,
5 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
@renato_mariotti @RoKhanna I agree that Neal's stated "legislative purpose" is VERY weak tea. But under 26 USC §6103(f)) + current caselaw, no legislative purpose at all is needed, so even if Neal decided it was safer to offer one, he also may have wanted to offer a facially neutral rationale...
@renato_mariotti @RoKhanna ... to avoid giving any support to claims that this is a personal vendetta + to track with Pelosi's "pretend we're not eager to impeach" PR gameplan.
...
...
@renato_mariotti @RoKhanna Also, the fact that §6103(f) specifies that the request come from Ways & Means, not Judiciary, makes "we're investigating conflicts" a little iffy. Neal may have felt the need to articulate a prose more in keeping with his committee's role. ...
@renato_mariotti @RoKhanna TLDR: yes, it's a weak justification, but maybe for reasons. Anyway, I'm guessing that if they can't get the returns this "soft" way, Judiciary may ask again as part of an overt impeachment investigation, +/or join the suit W&M will bring.
Related thread:
Related thread:
@renato_mariotti @RoKhanna (P.S.: aargh. "Purpose," not "prose," in my penultumate tweet.)
