Warren: No confirmation hearings until ethics concerns addressed

[Wingnut]

Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Saturday called for the Senate to not hold confirmation hearings for President-elect Donald Trump's Cabinet picks until after the completion of an ethics screening.

"Cabinet officials must put our country's interests before their own. No [confirmation] hearings should be held until we’re certain that’s the case," the Massachusetts Democrat tweeted.

 File Photo. Indian name is Liz "Two Dogs Screwing" Warren

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/313195-warren-no-confirmation-hearings-until-ethics-concerns-addressed

[jmyrlefuller]

Unfortunately Senator Warren doesn't get to make that decision. Or perhaps I should say fortunately.

[XenaLee]

I realize that my memory isn't what it used to be....but it's funny (odd).  I don't recall any such "ethics screenings" having to be held or being held for any of Obama's (the anointed one) nominees for his cabinet.  Why is that, I wonder?  Does anybody here recall any such ethics screenings activities previously for any Democrat cabinet nominees?

[libertybele]

Me thinks Warren is trying to make big heap 'ump trouble making the leftist feel she's relevant!  There is a procedure that is followed; hence, the Trump transition team.   It appears that he is right on schedule....

The time from January 1 until the inauguration is a frenzied period when confirmation hearings begin for the most senior nominees and the Senate itself is in the midst of a post-election reorganization.

The work of the appointments team continues well into the president’s first year in office, as the baton is passed to the Office of Presidential Personnel in the new administration. Fully staffing the president’s senior leadership team by the August recess (approximately 200 days into the presidency) is critical to ensuring the government can effectively carry out the president’s agenda and serve the American public.

http://presidentialtransition.org/timeline/appointments/

[truth_seeker]

The democrat party has heap big problems. They have moved steadily leftward, as their numbers declined.

But whatever they are, they need leaders. Schumer, Kerry, Hillary and others comprise the "establishment."

Warren, Ellison and various others comprise the "farther" left.

Expect them to be trying out their training wheels, of party leadership. Talk, stirring up the masses of "takers," from black-lives-matter-more, to Hispanics, tree huggers, etc.

It is all predictable. The problems arise when players like McCain and Graham take sides with them.

 

[Sanguine]

Who's ethics concerns?  Hers?  She's welcome to address them whenever she wants.

[HonestJohn]

I realize that my memory isn't what it used to be....but it's funny (odd).  I don't recall any such "ethics screenings" having to be held or being held for any of Obama's (the anointed one) nominees for his cabinet.  Why is that, I wonder?  Does anybody here recall any such ethics screenings activities previously for any Democrat cabinet nominees?

Either they completed their screenings or the Republicans had no issues with their backgrounds.

Anything else would have been noticed by Fox, the Washington Times, the National Review, etc.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Who's ethics concerns?  Hers?  She's welcome to address them whenever she wants.

 :thumbsup3:

[skeeter]

The games progressives play grow tiresome.

[skeeter]

Either they completed their screenings or the Republicans had no issues with their backgrounds.

Anything else would have been noticed by Fox, the Washington Times, the National Review, etc.

Office of Government Ethics, whom this redskin is ostensibly responding to, actually has no statutory authority to intervene in the confirmation process.

Clearing nominees is done by the Senate. The sole function of that office is to ensure that government employees covered by the ethics statue comply with the substance of the act, that is, avoiding conflicts of interest, and file the appropriate paperwork. The only legal requirement is simply that the appropriate reports be filed within 30 days of confirmation by the Senate.

This is all BS.

[mountaineer]

I get a kick out of Democrats pretending to care about ethics. 

[skeeter]

I get a kick out of Democrats pretending to care about ethics. 

Yes of course, Senator Warren, I accept your invitation to follow you down that bottomless rathole.

[libertybele]

The games progressives play grow tiresome.

I expect that she will continue to wear her war bonnet for the next 4 years and be on the warpath; she's about all the left has remaining.  IF the GOP Senate play their cards right they can make her irrelevant; the progressive agenda died along with the Clinton dynasty.

[libertybele]

The democrat party has heap big problems. They have moved steadily leftward, as their numbers declined.

But whatever they are, they need leaders. Schumer, Kerry, Hillary and others comprise the "establishment."

Warren, Ellison and various others comprise the "farther" left.

Expect them to be trying out their training wheels, of party leadership. Talk, stirring up the masses of "takers," from black-lives-matter-more, to Hispanics, tree huggers, etc.

