Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Court Sides with Trump in Bitter Fight with CFPB and Elizabeth Warren

Court Sides with Trump in Bitter Fight with CFPB and Elizabeth Warren

Denies request for temporary restraining order

Elizabeth Warren’s pet project, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, is engaged in an unnecessary feud with the Trump administration.

Outgoing agency head Richard Cordray appointed his own replacement, his Chief of Staff Leandra English, attempting to side-step the executive branch’s privilege of naming an interim replacement. Undeterred, Trump named his own temporary replacement, Mick Mulvaney. Both showed up to work Monday claiming to be acting director.

Sunday night, English filed a complaint and a temporary restraining order against Trump and Mulvaney, arguing she had the legal right to serve as acting agency head until Congress confirmed a permanent replacement.

The presiding federal judge, Timothy J. Kelly (a Trump appointee) promised to act quickly, and he did.

According to Politico, the request for the temporary restraining order was denied Tuesday evening:

A U.S. District Court judge in Washington has ruled in favor of the Trump administration in its bid to install White House Budget Director Mick Mulvaney as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Leandra English, who was named last week as acting director by outgoing CFPB chief Richard Cordray, had sought a temporary restraining order to block Mulvaney from taking the post.

This is yet another sad failure in the Democrats string of attempts to circumvent the power of the executive. Executive power is only desirable with it’s ideologically agreeable, you see.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Lol sad, just sad…

    carabec in reply to gonzotx. | November 29, 2017 at 9:20 am

    It is astounding that this confrontation and court action took place! The President can Hire or Fire at any agency. Political Fall Out is the Penalty if a mistake is made.

Judge Timothy J. Kelly is Trump appointed

failure in the Democrats string of attempts to circumvent the power of the executive.

Oh, they have no problem with executive power … and didn’t when Old I’ve-Got-a-Phone-and-I’ve-Got-a-Pen was in the office. They just have reservations about Trump Power.

Next the courts should declare the whole agency unconstitutionally created. You can’t have an agency that has no outside oversight, such as Congress or the President.

Bad English.

Stinging rebuke of presumptive presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren’s unconstitutional congressional overeach.

Now Mulvaney should fire Leandra English for gross insubordination.

I appreciate the additional information that he was a Trump appointee, but that point is irrelevant. The Dodd-Frank rule says an acting director shall be appointed when the director is either “absent” or “unavailable”. These terms apply to a post that is still occupied but the person is unavailable and then appoints a person to act in their place for a time ie: a long illness. So the temporary appointment could only last until the President appoints his own acting director (Which could have been the one selected by Cordray) but Trump chose someone else. Case closed, should have never gone to court and now Ms. English will have to wait for another liberal administration to ever have a job in the federal government again. As far as the agency itself is concerned, it shouldn’t even exist in the first place as an unconstitutional/unaccountable fourth branch of government. Hopefully, the fed is next for major revision

This one is dedicated to Milhouse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

Thanks for your great and prescient comments yesterday.

    Milhouse in reply to dystopia. | November 28, 2017 at 8:43 pm

    I did not predict anything yesterday. I merely commented on the law, and my comments stand. In particular, those who claim that “unavailability” does not include vacancies are still wrong; even the OLC says so. And we still don’t know how this will be decided in the end.

In other news judge confirms Millhouse is full of shit.

    Ok. Enough.

    Milhouse was wrong, but his argument did have merit from a “Precedent” point of view and could just as easily (at this level) gone the other way.

    I thought Milhouse was wrong on the plain meaning of what “unavailable” meant in the CFPB statute, in that the Assistant Director could only act so long as there was either no director or that the director was “unavailable” (short term incapacitated or out of pocket). Thus, when President Trump appointed a new director (pursuant to his out-of-session appointment power), the unavailability of the director ceased to exist.

