Anti-Trump Democrats seek to block appointment of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau director

Kathy Kraninger, President Trump’s nominee to become director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), deserves swift Senate confirmation, despite Democratic attempts to block her appointment. Her confirmation hearing will be held Thursday before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.
The CFBP is was created in 2011. From its inception, the agency was more of a pet project of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., than it was an agency to actually protect consumers. It quickly became a powerful regulatory hammer in the service of Democratic Party interests.
Now that there is a Republican president in the White House, the political shoe is on the other foot. It is clear that the battle for control of the agency that ensued last November will likely continue for the remainder of this year. It is a fight that has very little to do with the day-to-day tedium of CFPB policy.
Instead, the fight to control the agency is between its Democratic creators – who want more political power and government regulation – and Republican reformers who demand accountability and transparency for what was formerly a rogue, partisan operation.
Only after the departure of the CFPB’s first director, Richard Cordray – now running as the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio – were we able to identify just how widespread the abuse and mismanagement was at the agency under his leadership.
First, there were revelations made by former CFPB Enforcement Attorney Ronald Rubin that a Democratic advertising firm that worked for both President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s election campaign was “the sole recipient of the CFPB’s $43 million advertising expenditure since 2013.”
Then there were the news stories about exorbitant cost overruns related to the renovation of CFPB’s Washington headquarters for about $215 million.
Even the Federal Reserve Board’s inspector general said of that project that "the approval of funding for the renovation was not in accordance with the CFPB’s current policies for major investments” and that “a sound business case is not available to support the funding of the renovation.”
Finally, there were the millions of dollars the CFPB doled out of its Civil Penalty Fund – collected from fines levied on corporations for alleged financial abuse – that went to third-party “consumer advocacy” groups tied to Democrats.
When Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney became acting director of the CFPB in November – following Cordray’s resignation to begin his race for governor in Ohio – Mulvaney started instituting immediate reforms. These included requesting zero dollars for the agency for the second quarter of the 2018 fiscal year and putting a 30-day freeze on new regulations.
It was no surprise that Sen. Warren and other Democrats were outraged. Now they are taking out their anger on Kraninger, opposing her nomination to head the CFPB.
Kraninger is a talented and trusted associate of Mulvaney at the Office of Management and Budget and clearly qualified to lead the CFPB. After President Trump nominated her for the job, Sen. Warren immediately went on the attack and has threatened to hold up her nomination  over, of all things, Kraninger’s suspected role in promoting President Trump’s immigration policies.

FILE -- Kathy Kraninger, President Trump’s nominee to become director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.  (AP)

What does this have to do with the mission of the CFPB? Warren is just seizing on any excuse to oppose a Trump nominee in her effort to politicize the CFPB.
At her confirmation hearing Thursday, Kraninger will no doubt face tough questions from Warren and others about her experience and ability to lead one of the most powerful agencies in the federal government. The CFPB is led by a single, autonomous director who is difficult to remove, has no oversight from Congress, and isn’t held accountable to the companies it fines or the public it is entrusted to protect.
No doubt, Warren will try to viciously smear Kraninger. The recent attacks Democrats have leveled against Kraninger are only a prelude to their fight to keep an iron grip on an agency that serves as a political slush fund for their allies.
However, Warren’s Senate colleagues and the public would be wrong to take the bait. For Warren, the fight over the CFPB isn’t about policy at all. It is a tantrum being thrown over the prospect that she may lose her stranglehold over an agency that, in her eyes, belongs to her.
In a response to Warren’s attacks, Mulvaney noted to the senator: “You originally conceived of this agency as one that should be ‘free of legislative micromanaging’ and recently reiterated that ‘the whole idea’ of the Bureau was to ‘insulate it from political influence to the extent possible,’ but I think most folks would interpret that exactly as I am suggesting: less accountable and less transparent.”
The CFPB is a highly political agency. I personally believe it should be abolished; but while it still exists it needs strong, market-oriented, and fiscally sane leaders who can cut it down to size and restore some form of transparency and constitutional accountability.
Kathy Kraninger is a believer in a limited and constitutionally accountable government, as are Mick Mulvaney and President Trump. What we need now isn’t political posturing. We need a strong and steady administrative hand to continue cleaning up the mess created by Elizabeth Warren and Richard Cordray. 
Colin Hanna is president of Let Freedom Ring, a conservative nonprofit based in Pennsylvania. Their website is LetFreedomRingUSA.com.

