'Why I'm Resigning as an FTC Commissioner' - Slashdot
source link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/23/02/17/2021247/why-im-resigning-as-an-ftc-commissioner
Go to the source link to view the article. You can view the picture content, updated content and better typesetting reading experience. If the link is broken, please click the button below to view the snapshot at that time.
'Why I'm Resigning as an FTC Commissioner'
'Why I'm Resigning as an FTC Commissioner' 118
Posted by msmash
on Friday February 17, 2023 @03:40PM from the closer-look dept.Christine Wilson, a Republican-appointed commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission, writing for The Wall Street Journal: Much ink has been spilled about Lina Khan's attempts to remake federal antitrust law as chairman of the Federal Trade Commission. Less has been said about her disregard for the rule of law and due process and the way senior FTC officials enable her. I have failed repeatedly to persuade Ms. Khan and her enablers to do the right thing, and I refuse to give their endeavor any further hint of legitimacy by remaining. Accordingly, I will soon resign as an FTC commissioner. Since Ms. Khan's confirmation in 2021, my staff and I have spent countless hours seeking to uncover her abuses of government power. That task has become increasingly difficult as she has consolidated power within the Office of the Chairman, breaking decades of bipartisan precedent and undermining the commission structure that Congress wrote into law. I have sought to provide transparency and facilitate accountability through speeches and statements, but I face constraints on the information I can disclose -- many legitimate, but some manufactured by Ms. Khan and the Democratic majority to avoid embarrassment.
Consider the FTC's challenge to Meta's acquisition of Within, a virtual-reality gaming company. Before joining the FTC, Ms. Khan argued that Meta should be blocked from making any future acquisitions and wrote a report on the same issues as a congressional staffer. She would now sit as a purportedly impartial judge and decide whether Meta can acquire Within. Spurning due-process considerations and federal ethics obligations, my Democratic colleagues on the commission affirmed Ms. Khan's decision not to recuse herself. I dissented on due-process grounds, which require those sitting in a judicial capacity to avoid even the appearance of unfairness. The law is clear. In one case, a federal appeals court ruled that an FTC chairman who investigated the same company, conduct, lines of business and facts as a committee staffer on Capitol Hill couldn't then sit as a judge at the FTC and rule on those issues. In two other decisions, appellate courts held that an FTC chairman couldn't adjudicate a case after making statements suggesting he prejudged its outcome. The statements at issue were far milder than Ms. Khan's definitive pronouncement that all Meta acquisitions should be blocked. These cases, with their uncannily similar facts, confirm that Ms. Khan's participation would deny the merging parties their due-process rights. I also disagreed with my colleagues on federal ethics grounds.
›
by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Friday February 17, 2023 @03:47PM (#63302097)
I have failed repeatedly to persuade Ms. Khan and her enablers to do the right thing
Interesting how a Republican would complain about Democrats being "enablers", given Republicans have themselves enabled each other in massive crimes (including that of one former Republican President).
-
Witness how Republicans always resort to name-calling as a starting point.
-
I called your post bigotry. I didn't call you a bigot. So that's not really name-calling, but hey spin it whatever way makes you feel better.
But you need to look in a mirror. You labeled me as an association, a Republican, solely on the basis that I challenged your opinion. That's literally name-calling, particularly because I never once espoused a Republican viewpoint. And I wouldn't, because I'm not a Republican. I'm sure you think I am as many in this country have a narrow, binary, us-or-them
-
That's a very Trump-esque way to deny something you actually did.
And no, I didn't bother reading the rest since like before, it's just going to be more Trump-esque nonsensical rhetoric to make you sound like you know something.
For a self-proclaimed "center" independent, you sure have a knack for using a republican-like playbook:
No I didn't do it.
Ok, I did, but so what, MTG tells me those guys to it too. Not like it's illegal.
Fine it's illegal, but it's not a crime.
Ok it's a crime, but doesn't mat -
"I called your post bigotry. I didn't call you a bigot. So that's not really name-calling, but hey spin it whatever way makes you feel better.