    The argument of whether or not Congress ~intended~ the Assistant Director to ~become~ the Director until a new Director could be confirmed is relevant. But this is why (in theory) we have Judges: to make the call as to what Congress meant when they were particularly unclear.

    That being said: Mulvaney should immediately Fire Ms. English for attempting to usurp his role.

      It is enough, Chuck, but people get pretty sick of being condescended to and treated as drooling morons, too. I love the content of Milhouse’s posts, but it’s his attitude that inspires this type of (well-earned on Milhouse’s part) schadenfreude. He’s so busy thinking he’s better than everyone that anyone who wants to crow when he’s wrong is in their own right to do so. Call it human nature.

        Name one person whom I have insulted without more than adequate cause. I never resort to insult unless I am insulted first, or someone says something so completely insane that an insult is the only possible response, e.g. “the Vacancy Act supersedes all statutes”.

          Milhouse, you routinely call others idiots, liars, and ignoramuses. Your idea of “adequate cause” consists of anyone who isn’t as smart and insightful as you. You have lashed out and accused readers of being stupid, clueless, and otherwise impaired. You do this all the time. Do you really need me to link to the multitude instances of you calling a commenter names, dismissing them as ignorant for not sharing your enlightened view, and otherwise not meeting your standards?

          Everyone who comments on LI expresses themselves in terms of their own opinion, and it’s not a bannishable offense. But if you can really look at all of your comments and see no vitriolic, holier-than-thou attacks on those you deem inferior to yourself, nothing I can say will help.

          tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | November 28, 2017 at 11:00 pm

          I never resort to insult unless I am insulted first, or someone says something so completely insane that an insult is the only possible response

          I suppose one of the classic questions a therapist can’t ask (and expect a meaningful answer) is, “How long have you had these self-awareness deficiencies”?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 28, 2017 at 11:15 pm

          Do you really need me to link to the multitude instances of you calling a commenter names, dismissing them as ignorant for not sharing your enlightened view, and otherwise not meeting your standards?

          Yes, actually, because I think the exercise will be enlightening. If you go looking for them you will find very few if any instances where you will not have to admit to yourself that it was justified. In particular you will find that in the vast majority of instances I was not the one who took it personal; you surely don’t expect me to take personal abuse from the likes of mailman, FineReports, gonzo, etc. and turn the other cheek (wrong religion).

          In the vast majority of the remainder you will find that my insult was in direct response not to an understandable error but to a statement so monumentally insane that you must surely agree it was appropriate. For instance “The Vacancy Act supersedes all statutes”, or “whenever two statutes contradict each other the president can choose which one to follow”; how can one have a reasonable discussion with someone who writes things like that?

          Milhouse, you are a joke.

          Jokeahontas.

          Deal with it.

    Milhouse in reply to mailman. | November 28, 2017 at 8:54 pm

    Judge confirms nothing. The legal position remains exactly as it was. Both sides have decent arguments, both sides agree that “unavailability” includes vacancies, and in my opinion English has the stronger argument of the two. Kelly has not ruled, but has denied a TRO because he is inclined toward Mulvaney’s argument. Next step is probably for English to apply for a preliminary or permanent injunction, have Kelly promptly deny it, and then immediately appeal the denial.

      Tom Servo in reply to Milhouse. | November 29, 2017 at 1:06 am

      Here’s where you are wrong in your analysis – once the Chief Executive has filled the vacancy in the way he has done, then the office is no longer “vacant” but is in fact filled.

      Your failure to grasp that point is where your entire argument falls apart.

        Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | November 29, 2017 at 2:29 am

        That’s insane. (Note well that this is not an insult; I have said nothing, for now, about you.) Of course there’s a vacancy, and there will be until he’s nominated someone and obtained the senate’s consent to appoint him. The VRA doesn’t and can’t allow the president to make appointments without the senate’s consent! Mulvaney is not the director, he’s merely acting as such. The position of director is still vacant, and therefore the director is “unavailable” within the meaning of the law (as both sides agree).

