OVER THE PAST 24 HOURS WE
HAVE SEEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE
INCREDIBLY EMBOLDENED AND
ARROGANT GOP RUNS FACE FIRST
INTO A WALL OF POPULAR
RESISTANCE TO ITS CORRUPT
AGENDA.
THE FIRST DAY BASICALLY
OF THE NEW YEAR, THEIR FIRST
OPPORTUNITY TO LEGISLATE, WHAT
DO THEY DO?
WITHOUT ANY WARNING
WHATSOEVER, AS ONE OF THEIR
FIRST PRIORITIES, THEY TRIED TO
GET RID OF ONE OF THE FEW
EFFECTIVE CHECKS ON LEGISLATIVE
CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY.
HOUSE
REPUBLICANS VOTED YESTERDAY
119-74 TO ALL BUT ELIMINATE THE
OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS.
THERE WERE SOME REPUBLICANS WHO
VOTED AGAINST IT, IT WAS
INVOLVED IN A PACKAGE OF OTHER
RULES CHANGES AND MANY OF THEM
MIGHT HAVE VOTED FOR ANOTHER
REASON.
IF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR
WITH THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS --
THUS, IT HAD TO GO.
BECAUSE
THEY ARE BUSY DRAINING THE
SWAMP, THEY DON'T HAVE ROOM IN
THE SWAMP FOR A BODY THAT CAN
INVESTIGATE CORRUPTION.
WE WILL
GIVE YOU ALL THE DETAILS OF WHAT
THEY TRIED TO DO AND WHAT ENDED
UP HAPPENING, BUT WHAT IS YOUR
FIRST REACTION?
TO GIVE YOU SOME MORE
INFORMATION ABOUT THE OFFICE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS, IT'S AN
INDEPENDENT BODY, INDEPENDENT OF
CONGRESS, AND THAT IS IMPORTANT
BECAUSE IN ORDER TO INVESTIGATE
POSSIBLE ETHICS VIOLATIONS THAT
ARE TAKING PLACE AMONG MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS, YOU HAVE TO MAKE
SURE THE BODY IS INDEPENDENT.
SO
IT WAS REALLY DIFFICULT TO PASS
LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CREATE
THIS ORGANIZATION, IN FACT IT
BARELY PASSED.
IT WAS AFTER THE
MIDTERM ELECTIONS IN 2006 WHEN
DEMOCRATS TOOK HOLD OF CONGRESS,
THEY PUSHED FOR IT, AND IT
PASSED BARELY, 207-206, ONE
VOTE.
WE KNOW MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS DON'T LIKE IT, AND A
LOT OF OUR FOCUS RIGHT NOW IS
GOING TO BE ABOUT HOW
REPUBLICANS SPECIFICALLY WANTED
TO DISMANTLE IT, TAKE AWAY POWER
FROM IT, BUT DEMOCRATS HAVE
COMPLAINED ABOUT IT AS WELL
BECAUSE AGAIN IT IS AN
INDEPENDENT BODY THAT
INVESTIGATES UNETHICAL BEHAVIOR
BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.
ALAN
GRAYSON WAS TARGETED BY THIS
ORGANIZATION, AND A LOT OF OTHER
DEMOCRATS HATE IT, BUT
NONETHELESS IT IS IMPORTANT TO
HAVE IT, REPUBLICANS WANTED TO
DO AWAY WITH IT.
WHAT IS SORT OF FUNNY IS IN
THE WAKE OF THEM MAKING THIS
RULE CHANGE EVEN JACK ABRAMOFF
IS SPEAKING OUT AGAINST IT,
AMONG MANY --
WHAT DID THEY ACTUALLY WANT
TO DO?
WHAT ARE THE CHANGES THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE?
BUZZFEED
PUT TOGETHER SOME OF THE RULE
CHANGES, YOU CAN SEE IN THIS
GRAPHIC HERE --
IT'S REALLY TINY TEXT, I CAN'T
READ IT OFF OF THERE.