Lieberman slams Ocasio-Cortez, urges voters to pick Joe Crowley

January 31, 2012: Sen. Joe Lieberman at a news conference on Capitol Hill. He recently came out swinging against New York Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, urging voters to elect defeated top Democrat Joe Crowley who will appear on the ballot of the Working Families Party in November.  (AP)

Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic senator, appealed to voters in New York's 14th Congressional District on Tuesday to vote in November for top Democrat Joe Crowley and not the Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
In a scorching article for the Wall Street Journal, Lieberman, who’s now an Independent, criticized Ocasio-Cortez’s agenda as “more Socialist than Democratic” and said her presence in Congress will “make it harder for Congress to stop fighting and start fixing problems.”
“Thanks to a small percentage of primary votes, all of the people of New York’s 14th Congressional District stand to lose a very effective representative in Washington,” he wrote.
Ocasio-Cortez won last month in the Democratic primary against Crowley, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus who was thought by some to be a future Speaker of the House.
She ran on the platform of abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Democratic Socialist agenda, earning endorsements from several left-wing groups, including MoveOn and the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
FEUD ERUPTS BETWEEN DEM SOCIALIST OCASIO-CORTEZ AND DEFEATED REP. JOE CROWLEY
But now she faces pushback from moderate voices who fear her firebrand Democratic Socialist brand may actually hurt the party’s future prospects.
“[House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi] knows that if Democrats are to regain a majority, it will be by winning swing districts with sensible, mainstream candidates. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is making that task harder across America,” Lieberman wrote.
“Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose platform, like hers, is more Socialist than Democratic. Her dreams of new federal spending would bankrupt the country or require very large tax increases, including on the working class,” he continued. “Her approach foresees government ownership of many private companies, which would decimate the economy and put millions out of work.”

"Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America, whose platform, like hers, is more Socialist than Democratic."
- Joe Lieberman

Lieberman also took a shot at Ocasio-Cortez views on international politics. “Ms. Ocasio-Cortez didn’t speak much about foreign policy during the primary, but when she did, it was from the DSA policy book—meaning support for socialist governments, even if they are dictatorial and corrupt (Venezuela), opposition to American leadership in the world, even to alleviate humanitarian disasters (Syria), and reflexive criticism of one of America’s great democratic allies (Israel),” he wrote.
OCASIO-CORTEZ STARTS CONTROVERSY WITH COMMENTS ON ISRAELI ‘OCCUPATION,’ ADMITS SHE’S ‘NOT THE EXPERT’
Ocasio-Cortez recently flip-flopped in the span of a few days on the issue of Israel and Palestine. On Friday, she asserted the Jewish state’s right to exist but raised eyebrows after incoherent statements about Israel’s “occupation of Palestine.” She insisted she’s “not the expert at geopolitics on this issue.”
But during a town hall style sit-down with Democracy Now on Monday, she balked at repeating her support for the two-state solution and thus Israel’s right to exist. “This is a conversation I’m sitting down with lots of activists in this movement on and I’m looking forward to engaging in this conversation,” she said.
There are increasing calls for Crowley to step up and run in the general election against Ocasio-Cortez, giving an actual choice to voters in the district where opposition has been non-existent for decades.
Crowley will appear on the ballot of the Working Families Party.
Last week, Ocasio-Cortez accused Crowley of still running against her in the general election. “.@repjoecrowley stated on live TV that he would absolutely support my candidacy,” she tweeted. “Instead, he’s stood me up for all 3 scheduled concession calls.”
Crowley responded to the accusations, saying he’s not actively running in the general election. “Lots questions about WFP line. Was honored to have their support. I’m not running. For record you can only be removed from the ballot if 1) you move out of NY; 2) die; 3) be convicted of a crime; 4) accept a nomination for another office (in a place I don’t live),” he tweeted.
Lieberman ends the article with a ringing endorsement of Crowley, saying his re-election would show that “that Democrats are capable of governing again,” noting that Crowley is a progressive “bridge builder and problem solver, which is exactly what Congress needs more of in both parties.”
“For the sake of Congress and our country, I hope Joe Crowley will give all the voters of his district the opportunity to re-elect him in November—and I hope they find his name on their ballots,” he added.

