More Assault on an Independent Judiciary

Everyone really needs to understand the contents and implications of the below article* regarding the latest undermining of the judicial system within the federal government. Trump, by executive order, has eliminated the requirement for competency and merit in consideration for selection of Federal Administrative Law Judges. The executive order relieves the requirements for competency and merit utilized in the current appointment methods. This should be a major concern to everyone of the United States as it is another step in politicizing a fair and unbiased judiciary (before the executive order). Please absorb the impact of this action on the foundations of a democratic system of checks and balances. Why would a sitting President continue to make rules that infect the very foundation of an impartial judiciary?

*LA Times Editorial 7-20-2018

"Trump politicizes justice

In what looks like a political power play, President Trump has decided that administrative law judges — officials within federal agencies who resolve complaints about regulations, compliance or benefits — will no longer be chosen on the basis of merit. Unless the administration reconsiders this unnecessary and potentially harmful action, Congress should consider mandating a return to the old system.

There are nearly 1,900 administrative law judges in the federal government, the vast majority at the Social Security Administration ruling on disability and other claims. In the past, the so-called ALJs were chosen from a list compiled by a civil service agency that evaluates applicants on such neutral criteria as their performance on a competitive examination.

That will change under an executive order issued by Trump this month. ALJs hired in the future will no longer have “competitive service” status. That means agency officials can appoint whom they like, based on a subjective assessment of the applicant’s “temperament, legal acumen, impartiality and judgment.”

Administrative-law experts fear this could lead to a politicization of the adjudication process or even a return to old-fashioned patronage, elevating loyalty over competence. The new policy also introduces the possibility of ideological litmus tests by this and future presidents. While Trump might choose ALJs who would be expected to take a restrictive view of eligibility for disability benefits, for example, a Democratic president might seek the opposite quality.

The administration hasn’t offered a persuasive justification for the change. In his executive order, Trump cited a decision by the Supreme Court last month holding that ALJs in the Securities and Exchange Commission had been improperly appointed because they were chosen by the agency’s staff rather than by the commission itself, as the Constitution requires for “officers of the United States.”

But the court didn’t say that it was unconstitutional for ALJs to be appointed through a competitive examination process, so long as the actual appointment was made by the head of the agency.

Rather than a prudent response to the court’s decision, the president’s order looks like an opportunistic attempt to disguise a politicizing policy change as compliance with a court decree. If he persists in this course, Congress should move to restore the previous system with its emphasis on merit and professionalism."

Real time look at the beginning of Hitler's reign of terror

If this doesn't shake you up, you better get your head out of the sand before you are buried in it!

Trump's Sense of Omnipotance

For all of you who elected Trump to the presidency because things “needed to be shaken up”, how does this suit your need for chaos. I am profoundly “shaken up” by the fact that we have a sitting President who pronounces himself the law and his definition of the law is immutable. It also “shakes things up” to consider what acts Trump envisions being prosecuted for that would plant the seed of such an egregious act as forgiving himself in the name of the American people.

Educate yourself and consider bringing the people’s voice back to our government.

The below op-ed piece appeared in the Los Angeles Times on June 5, 2018

TRUMP’S UNPARDONABLE HUBRIS

He thinks he’s like a king or an emperor: He can’t violate the law because, after all, he is the law.

Donald Trump once said during the 2016 presidential campaign that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, and still not lose any voters. And who knows? He may have been right.

Now that he’s president, could he also be protected from prosecution for pulling the trigger? Trump seems to believe so. That’s the essence of his assertion Monday morning that he has the absolute right to pardon himself.

Of course the context of his tweet was not a New York shooting but the ongoing special investigation into alleged Russian interference in the election. But the claim would seem to be no more or less valid for one presidential action than any other.

If federal prosecutions are merely extensions of the president’s executive power, and if he could pardon himself as readily as he could pardon Joe Arpaio or Dinesh D'Souza , then it’s hard to see how he could be held to answer for breaking any federal law. Prosecute me, Trump seems to be saying, and I will just pardon myself and we’ll move on. So why bother prosecuting me in the first place?

In this view the president is like kings and emperors of ages past. By definition, he cannot violate the law. It’s not that he is above the law. As president, the argument goes, he is the law.