THE OCE
SHOULD ANSWER TO THE HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS, WHICH IS
RUN BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS,
SPECIFICALLY THE LEADERSHIP OF
CONGRESS, WHICH IS REPUBLICANS.
SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
INVESTIGATING REPUBLICANS AND
ANSWERING TO THEM.
IT WOULDN'T
HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCEPT
ANONYMOUS TIPS FROM
WHISTLEBLOWERS, THAT MIGHT AT
FIRST MAKE SENSE, SHOULDN'T THEY
HAVE TO PUT THEIR FACE TO AN
ACCUSATION?
MAYBE, BUT IF THEY
DO THERE COULD BE REPRISALS.
THE
HOUSE ETHICS OFFICE UNDER
REPUBLICAN CONTROL COULD STOP
ANY INVESTIGATION OF THE ETHICS
OFFICE IF THEY WANT TO, THEY
COULD SHUT DOWN ANY
INVESTIGATION THEY DON'T LIKE,
FOR INSTANCE PERHAPS IF THEY ARE
INVESTIGATING A REPUBLICAN.
THEY
CAN'T INVESTIGATE ANY TIPS ON
MISCONDUCT THAT TOOK PLACE
BEFORE JANUARY 3, 2011.
WHY NOT?
THEY CAN'T TALK PUBLICLY ABOUT
THEIR FINDINGS OR EVEN HIRE A
SPOKESPERSON, THEY CAN ONLY
COMMUNICATE, AGAIN, WITH THE
REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP OF THE
HOUSE, AND IF THEY FIND ANY
EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL WRONGDOING
THEY CAN'T TURN IT OVER TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT, THEY CAN ONLY
TURN IT OVER TO THE HOUSE ETHICS
COMMITTEE WHICH WILL THEN
ELIMINATE THE INVESTIGATION.
AGAIN, UNDERSTAND THIS IS
GETTING THE OCE JUST TO ENSURE
THAT THEY HAVE NO POWER, THEY
CAN'T REALLY INVESTIGATE
PROPERLY, THEY CAN'T REALLY --
OR IF THEY DO, NOTHING COMES
OF IT.
EXACTLY, THAT'S A GOOD WAY OF
PUTTING IT.
THINK ABOUT THE
LEGALIZED BRIBERY THAT WE HAVE
IN THIS COUNTRY, HOW WE HAVE
LEGALIZED CERTAIN FORMS OF
CORRUPTION, AND THAT STILL IS
NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
THE VERY LITTLE
WE HAVE IN PROTECTING THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE AND ENSURING
THAT MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
REPRESENT US TO SOME DEGREE IS
SOMETHING THAT IS BEING ATTACKED
BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS,
REPUBLICANS SPECIFICALLY IN THIS
CASE.
TO BE FAIR TO DEMOCRATS,
AS I MENTIONED THEY ALSO DON'T
LIKE THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO
ARE INVESTIGATING THEM, WHICH BY
THE WAY IS MADE UP OF FOUR
DEMOCRATS, FOUR REPUBLICANS,
NEITHER OF WHICH ARE PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES.
BUT THEY'VE NEVER
TAKEN A VOTE TO DISMANTLE IT,
YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM A LITTLE
CREDIT FOR THAT.
BUT THE
LEGALIZED BRIBERY, NOT ENOUGH.
THE FACT THAT YOU CAN TAKE
UNLIMITED AMOUNTS OF MONEY FROM
CORPORATIONS WHICH OBVIOUSLY
INFLUENCE YOUR POLICY DECISIONS
AND THE WAY YOU VOTE AND
REPRESENT AMERICANS --
STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
YOU WANT TO DO AWAY WITH ANY
PROTECTIONS FOR THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE.
BY THE WAY IF THOSE CHANGES
THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE WERE NOT
ENOUGH, THIS IS SO PETTY, THIS
LAST CHANGE, I DIDN'T EVEN THINK
IT WAS REAL.