Oh puh-lease! That's like saying you didn't actually think Hitler was fascist, just his speeches.
Who's doing the spin now? -
-
You've got to chill out.
-
-
-
-
"That not withstanding, Wilson's statements are based on legal facts, and her opinion that Khan has already ruined any sense of impartiality is at least a logical opinion given her statements."
Which legal facts? I read the entire opinion piece and she presents nothing. It's 90% rhetoric and 10% unconfirmed accusations.
Also, to call someone else bias and then only post links to heavily biased sources is like calling the pot calling the kettle black.
US Chamber of Commerce is heavily right-wing and so is the R
-
Since you're copying and pasting part of the GP's post to quote it that means you must have seen the repeated citations not only to established case law but the commission's own explicit regulations for ethical conduct.
Which means your entire post was made in a level of bad faith that we don't even have words for. You're literally quoting someone who literally cited case law and ethical regulations right there in front of your case and pretending you weren't given exactly those citations.
That's not even lyi
-
Is this satire? I can't tell.
Because nothing you said is true and the tone makes it feel like satire.
-
On January 11, 2022, Judge Boasberg denied Meta’s motion to dismiss the FTC’s amended complaint. Judge Boasberg applied the prosecutorial standard for voting out a federal court complaint, and ruled that due process and federal ethics obligations did not require Chair Khan’s disqualification.
Sorry, what?
-
-
Literally everything Wilson throws at Khan in her dissent makes Facebook look bad, that's why.
https://www.ftc.gov/system/fil... [ftc.gov]It smells just like old Gatesian Microshoft trying to throw dirt on someone during the Netscape thing because of something they said during the DR-DOS thing.
Except this spans from Facebook/social media monopoly to Meta/VR monopoly. Poor widdle giant megacorp, someone said the truth about your giant crooked horn and it's unfair they're judging your creepy ass tentacle.
-
-
Evidently, the word "hypocrisy" (which is what the OP was pointing out) isn't in your vocabulary at all.
-
Prior case law regarding anti-trust investigations have required FTC chairpersons to recuse themselves if there is any chance of impartiality (Schweiker v. McClure [justia.com], 1988).
Ummm. That case does not say that at all. Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U.S. 188 (1982):
a) While due process demands impartiality on the part of those who function in a quasi-judicial capacity, such as the hearing officers involved in this case, there is a presumption that these officers are unbiased. This presumption can be rebutted by a showing of conflict of interest . ..
In other words, a recusal is appropriate when a conflict of interest can be shown. In this case, the only thing I see is Wilson is complaining that Lina Khan is impartial because . . . she's "partisan". In the case of Meta, I do not read anywhere that there is a conflict of interest like she's owns stock in Google or whatever. Personally I read her words to be "Wah, Lina Khan is a meanie and I'm telling everyone on her."
-
Likely simply used ChatGPT to make up a good-enough sounding post to fool the lemmings into modding it up.
Seems to have worked, unfortunately.
-
Not quite.
That can easily be construed as implying bias and a legitimate argument can be made for her to recuse from the Meta case. I'll bet Meta uses that point in an appeal lawsuit if the FTC rules against them.
I'm not saying she's wrong in her opinion on Meta, just that a good argument can be made she is not impartial.
-
The court case specifically says that recusal can be appropriate when shown something like conflict of interest. In this case, there is nothing other than Wilson saying Khan is impartial because Khan presumably did not rule the way Wilson wanted. That is not impartiality being demonstrated; that is disagreement being demonstrated.
-
A judge already considered that and dismissed Meta's request for her recusal last year.
The past statements were specifically about Facebook's social media monopoly, and were more nuanced from what I can tell
The Open Markets Institute sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Acting Chair Maureen K. Ohlhausen this week calling on the FTC to halt Facebook’s acquisitions of other companies until the agency has carried out a full review of how Facebook’s power and control over information flow-
Thanks!