Trump endorsement helps Rep. Martha Roby win Alabama runoff

When it comes to President Donald Trump, U.S. Rep. Martha Roby – a Republican now in her fourth term representing Alabama’s 2^nd Congressional District – hasn’t always been full-throated in her endorsements.
In October 2016 Roby called on the former New York real estate developer to quit as the GOP presidential candidate after the leak of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, in which Trump boasted about groping women.
There’s little room for hurt feelings in politics, but people somehow manage to make space for them anyway. So when Roby drew an opponent in the GOP primary who accused her of being insufficiently loyal to President Trump and his agenda, it wasn’t entirely unexpected. What was surprising was that the criticism was coming from Bobby Bright, a former Democratic House member whom Roby defeated to win her seat in 2010.
For Bright – who voted for liberal California Democrat Nancy Pelosi to be speaker of the House during his single term there – the conversion was enough to get him into a runoff with Roby, whom he held to less than 50 percent of the vote in the June primary election.
But it wasn’t enough to go the distance in the runoff, when Roby was declared the winner by a margin of better than 2-to-1 Tuesday.
Solidly conservative Alabama is used to party switchers. The state’s senior senator, Republican Richard Shelby, served as a Democrat in the House and was a Democrat when elected to the Senate in 1986. He switched parties after the 1994 GOP Contract with America landslide.
Alabama is a place where ideology generally means more than party identification – the aberrant election of Democrat Doug Jones to the U.S. Senate last year against an opponent accused of sexual misconduct notwithstanding.
Alabama is also Trump country. Trump carried the state in 2016 with a little better than 60 percent of the vote – so Roby’s apparent lack of support for him could have made her extremely vulnerable.
At least that was Bright’s calculation. In the end it was the wrong path to go down, especially after the president tweeted his support for Roby on June 22, writing: “Congresswoman Martha Roby of Alabama has been a consistent and reliable vote for our Make America Great Again Agenda. She is in a Republican Primary run-off against a recent Nancy Pelosi voting Democrat. I fully endorse Martha for Alabama 2nd Congressional District!”
The Trump endorsement – along with Roby’s strong record of service to her constituents, her consistent focus on issues of importance to the district, and the political advantages that accrue with incumbency – was enough to get her safely through the runoff and into a spot on the November ballot.
Roby is expected to be easily re-elected in a heavily Republican District when she faces Democrat Tabitha Isner, a business analyst and minister.     
Roby could have been another Rep. Mark Sanford, a South Carolina Republican who lost his primary bid for re-election in June after becoming a frequent critic of President Trump.
But Roby supported much of President Trump’s agenda in the House and didn’t join Republicans who are experiencing one of the worst cases of buyer’s remorse ever recorded – though, to be fair, they’d probably claim they never “bought” in the first place.
Roby, who says she still stands by the criticisms of candidate Trump that she made what seems like a lifetime ago (and in politics the last election is a lifetime ago) moved on. She put her time and energy into the job the people of her district sent her to Washington to do. In this case that turned out to be the right move.

James Comey urges voters to choose Democrats, warns that 'history has its eyes on us'

Former FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday said “history has its eyes on us” and encouraged people to vote for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.  (AP)

