They're pretty clear. For example, Ethics Committee Rule 24 ("Sanction Hearing and Consideration of Sanctions or Other Recommendations"
sets forth in some detail the rules governing the process by which the Committee, if after an adjudicatory hearing, finds that a "Statement of Violation" has been "proved", can RECOMMEND to the full House that some sanction be imposed on a Member. One of those sanctions expressly listed is: (5) Denial or limitation of any right, power, privilege, or immunity of the Member if under the Constitution the House of Representatives may impose such denial or limitation. The only action identified that the Committee itself can take directly is the adoption of a Letter of Reproval. (Also see Committee Rule 10).
In addition to the above, the House Rules contain pages upon pages of very detailed rules governing both the Ethics Committee and the Intelligence Committee. The rule governing the Ethics Committee (XI(3) states that The committee may recommend to the House from time to time such administrative actions as it may consider appropriate to establish or enforce standards of official conduct for Members, Delegates, the Resident Commissioner, officers, and employ- ees of the House. A letter of reproval or other administrative action of the committee pursuant to an investigation under subparagraph (2) shall only be issued or implemented as a part of a report required by such subparagraph.
The rules governing the Intelligence Committee (X(11)(4) and (5) state
that the committee "shall investigate any unauthorized disclosure of intelligence or intelligence-related information by a Member...and report to the House concerning any allegation that it finds to be unsubstantiated....If, at the conclusion of its investigation, the Committee on Ethics determines that there has been a significant breach of confidentiality or unauthorized disclosure by a Member...it shall report its findings to the House and recommend appropriate action.
In all of these detailed rules there is not one word suggesting that the Ethics Committee itself has the authority to impose any restriction or other sanction on a member being investigated, let alone do so before the investigation has been fully completed and a decision reached pursuant to the committee's specific procedural rules.
You seem to be of the view that an entity of government has the power to do anything that is not expressly, by rule, denied to it, even if the rules governing that entity contain very specific grants of authority. I doubt that you actually hold to that view generally. It certainly is a view that I would expect Mr. Trump to hold -- that unless and until someone can show him where he is expressly barred from doing something, he has the power to do it.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