          Apparently the general counsel of the CFPB itself disagrees with your ‘sage wisdom’. She must be ‘insane’

          paracelsus in reply to Milhouse. | November 29, 2017 at 7:58 am

          Your statement: “That’s insane.” is still an ad hominem.
          You may wish to define it otherwise, but the greater majority of people will see the statement as an attack on the person who uttered/wrote an opinion that differs from yours.
          I understand that comments by writers for whom English is a second should be encouraged, but limited in a forum such as this

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 29, 2017 at 8:03 am

          Apparently the general counsel of the CFPB itself disagrees with your ‘sage wisdom’.

          No, she does not. Her sanity is not in question; your honesty is.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 29, 2017 at 8:08 am

          Your statement: “That’s insane.” is still an ad hominem.

          No, it is not. Nor is it even an insult. You clearly have no idea what “ad hominem” means. (That is an insult, though well-deserved, but exactly the opposite of an argumentum ad hominem.)

WHERE is that idiot Milhouse Van Houten???

    jeffweimer in reply to Lanceman. | November 28, 2017 at 6:45 pm

    IDK, but I think he’s downvoting your comments.

    MarkSmith in reply to Lanceman. | November 28, 2017 at 7:40 pm

    I think he decided to hang out at Gateway Pundit and Conservative Tree House.

      Milhouse in reply to MarkSmith. | November 28, 2017 at 8:55 pm

      No, thank you. If you want to cover yourself in filth feel free, but no decent person can be found there.

        murkyv in reply to Milhouse. | November 28, 2017 at 11:22 pm

        You might want to take it up with the boss, since The Gateway Pundit is listed right here on this site under the heading, “Blogs I read”

          Milhouse in reply to murkyv. | November 29, 2017 at 12:07 am

          The list is way out of date. I’m sure the boss no longer reads Hoft and hasn’t for years. You might want to ask him.

        tlcomm2 in reply to Milhouse. | November 29, 2017 at 11:54 am

        I enjoy your comments but “no decent person can be found there” – is that not a tad unfair to a large number of treepers etc, myself included, that you do not interact with. See above discussion and consider a little introspection. Insults are often used in discussions – just don’t claim you only use them as a counterpunch.

          Milhouse in reply to tlcomm2. | November 29, 2017 at 12:51 pm

          No, I don’t think it’s unfair. Why would you hang out there? What could you possibly gain from it? These sites are no better than infowars. If a story is true it will be reported elsewhere, so there’s no need to go there looking for it; and if it’s not reported anywhere else then it’s guaranteed to be false, so why would you want to pollute your mind with it?

They had to go that route. They need to stall to cover up the mass of incriminating information that would send people to jail, and possibly destroy Fauxahontas.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to great unknown. | November 28, 2017 at 6:23 pm

    Audit time, bring on the bean counters. I smell fraud and political slush fund buried in those CFPB file cabinets.

      tom_swift in reply to Paul In Sweden. | November 28, 2017 at 6:45 pm

      They’ve probably wiped all the files by now. Like with a cloth, or something. There’ll be backups which would allow the incriminating records to be reconstructed, and those backups could be examined by the FBI … at which time they’ll disappear for good.

      The Swamp is alive and well … and very deep.

    regulus arcturus in reply to great unknown. | November 28, 2017 at 6:46 pm

    That’s an interesting theory.

    Judge Napolitano made the point that the Trump Admin. dropped the ball a bit here, because they knew Cordray was going to resign, so they could have teed up a deputy director to step in upon Cordray’s departure.

    They may have chosen not to do this so as to surprise those inside CFPB that they were “seizing control” after Cordray left, denying any corrupt actors inside time to destroy docs and evidence.

      There’s no way the Admin can “tee-up” anything which has to get through Congress.