That notion is foreign and unpardonable — a structurally monarchical presidency constrained by nothing but the president himself. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ later statement that “no one is above the law” offers little comfort, given that the president apparently believes that he is.

Trump is correct when he says that there are some legal scholars who back his assertion that the president can pardon himself. It is a claim not yet vetted in the courts because there has never before been a president willing to push the question very far. Richard Nixon fired his prosecutor but ultimately resigned because he knew he faced impeachment, not because of impending criminal prosecution. President Gerald Ford did pardon Nixon and shielded him from criminal accountability for his actions, but by then Nixon was out of the White House, no longer a danger to the nation or a threat to the rule of law or the checks and balances of government.

So perhaps impeachment, replete with the trappings of legal procedure but at heart a political action, is the proper check on the otherwise unfettered power of a president over how, or even whether, the law is enforced? But then there is no check at all on any president who is sufficiently popular that he can, say, shoot someone on Fifth Avenue without fear from Congress, because it’s not in the political interests of the GOP majority to stand up to him. That would make us a nation of men (and women) and not of laws. And that’s not what we are.

After Florida Mass Shooting, Trump Suggests He will Act On Gun Control Unlike Other Presidents

Mr. President,
The terrible tragedy at Douglas Stoneman High School in Florida happened two weeks before your discussion (click on the below link) at the White House regarding what you will do regarding gun control and protecting our schools that other Presidents, both Democrat and Republicans failed to do.
It took two weeks for you to assemble stakeholders who you think can affect the change you have purported to make an immediate priority.
This blog entry will keep a record of how long it takes you to address this vital issue.


CALENDAR (June 28, 2018)

DAYS SINCE STONEMAN DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL ATTACK........................................114

DAYS SINCE YOU PROMISED TO INITIATE REASONABLE GUN LAWS...........................100


Trump Stating that he will act on Gun Control Where Other Presidents Have Not

Erasing rules that aid public A push to deregulate at any cost

“Last Friday night (February 23, 2018), when the White House figured no one was looking, it quietly released a congressionally mandated report from the Office of Management and Budget spelling out both the costs of government regulations on the private sector and the estimated monetary benefits to the public.”

“In former President Obama’s final year in office — the period covered by the report — 16 “major rules” were fully quantifiable, meaning their total costs and benefits were capable of being measured.

What Trump’s budget office found was that these rules cost up to $4.9 billion to impose on businesses and resulted in up to $27.3 billion in benefits to the American people.

That means taxpayers got nearly six times as much in benefits as was spent regulating businesses.

And that, by any yardstick, is a hell of a good investment.”

Below is the complete article from the LA Times by David Lazarus regarding an analysis and report required of the Administration regarding the cost of some current regulations that show a different picture than the Administration has painted of too much regulation needing to be eliminated. The excerpted section below is the crux of the facts derived from the review.

Please read the document and decide for yourself just how far our Administration is willing to accommodate Wall Street, Big Business and financial interests of the wealthy at the expense of our health and welfare.

PRESIDENT TRUMP at an event on federal regulations in December vowed to “cut the red tape.” (Evan Vucci Associated Press)  (Photo not included)

DAVID LAZARUS, Los Angeles Times

President Trump recently patted himself on the back for the “most far-reaching regulatory reform” in U.S. history, which wasn’t true but that wasn’t the point. The point was that Trump has made eliminating government regulations one of his top priorities.

“We have decades of excess regulation to remove,” he said, calling on his Cabinet members “to find and remove every single outdated, unlawful and excessive regulation currently on the books.”

Trump and his Cabinet may want to rethink that proposition.

Last Friday night, when the White House figured no one was looking, it quietly released a congressionally mandated report from the Office of Management and Budget spelling out both the costs of government regulations on the private sector and the estimated monetary benefits to the public.

For example, the cost of imposing clean-air and clean-water rules on factories versus the benefit to ordinary people of not getting cancer and running up huge hospital bills.

In former President Obama’s final year in office — the period covered by the report — 16 “major rules” were fully quantifiable, meaning their total costs and benefits were capable of being measured.

What Trump’s budget office found was that these rules cost up to $4.9 billion to impose on businesses and resulted in up to $27.3 billion in benefits to the American people.

That means taxpayers got nearly six times as much in benefits as was spent regulating businesses.

And that, by any yardstick, is a hell of a good investment.

Amit Narang, a regulatory policy advocate with Public Citizen, told me the report was released by the White House with no fanfare around 7 p.m. Friday. He noted that the Trump administration missed its Dec. 31 deadline for the report by two months.

“It seems like they don’t want people to know that the benefits of government regulations in Obama’s last year far exceeded the costs,” Narang said.

I reached out to the White House for comment. No one got back to me.

Narang crunched the numbers for the last decade and estimated that the net benefit to Americans from regulations was as much as $833 billion, or 12 times what these rules cost industry to impose.

“Much of these benefits are in the form of health and safety,” he said. “So one way to look at this is that if you don’t control emissions from factories, you’re looking at all sorts of added costs to society, such as cancer, children’s asthma and serious respiratory illnesses.”

The Trump administration’s report completely undercuts its argument that regulations are bad for the country because they stifle job growth and innovation. In fact, the U.S. economy logged steady if unspectacular growth throughout the Obama years.

This week, we learned that despite Trump’s deregulatory push, economic growth slowed more than initially thought over the final three months of 2017, down to 2.5% from 3.2% during the previous quarter.

Perhaps that can be traced to Trump’s arbitrary and reckless policy that for every new government regulation, two existing ones have to be thrown out. He’s fond of saying this both limits new rule-making and cleans house of older rules that don’t jibe with his policy agenda.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Don’t need that. Environmental Protection Agency? It can get by with 23% less funding. School safety? We can cut spending there by $425 million.

What Trump isn’t saying — but which his own numbers clearly spell out: Take away rules and regulations, and all you end up doing is shortchanging the American people.

Net neutrality

Speaking of regulations, here’s the latest on net neutrality — and AT&T’s acrobatic efforts to simultaneously support and oppose the Trump administration’s doing away with oversight of high-speed internet service.

A federal appeals court ruled this week that the Federal Trade Commission could continue pursuing a lawsuit against AT&T over internet speeds.

This is a big deal because, if AT&T had its way, no one in Washington would be telling it what to do.

The unanimous decision by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco came as the Federal Communications Commission proceeds with plans to chuck net neutrality out the window.

Those are the rules put in place under the Obama administration that prohibit internet service companies such as AT&T from interfering with the content flowing over their networks or charging extra for more reliable access.

Unless Congress or the courts act, net neutrality will officially end April 23.

One of the key arguments made by the FCC for abandoning net neutrality is that the Federal Trade Commission can do a good enough job protecting consumers from unsavory telecom industry practices.

The FTC sued AT&T in 2014, charging the company with deliberately slowing the internet speeds of millions of customers who paid for unlimited data plans — a practice known as “throttling.”

AT&T countered that the FTC had no business telling it what to do because only the Federal Communications Commission has jurisdiction over internet service providers.

Yes, that would be the same FCC that’s trying to get out of the internet regulation business, which AT&T and other telecom companies support.

In effect, AT&T was trying to create a loophole whereby no federal agency would be looking over its shoulder.

The 9th Circuit decided that “common sense” suggests the line between phone and internet companies has become blurry. “A phone company is no longer just a phone company,” the judges ruled. So the FTC’s lawsuit can move forward.

Ajit Pai, President Trump’s appointee as chairman of the FCC and a former Verizon lawyer, said the ruling means the Federal Trade Commission “will once again be able to police internet service providers.”

Well, sort of. The FTC enforces rules on fraud and deception — in this case, accusations that AT&T reduced customers’ data speeds after selling them “unlimited” data plans.

The agency is not empowered to address other issues raised by net neutrality, such as an internet service provider’s treatment of content. That’s why Democrats in the U.S. Senate this week introduced a bill to repeal the FCC’s net neutrality repeal.

“President Trump and FCC Chairman Ajit Pai might want to end the internet as we know it, but we won’t agonize, we will organize,” Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) said in introducing the legislation.

“The internet is for all — the students, teachers, innovators, hardworking families, small businesses and activists — not just Verizon, Charter, AT&T and Comcast and corporate interests,” he said.

That, undoubtedly, will come as a surprise to Verizon, Charter, AT&T and Comcast and corporate interests.

David Lazarus’ column runs Tuesdays and Fridays. He also can be seen daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5 and followed on Twitter @Davidlaz . Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com .

Federal Border Protection and Immigration Services 'Pulled Out' of California By Trump?

A President with no idea how gang prevention works or about advances made by our local authorities, Trump now suggests it is his sole decision to remove federal services from California's borders and deny the State ICE protection.

Is it now in the California's best interest for Governor Brown to place contingency plans for mobilizing the Calif. National Guard to provide border protection if our "fearless leader" decides he can cut off this protection?

Note to the rest of the USA outside of California. He believes he could do the same to you if he believes he can do it to California

Just how far can our legislators allow this man with no leadership skills to continue to even voice such veiled threats without calling him out. The very idea that Trump expresses some perceived autonomous ability to deny border protections for any state is absurd and should be treated as such by every voting citizen in this country. Pay Attention everyone and stay informed. the current administration is a threat to our way of life!

Courtesy of the Los Angeles Times

Trump rebukes state on anti-gang policing Police rebut Trump remark

Escalating feud with California, president says authorities aren’t doing enough against MS-13, other groups.

By Kate Mather, Cindy Chang and Christi Parsons

President Trump on Thursday accused California law enforcement of being soft on street gangs and suggested he might pull immigration agents out of the state, prompting a strong rebuke from local officials who said the president doesn’t understand their war on gangs.

Trump’s remarks are an escalation of a yearlong battle between his administration and California on a variety of topics including illegal immigration and law enforcement. Trump has criticized California for being a “sanctuary” for those here illegally, and federal officials have vowed immigration crackdowns in the state.

On Thursday, Trump stepped up the war, predicting gangs would wreak havoc if federal authorities withdrew from Los Angeles and other parts of the state.

“I mean, frankly, if I wanted to pull our people from California, you would have a crime mess like you’ve never seen in California,” Trump said. “You'd be inundated. You would see crime like no one’s ever seen crime in this country. And yet we get no help from the state of California. They’re doing a lousy management job, they have the highest taxes in the nation, and they don’t know what’s happening out there.”

Los Angeles officials expressed puzzlement and concern over Trump’s comments, saying local police have made significant strides against gang violence in recent years.

“Nobody takes gang enforcement more seriously than I do or the Los Angeles Police Department does,” LAPD Chief Charlie Beck said in an interview Thursday. “I believe that we’re better at it than anybody in the nation.”

Los Angeles was the birthplace of infamous gangs like the Crips and the Bloods, inspiring countless movie renditions. Today, it is far safer than it was during the height of the gang wars.

Street gangs are still active, with more than 60% of the city’s homicides classified as gang-related last year.

But gang members are no longer a fixture on street corners and in city parks — due in part to the efforts of the LAPD and other local agencies, which sometimes partner with federal officials but handle much of day-to-day gang enforcement on their own.

LAPD officers chat up gang members to obtain inside information. Older men who have left the gang lifestyle work with police detectives to prevent disputes from escalating into killings.

Homicides in Los Angeles have declined nearly fourfold in the last few decades, with 282 people killed last year, compared with 1,094 in 1992.

The tactics of the LAPD and other law enforcement agencies to crack down on gangs — notably gang injunctions that restrict where and when gang members can congregate — have prompted criticism from some community groups and civil libertarians.

“I think they do too much,” said Alex Alonso, a gang expert and adjunct professor at Cal State Long Beach. “They cast a large net over the quote-unquote gang problem and criminalize a lot of youth who shouldn’t get involved in the criminal justice system.”

Last year, L.A. County prosecutors announced that thousands of Angelenos whose movements, clothing and even relationships were tightly restricted had been freed from the gang injunctions. The move came after an audit found that many on those lists were no longer active gang members and no longer posed a threat to the community. Over the last two decades, Los Angeles had enforced injunctions against 79 separate gang sets, encompassing roughly 8,900 people.

In his remarks Thursday, Trump singled out the Mara Salvatrucha gang, also called MS-13, as well as the role of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in combating gang violence.

Gang members “come in, they’re smart, they actually have franchises going to Los Angeles. No help from the state of California,” Trump said.

In the past, Trump has seized on crimes allegedly committed by MS-13 members as evidence that deportation efforts should be stepped up.

ICE officers focus on deporting immigrants who are in the country illegally and do not usually work on criminal matters.

After federal officials arrested over 200 MS-13 members around the country last November, Trump called for police and immigration officials to be “rough” with suspected gang members to get rid of “animals” he described as terrorizing communities.

The MS-13 gang, which has ties to El Salvador, was formed in Los Angeles decades ago.

Last May, a task force led by LAPD and FBI officials arrested 21 MS-13 members for crimes including murder and racketeering. The lead defendant, Jose “Porky” Balmore Romero, oversaw the gang’s drug trafficking activities, collecting “taxes” through extortion and splitting the proceeds with the Mexican Mafia, the federal indictment alleged.

But in Los Angeles, MS-13 is not the force it once was. It does not crack the top five of the city’s most active gangs, Beck said.

Connecting MS-13 to immigration enforcement is “a false narrative,” he said.

At one point, authorities tried to tamp down MS-13 by deporting members to El Salvador. But the deportees joined forces with anti-government rebels and sneaked back into the U.S., creating “a much stronger, more deadly gang,” Beck said this month. Sending them to prison for the rest of their lives in the U.S. is a more effective strategy, he said.

There are 700 to 800 MS-13 members in L.A., compared with more than 1,000 in 2011, according to Beck.

The chief stressed that he still considers gang violence a serious problem and that there is still important work to do.

“That doesn’t mean that we can’t get better.… It just means that we have been experiencing this on the front line for literally 100 years in the city of Los Angeles,” he said. “And because of that, we have developed some strategies that I think are very effective, and one of those strategies is not mass civil deportation.”

Alex Sanchez is a former MS-13 member who left the gang nearly two decades ago. He credits the drop in violence in Los Angeles to enforcement by local police as well as efforts to steer youth away from gangs.

Sanchez, 45, who is an anti-gang activist and executive director of Homies Unidos, said most young gang members are U.S. born.

Sal LaBarbera, a longtime LAPD detective who retired in 2015, said he often worked with federal officials, citing a joint operation with the FBI that helped solve 32 homicides.

But if federal agencies were to leave California, the LAPD could pick up the slack — “I don’t think it would be the end of the world,” he said.

Local agencies like the LAPD and the Sheriff’s Department “have their finger on the button” of gang activity, he said, pointing to a decrease in crime in the MacArthur Park area over the past 15 years.

“Look at it, now we can walk our dogs,” he said.

kate.mather@latimes.com

cindy.chang@latimes.com

christi.parsons@latimes.com

Mather and Chang reported from Los Angeles, Parsons from Washington. Times staff writers Nicole Santa Cruz and Joel Rubin contributed to this report from Los Angeles. Staff writer Cindy Carcamo contributed from Santa Ana.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Neutered by Trump

The administration has absolutely no shame in gutting any and all programs that offer a modicum of protection for the working electorate. Trumps ridiculous  claim that credit protections from predatory lenders "that unduly burden the financial industry" is more proof that the wealthy elite and corporate America have a free hand in pillaging the poor and working class at will. How much more will our elected officials have us bleed before stepping up to their job. NOVEMBER IS COMING, arm yourself with knowledge and vote for your betterment and fair treatment.

A do-nothing tactic at CFPB CFBP’s bare-minimum tack

WHITE HOUSE budget director Mick Mulvaney testifies before the Senate Budget Committee last week. He plans to make the CFPB more business-friendly. (Susan Walsh Associated Press)

DAVID LAZARUS LA Times

Let’s say there was a federal agency charged solely with protecting consumers from financial abuse. And let’s say that agency was so good at its job, it succeeded in returning $12 billion to consumers who had been ripped off by greedy banks and lenders.

How would you reward that agency?

If you’re President Trump, the answer is to slash its funding by 23% and get rid of rules “that unduly burden the financial industry.”

The $4.4-trillion White House budget proposal unveiled last week drew heat for its generous allotments to the military at the expense of social programs, as well as its ridiculous pretense that $1.5 trillion in much-needed infrastructure spending would be provided mainly by state and local governments.

I also pointed out that the budget plan included only halfhearted measures to fulfill Trump’s stated goal of reducing sky-high prescription drug prices.

Nearly overshadowed by these developments was the budget’s defenestration of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which Trump has made a top policy goal.

It’s been clear since our businessman-in-chief took office that he had no love for a federal consumer watchdog — and that his administration was more than happy to dance to the tune of financial-services industry lobbyists who wanted it dead.

After White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney became the bureau’s interim director in November, he systematically reined in the CFPB’s enforcement actions and openly declared his intention of creating a more business-friendly agency.

The administration’s middle finger to consumers was on full display last week when Mulvaney, in presenting the CFPB’s latest five-year strategic plan, said that “we have committed to fulfill the bureau’s statutory responsibilities, but go no further.”

That’s the regulatory equivalent of a supermarket saying, “Yeah, we’ll ring you up but bag your own damn groceries.”

And if Trump has his way, that supermarket will close down as soon as he can get away with it.

“It’s open season on consumers,” said Sally Greenberg, executive director of the National Consumers League. “The most predatory actors — payday lenders, student loan companies, the debt collection industry — can operate with virtual impunity from federal regulators at the bureau.”

The agency’s new mantra of “don’t worry, be happy” was spelled out last month when Mulvaney said the CFPB would “reconsider” its oversight of payday and car title loans. For good measure, he dropped a lawsuit against a group of payday lenders that allegedly duped customers by failing to reveal annual interest rates of nearly 1,000%.

Mulvaney also has issued a series of invitations for businesses to submit feedback on the bureau’s operations and suggest “constructive” changes.

Last week, banks and other companies falling under the CFPB’s oversight were asked to assess “the overall efficiency and effectiveness of its supervision program and whether any changes to the program would be appropriate.”

I compared Mulvaney’s strategic plan for 2018 through 2022 to the last such document , issued under the Obama administration and covering 2013 through 2017.

These could be two completely different government agencies.

Under Obama, the bureau’s top goal was to “prevent financial harm to consumers while promoting good practices that benefit them.”

Under Trump, the No. 1 goal is to “ensure that all consumers have access to markets for consumer financial products and services.”

The CFPB’s secondary goal under Obama was to “empower consumers to live better financial lives.” Under Trump, it’s to “implement and enforce the law consistently to ensure that markets for consumer financial products and services are fair, transparent and competitive.”

“What happened to protecting consumers from financial harm?” asked Joe Ridout, a spokesman for the advocacy group Consumer Action. “The implicit message of the new plan is that the CFPB will wave through whatever predatory practices companies can come up with.”

He described Mulvaney as “an arsonist burning down every consumer protection he can find.”

In his introduction to the new strategic plan, Mulvaney said any federal agency that strives to go above and beyond the call of duty “ignores the will of the American people.”

“Pushing the envelope,” he said, “risks trampling upon the liberties of our citizens.… I have resolved that this will not happen at the bureau.”

To accomplish this regime of low expectations, he’s capping the CFPB’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year at $485 million, or about as much as the agency spent in 2015. Its annual budget is currently more than $630 million.

Mulvaney is already off to a great start in terms of emptying the bureau’s coffers by requesting no new funds for the current quarter. Instead, he’ll deplete a “reserve fund” intended to help pay for investigative work, which the bureau won’t be doing much of anymore.

By 2020, the Trump administration wants the CFPB to no longer be funded by the Federal Reserve. It wants funding to be controlled by Congress, which would mean more influence by lobbyists.

In its budget proposal, the White House says its objectives for the bureau are to “impose financial discipline, reduce wasteful spending and ensure appropriate congressional oversight.”

“These changes,” it says, “would allow CFPB to focus its efforts on enforcing enacted consumer protection laws and eliminate the functions that allowed the agency to become an unaccountable bureaucracy with unchecked regulatory authority.”

As I said, that “unchecked regulatory authority” resulted in $12 billion being returned to consumers. It forced mortgage lenders and credit card companies to be more transparent.

Oh, and it slapped Wells Fargo with a $100-million fine after the bank opened millions of accounts without customers’ knowledge.

Christine Hines, legislative director for the National Assn. of Consumer Advocates, said Trump’s budget and Mulvaney’s strategic plan make clear their aim “is to hamstring the CFPB and make it impossible for it to fulfill its mission to protect consumers from financial rip-offs.”

“It is a solid wink to payday lenders, credit bureaus and big banks that they are free to cheat and scam regular people with impunity,” she said.

Trump talks a lot about “winning.”

Now you know whom he’s thinking of.

David Lazarus’ column runs Tuesdays and Fridays. He also can be seen daily on KTLA-TV Channel 5 and followed on Twitter @Davidlaz . Send your tips or feedback to david.lazarus@latimes.com

.