I CHECKED MULTIPLE
SOURCES TO MAKE SURE IT WAS REAL
BECAUSE IT SEEMS SO CHILDISH AND
PETTY -- THEY WERE ALSO GOING TO
CHANGE THE NAME OF THE COMMITTEE
FROM THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS TO THE OFFICE OF
CONGRESSIONAL COMPLAINT REVIEW.
SO IT IS NOT THAT THEY ARE
INVESTIGATING ETHICAL VIOLATIONS
AND CORRUPTION, JUST PEOPLE WHO
ARE COMPLAINING.
WHEN I STARTED
SAYING THEY ARE EMBOLDENED AND
ARROGANT, I'M NOT JUST
EXAGGERATING OR BEING PARTISAN.
THEY ARE SALIVATING OVER WHAT
THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO NOW THAT
THEY ARE IN CHARGE, AND STUDIES
HAVE SHOWN WHEN YOU LOOK AT
CORRUPTION, IT SPREADS.
WHEN
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS SEE THAT
OTHERS ARE ACCEPTING BRIBES OR
ENGAGING IN SHADY BEHAVIOR, THEY
THINK I'VE GOT TO GET ME SOME
TOO. AND TRUMP IS NOT GOING TO
DO ANYTHING TO MINIMIZE
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, THEY SEE
THE CHANCE TO GET IN ON THE
LOOTING OF AMERICA.
WE STOPPED
THEM NOW, BECAUSE AFTER THE
PUSHBACK THEY DECIDED NOT TO GO
THROUGH WITH IT.
BEFORE IT COULD
GO TO A VOTE IN THE FULL HOUSE
THEY DECIDED TO TAKE IT AWAY,
ONLY BECAUSE EVERYONE BREATHED
DOWN THEIR NECK ABOUT IT.
BUT THEY DID SAY TO A REPORTER
FOR THE WASHINGTON POST
THAT ONCE THE PUBLICITY DIES
DOWN THEY WILL TRY TO BRING
IT BACK, WHICH MEANS WE NEED TO
BE VIGILANT.
THAT IS A GREAT POINT.
THERE
ARE THOSE WHO UNDERSTAND THAT
THERE ARE POLITICAL
RAMIFICATIONS IN VOTING IN FAVOR
OF THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR.
EVEN
PAUL RYAN WAS AGAINST THIS, HE
WAS ONE OF THE FEW WHO DECIDED,
NAH, I'M VOTING AGAINST IT
BECAUSE IT'S A BAD IDEA, IT WILL
LOOK BAD.
BUT AFTER IT PASSED HE SAID
SOMETHING ABOUT HOW IT'S
NOT THE END OF THE WORLD.
I KNOW THAT, I'M NOT SAYING
THIS BECAUSE I THINK HE'S A GOOD
GUY OR BECAUSE HE'S ACTUALLY
AGAINST DISMANTLING THE OCE, I'M
SAYING THIS BECAUSE HE AT LEAST
UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE POTENTIAL
RAMIFICATIONS WOULD BE IN THE
FUTURE.
YOU MENTIONED HOW SOME
PEOPLE FEEL EMBOLDENED TO DO
WHATEVER THEY WANT AT THIS POINT
BECAUSE OF THE BEHAVIOR OF
TRUMP, AND TO SOME EXTENT I
THINK THAT'S TRUE BUT IT'S ALSO
INTERESTING TO SEE HOW TRUMP
SEEMS TO GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING
AND EVERYTHING, BUT MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS STILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY
THE SAME TYPE OF, I GUESS,
STANDARDS THAT AMERICANS HAD FOR
CONGRESS PRIOR TO TRUMP.
BUT WE WILL SEE HOW THEY HOLD
UP.
WE WILL SEE HOW IT GOES.
DOES TRUMP DESERVE ANY CREDIT
FOR SHUTTING DOWN THE SHUTTING
DOWN OF THE OFFICE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS?