      Even worse, any attempt at a tee-up will just turn into a tip-off.

      neanderthal in reply to regulus arcturus. | November 29, 2017 at 11:07 pm

      As I recall, the outgoing head of the CFPB left the job a week earlier than he had said he would. Presumably this was to make sure that he could name his successor before Trump had a chance to declare the position vacant and appoint an acting director.

      So it’s probably not fair to say the Trump administration failed to be on top of the situation. It would be more accurate to say that Cordray and English blindsided the Trump administration by pulling their maneuver a week before they had said they would.

      Hey, sometimes the Trump administration gets it right.

    regulus arcturus in reply to great unknown. | November 28, 2017 at 6:47 pm

    And for the record, that’s what I believe this was, and that CFPB was part of the massive DNC/government money laundering scheme.

      4th armored div in reply to regulus arcturus. | November 28, 2017 at 7:38 pm

      which means that they have already ‘cooked the books’ – have areal set and one for investigations (who can trust the FBI at this point to be honest brokers – not i).

can’t wait to see his ruling logic, hopefully they’ll produce it.

    Tom Servo in reply to stl. | November 28, 2017 at 7:38 pm

    Just read the statement by either the CFPB’s in house counsel, or the DOJ’s advisory opinion on the matter. All Judge Kelly needed to do was take either (or both) of those documents and say “yep, you’re right!”.

    funny how Milhouse has vanished.

Millhouse is strangely absent…

OleDirtyBarrister | November 28, 2017 at 7:24 pm

Millhouse is probably busy pretending to be a lawyer and insulting people on some other forum, or in the comments section of The Huffandpuff Post.

Warren just got sent on the trail of a thousand tears.

Don’t break out the cake and ice cream quite yet. There’s still the suit in the court. Of course, they have to explain how Obama making an interim appointment to the Director position was good, and how Trump doing it is bad, but this is DC, and on occasion, water flows uphill.

Odds are that English will stretch out the suit as long as possible, so she can be kinda-sorta the CFPB In Exile, and be interviewed every time the Interim Director scratches, while the mystery money that is sustaining the suit remains hidden.

FYI: For those of you calling for her to be fired, no. She’s not a real Federal Civil Service and not a real Appointee (serves at the pleasure of the President), but some mutant cross, so the litigation could last years. Far better to leave her in place doing nothing but spinning her wheels until her term expires. After all, there’s always the chance she will screw up royally and deserve a quick pink slip, and that chance grows every day.

    Milhouse in reply to georgfelis. | November 28, 2017 at 9:06 pm

    Of course, they have to explain how Obama making an interim appointment to the Director position was good, and how Trump doing it is bad,

    What are you talking about? He did no such thing. (He did illegally purport to make a recess appointment, which is a very different animal, and was smacked down.)

      From what I understand (and admittedly, that’s fuzzy) when the CFPB was first created, the then-vacant Director position was filled with an interim appointment until the actual appointee could be cleared by the Senate. (Becuase heaven forbid this new agency be denied even a moment’s worth of work on our behalf) It’s far enough back and my Google-fu is too poor to fully validate it, but Mulvaney referred to it about 12:04 into his press briefing.

      It’s part of the chicken-and-egg dance of creating an agency/department in DC. You can’t appoint somebody to a position that isn’t created yet, but you can create the agency and interim-appoint people to run it until the real appointees get cleared.

        Milhouse in reply to georgfelis. | November 28, 2017 at 11:50 pm

        From what I understand (and admittedly, that’s fuzzy) when the CFPB was first created, the then-vacant Director position was filled with an interim appointment until the actual appointee could be cleared by the Senate. (Becuase heaven forbid this new agency be denied even a moment’s worth of work on our behalf) It’s far enough back and my Google-fu is too poor to fully validate it, but Mulvaney referred to it about 12:04 into his press briefing.

        Mulvaney was wrong. Yes, Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, was officially in charge of the Bureau until a Director was appointed, because the statute explicitly said so.

