Monday, November 27, 2017

The mess at CFPB

So apparently the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has two people today who apparently are behaving as if they are in charge. Both Leandra English and Mick Mulvaney have been sending out memos to employees, claiming to be "acting director".

For a quick recap. The old director resigned, effective immediately and "appointed" the deputy director Leandra English as acting director. Meanwhile the President appointed Mick Mulvaney as acting directory.

The Justice Department believes that the President has the right to appoint the acting director based on laws that provide the President with the authority to appoint acting director in pretty much all agency vacancies under the executive branch. The CFPB General Counsel agrees with the Justice Department. This means pretty much all of the legal representation at this point are recognizing (and ordering employees to recognize) Mulvaney as the acting director.

Leandra English (in true liberal form) has gone to court asking for a restraining order preventing Mick Mulvaney from acting as acting director. The legal argument is that the law that created the CFPB allows the deputy director to act as director in the even of the absence or unavailability of the actual director.  They will find themselves up against the laws that allow the President to appoint acting directors in the case of actual "vacancies".  It would appear (logically) that this is not an absence or unavailability, but rather it's a vacancy. On those ground, the Justice Department and General Counsel are going to be correct.

All that being said, it's sort of an interesting bit of drama to work out.

38 comments:

Anonymous said...




there's some irony here. 0linsky used a false recess appointment to install cordray in the first place. that trump get's to swat english out of there is sweet.

wphamilton said...

The article I read had it that the Deputy Director is automatically the Acting Director - no "appointing" required and therefore no competing "appointment authority". The outgoing Director appointed the Deputy and then resigned.

Supposedly this is all statutory for the department.

C.H. Truth said...

The article I read had it that the Deputy Director is automatically the Acting Director

Well the actual law that created the agency stated that the deputy director is the acting director in case of absence or unavailability... "not automatically".

So the article you read is misleading. Probably on purpose.

You might want to try just reading the law itself, WP... rather than allow yourself to be pulled in a particular direction.

wphamilton said...

It's a lot closer than your description, which had it that the resigning Director just appointed a new Director competing with Trump's appointment. I figured you just read that somewhere, probably from a White House press release.

wphamilton said...

Absence or unavailability - right - which is automatic. Strange semantic argument, but call it what you will. The Director is gone, so the Deputy becomes Acting Director. It sounds straightforward.

Myballs said...

This maneuver by cordray and english won't stand up in court. Otherwise they and their allies could hold control theoretically forever.

Even Lindsay Graham, never one to support trump on anything, says it is Trump's call.

C.H. Truth said...

I stated that the outgoing director appointed English as acting director... which is a fairly accurate description, considering Leandra English had not been the deputy director, but rather Cordray's Chief of Staff.

But yeah, technically he appointed her deputy director and then stated she would act as interim director... or acting director. I guess there was a step in the process that I left out. But I think we all understand that the point was to name her to be acting director.

Considering the animosity between the entire agency and the Administration, I think many were surprised when the Agency's own General Counsel agreed with the Justice Department's legal opinion.

But given the language of the law itself (provided by various legal folks) - it seems rather obvious that the DOJ is correct... and Elizabeth Warren, Cordray, and English are wrong.

wphamilton said...

Acting Director English should assign some staff for Mulvaney to order around while he's "kicking the tires", and to fire probably, and then direct the rest of the department in their lawful business. He probably wouldn't know the difference.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

Are you saying you don't understand the difference between a short term requirement for leadership when someone becomes "absent" or "unavailable" vs the requirement for someone stepping in when there is a resignation that creates a vacancy?

Clearly the wording of "absence" or "unavailable" is designed to address a temporary situation where the director is returning and it would make sense for the second in charge to take over in that situation.... while the laws governing a director vacancy provides the President with the ability to name the interim director to any agency.

C.H. Truth said...

Acting Director English should assign some staff for Mulvaney

Well if Deputy director English was really that bright... then she would understand the difference between someone being absent and someone who is not coming back?

I wonder if she will put in for paid leave, after she is fired... since according to her logic she will actually just be absent rather than a former employee?

wphamilton said...

hen she would understand the difference between someone being absent and someone who is not coming back?

Same difference, but if you really did read the CFPB memo like you snarked at me about, that's not very important in the first place. No (serious) court is going to say that the President cannot appoint an Acting Director, or that he can't replace an Acting Director if it comes to that. The most she's likely to achieve is throwing a wrench in Mulvaney's plans if he thinks he's going to start tearing it down as soon as he's done "kicking the tires".

The shame is that Trump is such an idiot with his appointments.

wphamilton said...