Former FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday said “history has its eyes on us” and encouraged Americans to vote for Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.
Comey, who was fired by President Donald Trump in May 2017, issued a tweet urging Americans to snub Republicans this November.
“This Republican Congress has proven incapable of fulfilling the Founders’ design that ‘Ambition must … counteract ambition,’” tweeted the former FBI director, a longtime supporter of Republicans. “All who believe in this country’s values must vote for Democrats this fall. History has its eyes on us.”
The move to endorse Democrats comes after the controversial summit in Helsinki, Finland on Monday between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump drew the fury from both the left and right for not unequivocally siding with the American intelligence community on whether Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.
He said that though he has great confidence in the U.S. intelligence community, the Russian president gave a “strong and powerful” denial. He added that he doesn't “see any reason why” Russia would be behind election meddling and suggested both Russian and the U.S. are to blame for strained relations.
Comey criticized the president’s conduct at the summit as well, saying, “This was the day an American president stood on foreign soil next to a murderous lying thug and refused to back his own country. Patriots need to stand up and reject the behavior of this president.”
The president has since backtracked on his remarks during the press conference with Putin, telling reporters on Tuesday that he misspoke and insisting that he fully accepts the U.S. intelligence community's conclusions regarding Russian interference efforts.
"I came back and said 'What is going on, what’s the big deal?'” Trump said, adding that he looked up the transcript and "realized that there is a need for some clarification."
He said he meant to say he doesn’t see why Russia "wouldn't" be responsible for interference. “I said the word 'would' instead of 'wouldn't' ... sort of a double negative," he insisted.
"I accept our intelligence community's conclusion that Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election took place," he added, but noted that "It could be other people also."

Rod Rosenstein Cartoons

Resolutions to impeach Rosenstein at least days away, sources say

Wall Street Journal columnist and Fox News contributor says the FBI and the Department of Justice have been obstructionist in turning over documents that Congress needs to perform its oversight function.
Republican House members could be days away from the release of article of impeachment against Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, sources told Fox News on Monday.
Sources said there could be two separate resolutions to impeach Rosenstein but there is hope among some members of Congress to vote on the issue prior to the House’s August recess.
The deputy attorney general oversees Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible collusion between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.
Politico reported last week that Reps. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, both members of the House Freedom Caucus, are leading the effort.
Politico’s story on the possible impeachment filing against Rosenstein came on the same day that Rosenstein announced Mueller’s 12 indictments against Russian military intelligence officials on charges linked to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
Speculation that President Donald Trump might fire Rosenstein increased in April, after FBI agents conducted raids at the office and home of Michael Cohen, the president’s former personal attorney, the Hill reported.
The 29-page indictment lays out how, months before Americans went to the polls, Russians schemed to break into key Democratic email accounts, including those belonging to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Stolen emails, many politically damaging for Clinton, appeared on WikiLeaks in the campaign's final stretch.
VIDEO: WHO IS ROD ROSENSTEIN?
Rosenstein called for a unified approach to countering foreign meddling.
"When we confront foreign interference in American elections, it is important for us to avoid thinking politically as Republicans or Democrats and instead to think patriotically as Americans," he said. "Our response must not depend on who was victimized."
Fox News' Chad Pergram, Edmund DeMarche, Dom Calicchio and The Associated Press contributed to this report

Trump says Mueller probe has 'driven a wedge' between US and Russia, says Putin calls it a 'shame'

