Bookworm Room

« Fisking some of the Sotomayor cheering *UPDATED*Welcome, American Thinker readers (and Rush listeners) »

DEALERGATE — looking big

Bookworm on May 27 2009 at 2:47 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized

As you may recall, yesterday I said that Dealergate, if true, had the potential to be the most damaging scandal of all, because it shows, not politics as usual (corrupt, but distant), but the White House gunning directly for specifically identified little guys. There is a slow accretion of evidence showing that this might, in fact, be the real deal — a real “gate” with Obama attacking ordinary citizens for having the temerity to donate to the opposing political party.

Be Sociable, Share!

Email This Post To A Friend

13 Responses to “DEALERGATE — looking big”

on 27 May 2009 at 3:36 pm 1suek

Relinking. There are updates since yesterday, with links to sources.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/05/red-alert-did-campaign-contributions.html
on 27 May 2009 at 3:42 pm 2suek

So, you lawyers…

IF we assume that this was in fact an attack on plain old civilians who donated to the other guys, or to opponents of the Progressives….what then? Who is likely to prosecute whom for what? Certainly not Federal Prosecutors – they’re appointed by the President and serve at his pleasure. And in spite of the brouhaha connected with Bush firing some of his, O will be able to fire whomever with no repercussions. So…none of them are likely to “displease” Obama.

Have we really reached the level of Zimbabwe where there’s no recourse for political opponents?

Helen…is this really what you had in mind for ” economic justice”?
on 27 May 2009 at 4:28 pm 3suek

Here’s another blog that’s keeping track…

http://chryslerdealershipshutdown.blogspot.com/
on 27 May 2009 at 4:43 pm 4Ymarsakar

Once again we see that the First Amendment doesn’t really do a damn thing to combat such malicious crime and looting. The 2nd Amendment was always the guarantor of the First and of the right to property. “Speech” by itself, cannot guarantee life or property.
on 27 May 2009 at 7:40 pm 5Wolf Howling

Hmmm, so is this a Fifth Amendment violation? If GM and Chrysler were merely acting as intermediaries to execute specific instructions from the car czar, then I’d say yes.

Is it a First Amendment violation – interfering with property rights to punish political speech? I think yes again, based on the same assumption of GM and Chrysler as mere intermediaries.

If so, this actually dwarfs watergate, which was nothing more than spying and a coverup. So, how high up does this one go?

Ahh, the Chinese curse at work. We do live in interesting times.
on 27 May 2009 at 11:02 pm 6Wolf Howling

Suek – if this is for real, and it might be, then a hue and cry for a special prosecutor needs to happen. Nothing will happen before 2010 in Congress, but it may well happen outside it in the federal court system. I could well see some attorneys taking this to court as a class action / Bivens action.
on 28 May 2009 at 7:30 am 7Ymarsakar

Ahh, the Chinese curse at work. We do live in interesting times.

People were relieved that the Y2k bug didn’t hit them at the turn of the millenium. God had a far better joke to play on us than that, I tend to believe. And certainly the universe has never rewarded hubris. It does, after all, have the Archangel Murphy to conduct its affairs.
on 28 May 2009 at 7:32 am 8Ymarsakar

I do not trust special prospectors. They are some of the most ambitious and corrupt members of the legal community.

In this environment, with a Democrat congress and Presidency, you would need to be able to find someone incorruptible and with a steel strong integrity on par with Petraeus and Bush. For certainly the Democrats have proven themselves better at manipulating the law and the lawyers in charge of translating that law to the masses, far better than the Republicans have.
on 28 May 2009 at 8:42 am 9suek

Heh…Y. Prosecutors, not prospectors. Although sometimes…!!!

This article is linked in the second link. If you want just a business aspect, use the first link. Second link has a slightly different take on the matter.

http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=328317766151198

http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2009/05/john-hancock-give-me-call-stiffing-gms.html
on 28 May 2009 at 9:11 am 10Ymarsakar

They are prospecting for witches, Suek ; )
on 28 May 2009 at 9:13 am 11Ymarsakar

Make sure you say that last aloud, in case it slipped through the filters.
on 28 May 2009 at 9:22 am 12Ymarsakar

I really like your sipsey street links, Suek. Keep it up.

For the Cause ; )
on 28 May 2009 at 4:02 pm 13suek

Now add this to DealerGate:

http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/28/why-is-the-obama-justice-department-protecting-new-black-panthers/