Are you saying you don't understand the difference between a short term requirement for leadership when someone becomes "absent" or "unavailable" vs the requirement for someone stepping in when there is a resignation that creates a vacancy?

That whole line of reasoning strikes me as comically absurd.

Myballs said...

Trump is many things. Good and not so good

Idiot isn't one of them.

wphamilton said...

By now we've all got a good look at the "Emperor's Clothes", and "idiot" is just about the most descriptive word for it. I'd hoped it wouldn't be so.

Once you get over the fact that a billionaire can be an idiot, it's pretty obvious.

Myballs said...

Idiot is defined as a stupid person. Trump has been proven right on msny things. Including the electorate. That doesn't mean he's not an ass. But to proclaim him stupid is....well......stupid.

Anonymous said...

B.S.

Anonymous said...

US Senate Republicans kill Tax plan.

wphamilton said...

Trump thought he was losing, so he wasn't even right about that.

C.H. Truth said...

The idiots are the Obama appointments who thought their coup would work.

Myballs said...

Actually Trump's internal polling showed a large block of voters being undercounted by the main stream polls. He was right. Heck, i even said it here many times.

Anonymous said...

WP, how well did Jill Stien DO, did she win, oh so funny.

Anonymous said...

Roger Amick said...
If you take out the first six months of the Obama administration, as we emerged from the Great Recession, the Obama recovery and historical sustained economic growth approaches 3%. I will look it up and yes you will cry like babies.

By the way Menstra, my skills in English are better than yours


November 25, 2017 at 9:32 AM"

Still waiting on the low IQ HB to make is point.

This is very typical of his low IQ ilk , they run in , breathless, puke something out and then run, run, run from their topic.

wphamilton said...

Anonymous Myballs said...
Actually Trump's internal polling showed a large block of voters being undercounted by the main stream polls. He was right.


Trump didn't believe his internal polling, so he was wrong even about that.

Myballs said...

Yes he did. He knew he had the big crowds and the polls were undercounting them. It wasn't difficult to recognize. I myself said it here many times.

wphamilton said...

Stein was Clinton's water carrier in contesting the election in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. She got her end of the bargain, millions raised for the challenge and never spent. Clinton got her long-shot challenge. Why would I - or anyone - care how Stein did in the election?

Is forgetting something like that typical of Trump supporters?

wphamilton said...

“So I go and see my wife. I say, ‘Baby, I’ll tell you what, we’re not gonna win tonight because the polls have come out and’ " - Trump addressing Wisconsin voters. He was talking about exit polls ("phony exit polls") there (which he misinterpreted as declaring him lost.

It was later that it came out that some internal polls had suggested better support in those critical states, and absolutely Trump discounted those as well. It may not have been that difficult to recognize, remember that I was warning not only about that but giving the reasons why the normal polling was wrong - but Trump absolutely had no idea. He was wrong about that, just like he's been wrong about just about everything else.

Myballs said...

Trump took to Twitter to blast the reports that you are referencing. I guess you missed that.

Myballs said...

He also knew when hillary cancelled her fireworks.

Even Esquire had a story about how Trump knew when most didn't.

C.H. Truth said...

My polling spreadsheet had

Clinton 2.7 in raw average
Clinton 2.36 in adjusted projection

I stated that she would probably need to win by at least that popular vote margin to win the electoral college.

Clinton actually won by 2.1 and lost the Electoral College

So I guess I was actually one of the few who actually didn't get too terribly "fooled" in 2016. To the degree that I was "fooled" was that I figured that my projections would actually turn out wrong.

Anonymous said...

Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to WriterBeat.com? There is no fee; I’m simply trying to add more con5tent diversity for our community and I liked what you wrote. I’ll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. If "OK" please let me know via email:

Autumn
AutumnCote@WriterBeat.com

C.H. Truth said...

Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to WriterBeat.com?

Yeah, you can post it.

james said...

Buffoon is a much better descriptive word than idiot.

:-) said...

"For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works." - 2 Corinthians 11:13-15

wphamilton said...

You did have her at 2.x% popular vote advantage, mostly from big states.

As I recall, the fact that two historically UN-popular and unqualified candidates were waging unusually negative campaigns threw out the standard models of "likely voters" in swing states in my estimation, throwing off a lot of the state-wide polls. I think that is still a valid analysis.

Anonymous said...

Cool. Go for it

Anonymous said...

Victory, President Jill Stien, I voted for her. She was so liked, so smart.

Anonymous said...

WP, violation your own rule, what happened does not matter, I guess you changed your mind.

wphamilton said...

You were begging for an answer. I guess I'll just ignore you henceforth.