for once in a long time, real honesty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ3aDrn7P4M

If that's what they were looking to accomplish, they went the exact wrong direction with this one. Every extra bit of visibility helps, and they just willy nilly decided to remove some.

Dunk, this is a stupid move by House Republicans. This is about protecting their own from potential scandal, and it may end up costing them next time around.

At least nobody is pretending that they give a crap about ethics, I guess?

Scandal happens to both parties. Too bad some people are too stupid after they got caught and booted from office to try and come back to run for another office. Newt Gingrich is one of them with ethical issues that drove him out of office.

(01-03-2017 06:51 AM)H.U.S.T.L.E. Wrote:  Dunk, this is a stupid move by House Republicans. This is about protecting their own from potential scandal, and it may end up costing them next time around.

At least nobody is pretending that they give a crap about ethics, I guess?

At least they are honest about it

(01-03-2017 12:40 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The OCE has no judicial power, it just exists to review information and make recommendations to the House Committee on Ethics. It looks like all this accomplishes is making it harder for ethics violations to come to light.

Quote:Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.
“This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/pol...epage&_r=1

Two thoughts:

1) What does this proposed move actually do? The article is long on histrionics and short on facts. I'd need a more objective analysis before forming any opinion.

2) With such analysis in hand, if the impact is as the hand wringers suggest, then this is both incredibly wrong and incredibly stupid.

One thing for sure, now is not the time to be weakening ethics. When is the time to do so? Never.

(01-03-2017 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 12:40 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The OCE has no judicial power, it just exists to review information and make recommendations to the House Committee on Ethics. It looks like all this accomplishes is making it harder for ethics violations to come to light.

Quote:Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.
“This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/pol...epage&_r=1

Two thoughts:

1) What does this proposed move actually do? The article is long on histrionics and short on facts. I'd need a more objective analysis before forming any opinion.

2) With such analysis in hand, if the impact is as the hand wringers suggest, then this is both incredibly wrong and incredibly stupid.

One thing for sure, now is not the time to be weakening ethics. When is the time to do so? Never.

I want to hear more about why the GOP thinks this is necessary. I get the point being made that the guy running the OCE was himself crooked. However, having a crook who knows the ins and outs of corruption running oversight can also be highly effective too. The GOP needs to explain this move before too long, because by sight alone it looks seedy.

(01-03-2017 07:47 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 12:40 AM)dmacfour Wrote:  The OCE has no judicial power, it just exists to review information and make recommendations to the House Committee on Ethics. It looks like all this accomplishes is making it harder for ethics violations to come to light.

Quote:Bryson Morgan, who worked as an investigative lawyer at the Office of Congressional Ethics from 2013 until 2015, said that under his interpretation of the new rules, members of the House committee could move to stop an inquiry even before it was completed.
“This is huge,” said Mr. Morgan, who now defends lawmakers targeted in ethics investigations. “It effectively allows the committee to shut down any independent investigation into member misconduct. Historically, the ethics committee has failed to investigate member misconduct.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/02/us/pol...epage&_r=1

Two thoughts:

1) What does this proposed move actually do? The article is long on histrionics and short on facts. I'd need a more objective analysis before forming any opinion.

2) With such analysis in hand, if the impact is as the hand wringers suggest, then this is both incredibly wrong and incredibly stupid.

One thing for sure, now is not the time to be weakening ethics. When is the time to do so? Never.

I want to hear more about why the GOP thinks this is necessary. I get the point being made that the guy running the OCE was himself crooked. However, having a crook who knows the ins and outs of corruption running oversight can also be highly effective too. The GOP needs to explain this move before too long, because by sight alone it looks seedy.

I agree. The optics are terrible. But what reporting we have seen so far has been off the charts biased. Somebody needs to explain what they are thinking, and take time to evaluate that before doing something stupid.

Right now, this feels way, way to Tom DeLay-ish.

The other thing that makes the optics terrible about this is that the votes for the amendment were secret - so even though there were House Republicans who voted against the amendment, the public won't know for sure who voted for or against it.

Democrats can use it in the next cycle and pin it on any Republican who's vulnerable, and because the vote was secret, there's no proof needed.

Extremely short-sighted decision by the GOP and it could come back to bite them.

This is the Republicans' gift to the Democrats as the price to get them on board for dismantling Obamacare.

(01-03-2017 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  1) What does this proposed move actually do?

Under the old rules, an OCE report became public even if no action was taken. This move takes away the public reporting. So far it's impacted the two parties about evenly: Duke Cunningham was going down regardless of the OCE, so it might have contributed to one conviction for each party (those also might have happened anyway) plus extreme embarrassment for Maxine Waters.

That last is probably the goal: get those embarrassing but not quite criminal reports (you know, the ones that show up in campaign ads) back in the private files where they belong.

Probably a nonevent given the corruption in DC. I mean, obviously, this "ethics office" doesn't do much anyway.

Show me some results for this ethics office, and I'll make my determination then. Otherwise, good riddance to more waste and fraud.

And now they have done an about face and will not be doing this. Kinda funny hearing Anderson Cooper say "Thank you Mr President elect"

(01-03-2017 09:06 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

(01-03-2017 07:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  1) What does this proposed move actually do?

Under the old rules, an OCE report became public even if no action was taken. This move takes away the public reporting. So far it's impacted the two parties about evenly: Duke Cunningham was going down regardless of the OCE, so it might have contributed to one conviction for each party (those also might have happened anyway) plus extreme embarrassment for Maxine Waters.
That last is probably the goal: get those embarrassing but not quite criminal reports (you know, the ones that show up in campaign ads) back in the private files where they belong.

If that's all it did, that would hardly seem to qualify as a gutting.

Still, optics were bad, glad they pulled it.

Plan dropped.

Never underestimate the power of politicians to grossly misread the electorate