[EL] When Capitalists Need Socialist Workers

[Mark Schmitt]

I think when Issa admitted that he didn't really have any reason think 
that Holder or anyone in the White House knew anything about it, he was 
basically calling an end to it. He pushed the contempt vote through, 
just so it didn't look like a failure, but I haven't heard a word about 
it sense. The Fortune magazine article on it has made a lot of people 
conclude that it didn't amount to anything.

In any event, my point is, Issa seems to be finished with it. And if you 
or Senator McConnell actually believe that the White House directed the 
IRS to target Mr. VanderSloot, you should ask Issa to get on it.

(Just to show my cards, I don't think you really believe that.)


Mark Schmitt
Senior Fellow, The Roosevelt Institute <http://www.newdeal20.org>
202/246-2350
gchat or Skype: schmitt.mark
@mschmitt9 <https://twitter.com/#%21/mschmitt9>
On 7/20/2012 4:29 PM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
> Mark,
>
> So that I can be sure we have common ground over which to discuss 
> these novel and difficult issues, is it truly your position that Fast 
> and Furious "didn't amount to anything?"  As in, proved to be baseless 
> rather than hit a stone wall?
>
> Steve
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Mark Schmitt <schmitt.mark at gmail.com 
> <mailto:schmitt.mark at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     Really? Again?
>
>     Mr. Vandersloot has been the principal shareholder of a large,
>     privately held, financially complex corporation for a long time.
>     If he's never been audited in all that time, then it makes plenty
>     of sense that his number would come up. He's also been a major
>     Republican donor for a very long time.
>
>     Strassel is making a very major allegation. Why is the proper
>     response, let's make Mr. Vandersloot and other /Republican/
>     donors, and only Republican donors, exempt from disclosure laws?
>     If President Obama's political team in the White House actually
>     contacted anyone in the IRS and directed them to audit Mr.
>     VanderSloot, the proper response is to file an article of
>     impeachment against President Obama. I'd support the impeachment
>     of a president who did that, just as five or six Republicans
>     supported the impeachment of Nixon on a similar charge.
>
>     You say there is no one to whom Mr. VanderSloot can appeal, but of
>     course there is. There's a fellow named Darryl Issa, who has full
>     subpoena power and no hesitation to use it. There's the inspector
>     general of the IRS. Mr. Issa seems to have gotten bored of
>     Solyndra and Fast and Furious, which didn't amount to anything, so
>     lets turn him loose on VanderSlootGate.
>
>
>
>     On 7/20/2012 9:39 AM, Steve Hoersting wrote:
>>     Kim Strassel's latest:
>>
>>     http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444464304577537233908744496.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
>>
>>     And it's applicability to election law:
>>
>>     http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/266623
>>
>>     Kim asks this question at the end: "As for Mr. VanderSloot, to
>>     what authority should he appeal if he believes this to be
>>     politically motivated—given the Justice Department on down is
>>     also controlled by the man who targeted him?"
>>
>>     The answer, for Mr. VanderSloot, is, realistically and
>>     unfortunately, "to no authority; none."
>>
>>     But for those businessmen who are yet safely anonymous, and
>>     understand speaking in the political process is their only remedy
>>     against economic deprivations from an unchecked IPAB or Consumer
>>     Financial Protection Bureau sure to come, the authority to which
>>     they should appeal is the district court.
>>
>>     Businessmen who don't want to be the "next" Frank VanderSloot
>>     should file in district court as John Does to seek the /Socialist
>>     Workers/ exemption to compelled disclosure of their partial
>>     funding of independent political speech.
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Stephen M. Hoersting
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Law-election mailing list
>>     Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu  <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>>     http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Law-election mailing list
>     Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
>     <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
>     http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Stephen M. Hoersting
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20120720/6d9d0fbb/attachment.html>