President Trump said Monday that Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation has "driven a wedge between us and Russia" following his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
"Maybe we’ve just knocked down that wedge, but it has driven a wedge and President Putin said that," Trump told Fox News' Sean Hannity in an exclusive interview. "One of the early things he said when we started was, 'It's really a shame, because we could do so much good' ... And they drove a phony wedge, it's a phony witch hunt, rigged deal with guys like [FBI agent] Peter Strzok and [former FBI Director] James Comey and [former FBI Deputy Director Andrew] McCabe ... and you can imagine who else. It's a real shame."
Monday's summit took place three days after a grand jury indicted 12 Russian intelligence operatives on charges related to cyberattacks on Democratic organizations during the 2016 election campaign. At a news conference following the meeting, Putin offered to have Russian prosecutors question the indicted operatives and added that Mueller's team of investigators could be present for questioning, if U.S. officials would "reciprocate."
Trump told Hannity he was "fascinated" by Putin's suggestion, but then appeared to dismiss it, saying that the special counsel's team "probably won't want to go."
"The 13 angry Democrats? You think they're going to want to go? I don't think so," said Trump, using one of his usual phrases to describe Mueller's investigators.
The president added that the Russian leader was "incensed even talking about" the indictments and pointed out that Putin "said there was absolutely no collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016.
"I think it's a shame ... we're talking about all of these different things and we get questions on the witch hunt," Trump said. "And I don’t think the people out in the country buy it, but the reporters like to give it a shot. I thought that President Putin was very, very strong."
In an interview with Fox News' Chris Wallace, Putin said he was "not interested" in the Mueller investigation, calling it part of "the internal political games of the United States."
PUTIN DENIES HAVING DIRT ON TRUMP, CALLS MEDDLING CHARGE 'UTTERLY RIDICULOUS'
Trump told Hannity that he and Putin had "a very long meeting, and it was a good meeting."
"It was just the two of us and interpreters," Trump said, "and at the end of this meeting, I think we really came to a lot of good conclusions."
He continued, "I think we’re doing really well with Russia as of today. I thought we were doing horribly before today ... I think we really had a potential problem."
The president said the biggest issue between Russia and the United States has been nuclear proliferation, pointing out how the two countries account for "90 percent" of the world's nuclear weapons "and we've had a phony, witch hunt deal drive us apart."
"I know President Obama said global warming is our biggest problem, and I would say that no, it’s nuclear warming is our biggest problem by a factor of about five million," Trump said. "The nuclear problem ... we have to be very careful."
The president added that Putin told him "he wants to be very helpful with North Korea." However, Trump said: "We’re doing well with North Korea [so] we have time. There’s no rush, it has been going on for many years.
"You know, we got our hostages back, there’s been no testing, there’s been no nuclear explosions … there’s been no rockets going over Japan, no missiles going over Japan [for] nine months and the relationship is very good, you saw the nice letter [Kim Jong Un] wrote," Trump said. "And so, I think a lot of good things are happening. But President Putin is very much into making that all happen."
KIM JONG UN SENDS TRUMP A 'VERY NICE' LETTER, TEASES POSSIBLE SECOND MEETING
Trump also criticized the media coverage of his conduct at last week's NATO summit in Brussels, where he raised concerns about other members of the alliance not honoring their pledges to spend two percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on the military.
"The media was very unfair," he said. "I raised $44 billion and the secretary general [of NATO] said, 'He raised $44 billion and it was only President Trump,' because I said, 'Otherwise, we're going to have to start thinking about our relationship to NATO.' I also said this: NATO is wonderful, but it helps Europe a lot more than it helps us. And yet we’re paying for 90 percent of it.
"So, I was amazed [that] much of the media said that I was tough – very tough and nasty to foreign leaders and I really wasn’t at all. But I did say, 'You have to pay up,'" Trump added.
The president later returned to the Russia investigation, slamming Strzok over his testimony before House lawmakers last week and calling him a "total phony."
"It's a very dishonest deal and, you know, you have to find out, who did Peter Strzok report to, because it was Comey and it was McCabe, but it was also probably Obama," said Trump. "[Strzok is] a disgrace to our country. He’s a disgrace to the great FBI. A disgrace. And how he’s still being paid is beyond belief."

Harvard-linked research chief apologizes after asking mom with biracial toddler if she lives in 'affordable housing'

Theresa Lund, executive director of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, said that she’s “terribly sorry” and her comments were “inappropriate and wrong.” She added that “there was no reason for me to ask what type of unit she lives in.”  (Facebook)

A Harvard University-affiliated research center employee dubbed “Sidewalk Sussie” apologized on Monday after being caught on camera asking a neighbor and the woman’s biracial daughter to get away from her home because they were making noise and asked if they lived in “affordable housing.”
Theresa Lund, executive director of the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, told the Boston Globe that she’s “terribly sorry” and her comments were “inappropriate and wrong.” She added that “there was no reason for me to ask what type of unit she lives in.”
The conflict occurred in Cambridge on Saturday after Lund came out of her apartment to berate Alyson Laliberte and her biracial toddler for allegedly making noise by walking on the sidewalk outside the building.
“I’m sitting here because you’re preventing my children from sleeping. Would you like me to do that to your kids?” Lund told Laliberte, according to the video posted her on Facebook.
Laliberte fired back: “Who is even watching your kids right now. Are you? Cause you’re not, you’re here with me and my kid.”
The research center employee then questioned whether Laliberte is poor. “Are you one of the affordable units? Or are you one of the Harvard units?” Lund asked.
On social media, the mother slammed and accused Lund, who’s white, of racism. “It was totally discriminating and racist of her... or maybe it was because my daughter is biracial who knows,” Laliberte wrote.
“I have no idea who this woman is and the fact that she thinks she has some kind of authority over me is crazy!” she added.