“Fairness” can be judged in many different ways. Fairness does not rest merely on whether something is bipartisan in its execution and/or in its targets. Something can be fair in that way, but it can nevertheless be unfair in other ways.

The revision to the way the ethics committee was originally set up, and the need for change, is based on the idea that it fails to, as the post says, “ensure due process rights are protected for lawmakers.” That’s what is alleged to be “unfair” (there’s more about that at that WaPo link).

Trump was talking mostly about the timing and the fact that this was done without much deliberation. It’s a matter of priorities and allowing for reasoned study of the problem and the possible solutions, and I happen to agree with him on that.

I have no idea as yet whether I’d be ultimately for the move or against it, because it hasn’t been debated as far as I know and I don’t have much information about it. But I am almost certain it’s the wrong time to take it up and the wrong way to take it up. And that’s basically what Trump said,as far as I can tell.

I don’t know, Jim, why are they? Particularly when they were elected to do entirely different, and vastly more important things?

Remember that great kerfuffle last fall about the abuses of the ethics committee and how it was absolutely, totally critical that before anything else, before dealing with Obamacare or brushing teeth or anything else, we had to dismantle the so-called “ethics committee?”

Oh, right. Neither do I.

That’s why it seems weird and why it looks bad. It looks like yet another attempt by GOP congress people to waste the mandate given them by the electorate on doing something no one asked them to do. Given the optics and the timing, it’s even more idiotic than the usual gambit of getting a GOP majority to deal with Democrat-driven unemployment and moribund economy, and then bursting out of the gate with something having to do with abortion – at least some percent of GOP voters wanted some action on abortion.

You are not making sense. You want me to belive that all the repubs who voted for this were crooks who are looking for a way to cheat? Get real.

They voted for this, because this is their only way to address a wrong, that the leadership is unconcerned about. If this thing created by Democrats was actually bipartisan as you say, why are the lower ranked repubs going after it in obviously majority numbers?

You can rap them for timing, but where there is smoke there is usually fire. And these people are politicians, they know something about timing and perception. They didnt risk this to get some free travel, they are probably seeing themselves getting asked a lot of questions while corrupt democrats get a pass.

The OCE was created in 2008 to address concerns that the Ethics Committee had been too timid in pursuing allegations of wrongdoing by House members.

This isn’t about only Democrats or only Republicans. This is about any House member and ethics violations. The changes would have weakened this office by eliminating a spokesperson as well as eliminated investigating anonymous tips or refer criminal wrongdoing to prosecutors without the express consent of the Ethics Committee. How can anyone be opposed to a committee like this? The GOP can use it just as much as the Democrats. It’s truly bipartisan. It does not matter who started the committee.

Also, to you who applaud Trump for his tweet, I have to say you guys are pretty easily placated. Being against the House for dropping part of an ethics committee is a no brainer. Trump only gets applause for seemingly being critical of the GOP. But he added that it was often ‘unfair’. Which is not true. This committee can be used by anyone. It might certainly depend on how it is used but the GOP runs the House now.

However, what’s important here is perception by a public which has a record-low opinion of Congress members and has voted to “drain the swamp.” In context of that, dismantling of an ethics committee as a mission-number-one priority looks bad. Particularly in this case, as it seems to have come out of left field, with no back story or explanation. A reasonable person who doesn’t live and breathe Washington politics and distrusts our elected officials sees this and doesn’t think, “Great, they’re getting rid of that corrupt snakepit created a few years ago by Democrats,” they automatically assume that unethical congress people want the ethics committee (which as far as they know has been in existence forever) out of their way. And oh, look, it’s REPUBLICANS who have so much to hide that it’s the first thing they do.

If this ethics committee is a problem, it can be addressed later in the session – after dealing with mission-critical matters and preferably after airing the shortcomings of the current situation so that it doesn’t appear like unethical rats trying to protect themselves first and foremost.