To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Every change in presidential administration results in shifts to agencies’ policy priorities and enforcement efforts. In a Biden Administration, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB” or “Bureau”), in particular, is expected to undergo significant changes. Headlines will focus on potential replacements of the CFPB Director, an issue which has been controversial in the past and may take months to address through the nomination and confirmation process in 2021.[i] But equally important will be a shifting enforcement focus: we anticipate that, under President-Elect Biden, the CFPB will revive the “disparate impact doctrine” (the “Doctrine”) as a means for curtailing business practices that result in racial disparities, whether intended or not. Although there has been significant debate about the Doctrine’s validity as applied to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974 (“ECOA”), codified at 1
not. sandra: jonathan turley said if democrats proceed need to build their case. they need to call more witnesses. the president has suggested it is time to hear from mick mulvaney, john bolton and others, i spoke to dan kildee who said the president and his team have blocked them from testifying in the house intelligence committee and others. would the white house work out or negotiate some way if nancy pelosi and jerry nadler engaged in this, work out a way to have them testify in the judiciary committee? let s be clear. up until this point the process is democrats and adam schiff have created has been unprecedented. it hasn t been fair. during both the nixon and clinton impeachments both parties came up with a set of ground rules that both side agreed to. this has been unilateral. to participate in the intelligence committee where our members were invited to participate would have to give up all their rights.
hear from other witnesses actually falls right into the question of whether or not the president is obstructing the investigation, which actually could be an article of impeachment. the witnesses that we re referring to the president has made it abundantly clear under no circumstances will he allow them to testify. not at all. so the idea that the president s supporters and those of us who would love to hear from that sandra: to be clear the president said he would like to hear from mick mulvaney, john bolton and others. let me just make it clear. he may have said that but he has ordered them to not testify. sandra: in the house. in the house intelligence committee that s what we heard. he said he was willing to have them testify publicly as soon as the latest of the judiciary committee that happened this week. they are still under the orders. sandra: i want you to respond to your republican colleague reacting to nancy pelosi just here. when she talks about a
leaves. if you ask me if there is enough evidence on which to base articles of impeachment the answer is yes because impeachment is political. if you ask me will they get more evidence if they wait to hear from secretary pompeo, director mulvaney, former ambassador bolton, the answer is yes. bill: you would have to go to court to get that. apparently in the caucus yesterday we can do that it will take a lot of time. time is of the essence for them. you look at a christmas break only 19 days away from now. chad pergram cautions us yet again, i repeatedly have said that senior house leadership has cautioned them about the traffic on the floor is too tight meaning they have too many legislative matters to attend to in the 19 days that i just mentioned. the opposite argument that chris wallace articulated yesterday when our other colleagues were discussing this is. if they don t vote on
you personally, that you need to build the case as jonathan turley suggested yesterday, that the case and the foundation have not been built and the scope has not been broad enough. should you investigate further? should there be more witnesses called such as john bolton, mick mulvaney and others? i agree with judge napolitano s assessment. we would benefit from those witnesses coming forward. but i believe there is ample evidence to move forward based on what we ve heard so far. sandra: why not build the biggest, best case as you can of impeaching the president? why wouldn t it behoove going back to nancy pelosi s words building this in a manner worthy of the oath of office to not rush it as jonathan turley made the case yesterday? sandra: i think everybody needs to be worthy of their oath of office. the president needs to be worthy of his oath. here is the problem and the sort of irony of the situation. the arguments that we should