A LOT OF
REPORTS ON THIS HAVE SAID THAT
HE TWEETED, SAYING HE WAS
AGAINST IT, SO MAYBE HE IS THE
REASON IT WAS SHUT DOWN AND NOT
MANY DIFFERENT NONGOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS AND CITIZENS
RIGHTS GROUPS, THE LEAGUE OF
WOMEN VOTERS, ALL THESE GROUPS
AND INDIVIDUALS SPEAKING OUT
AGAINST IT, IT WAS PROBABLY JUST
TRUMP.
LET'S EVALUATE THAT, HERE
ARE THE TWEETS TRUMP SENT OUT --
-- 
WHICH IS NOT WHAT IT'S
CALLED --
SO LOOK, HE'S GETTING A LOT
OF CREDIT BECAUSE ON SOME LEVEL
-- AND I'LL GIVE HIM 5% CREDIT,
BECAUSE ON SOME LEVEL HE SORT OF
SAYING AT THE VERY LEAST DON'T
DO IT NOW, BUT THEN HE NOT
ONLY GOT THE NAME OF THE
ORGANIZATION WRONG, WHICH SHOWS
THAT HE DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THIS,
HE SAID IT'S AN UNFAIR
ORGANIZATION WHICH MEANS THAT HE
IS AGAINST IT, AND HE ONLY SAID
DON'T DO IT NOW.
DO OTHER THINGS
FIRST.
SO IF THEY BRING IT BACK
IN SIX MONTHS, THESE TWEETS ARE
SUPPORTIVE OF THAT ACTION.
HERE IS ANOTHER TAKEAWAY FROM
HIS TWEETS, AND BY THE WAY I
FIND IT HILARIOUS THAT OUR
PRESIDENT ELECT REFUSES TO DO
PRESS CONFERENCES AND
COMMUNICATES WITH EVERYONE IN 140
CHARACTERS OR LESS, BUT
NONETHELESS, HE DOESN'T HAVE THE
REPUBLICANS' BACK.
HE WILL THROW
THEM UNDER THE BUS THE SECOND HE
SEES THEY ARE A LIABILITY.
THE
SECOND HE SEES THAT A DECISION
THEY'VE MADE MAKES HIM LOOK BAD.
SO I LOVE SEEING HOW CERTAIN
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS HAVE
CONCEDED, OR TUCKED TAIL AND
ENDED UP SUPPORTING HIM, AND
HE'LL JUST SLAP THEM IN THE FACE
AS SOON AS IT IS CONVENIENT FOR
HIM TO DO SO.
THERE IS SOME SCHADENFREUDE
FOR YOU.
WE'VE SAID THAT THE
HAPPY ENDING IS THAT THEY AREN'T
GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH IT
RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN
THERE WAS A LOT OF TIME FOR
REPUBLICANS TO GET ON THE RECORD
BEING FOR THIS.
INCLUDING
KELLYANNE CONWAY, WHO WILL
DEFEND IT IN THIS VIDEO.
I DON'T WANT VIEWERS TO BE
LEFT WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT
THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO
INVESTIGATE ETHICS COMPLAINTS,
THIS WAS IN REACTION TO A 2008
SCANDAL, THERE HAVE BEEN ABOUT
100 OR SO COMPLAINTS SINCE, ONLY
A THIRD OF WHICH HAVE BEEN
REFERRED TO THE HOUSE ETHICS
COMMITTEE, AND I THINK ONE THING
THEY ARE TRYING TO CURB IS THE
ABUSE OF THE PROCESS THAT HAS
LED TO SOME OF THOSE BEING
INVESTIGATED, EITHER HOUSE
MEMBERS OR STAFFERS AND
WITNESSES, SOME OF THEM HAVE
COMPLAINED THAT THEY'VE BEEN
DENIED OR HAD THEIR DUE PROCESS
RIGHTS COMPROMISED.