        SEC. 1066. INTERIM AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY.
        12 USC 5586.
        (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary is authorized to perform the
        functions of the Bureau under this subtitle until the Director of
        the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate in accordance with section
        1011.

        Therefore there is no possible comparison between his situation and Mulvaney’s. In practise Geithner did not personally run the Bureau; First Elizabeth Warren and then Raj Date did, in their capacities as Special Advisors to Geithner.

        Then 0bama purported to appoint Cordray during a non-existent recess of the senate — one during which the senate actually passed legislation which 0bama signed!, which is why not even one justice could bring herself to claim it was in recess. Then he nominated Cordray again, and this time he was properly confirmed, 66–34 (after a 71–29 vote on cloture).

          So, we’ve established that the position of Director of the CFPB *can* be assigned to an existing political appointee by way of an interim appointment explicitly as per statute.

          It is no real step at all to then progress to the concept of assigning an existing political appointee to the position by the Executive powers held by the President and clarified in the Federal Vacancy Reform Act of 1998, since the position is an Executive agency as defined by federal law, and the position is a presidential appointee position that said nominees must be then cleared by the Senate before taking the post.

    jeffweimer in reply to georgfelis. | November 28, 2017 at 9:24 pm

    See, here’s the thing; with this TRO denial (and the expected ruling) it’s in English’s interest to move this as fast as possible to tie it up for as long as she can and in Trump’s to drag it out – his guy is in and running the show for as long as this goes on or longer and if he can get the Senate to expedite a confirmation, the whole thing becomes moot.

      jeffweimer in reply to jeffweimer. | November 28, 2017 at 9:27 pm

      The “our person running the show” gambit, BTW, was the scheme Cordray and English were trying before Trump bigfooted it, expecting the Democrats to drag out a confirmation forever.

      It depends on which way English expects the ruling to fall.

      If she expects to win (doubtful), she should press to the hilt in order to get her hands back on the controls before the Senate approves Trump’s final pick. She has a limited time-window to shovel money to the right people and make decisions in this case.

      If she expects to lose (looking more likely), it is in her best interest to foul the nest, throw out all kinds of allegations the press will mindlessly echo, and generally make such a stink that the following Director will be spending all his time patching the holes she drilled in the metaphorical boat. Worst case, she gets suspended with pay. Absolute worst case, her invisible money supplier who is paying the lawsuit lawyers gets exposed and everything goes to heck for her.

    Marco100 in reply to georgfelis. | November 28, 2017 at 10:10 pm

    English doesn’t even have standing to bring the lawsuit. Her lawsuit will be dismissed based on lack of standing. An employee of an agency can’t simply wrongfully declare herself to be its “Acting Director” and then based on that wrongful assertion, claim she has legal standing to sue the rightful, presidentially-appointed acting director.

    The only interesting question is whether or not English will eventually have to pay the government’s legal fees for bringing a bad-faith lawsuit. She must not be too intelligent to allow Cordray and Warren to set her up as the bag-holding stalking horse for this ridiculous stunt.

      Marco100 in reply to Marco100. | November 28, 2017 at 10:12 pm

      The CPFB’s own legal counsel rendered the opinion that Mulvaney and not English was the rightful Acting Director. That means the lawsuit was brought by English in bad faith, and she also had a conflict of interest in bringing a lawsuit against her own agency for her own personal gain.

      Milhouse in reply to Marco100. | November 28, 2017 at 11:57 pm

      That’s ridiculous. She definitely has standing, since there is no dispute that she was the lawful acting director until the disputed appointment. If the appointment was unlawful (which is the question to be decided) she is still the lawful acting director. By your “logic” whoever loses any lawsuit had no standing in the first place.

Investigate her for treason. Who conspired with her on this stunt? Intent to undermine US government?

