SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In one of their first moves of the new Congress, House Republicans have voted to gut their own independent ethics watchdog — a huge blow to cheerleaders of congressional oversight and one that dismantles major reforms adopted after the Jack Abramoff scandal.
Monday's effort was led, in part, by lawmakers who have come under investigation in recent years.
Despite a warning from Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Republicans adopted a proposal by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee.
The office currently has free rein, enabling investigators to pursue allegations and then recommend further action to the House Ethics Committee as they see fit.
Now, the office would be under the thumb of lawmakers themselves. The proposal also appears to limit the scope of the office's work by barring them from considering anonymous tips against lawmakers. And it would stop the office from disclosing the findings of some of their investigations, as they currently do after the recommendations go to House Ethics.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/house-republicans-gut-their-own-oversight-233111
The Office of Congressional Ethics was established in 2008 under House Democrats, in response to the era of lobbying scandals made notable by Jack Abramoff, the former lobbyist who went to prison on corruption charges.
It is the first independent body to have an oversight role in House ethics. There is no Senate counterpart. The OCE independently reviews allegations of misconduct against House members and staff, and if deemed appropriate refers them to the House Ethics Committee for review. The OCE cannot independently punish lawmakers for any ethics violations.
Update: House Republicans pull plan to gut independent ethics panel after Trump tweets
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @08:05PM
At least for the president, I don't recall having an alternate choice that wasn't obviously criminal. One should choose the lesser evil, not the greater evil! I mean geeze, just off the top of my head...
giving a Philippine citizen access to the presidential daily brief (OMG WTF)
taking "donations" from Saudi Arabia
taking "donations" from something so bad that it had to be routed through a Canadian foundation that needn't disclose where the money comes from (what could be worse than Saudi Arabia???)
possible involvement in the death of a person who was going to testify against her
possible involvement in the death of a person who may have given DNC emails to wikileaks
collusion with the DNC to sabotage Bernie Sanders
getting debate questions in advance
introducing an unauthorized computer into a SCIF/SAPF secure room, and then removing that computer instead of turning it over to be destroyed
claiming to not know "(C)" markings indicate "CONFIDENTIAL" paragraphs (lying to investigators... unless she really is that incompetent)
being part of the savings and loan scandal, followed by getting paid to "help" sort it out
destroying evidence while under investigation
approving drone strikes from an insecure and unauthorized device
transferring classified data (an email server) to a lawyer who wasn't cleared to handle that kind of material
failure to immediately report any suspected security violations (besides being the law and ethical, she signed an agreement to do this)
There's so many things over so many years. It's so bad that just remembering the big ones becomes difficult. A vote for her was a vote for crime. Putting an obviously corrupt person at the top of the power structure would deeply affect society. People see the example being set, determine it to be normal and acceptable, and feel that they should get their own ill-gotten gains. If everybody is corrupt, why not?