The latest attack by the Democrats on President Trump is that he supposedly directed one of his staff to tell the Justice Department to oppose the AT&T and Time Warner merger. This is described as "interference" and it supposedly is in retribution for CNN's harsh coverage of the President. It is also complete nonsense.
First of all, the Justice Department told AT&T that it would approve the deal if AT&T divested itself of Turner Broadcasting or Direct TV. Those have nothing to do with CNN. They are also the normal type of conditions that DOJ would make regarding a contentious merger.
More important, however, there is nothing wrong with a president -- any president -- setting the anti-trust enforcement posture for his Justice Department. Justice is a department of the executive branch and the president is the head of that branch. Of course, he or she can properly set the policy to be enforced. The anti-trust laws are far from clear in their application to mergers. For example, under the same laws, some administrations have seen no problem with ever bigger and bigger companies, while others have tried to fight against mergers just on the basis of size. There is nothing wrong or improper about the President determining if the AT&T merger ought to be opposed.
This attack is one being made by people who don't seem to understand either the antitrust laws of the USA or the proper role of the president in the administration of those laws. It's just another one of the seemingly endless stream of baseless attacks by the media and the Democrats on Trump.
First of all, the Justice Department told AT&T that it would approve the deal if AT&T divested itself of Turner Broadcasting or Direct TV. Those have nothing to do with CNN. They are also the normal type of conditions that DOJ would make regarding a contentious merger.
More important, however, there is nothing wrong with a president -- any president -- setting the anti-trust enforcement posture for his Justice Department. Justice is a department of the executive branch and the president is the head of that branch. Of course, he or she can properly set the policy to be enforced. The anti-trust laws are far from clear in their application to mergers. For example, under the same laws, some administrations have seen no problem with ever bigger and bigger companies, while others have tried to fight against mergers just on the basis of size. There is nothing wrong or improper about the President determining if the AT&T merger ought to be opposed.
This attack is one being made by people who don't seem to understand either the antitrust laws of the USA or the proper role of the president in the administration of those laws. It's just another one of the seemingly endless stream of baseless attacks by the media and the Democrats on Trump.
No comments:
Post a Comment