-
-
-
Hey forgive me; I only briefly skimmed the actual case opinion [justia.com]. I was quoting the judge's response [ftc.gov] to Meta's filed petition for recusal [fb.com] and referencing the point that Meta's own lawyers were making. Forgive me for assuming that Meta's lawyers actually know the case.
-
Lawyers for Meta can make arguments in a petition; that does not mean their arguments are valid nor actionable. Meta's arguments distill down to the fact that she used to work for groups that were opposed to Facebook. In one particular example, Khan voiced her legal opinion that Facebook violated the law in the past when working as legal director for an advocacy group.
- She made comment about public policy and a legal opinion about antitrust: Judges can try and sentence a defendant multiple times while expr
-
What were those again?
I think you should pull those up so we can talk about them.
-
You always do a half-assed job?
-
-
Even better, I challenge anyone to explain how this is isn't a bipartisan sentiment. Everyone is ready to take a wrecking ball to big tech these days.
"calling on the FTC to halt Facebook’s acquisitions of other companies until the agency has carried out a full review of how Facebook’s power and control over information flows threaten national security, basic democratic institutions, and commerce and competition in America."
-
-
You're initial comment is complete and utter nonsense. "Republican" isn't something that you are born, whereas "Black" is. You choose to be a Republican. You choose your political party affiliation. And you typically join a party because their beliefs align with yours. So yes, in fact, it is valid to criticize people based on their political part membership.
I can't believe you are seriously trying to claim that someone shouldn't be judged by their political beliefs.
It's not even remotely comparable to y
-
This is beyond stupid.
There is no comparison between someone being criticized because they belong to a political group, and someone being criticized because they involuntarily have a specific skin color. None whatsoever. When you get all furious about those "liberal elitists" saying how smart they are and how stupid conservatives are, this is why.
-
Who is to say that political alignment should not be a protectable characteristic like how the "progessives" claim gender is. Since gender can apparently be altered at any age or for any reason, it seems to follow that political alignment should be a protected characteristic as long as "gender" remains so; particularly since so many tolerant liberals use it for discrimination and hate.
-
-
I don't give two shits about Wilson's credentials or experience - she's still a fucking retard. Even if she is technically correct on a few specific points, like you mentioned, her use of those points is still stupid. Wilson has never once done anything useful as an FTC Commissioner. So, spare me the "she's very knowledgeable and we shouldn't outright dismiss her" because that is an absolute load of bullshit.
At the same time, I won't say Khan is necessarily any good either. MOST people who get appointed to
-
She is a political appointee, the Republicans are the political party affiliation she signed up for, and they were talking about politics.
You just compared that to prejudice based on skin color. If you are serious, please expand on that.Maybe she's not a Republican? Who's knows, it's impossible to tell.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/f... [wsj.com]
https://nypost.com/2023/02/14/... [nypost.com]
https://reason.com/2023/02/16/... [reason.com]
https://www.washingtontimes.co... [washingtontimes.com]
https://www.commerce.senate.go... [senate.gov]
https://fedsoc.org/contributor... [fedsoc.org]
*shrug* -
While i give you credit for at least citing a source, you are misunderstanding the concept of fact. It is a fact that a court heard the case you cited. The outcome of that hearing is an *opinion* on what the law is generally and as applied to the facts in that case.
Whether an how that opinion has relevance to anything kahn has done is subject to more analysis and opinion. And thatâ(TM)s how American Law works.
-
Iâ(TM)m not saying youâ(TM)re wrong but I have limited sympathy for a party that put a rabidly pro-coal lobbyist in charge of Interior. Nobody should be allowed a position of authority over an organization whose mission they have stridently opposed in their professional life, like (it seems) half of Trumpâ(TM)s cabinet was. And a nice chunk of Dubyaâ(TM)s.
-
Another moron who doesn't know the difference between a protected class and freedom of association.
Recommend
About Joyk
Aggregate valuable and interesting links.
Joyk means Joy of geeK