GOP HOUSE PASSES NEW SECRECY RULE FOR ETHICS INVESTIGATIONS

[Deleted]

Congress Quietly Passes New Rule Allowing House Members To Hide Records From Ethics Probes
Politicians can now shield expenditures from investigations

www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/secret-new-rule-allows-house-members-to-hide-records-from-ethics-probes_us_58746aefe4b099cdb0ff34eb



January 9, 2017


Just when you thought ethics standards couldn’t get much worse on Capitol Hill... It’s emerged that the House GOP quietly changed a rule last week to allow members to keep their records hidden from ethics or criminal investigations.

The tweak allows politicians to conceal any information members produce — even suspicious expenditures and budgets — if the Office of Congressional Ethics or the Department of Justice investigates them for criminal activity, the Center for Responsive Politics reports.

The change essentially makes a member of Congress the owner and sole controller of any records he or she creates, regardless of whether those documents touch on a public interest, such as use of taxpayer funds or the commission of a crime.

[Walter]

..and to understand just what Republicans have done, the link below explains what it all means.

www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/01/house-rules-change-didnt-hear-about/

So, Republicans have passed a rule that exempts themselves from the kind of thing everyone else in government has to comply with. With this rule, a Representative's work isn't the taxpayer's documents, it's the Representative's personal documents, and he/she can withhold them from the scrutiny of investigators.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2017 14:14:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

..and to understand just what Republicans have done, the link below explains what it all means.

www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/01/house-rules-change-didnt-hear-about/

So, Republicans have passed a rule that exempts themselves from the kind of thing everyone else in government has to comply with. With this rule, a Representative's work isn't the taxpayer's documents, it's the Representative's personal documents, and he/she can withhold them from the scrutiny of investigators.

         These are the same GOP sleazeballs who believe that selected details about the Clintons' private correspondence and sex lives should be published on the front pages of U.S. newspapers.

       Meanwhile, Trump got away with refusing to even divulge his tax returns... 

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2017 14:14:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

..and to understand just what Republicans have done, the link below explains what it all means.

www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/01/house-rules-change-didnt-hear-about/

So, Republicans have passed a rule that exempts themselves from the kind of thing everyone else in government has to comply with. With this rule, a Representative's work isn't the taxpayer's documents, it's the Representative's personal documents, and he/she can withhold them from the scrutiny of investigators.

Well, there ya go.  Let's accept the opinion of a freaking snowflake college student, who associates herself with the leftwing rag, the Huffacock Post.   She has as much credibility as Barry the Fairy Obama and Hitlery Clinton.

[Walter]

Jan 10, 2017 15:17:58 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

Jan 10, 2017 14:14:11 GMT -5 Walter said:

..and to understand just what Republicans have done, the link below explains what it all means.

www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/01/house-rules-change-didnt-hear-about/

So, Republicans have passed a rule that exempts themselves from the kind of thing everyone else in government has to comply with. With this rule, a Representative's work isn't the taxpayer's documents, it's the Representative's personal documents, and he/she can withhold them from the scrutiny of investigators.

Well, there ya go.  Let's accept the opinion of a freaking snowflake college student, who associates herself with the leftwing rag, the Huffacock Post.   She has as much credibility as Barry the Fairy Obama and Hitlery Clinton.

Hate to break it to you, but it's in the same document I quoted earlier today.
Here it is.


(j) Member Records.—In clause 6 of rule VII—

(1) redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as subparagraphs (1) and (2);

(2) designate the existing sentence as paragraph (a);

(3) in paragraph (a) (as so designated), insert “as described in paragraph (b)” after “Resident Commissioner”; and

(4) add at the end the following new paragraph:

“(b) Records created, generated, or received by the congressional office of a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner in the performance of official duties are exclusively the personal property of the individual Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner and such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner has control over such records.”.[/font]

www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/5/text

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2017 15:34:01 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jan 10, 2017 15:17:58 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

Well, there ya go.  Let's accept the opinion of a freaking snowflake college student, who associates herself with the leftwing rag, the Huffacock Post.   She has as much credibility as Barry the Fairy Obama and Hitlery Clinton.

Hate to break it to you, but it's in the same document I quoted earlier today.
Here it is.


(j) Member Records.—In clause 6 of rule VII—

(1) redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as subparagraphs (1) and (2);

(2) designate the existing sentence as paragraph (a);

(3) in paragraph (a) (as so designated), insert “as described in paragraph (b)” after “Resident Commissioner”; and

(4) add at the end the following new paragraph:

“(b) Records created, generated, or received by the congressional office of a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner in the performance of official duties are exclusively the personal property of the individual Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner and such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner has control over such records.”.

www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/5/text

Sobeit.   Until those records are actually introduced into public hearings or to a Congressional body, they ARE private.
My doodlings on my desk as I work on a solution to a problem are NOT, and SHOULD NOT be considered public property.

Do you give your clients a blueprint of a skyscraper when they want a single story building? Just because you fiddle around with an idea does not make it your client's beeswax.

[Walter]

Jan 10, 2017 15:43:53 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

Jan 10, 2017 15:34:01 GMT -5 Walter said:

Hate to break it to you, but it's in the same document I quoted earlier today.
Here it is.


(j) Member Records.—In clause 6 of rule VII—

(1) redesignate paragraphs (a) and (b) as subparagraphs (1) and (2);

(2) designate the existing sentence as paragraph (a);

(3) in paragraph (a) (as so designated), insert “as described in paragraph (b)” after “Resident Commissioner”; and

(4) add at the end the following new paragraph:

“(b) Records created, generated, or received by the congressional office of a Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner in the performance of official duties are exclusively the personal property of the individual Member, Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner and such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner has control over such records.”.

www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/5/text

Sobeit.   Until those records are actually introduced into public hearings or to a Congressional body, they ARE private.
My doodlings on my desk as I work on a solution to a problem are NOT, and SHOULD NOT be considered public property.

Do you give your clients a blueprint of a skyscraper when they want a single story building? Just because you fiddle around with an idea does not make it your client's beeswax.

Since when is a government employee's work product PERSONAL property? If that were the case for, say....a certain recent Secretary of State, you'd have no right to see her emails, would you?
Come on, Bryan...you know what this is, and it don't smell good.

[Deleted]

Jan 10, 2017 16:01:08 GMT -5 Walter said:

Jan 10, 2017 15:43:53 GMT -5 @muttmk2 said:

www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/5/text

Sobeit.   Until those records are actually introduced into public hearings or to a Congressional body, they ARE private.
My doodlings on my desk as I work on a solution to a problem are NOT, and SHOULD NOT be considered public property.

Do you give your clients a blueprint of a skyscraper when they want a single story building? Just because you fiddle around with an idea does not make it your client's beeswax.

Since when is a government employee's work product PERSONAL property? If that were the case for, say....a certain recent Secretary of State, you'd have no right to see her emails, would you?
Come on, Bryan...you know what this is, and it don't smell good.

Since her mails left her office, yes, they became subject to taxpayer scrutiny.
What I write that remains in my office, is MINE.

You see, going public or having info leave one's possession is the key here.
This is why a good cop never brings his entire notebook onto the stand.  If he references that notebook during proceedings, anything and everything in it is now subject to scrutiny.  If he brings only the notes on the case, and leaves the rest out of the courtroom, all the rest is still privileged information.