It is all predictable. The problems arise when players like McCain and Graham take sides with them.

We need to be vigilant and DEMAND that the RINO's in the Senate quit kissing Pelosi's and Schumer's ring.

[Cripplecreek]

Either they completed their screenings or the Republicans had no issues with their backgrounds.

Anything else would have been noticed by Fox, the Washington Times, the National Review, etc.

Correct, there were ethics screenings of many of Obama's appointees. You don't hear much about them because if there is an issue the nominee withdraws before there is an official nomination. However it does seem that quite a few slip through without any ethics screenings (usually because they wouldn't pass or they're recess appointments)

This looks like a pretty decent overview of the vetting process as of 2010. (3 pages)

https://www.cov.com/files/Publication/1f19f537-1f4d-402a-ac37-cb78efc0cd61/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/f8e0010c-a259-4b6f-916c-cf668b0592e5/Called%20to%20Serve%20-%20The%20Presidential%20Appointment%20Vetting%20Process.pdf

One of the things that gives me some confidence in Mattis is the fact that he appears willing to undergo the ethics screening and has divested himself of his holdings. Its a smart move on his part.

[Frank Cannon]

This woman is an idiot and luckily out of power.

[skeeter]

Correct, there were ethics screenings of many of Obama's appointees. You don't hear much about them because if there is an issue the nominee withdraws before there is an official nomination. However it does seem that quite a few slip through without any ethics screenings (usually because they wouldn't pass or they're recess appointments)

This looks like a pretty decent overview of the vetting process as of 2010. (3 pages)

https://www.cov.com/files/Publication/1f19f537-1f4d-402a-ac37-cb78efc0cd61/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/f8e0010c-a259-4b6f-916c-cf668b0592e5/Called%20to%20Serve%20-%20The%20Presidential%20Appointment%20Vetting%20Process.pdf

One of the things that gives me some confidence in Mattis is the fact that he appears willing to undergo the ethics screening and has divested himself of his holdings. Its a smart move on his part.

Post #9. The office Warren is claiming to have screening authority here has nothing of the kind. The senate screens, the nominees have 30 days to submit the appropriate paperwork, the Government Ethics Office ensures compliance.

BTW the author of the letter Warren is responding to is an Obama appointee. This is just a setup. Maybe this is what the GOP in the house was seeking to defund the other day.

[Cyber Liberty]

It is all predictable. The problems arise when players like McCain and Graham take sides with them.

Yes, McStain will be the first to put the knife in, I'd make book on that.

[corbe]

Correct, there were ethics screenings of many of Obama's appointees. You don't hear much about them because if there is an issue the nominee withdraws before there is an official nomination. However it does seem that quite a few slip through without any ethics screenings (usually because they wouldn't pass or they're recess appointments)

This looks like a pretty decent overview of the vetting process as of 2010. (3 pages)

https://www.cov.com/files/Publication/1f19f537-1f4d-402a-ac37-cb78efc0cd61/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/f8e0010c-a259-4b6f-916c-cf668b0592e5/Called%20to%20Serve%20-%20The%20Presidential%20Appointment%20Vetting%20Process.pdf

One of the things that gives me some confidence in Mattis is the fact that he appears willing to undergo the ethics screening and has divested himself of his holdings. Its a smart move on his part.

   This also had a  lot to do with obummer appointing all those 'Czars', no vetting for those creatures.

[Cripplecreek]

   This also had a  lot to do with obummer appointing all those 'Czars', no vetting for those creatures.

Yup.

In any case the abandonment of ethical standards os going to burn us badly in the end.

They always do.

[XenaLee]

Either they completed their screenings or the Republicans had no issues with their backgrounds.

Anything else would have been noticed by Fox, the Washington Times, the National Review, etc.

Well apparently Fox was asleep at the switch (other than Glenn Beck) when Obama appointed Van Jones, a communist, as "special advisor". 

Perhaps Trump should just appoint special advisors too.....if the rats refuse to go forward with his nominations.  Fair is fair.

[Hoodat]

Who's ethics concerns?  Hers?  She's welcome to address them whenever she wants.

[Oceander]

The epitome of the b*tch.

[Wingnut]

The epitome of the b*tch.

Oh yeah. without a doubt....

[catfish1957]

Bitch who lied about her ethnicity to get into prestigious school .....   preaches to us about ethics.

Now that's rich....