department of justice

The McGahn case again illustrates how civil enforcement actions are plagued by prolonged litigation and procedural delays that render them unsuitable for achieving prompt and effective oversight actions.

Many self-described free marketeers vociferously oppose antitrust laws.

The U.S. House should invoke a revised version of its historical inherent contempt enforcement power to address the refusal of DOJ officials to comply with congressional subpoenas seeking information such as occurred with the Clinton email and Russia investigations.

Transactions should be legally treated similarly according to legal precedent – basic fairness.

What did the Senate confirmation hearing for President Trump’s nominee to head up the DOJ Antitrust Division, Makan Delrahim, tell us that’s relevant to the biggest pending global antitrust issue — Google? A lot.

President Trump’s impressive nominee to head the DOJ Antitrust Division, Makan Delrahim, enters the global antitrust stage when one company, America’s Alphabet-Google, has been under near constant antitrust investigation.

Maybe The Heartland Institute never stood a chance against Peter Gleick, because DOJ already made up its mind that alarmists are the “good guys” and realists are the “bad guys” in the global warming debate. Maybe Gleick had political protection from the White House. Maybe political bias trumped justice?

‘This is the single best piece of news for those favoring a nation based on laws, and not men (or women), I have heard in several years.’ — Richard Vedder

You have to be extremely stupid to send a couple of hundred armed government agents to confiscate some bullheaded rancher’s cattle without contemplating how the rest of the nation will interpret your actions.

What was obvious to voters who rejected Barack Obama’s run for the presidency the first and second time was the fact that he lacked any record of competency to be President. The rest voted for him because they wanted to say they helped elect the first black President of the United States and because they believed what this pathological liar said then and since.

From the various reports of briefings about the FCC’s planned rules for the 600 MHz incentive auction, two things appear clear. First, the FCC doesn’t trust market forces. And second, the FCC doesn’t want the highest bidders to win the spectrum.

The continuing scandal regarding National Security Agency monitoring of U.S. citizens’ and residents’ electronic communications makes one thing perfectly clear: If anyone is going to protect the public from unwanted snooping, the government isn’t it.

The Obama administration has done its part fulfill the promise to “punish our enemies.” It is the only promise this president has kept, and is a grave danger to our liberty.

The FCC and DOJ do not want to look ridiculous applying a spectrum cap to Verizon and AT&T and not Sprint when the FCC’s own Wireless Competition report shows that Sprint controls roughly twice as many MHz per population as either Verizon or AT&T.