Is Robert Mueller running a legitimate investigation into allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign or officials in it and Russia?
Robert Mueller hasn’t decided whether to actually investigate Trump: Report
Special counsel is investigating Trump for possible obstruction of justice, officials say
Mueller Seeks to Talk to Intelligence Officials, Hinting at Inquiry of Trump
Special counsel is investigating Jared Kushner’s business dealings
It isn’t possible for the Mueller investigation to be legitimate with all of these leaks about his investigation and its status and findings that he’s permitting to occur. Or that, Comey-esque, he’s doing himself.
There is a move afoot in Congress to “overhaul” Dodd-Frank, at least to the point of adjusting the threshold size that banks would need to exceed in order to become subject to strict rules on “the capital, mergers, and other business” in which Government will permit these otherwise private enterprises to engage. Under the present threshold of $50 billion or more in assets, some 37 financial institutions are subject to such Government diktat.
The trick will be reaching a compromise on what should come next.
President Trump has promised to roll back the regulatory state, but he’ll need the help of a judiciary that has for decades deferred too eagerly to executive agencies.
Indeed. As the WSJ op-ed at the link says, that’ll require the judiciary to recognize its role in the Federal government and, in particular, its position in the hierarchy.
The proximate matter here is a DC Circuit ruling in US Telecom Association v Federal Communications Commission which used the Chevron Deference doctrine (which holds that the Court should be spring-loaded to uphold an Executive Branch agency rule rather than considering its constitutionality—its legitimacy—de novo on its merits) to find for the FCC. Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissented, and he based his dissent in large part on decrying that deference doctrine. The WSJ asked
Senator Ben Sasse (R, NE) opined in the Friday Wall Street Journal about economic disruptions and how we’re undergoing the largest one in human history. However, he exposed a number of misunderstandings about both disruptions and about proper policy responses the current one (stipulating that it’s the largest one in human history, but its size is irrelevant to the principle involved). For instance:
[W]e don’t have a national-security strategy for the age of cyberwarfare and jihad.
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) is upset over his administration’s having been called soft on crime by that impertinent man, Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions, after all, said that New York
continues to see gang murder after gang murder, the predictable consequence of the city’s “soft on crime” stance.
De Blasio’s response? He transferred the target of the remark to the police themselves, pretending to wonder why the AG has
insult[ed] the men and women who do this work every day, who put their lives on the line and who have achieved so much?
…is more than just reducing spending; although that’s a major component of the necessary shrinkage. Shrinking also must include reducing the physical size of the government, reducing its payroll. To that end, the moves by President Donald Trump and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney will prove valuable if Congress will cooperate.
If the advance word leaks about President Donald Trump’s upcoming budget proposal can be believed, it would appear that his swamp-draining and Government downsizing are about to get start. And “news” outlets like CNN are getting their panties bunched over the prospect. This is from this outlet’s piece, tellingly headlined Trump’s plan to dismember government:
It would codify an assault on regulatory regimes over the environment, business and education bequeathed by former President Barack Obama, and attempt to halt decades of steadily growing government reach.
Cross-posted from my comment on the matter at Grim’s Hall and based on a CNN article.
From Comey’s quote as provided by CNN:
There is no such thing as absolute privacy in America….
That’s his (cynically offered, because I don’t agree he’s either as stupid or as ignorant as he’d have to be otherwise) straw man; he’ll have to play with his dolly without me.
He also has distorted (deliberately, if not from his lack of understanding, coming from Government’s perspective as he does) what the Founders wrought:
John Curtice, writing in The Guardian, in the land where John Locke was borne, seems confused on the question. His proximate piece is his missive on the nature of referenda in Great Britain. He began that piece with a false premise of very large proportion, and that—as false premises are wont to do—set the tone for the rest of his op-ed.
In the Commons debates on Brexit during the last fortnight, many MPs have found themselves voting for something they do not believe in. Instead of being their constituents’ “representative”, they now appear to be no more than the people’s “delegate”.
The British Supreme Court has thrown a monkey wrench into Great Britain’s going out from the European Union, but in the process, it has thrown a double handful of sand into the gears of liberty in the birthplace of John Locke.
The Court has ruled (by an 8-3 margin; it certainly wasn’t wishy-washy in its attitude) that Parliament must agree to invoke Article 50 and trigger negotiation over terms of separation from the EU. David Neuberger, President of the Supreme Court, reading the judgment: