Republican Ethics Stumble Disastrous! Pelosi noted, "Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."

When House Republican authoritarian leaders decided to free themselves any of the moral or ethical responsibility that comes with complete power, the nation gasped:

House Republicans scrapped plans to weaken an independent ethics watchdog on the first day of the 115th Congress after a backlash from President-elect Donald Trump and others, as a new period of Republican-led governance started on a tumultuous note. 

As the Washington Post saw it, Trump supposedly took a strong stand: 

Trump took to Twitter to slam House Republicans...

“Slam?” Not quite. Suggesting that maybe it wasn't the number one priority...isn't slamming anyone:

My favorite down the rabbit hole response? Well, it doesn’t make any sense, but that’s the beauty of reading Trump counselor Kellyanne Conway's position:

"I don’t want your viewers to be left with the impression that there’s no mechanism to investigate ethics complaints. Particularly ethics complaints that come from constituents, which the former office has been entertaining.

They have many mechanisms in place where you can effectuate the kind of hypothetical you're putting fourth. But I don't want people to feel like ethics is gone. There are many ways for constituents particularly to make their voices heard."

And your job is to find out what they are. Happy hunting. The Democratic response got to the point:

Democrats, led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, reacted angrily, "Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."

Fake news site Breitbart, in another juvenile "I know you are but what am I" moment, accused everyone else of writing fake news:

The story qualifies as “fake news,” and the fact that it is being repeated by so many outlets does not make the it any less fake … (the) complaint is that leaks from the OCE, or statements about its investigations, tarnished the reputations of those it was investigating. Those initiating the investigation could remain anonymous, meaning that it was possible, at least theoretically, for entirely facetious charges to be made against a political target without any opportunity for the accused to question their accusers.

I thought this response in the comment section fine tuned the message:

Bill • 6 hours ago: Sadly it seems many people don't understand the definition of fake news. Fake news is a story a "media source" creates without any source or evidence - it is known to be a lie when it is published. That is the only definition. Fake news is not news one doesn't like, news that one feels is slanted (which apparently is what Joel is objecting to),or news that is derived from sources believed to be accurate that turns out be a lie. You're welcome.