Ranking Ethics Member Has Options

The whining since the GOP abused power has been uncompelling. The DNC, as the ranking member on the ethics committee, had the discretion to review peer conduct in the House.

House rules allow the chairman and ranking member of the ethics panel to initiate informal inquiries into allegations of misconduct in the absence of a formal complaint.Ref

* * *

I'm all for assigning blame where blame is due; the problem is when the legal options under the House rules -- the power of the ranking Members to independently start informal inquiries -- is not asserted.

For the President and Congress to have jointly agreed to fund appropriations for illegal activities, Members of Congress would have to know of the illegal conduct, not do anything, and then (somehow) avoid an ethics investigation.

Indeed, the RNC may have controlled Congress, but nothing prevented any of the ranking members from taking action to review:

___ Who, in the House, knew of the illegal activity related to war crimes, but did nothing;

___ Who had a duty to report, investigate, and prevent illegal activity, but failed to act.

The first error is to enable the President; the second to do nothing about peer misconduct in that enabling; the third to pretend one did not have the power or option to do anything.

* * *

It doesn't matter whether the GoP or DNC was in control of Congress or the Ethics Committee. Both parties have failed to make a fair showing that they have taken timely action to review the apparent failure of the Members of Congress to review the Title 28 and Title 50 exception reports.