SO A MORE
FAIR PROCESS -- YOU CAN'T HAVE,
IF THIS PASSES IN FULL, YOU
CAN'T HAVE AN ANONYMOUS TIP
ANYMORE.
YOU CAN COME FORWARD AS
A CONSTITUENT BUT YOU HAVE TO
SHOW SOME EVIDENCE OR SOME
GROUNDING.
BUT ISN'T THAT A PROBLEM, NOT
BEING ABLE TO HAVE AN ANONYMOUS
TIP?
I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO FEEL
LIKE ETHICS IS GONE, THERE ARE
MANY WAYS FOR CONSTITUENTS TO
MAKE THEIR VOICES HEARD.
WOW.
STRONG WORDS, I DON'T
WANT PEOPLE TO THINK THAT ETHICS
ARE GONE.
SHE SOUNDS VERY
REASONABLE THERE, AND I THINK A
LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD HEAR THAT
AND THINK, WELL, THE ANONYMOUS
THING -- IF YOU DON'T THINK
ABOUT THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT
CONSTITUENTS WHO ARE REPORTING
THE STUFF, USUALLY, IT IS PEOPLE
REPORTING THINGS ON THEIR STAFF
THAT NEED THE ANONYMITY SO THEIR
CAREERS DON'T GET DESTROYED, BUT
SHE IS SAYING THAT IT'S NOT
A BIG DEAL THAT THEY WILL
DESTROY THIS COMMISSION.
IT IS A HUGE DEAL, AND I DON'T
UNDERSTAND WHY THEY HAVE
SOMETHING -- I DO UNDERSTAND WHY
THEY ARE AGAINST THE ANONYMITY
AND TIPS, BUT THEY HAVE TO
PROVIDE EVIDENCE EITHER WAY.
LIKE, YOU CAN'T JUST SHOW UP AND
TELL THE OCE, HEY, GUESS WHAT, I
THINK THAT REPRESENTATIVE
CHARLES RANGEL, WHO BY THE
WAY IS A DEMOCRAT WHO IS ALSO
AGAINST THE COMMITTEE, IT IS NOT
LIKE THEY CAN JUST TELL THE
COMMITTEE THAT HE DID SOMETHING
WRONG.
TOOK A BRIBE OR SOMETHING.
YEAH, AND THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE, AND HE HAS TO DEAL
WITH THE RAMIFICATIONS.
OF
COURSE THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE
EVIDENCE, EVEN IF THEY DON'T AND
IT'S JUST A TIP, IT IS NOT LIKE,
YOU KNOW, THE OCE JUST DECIDES
WE WILL PUNISH YOU WITH NO
EVIDENCE.
THIS IS ALL B.S.,
CONGRESS DOESN'T LIKE IT BECAUSE
IT IS A WAY OF ENSURING THEY
BEHAVE ETHICALLY, AND A LOT
OF THEM DON'T WANT TO.
THEY ARE FEELING TOO BIG FOR
THEIR BRITCHES AND THEY DON'T
LIKE THE POSSIBILITY THAT AN
ORGANIZATION COULD PROVIDE A
CHECK ON THEIR POWER.
ANOTHER
EXAMPLE IS STEVE KING,
REPUBLICAN FROM IOWA --
WHY DON'T YOU GOOGLE IT.
YOU
HAVE A SMART PHONE, IF YOU ARE
GOING TO BE MAKING CASES THAT
THEY SHOULD BE DESTROYED BECAUSE
THEY ARE LEAKING ALL THIS
INFORMATION AND YOU CAN'T COME
UP WITH ONE EXAMPLE, MAYBE THAT
SHOULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR YOU
BEING FAVOR OF ITS ABOLITION.
OR
ABOLISHMENT, I SHOULD SAY.
BUT
IT'S JUST A TIME THING, THEY ARE
READY TO START GOBBLING UP ALL
THE MONEY FROM ALL THE
BUSINESSES THEY CAN.
