4 ms·

Q: Does anyone know if it is typical for antitrust action to last into a new administration once it has started?

by omarhaneef 7y ago

CameronNemo 7y ago
Q: Is antitrust action typical at all?
- omarhaneef 7y ago
  Good point. I guess I was asking for p(drop action with new admin | antitrust started in last)
tick_tock_tick 7y ago
The DOJ normally acts with some degree of freedom with new administrations merely refocusing its most visible efforts. A large scale probe would be extremely unlikely to get dropped completely but could be marginalized.
- omarhaneef 7y ago
  Thanks. For some reason I had the impression there was a large change, but I had no basis for that.
- User23 7y ago
  The DOJ is not an independent agency, despite what the media attempts to lead people to believe. The Constitution clearly states that the executive power, which includes law enforcement, is vested in the President. The DOJ has no authority to enforce laws except that of the President. That said, political considerations do mean that Presidents are hesitant to overtly step in on specific cases and usually prefer to set general objectives. However the President can step in on a specific case if he wishes and that is actually explicitly part of our system. The President can set aside a conviction with a pardon or prevent it from being prosecuted in the first place.
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    Could it be the big 5 returned too little amount of jobs to USA and are getting a wrath? Or is it just standard SV bashing to please the conservative voters? I suppose (as European) USA is getting heated up for another presidential election.
  - bobsil1 7y ago
    >The President can… prevent it from being prosecuted in the first place No.
    - User23 7y ago
      You are completely incorrect. The President can pardon before a prosecution even begins so long as the pardon is after the act itself[1]. He can also direct his Attorney General or US attorneys to drop a case because he is their boss and they serve at his pleasure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Garland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Garland
bryanrasmussen 7y ago
In the past it was traditional that the justice department was somewhat separate from the administration - thus it would have been scandalous, in the past, if an administration had come in and cancelled investigations undertaken by an exiting administration - or at least scandalous if there could be any suspicion of corruption being the cause of the cancellation. So big companies have generally donated to political campaigns and as such they should not, traditionally, have their investigations quashed because this would raise suspicions that there had been a quid pro quo.
- tssva 7y ago
  They may not have cancelled it but when the 2nd Bush administration came in the Justice department became much more lenient towards Microsoft than it was under the Clinton administration. The ultimate agreement was a sweetheart deal compared to what they were facing under the previous administration. It took the Europeans to impose anything with any kind of teeth.
  - omarhaneef 7y ago
    That was my understanding as well. Do you know/think/recall if that change a result of the Bush administration having a more lenient stance towards regulation, or was it a result of one administration almost always reacting to the prior one?
debt 7y ago
Unfortunately for the current administration, it would be cheaper to remove them from office that it would be to comply with their investigation. A future administration may be much friendlier towards tech. Big tech will likely drag this out as long as they can.
- aaronbrethorst 7y ago
  A future administration may be much friendlier towards tech. Unlikely. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-03/the-next-democratic-president-is-coming-for-your-monopoly https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-03/the-next-...
  - Fnoord 7y ago
    I don't know about the USA but here in The Netherlands things being said during elections certainly aren't set in stone. To name two examples: empty promises get made, and rhetoric gets used. Now I know the latter is true in USA even far more but I am not sure on the former.
    - aaronbrethorst 7y ago
      Empty promises get made all the time. This isn't one of them. Facebook wouldn't survive a Warren administration, e.g.,—assuming that Margrethe Vestager leaves it intact.
    - CameronNemo 7y ago
      I really do not think Warren is messing around. Now her actually reaching the presidency is far off and certainly not guaranteed.

Q: Does anyone know if it is typical for antitrust action to last into a new administration once it has started?

CameronNemo 7y ago

Q: Is antitrust action typical at all?

omarhaneef 7y ago
Good point. I guess I was asking for p(drop action with new admin | antitrust started in last)

tick_tock_tick 7y ago

The DOJ normally acts with some degree of freedom with new administrations merely refocusing its most visible efforts. A large scale probe would be extremely unlikely to get dropped completely but could be marginalized.

omarhaneef 7y ago
Thanks. For some reason I had the impression there was a large change, but I had no basis for that.
User23 7y ago
The DOJ is not an independent agency, despite what the media attempts to lead people to believe. The Constitution clearly states that the executive power, which includes law enforcement, is vested in the President. The DOJ has no authority to enforce laws except that of the President. That said, political considerations do mean that Presidents are hesitant to overtly step in on specific cases and usually prefer to set general objectives. However the President can step in on a specific case if he wishes and that is actually explicitly part of our system. The President can set aside a conviction with a pardon or prevent it from being prosecuted in the first place.
- Fnoord 7y ago
  Could it be the big 5 returned too little amount of jobs to USA and are getting a wrath? Or is it just standard SV bashing to please the conservative voters? I suppose (as European) USA is getting heated up for another presidential election.
- bobsil1 7y ago
  >The President can… prevent it from being prosecuted in the first place No.
  - User23 7y ago
    You are completely incorrect. The President can pardon before a prosecution even begins so long as the pardon is after the act itself[1]. He can also direct his Attorney General or US attorneys to drop a case because he is their boss and they serve at his pleasure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Garland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Garland

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

In the past it was traditional that the justice department was somewhat separate from the administration - thus it would have been scandalous, in the past, if an administration had come in and cancelled investigations undertaken by an exiting administration - or at least scandalous if there could be any suspicion of corruption being the cause of the cancellation. So big companies have generally donated to political campaigns and as such they should not, traditionally, have their investigations quashed because this would raise suspicions that there had been a quid pro quo.

tssva 7y ago
They may not have cancelled it but when the 2nd Bush administration came in the Justice department became much more lenient towards Microsoft than it was under the Clinton administration. The ultimate agreement was a sweetheart deal compared to what they were facing under the previous administration. It took the Europeans to impose anything with any kind of teeth.
- omarhaneef 7y ago
  That was my understanding as well. Do you know/think/recall if that change a result of the Bush administration having a more lenient stance towards regulation, or was it a result of one administration almost always reacting to the prior one?

debt 7y ago

Unfortunately for the current administration, it would be cheaper to remove them from office that it would be to comply with their investigation. A future administration may be much friendlier towards tech. Big tech will likely drag this out as long as they can.

aaronbrethorst 7y ago
A future administration may be much friendlier towards tech. Unlikely. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-03/the-next-democratic-president-is-coming-for-your-monopoly https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-03/the-next-...
- Fnoord 7y ago
  I don't know about the USA but here in The Netherlands things being said during elections certainly aren't set in stone. To name two examples: empty promises get made, and rhetoric gets used. Now I know the latter is true in USA even far more but I am not sure on the former.
  - aaronbrethorst 7y ago
    Empty promises get made all the time. This isn't one of them. Facebook wouldn't survive a Warren administration, e.g.,—assuming that Margrethe Vestager leaves it intact.
  - CameronNemo 7y ago
    I really do not think Warren is messing around. Now her actually reaching the presidency is far off and certainly not guaranteed.