    Marco100 in reply to george. | November 28, 2017 at 10:15 pm

    This doesn’t rise to the level of “treason” because it’s too damn stupid to be treason. It doesn’t deserve to be accorded the level of seriousness that an actual treason charge would confer on it. It’s just a stupid paper-pushing bureaucrat who has no common sense but a wildly over inflated egomanaical sense of her own self-importance. Cordray and English actually believed that they have more authority than the President of the United States. That’s how crazy and out of control the people running this agency are.

    Milhouse in reply to george. | November 29, 2017 at 12:04 am

    Treason?! Are you nuts? The definition of treason is either (1) an overt act of taking up arms against the United States; or (2) adhering to an enemy of the United States, together with an overt act giving that enemy aid and comfort. Which of these two do you allege English has done?

    (Fuzzy, do you seriously think such a proposal deserves any less contempt than I showed it?)

      Jokeahontas, where do you get your law? Readers Digest articles?

        Try the constitution, you boor. And the fact that you didn’t know this is enough to disqualify you from expressing any opinion on any legal matter, or on the constitution itself, since you’ve clearly never read it.

      tom_swift in reply to Milhouse. | November 29, 2017 at 4:13 am

      Aid and comfort to the enemy?

      Easy—just claim she’s conspiring with the Russians. Hey, that’s been going around, and no evidence—or even plausibility—is needed to tie the DoJ up in knots over it … and, apparently, there’s enough nothing there to keep them busy for years.

      Q.E.D.

      Milhouse, you are asking two questions. Do I think treason is a viable charge here? The answer is no. Do I think suggesting charges of treason makes someone contemptible and their opinion worthy of scathing contempt? The answer is no.

      Disagreeing with someone on a single point is one thing, attacking them as contemptible imbeciles is another. At the end of the day, your dripping contempt is so vitriolic that it ultimately excuses the original “sin” by being more objectionable than the original claim.

      “Hey, how about trying her for treason?”

      “Hey, how about you’re a scumbag moron who has zero understanding of anything ever and as such should be pilloried. By me. Now.”

      Which is more defensible?

Millhousszzee or whatever his name is, is completely wrong, because the two statutes are not in conflict. English could serve as Acting Director until the President appointed a new Acting Director under the Vacancies Act. Once Pres. Trump appointed Mulvaney, there was no longer an “absence” which English was needed to fill. Nothing in the law establishing the board indicates any intention to supercede the Vacancies Act.

My first thought upon learning of the good Judge’s decision was to rejoice and be glad. In doing so , I am drawn to Handel and this most classical piece of superb music.

https://youtu.be/IUZEtVbJT5c

This will all be moot as soon as the senate confirms the new director (with no filibuster, thanks to Reid).

I hope that person openly tells the senate he intends to rein the bureau in and prevent it from doing anything more than it’s absolutely required to by law (after applying all the 0bama precedents on prosecutorial discretion, waiver of enforcement, prioritization of efforts, etc.) And then proceeds to do so, until a repeal bill can be pushed through.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | November 29, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    Ohh, I am sure that Warren and a couple of others will do everything they can to slow the process, if for nothing else than to milk it for fundraising purposes.

me thinks this fella Milehouse is an identical twin of Raggedypeter?
Those two old coots sure do have opinions, don’t they???

I suspect Warren, aka Fauxcahontas will now go on warpath and use this to raise money. Lord knows the Dems need it.

Fussy Sloopers has taken on a role…both cowardly and totally inappropriate for an LI editor…of targeting…VERY selectively…only posters here who are NOT of the hive-mind.

This is disgusting. AND it is dangerous.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Ragspierre. | November 29, 2017 at 12:11 pm

    Hi Rags! How’s it going?

      Ragspierre in reply to Gremlin1974. | November 29, 2017 at 12:16 pm

      Generally, really well. I executed on a judgment yesterday against a remarkable scofflaw. After lying their asses off, the pitiful debtors had to get a cashier’s check for the full amount owed, including interest. Very satisfying…!!!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend