US Consumer Protection Official Puts Equifax Probe on Ice (reuters.com)

From a report on Reuters: Mick Mulvaney, head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has pulled back from a full-scale probe of how Equifax failed to protect the personal data of millions of consumers, according to people familiar with the matter. Equifax said in September that hackers stole personal data it had collected on some 143 million Americans. Richard Cordray, then the CFPB director, authorized an investigation that month, said former officials familiar with the probe. But Cordray resigned in November and was replaced by Mulvaney, President Donald Trump's budget chief. The CFPB effort against Equifax has sputtered since then, said several government and industry sources, raising questions about how Mulvaney will police a data-warehousing industry that has enormous sway over how much consumers pay to borrow money. The CFPB has the tools to examine a data breach like Equifax, said John Czwartacki, a spokesman, but the agency is not permitted to acknowledge an open investigation. "The bureau has the desire, expertise, and know-how in-house to vigorously pursue hypothetical matters such as these," he said.

Comments

Not surprising

[smooth wombat]

The con artist administration doesn't want to upset private industry by holding them accountable for their actions (or inactions in this case). Wells Fargo is simply a feel-good tactic.

After all, if he won't take responsibility for all his failed businesses, because as he'll tell you none of those were his fault, why should other businesses have to be held liable?

Re:Not surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

CFPB missed millions of fake accounts being created for years until a whistleblower pointed it out. They had full visibility of this fraud and didn't detect it themselves, despite having a spinal tap into all consumer financial activity. But never mind that, it's time for our hourly scream at the Orange Nazi!

Re:Not surprising

[bluefoxlucid]

My strategy for identity theft includes legislation requiring the CFPB to follow NIST guidelines on current security technology and implement regulations requiring consumer-ready, current technical countermeasures to prevent identity theft. Regulations are faster to change than legislation (hence the weak language), and the industry doesn't just undo all that overnight (so it has some staying power even with a rogue President).

The current tech for this is FIDO U2F with RSA and ECC. A device holding 1,000 identities costs $18. You walk in a bank, show your hard ID (e.g. passport, driver's ID), and the bank lets you plug in and associate the physical device with yourself with Equifax, TransUnion, and Experian. After that, opening any new credit account requires having that physical device; and if you lose it, you can call the bank to cancel the association but leave the requirement of verification enabled.

Banks need a strong physical presence verification process to open credit accounts. You can open a credit account without being at a bank by knowing what car someone drove 10 years ago; that's no good.

We can do more things to reduce attack surface in the case where the banks are bad actors by way of not doing appropriate verification, such as requiring the bank to be your bank--a branch you physically visited within the past few months, or designated from another branch. Largely, however, we need to remove all the attacks possible from many positions (many points of failure, non-redundant) and consolidate them to a physical bank branch, which we can better-control with stronger regulations on verifying identity (single point of failure, stronger).

Going after Equifax is important: they concealed this breach, took advantage of their knowledge, and otherwise acted with bad faith. In the broad scope, however, it's only important for procedural reasons: fines and threats of action when breaches happen won't stop identity theft; you have to bring pressure for not having the correct countermeasures in place before breaches happen.

Re:Not surprising

[orgelspieler]

I'm pretty sure once Yellen leaves, they will completely (and quietly) undo the Wells Fargo thing. And there will be a new Twitter spasm by the orange rage machine that everybody will be talking about instead.

Re:Not surprising

[idontgno]

/epiphany

We've elected Zaphod Beeblebrox. FML.

Re:Not surprising

[Agripa]

You want to help fix all this? Register as Democrat, encourage everyone you can to do the same, and vote Democrat at every opportunity. The socio-political situation in this country is way out of balance, and it's time we started restoring that balance before it's too late.

Do you mean so that the Democrats can ignore my support for Bernie Sanders and take me for granted? No thanks.

Dereliction of duty?

[charliemerritt03]

Federal consumer protection against predatory PayDay loans was "relaxed" also. Gotta save Equifax? How much did they contribute?

Re:Dereliction of duty?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it the opposite of dereliction of duty if you're appointed specifically to break shit and not be good at your job? That's why an idiot with no experience in education is running the Department of Education, that's why a fossil fuels shill with a history of suing the EPA is now running the EPA, that's why a right wing radio blowhard was nominated as USDA's chief scientist even though his background in science was that he took a science class once in college.

So is it "on ice" or is

[Anonymous Coward]

"the agency is not permitted to acknowledge an open investigation"

Which is it?

Re:So is it "on ice" or is

[hey!]

According to the reporter's sources within the agency, it is on ice. According to the agency's official spokesman, "no comment."

That's what TFA says at least, and even the summary here gets it right.

Re: So is it "on ice" or is

[hey!]

I can only point you to the information; I can't do your thinking for you.

Big news!

[GrahamJ]

News Flash: Trump’s picks don’t do their jobs.

In other news: The sky is blue.

Re:Big news!

[brickhouse98]

He's at least consistent. Hasn't he appointed someone who has the express goal of destroying whatever they are heading? EPA, education, etc.

Re:Big news!

[Rick Schumann]

Oh, they're doing their 'job', just not the one everyone thinks they're doing. The 'job' in this case is to prop up shitty incompetent companies like Equifax, so they continue to make money unabated, and fuck the average person, they don't matter. So long as the rich get richer, they say 'mission accomplished'.

Re:Big news!

[Dragonslicer]

Yeah, Obama should have sent the guns to Nicaragua instead and just given Iran a huge pile of money, like a True American President would have done.

Re:Big news!

[GameboyRMH]

Yep, a fox in every henhouse is his strategy. If a fox is unavailable for any given henhouse, then a loyalist crony is better than some rando (see: HUD, ambassadors), or god forbid, a qualified expert who isn't a frothing partisan.

Re:Big news!

[DogDude]

Are you fucking serious?.

Too Big To Fail.

[Zorro]

To Big to Jail.

CFPB?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the CFPB even supposed to be dealing with this? Yes, Equifax is a "financial" outfit, but CFPB is about fraud and abuse in mortgages, credit cards and student loans (according to it's vaunted former director Cordray.) CFPB is now the official identity theft arm of the Federal government? This story is based on the false premise that CFPB is supposed to be investigating this.

Re:CFPB?

[Anonymous Coward]

The CFPB is about protecting the consumer from abuse from the financial sector. This is well within their scope.

And if they don't anything no other entity in the government will do anything. The credit bureaus and every other firm that collects consumer data needs to be regulated severely because as we have seen time and time again, business is incapable of operating responsibly. And when caught, there is hardly any recourse for the consumer and when there is, it is so watered down as to be pointless - mandatory binding arbitration is a perfect example. The consumer will never get a fair shake.

New dept name: US Protection Against the Consumer

[JoeyRox]

Those pesky consumers have been running roughshod over our sacred corporations for too long.

Regulatory Capture

[sasparillascott]

This is when someone from the industry or similar industry being regulated gets someone who was their former employee to head the agency that is charged with regulation or in this case protecting consumers from these industries put in as head of the regulating agency to effectively prevent it from acting on behalf of the citizens of the U.S..

This condition is pretty new (at least on the widespread scale it is). In 1970, lobbyists who didn't work for companies and were policy or foreign policy specialists numbered around 100. By 1990 that number was more than 10,000 and nearly all worked directly for companies. Effectively the U.S. government has been taken over by corporate interests in that time (its far more blatant like here with Mr. Mulvaney with the Republicans who have no shame in it being public). Not sure how we get out of it either, seems self reinforcing.

Trump - Constant Liar, Treason, Obstruction of J.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll believe 3 unnamed sources in a credible news paper before I believe Donald Trump, who tells such obvious lies that he actually thought he could tells us there were more people in the configurations than we saw in photographs of the events.

But maybe you'd like to enroll in Trump University, where he lied to students in order to con them out of $25k, swiped onto their credit cards if necessary.

Rube.

How ot works in Belgium

[houghi]

In Belgium we haver the National Bank (BNB) who hold all information of all credits. I am just goig to talk about personal credits, not proffesional credits as I do not have enough knowledge about that.

If you go to a bank or credit company or car dealer ship or store and want to open a credit or loan, there will be some things that they will need to verify:
1) Are you of legal age
2) Do you live in Belgium officially
3) Are you on the BNB blacklist
4) Will you be able to pay back.

So the first time you go, there will be nothing on the BNB and if your income - your cost of living (rent , clothing and food) leaves sufficient room for a credit or loan, you get one.
e.g you make 1000EUR. Rent is 500 and cost of living is 500, no loan. You make 1250, you could get a loan up to 250EUR per month in payback.
Say you take one of 100EUR. the next one will be a max of 150EUR.
Yes, cheating is possible. It is called fraud, so nothing to do with any of this.
If the customer is unable to pay (this includes going in red for more than 3 montths with your bank account) you will be on the black list for 1 year starting from the moment you have paid back the amount you are behind, regardless if you have enough. That means no loan, no new car, no house you can buy.

Every company that gives loand has to check this. If you give a loan to a person on the blacklist, he does not have to pay it back. you can ask nicely, but if there is a loss, it will be 100% on the company. If you give a loan of somebody who clearly could not pay it back, you will be 100% resposible if they don't. (Fraud is something different)

Every bank does this. That mean that every bank must be able to see the needed (not wanted) information. So what does e bank see?
1) The number of kredits
2) Type (e.g credit, loan, ...)
3) The monthly payment if the total amount is used
4) The total amount
5) Blacklisting due to late mpayments more than 3 months.

What do they NOT see?
1) The name of the other companies
2) Late payments less than 3 months.

Each person has the possibilaty to ask the information and they will get the names of the company.

This obviously works over secure Internet. So even IF people would get the database, the things you can do with it are pretty limited. As a company we already have access. If you are not a compamy who does loand, you are unable to do anything with it.

Re:How ot works in Belgium

[bugs2squash]

Every company claims to be a loan company. If they bill, they claim they are loaning you the money until the bill is paid (That's what it means when it says that currency is legal tender for paying all debts public and private, you order a steak at a restaurant, you took out a loan)

Just because the government has this information it does not mean that no-one else has a database on you. Numerous organizations collect and trade all sorts of info and link it based on just a few identifiers which for some mystical reason they all assume are secrets know only to the holder.

Re:How ot works in Belgium

[houghi]

In Belgium you need to be a loan company to get access. That means not just saying that you are one, you need to prove that you are one and then you need to fullfill several tests.

That is the reason that the majority of the chains who sell something on credit do not do the credit part themselves. That is outsourced to a credit company. This because they are unable (not unwilling) to fullfill all the requirements.

And it does not matter what they cvlaim. They need to follow the law and the law is pretty clear in that saying that there is a difference in late payment and a loan.

The gathering of information in Europe is also limited as well as what you can do with it, by law. Yes, some will do illegal stuff. Just because murder is illegal does not mean nobody does it. Laws are because of accountability, not prevention.

Re:How ot works in Belgium

[Anonymous Coward]

Every company claims to be a loan company. If they bill, they claim they are loaning you the money until the bill is paid (That's what it means when it says that currency is legal tender for paying all debts public and private, you order a steak at a restaurant, you took out a loan)

Wrong.

You have to know about the history of currency in the United States to fully grasp why those words are there. The simple explanation is the Coinage Act of 1965, Section 31 U.S.C. 5103[1], entitled "Legal tender," states: "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues." Coins are issued by the US Mint (Treasury Department). Paper money is issued by the Federal Reserve, not part of the US government, but the paper itself is printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (Treasury Department).

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no Federal statute mandating that a private business, a person or an organization must accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses are free to develop their own policies on whether or not to accept cash unless there is a State law which says otherwise.

The game is afoot, but you're the one being played

[John Jorsett]

The news these days is continually awash in tales of nefarious goings-on, but almost always from anonymous sources, and no less the case here. When some leaker puts out an insider scoop (or some reporter invents one) without a name attached, remember that it's to serve someone's agenda and treat it like a rumor, because that's what it is.

Re:Excellent.

[Alain Williams]

Please can I have the moderation option: +1 irony.

I totally agree!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Firstly, there seems to be a lot of deep-state resistance to Trump's agenda. "

We also need to consider the extraterrestrial element. However, that is being nullified by the Catholic Church's influence who the aliens are aligned with politically.

We'll never know if the Satanists come in and muck up the works but my bets are on the Girl Scouts of America getting involved at some point.

 

Yes and no

[rsilvergun]

People did elect an administration that made cutting back on regulation a central plank of it's campaign. This is part of that. The idea is that the market should sort these things out. People should start demanding their financial institutions stop doing business with Equifax and/or stop doing business with institutions that do.

Now, you can counter that is virtually impossible, but the counter argument is that if the government would get out of the way there's be more competition. Regardless, people voted for this. Lots of them, many of them right here on /.. OTOH, I'm reminded of the meme about leopards eating faces....

Re:Yes and no

[whoever57]

The real solution would be to make these institutions financially liable for the effects of false information in their files.

Can't get a mortgage because of an error in their files? You should be able to sue Equifax for your loss.

Can't get a job because a hacker used your details to obtain loans fraudulently: sue Equifax.

If we are going to reduce regulations, let's eliminate the laws that protect these companies from being sued.

Re: Yes and no

[sound vision]

That goes against the part of the Republican platform of making it difficult to sue. It would create a loophole in the grand plan. Even if they do decide to go schizo on that particular piece of it, getting more lawyers involved has never made anything happen efficiently. Litigation needs to be the final resort when regulations have failed to prevent laws from being broken.

Re:Yes and no

[squiggleslash]

To be clear, states elected that administration, not people. People, FWIW, didn't want any of the candidates, but favored Trump's opponent by about three million.

Re:Yes and no

[DogDude]

sue Equifax

Hahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Obviously, you've never been involved with a lawsuit, before.

I hope we all live through this!

[technical_maven]

We will never be able to undo all the damage Trump has done and will do!

Re:I hope we all live through this!

[wyHunter]

I dunno, we lived through Clinton. If we can manage Clinton, Bush I and Obama, well, we're doing okay.

"Yeah, screw consumers, who cares about them?"

[Rick Schumann]

"So long as big corporations are making money, who gives a shit about stupid little peon citizens and their stupid little problems?"

Re:Trump - Constant Liar, Treason, Obstruction of

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not petty to object to Trump lying about his inauguration crowd despite photographs which obviously contradict his claim.

He lies about stuff that everyone can see is wrong because he lies about everything, no matter how blatantly obvious his lie is.

You can't take the word of a constant liar for anything.

Only a total rube would believe this obvious scam artist, but republicans are very stupid, so it is what it is...

Pathological liars

[sjbe]

You would not believe Trump if he told you the sky was blue.

I don't have to believe Trump about that. Fortunately a lot of what he lies about I don't have to believe because I can check to see if it is true. What's astonishing is how many lies he tells that are easily and transparently shown to be false. Even about things where there is no benefit to him lying beyond stroking his own ego. But worryingly he does it about things that matter too. So no, when someone is a pathological liar I tend to reflexively not believe them until I see evidence supporting what they say.

The problem with people who judge President Trump so harshly on such inane things...

Spare me. The man is in a position of immense power and what he says matters whether we like it or not. He tells little lies and big lies but the point is that he cannot be trusted.

At some point you stop convincing people that he is bad when they realize you are just petty.

If you haven't figured out by now that Trump is a horrible human being and a terrible president then you never were going to be convinced in the first place and will support him no matter how reprehensibly he behaves.

Re: Pathological liars

[Anonymous Coward]

Your delusion of the facts is astonishing. It is no surprise you continue to support a pathological liar.

Re:Pathological liars

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we do not trust Trump, BECAUSE HE DELIBERATELY AND REPEATEDLY LIES

And then, instead of ever admitting he is wrong, he CONTINUES to LIE

This was all laid out in the book, Mein Kamp, here is a very informative article on the technique being used, The Big Lie...

Re:Pathological liars

[Anonymous Coward]

If you haven't figured out that all politicians are very similar and horrible people, I'm sorry for you.

Fuck your false equivalence nihilism. Nobody is perfect, even Gandhi was a racist and a molestor.

Everybody is graded on a scale and some people are so horribly incompetent that they should not be anywhere near the reigns of power.

Re:Pathological liars

[Anonymous Coward]

What's astonishing is how many lies he tells that are easily and transparently shown to be false

He's like those nigerian prince emails that are so obviously scams - they are deliberately written that way because they only want suckers who are too stupid to recognize a scam. Its like a filter for gullibility. Trump's lies are designed to appeal to a certain kind of gullible who doesn't care if its true or not, only that it makes them feel good about their own beliefs. Meanwhile his administration is wrecking the government and looting it for the uber rich while those gullibles are distracted.

Re:Pathological liars

[Rob Y.]

Not true. I'd be the first to agree with Trump if he said something obviously true (like "Donald J. Trump is a big fat liar"). I didn't believe him at first when he said "I could shoot someone in the middle of 5th avenue and get away with it", but I think maybe I do now...

Seriously, during the campaign, I agreed with some of his analysis of the state of blue collar manufacturing in this country. Of course, he was so sketchy in presenting solutions - if he presented them at all - that agreeing with him on those points was no reason to support him. He has no substance whatsoever and didn't even attempt to present substantial policy platforms - or didn't you notice when he finally realized "Health care is complicated" after running around the country calling Obamacare a disaster that he would quickly and easily replace with something much better... Pure con man. There is nothing more to him.

Re:Pathological liars

[Rakarra]

You miss the point. If President Trump said the sky was blue, you would dispute that with him. You would come up with SOME reason for it to be untrue.

No, you put words in his mouth. YOU are saying that, not him.
His point was that President Trump making a statement is not any reason to believe that statement is true. He has lied enough that he can't be trusted on anything, so you have to look elsewhere for the truth.

If he thought the crowd size was one thing, and was incorrect - that is not necessarily a lie. People can be wrong and still be sure they are right.

Yes, but when the easily-checked sources say one thing, and you just want to believe (and claim) another thing, at that point it becomes a lie, not just misinformed.

Re: Pathological liars

[CoolDiscoRex]

roflmao! Don't forget "tolerance". You know tolerance: "fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward opinions, beliefs, and practices that differ from one's own." Yeah, that tolerance, the one you guys adopted as your own. Except, wait, what's this ... oh, you don't tolerate intolerance. Or any views that don't mesh with your own. But you're still, you know, tolerant. How? Well, when nobody in the bubble challenges anyone else in the bubble, you can call up, down ... left, right ... and bigotry, tolerance. How's that for affluent white privilege? Don't worry, though, you're not hypocrites. Oh no. When you're mom told you that you weree special, dammit, you believed it. I never understood why you guys felt the need to "tolerate" blacks and gays anyway, I mean why don't you just live amonst them. Why the constant patting on each other's backs because you "tolerate" black folks? I must be really hard for you. Same with gays. What is it you disagree with them about so much that you feel the need to have "tolerance" for them? Why isn't it a noop? Why aren't they just like everyone else to you? Anyway, congratulatons on being in a superior faction of the duopoly. They genuinely have your best interests in mind. Your loyalty to the corporate party is completely justified. You are good and just in every way, and even when you blatantly contradict yourself, it doesn't count, because you're you and there's always a perfectly rational explanation for your transgressions. No, seriously, give yourself a round of applause.

Corporate death penalty

[goombah99]

this is one of the rare instances where a corporate death penalty would have served the economy. The flaw in corporations is they can sometimes be a vehicle for externalizing risks from the people who profit when risks harm others. Having the share holders and board punished is the only way to prevent that flaw in the corprorate system. If you amass information on other people it creates a risk to those people that didn't exist before. It's your responsibility to protect that and if you don't there has to be consequences. There's plenty of other companies in this market so having one go boom would be a good incentive to the others.

Re:Corporate death penalty

[slew]

FWIW, I think that just like "human death penalty" doesn't have and deterrence value, similarly, the "corporate death penalty" is the same. People (and corporations) simply don't factor in that as part of their cost analysis before committing the crime.

It's good political theater to talk about "death penalties", for punitive or retribution value, but as an actual deterrent, I think "death penalties" are of very little value. Basically you get a bunch of rank-and-file folks losing their jobs and a bunch of commercial real-estate investors lose money, along with some mom-and-pops (e.g., local vendors, local restaurants, etc). The collateral damage is pretty high...

On the other hand, I can certainly get on board with some sort of asset forfeiture program, where the company is basically put up for auction and sold to the highest bidder under the condition that none of the executives can be part of the future path of the company.

No conspiracy, just no competence, no self-control

[Roger W Moore]

So if someone doesn't do their job, when is it good and when is it bad?

If they do not do their job it is generally bad unless they give a reason for not doing their job. In this case it is particularly bad because there was no reason given and because failure to secure data like this is far more important than whether a company gets fined or not: it risks undermining a fundamental financial service on which many others rely. This is no doubt why other arms of the US government offered to help: they understand how important it is that there is some degree of confidence both from consumers and other financial companies in the credit check service.

Secondly, the president is responsible for what happens, but not at fault for what happens in the administration.

Correct, and if he reverses this decision explaining that it is vitally important that major breaches like this are fully investigated in order to maintain confidence in an essential financial service then he would be doing his job. However, if he lets this stand then he is at much at fault as those making the decision because he is agreeing with it.

you don't have to agree with everything the president stands for

Indeed you do not. However, you are allowed to demand that your political leaders clearly explain their aims and policies and competently carry them out. I see close to zero evidence of either from Mr Trump. Fortunately, he is not my president but even the few things he does where I might agree with his actions (his aims never seem to be clear and often appear to shift on a whim) are carried out in such a hamfisted, incompetent manner that almost seemed designed to antagonize as many people as possible. This is why he faces so much opposition and never seems to get things done where a more competent person with some degree of self-control would avoid the cheap shots and the unfiltered stream of thoughts so that the job actually gets done. It is not some bizarre conspiracy resisting his rule it is just all the people he managed to tick off unnecessarily.

Re:Trump - Constant Liar, Treason, Obstruction of

[aquacrayfish]

The problem with people who judge President Trump so harshly on such inane things is that eventually people have had enough of you.

This in response to a comment on a settled cause of consumer fraud where vulnerable people had their pockets emptied because of Trump. You call *THAT* inane and then act like you're on a high horse. Go troll elsewhere please.

Humpty-Trumpty

[sdinfoserv]

This is part of Humpty-Trumpy's "Making America Great Again" by eviscerating all those "job killing" regulations like:
* roll back protecting the environment: clean air/clean water, allowing coal companies to dump into rivers
* roll back privacy and corporate limitations in communications: killing net neutrality
* remove banking regulations https://www.washingtonpost.com...
* remove protections for Seniors in Nursing Homes: https://www.democracynow.org/2...
* giving National Park lands to developers: https://www.vox.com/energy-and...
and dozens more ever frighting yet to be seen "de-regulations" that reduce citizen rights, protections, and hand our wallets to corporations. All the while the GOP protects Trumpty by replaying a slow motion Saturday Night Massacre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
People, the only way to change this is campaign finance reform. It has to start at the State level. The GOP is worried about a midterm slaughter and the Kock Brothers alone are using $400M to try and change past performance: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/2...

Re:Unnamed Sources

[Anonymous Coward]

According to THREE unnamed sources in the article. Much more believable than ONE unnamed source, three times better! [..] Yep, I'm just going to assume this is 100% false. Sorry, Fake News has made me dismiss every anti-Trump story that relies on unnamed sources.

Thank you for your opinion Anonymous Coward, but since you are only one unnamed source, by your own standard your opinion is Fake News.

Mulvaney took $5K from Equifax's PAC

[robkill]

Not surprisingly, Mulvaney has been taking money from Equifax, Experian, and other entities the CPFB has been investigating, and has delayed, or ended investigations against them.

https://www.commondreams.org/n...

Then again what else do you expect when the appointed leader of a government organization believes that organization shouldn't exist. (e.g. Rick Perry, Ryan Zinke, Scott Pruitt etc.) Dismantling of government oversight, de facto bribery (not de jure only due to only ridiculously strict interpretations of the bribery law, explicit quid pro quo situations being prosecuted, and seldom even then.)

Easy answer

[fahrbot-bot]

... raising questions about how Mulvaney will police a data-warehousing industry ...

He won't. He was appointed to undermine the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

From Mick Mulvaney to Run Consumer Watchdog Agency He Hates and others:

As a congressman, Mulvaney called the CFPB a “sick, sad joke.”

No they are not all the same

[sjbe]

If you haven't figured out that all politicians are very similar and horrible people, I'm sorry for you.

Trump doesn't resemble any politician I've seen in my lifetime at least here in the US. He certainly doesn't resemble any previous president in the history of our country. So no, he isn't similar at all.

There was more abuse against civil rights in this country during Obama admin than during Trump - and Bush and Clinton were equally bad.

Is that what you tell yourself to help you sleep at night? Pathetic...

Re:The game is afoot, but you're the one being pla

[Ryanrule]

kill yourself, pussy

Re:The game is afoot, but you're the one being pla

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case, the source of the leak is probably from within the agency itself, from some investigator who is upset that the new management is working for the corporations that they're supposed to be protecting people from. Perhaps the hope is that by leaking to the press they can shame somebody into reversing the decision.

dom

Re:Unnamed Sources

[orgelspieler]

It's funny, back in 2016 Fox News was more than happy spouting conspiracy theories about Hillary's health citing unnamed sources. Back in 2011, none other than Donald Trump cited unnamed sources that there was conclusive evidence that Barack Obama was not born in Hawaii. It's funny how naming sources only seems to matter when the story disturbs your worldview.

You choose to dismiss anti-Trump stories. Nothing "made" you do it. Please accept that you have completely shut down the thinking part of your brain and are relying on your amygdala to think for you. Sad!

I love the irony of your last line. It's hard to have trust in the right-wing media, because they have spent about 20 years shitting all over the facts and telling us it's truth compost. It's getting to the point where fact-checkers don't even bother anymore.

Teflon

[rsilvergun]

nothing sticks to him. He's still rockin the same approval numbers as he had when he was elected (give or take).

It's a combination of factors. First, he makes folks feel good. Make America Great Again hits ya right in the feels. Second, it's the whole "What do you got to lose" factor. The Dems moved hard right thanks to Bill Clinton with corporatist Dems taking over the party. There's been a few movements to move things back left (Bernie Sanders, Justice Democrats, etc) but they haven't gotten anywhere yet. They're trying to primary Feinstein, but not sure if that's going anywhere. Meanwhile if you ask CNN for a top 20 list of Democratic contenders for the next Presidential election Bernie isn't even on the list.

Re:Teflon

[Rakarra]

First, he makes folks feel good. Make America Great Again hits ya right in the feels.

I always hated that statement, partly because it implies that the country wasn't great in the first place. It ain't perfect, but I think the US was pretty darned great.

Re:Teflon

[Rakarra]

I posted too soon. I should have responded to the rest of the post. :-D

Second, it's the whole "What do you got to lose" factor.

Yeah, people post a lot of false equivalency "both of the sides are the same" stuff, and it usually comes back to bite them when it turns out... yeah, you do actually have a lot that you can lose if one side is hostile to your interests.

There's been a few movements to move things back left (Bernie Sanders, Justice Democrats, etc)

Bernie didn't have a chance, and it wasn't because of Clinton shenanigans, though that certainly was a stupid move that blew up in the DNC's faces. The US population is just not socialist enough to elect a guy like Bernie president. Not like with the current congress he would have had much of a chance of doing anything anyway, but he would at least have gotten Merrick Garland in the Supreme Court, or another similar justice of his own choosing.

They're trying to primary Feinstein, but not sure if that's going anywhere

Hard to say. Much of the country seems to hate Democrats from California, though they absolutely LOVE Republicans from California, as much as they love to talk about the state as being a black hole of Republicanism.

Katherine Harris is another name being floated, but she's way too new. Elizabeth Warren? Maybe? I think she might have lost too much momentum since 2015. She should have challenged Clinton instead of stepping aside like a good party peon; if "Fauxcahontas" was the worst scandal one could pin on her, she would have had it made against Trump, instead we got the Clinton train wreck. Not sure if the young Kennedy lad is going anywhere; it seems like it, though I think Americans are leery of family dynasties like the Clintons, Kennedys, Bushes, etc.

Re:Trump - Constant Liar, Treason, Obstruction of

[Narcocide]

It's not really the rubes that scare me. It's the ones that pretend to believe him even though they don't - those guys scare me.

Re:Trump - Constant Liar, Treason, Obstruction of

[grub]

The Emperor has no clothes.

Re:Trump - Constant Liar, Treason, Obstruction of

[HiThere]

My default assumption these days is that if Trump says something, it's a lie. If I can check, and feel like bothering, I'll occasionally find I was wrong. But not usually.

Priorities...

[VeryFluffyBunny]

Well, I guess that means that Equifax's executives responsible for the data breach matter more than the 143 million Americans who they collected sensitive financial data on.

Re:Excellent.

[FFOMelchior]

Or maybe: +1

Re:Excellent.

[FFOMelchior]

Since I can't figure out how to post Russian, comment should have been:

Or maybe: +1 pronitsatel'nyy

Yes, this could've been avoided if I previewed properly. Guess I like to live dangerously.

Re:Trump - Constant Liar, Treason, Obstruction of

[alexo]

My default assumption these days is that if Trump says something, it's a lie.

One day he'll admit to it, and your mind will explode.

Equifax says sole security worker to blame :]

[najajomo]

"Both human deployment of the patch and the scanning deployment did not work. The protocol was followed .. The human error was the individual who is responsible for communicating in the organization to apply the patch did not." transcript

Sole Equifax security worker at fault for failed patch, says former CEO

Re:Equifax says sole security worker to blame :]

[OrangeTide]

It's not any of our responsibility on who Equifax choosers to hire or promote into key roles. Equifax should stand by their own decisions and make it right when they fail. I don't actually care about the details or whose fault it is, because fault is not the same thing as responsibility.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Excellent.

[organgtool]

If there was a way to opt out of doing business with Equifax, I would have done it years ago.

Re:Unnamed Sources

[DNS-and-BIND]

So, are you living in a universe where the mainstream media wasn't revealed to be colluding directly with the DNC and the Clinton campaign, often giving them veto power over stories, giving them editorial privileges and worse, and wouldn't you know, the slant they gave to almost all articles was exactly the same as the strategy the Clinton campaign was using to try and discredit Trump :-/ Hmmm. Because this happened. Wikileaks confirms. We have the smoking gun.

To me that's a far greater danger to democracy than anything Trump has done. The media are supposed to be the 4th estate, keeping the government in check - and they failed miserably for the US election. At least with a Trump presidency, we're seeing the media actually doing their job, after 8 years of them acting as Obama's attorney.

Hillary collapsed in front of the entire nation and needed to be thrown into her limo like a sack of potatoes. And her minders *did not even look surprised*! Think about what is normal when your boss collapses: You first freeze in disbelief; then you rush forward to help him/her; you make eye-contact and say "Oh my God, are you OK?!"

When Hillary collapsed, the staff closed ranks as if this were well-rehearsed choreography, and *faced outwards* rather than *towards her*, and threw Hillary unceremoniously into the vehicle. THAT's what I find so amazing about it.

Re:Not surprising at all

[Rakarra]

Ah yes, the "Deep State." The usual charge made by people who don't realize that President is not a purely authoritarian position. IE, the Justice Department, FBI/CIA, court system, etc, are supposed to be independent of the President even though he appoints some of their members. They are not, and should not be the tool of the President in any democratic government.

Re:Unnamed Sources

[Torodung]

Those people are paid well and trained to not pause when the shit hits the fan. When she fell, it could have been a sniper. They were facing outward to survey the scene.

Mind you, Hillary's imagination about being under fire is breathtaking, but what you saw was SOP, and you don't even have the sense to realize it.

Re:Unnamed Sources

[NettiWelho]

It's funny, back in 2016 Fox News was more than happy spouting conspiracy theories about Hillary's health citing unnamed sources

You're joking right? Its not a conspiracy if she literally collapses on camera and has to be carried to a car by two secret service agents like a sack of potatoes

Re:Unnamed Sources

[DNS-and-BIND]

I don't know why, but some still worship the ground Hillary collapses on.

Re: Trump - Constant Liar, Treason, Obstruction of

[CoolDiscoRex]

it's always a mixture of wonder, amusement, and proxied embarassment when one true-believer goes after another. like when a Christian denigrates a Muslim for the kooky things they believe, or a Democrat wags their finger at a Republican cause everyone knows the good politicians are on their donkey side. I never really get used to it. There isn't a single group of humans which have a monopoly on complete self-delusion.

Re:Trump - Constant Liar, Treason, Obstruction of

[mjwx]

You would not believe Trump if he told you the sky was blue.

Given Trumps record, if he told me the sky was blue and water was wet, I'd still have to go outside and check for myself.

"Deep State"

[krisbrowne42]

I wish there really was a "deep state" which could keep crap like this from happening. This is why we need professionals in DC who are interested in keeping their jobs rather than taking care of the people who'll keep them rich once they're kicked out of their jobs.

Re:Not surprising at all

[painandgreed]

Firstly, there seems to be a lot of deep-state resistance to Trump's agenda.

It's called "Rule of Law', along with a large amount an administration not knowing what the fuck they are doing, and the inability to spell 'Illuminati", and it all adds up to 'Deep State".