IS NANCY PELOSI IN THE PAY of the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL PARTY??
Well... OF COURSE her BIGGEST DONORS - the FINANCIAL (credit, wall St., lending, banks, insurance, and other companies) industry, the war (defense) industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the health care industry, etc., are the SAME DONORS who underwrite the Republican Party. And according to Washington DC career insider (and former Republican Party presidential nominee) Pat Buchanan, Speaker PELOSI is behind the Congressional APR OVAL of the pending IRAN ATTACK PLANS.
So it is indeed a fair question to ask, "WHY does Speaker Pelosi ALLOW the administration's BLATANT scorn, CONTEMPT FOR, and OBSTRUCTION OF a duly lawful CONGRESSIONAL SUBPOENA to FALL FAR, FAR, FAR from the FRONT PAGE HEADLINES where, undoubtably, any REPUBLICAN Congress and REPUBLICAN press/media would put them.
IS the speaker MERELY INCOMPETENT? Is she an argument AGAINST women in powerful leadership positions?
Or is she CONFLICTED and/or CORRUPTED by her donors, who are getting her to TURN A BLIND EYE TO what would undoubtably have Republicans up in arms, and demanding impeachment hearings, were the shoe on the other foot?
Either way, it is clear that under Speaker Pelosi's guidance, Americans who vote for DEMOCRAT "LEADERS" can EXPECT SECOND CLASS representation.
House Files Contempt Lawsuit
[Has there ever been a more ANEMIC headline in American press history?]
by Pete Yost, AP
March 10, 2008
Compare other versions »
WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee filed suit Monday to force former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten to provide information about the firing of U.S. attorneys.
The lawsuit filed in federal court Monday says Miers is not immune from the obligation to testify and both she and Bolten must identify all documents that are being withheld from Congress.
In a statement announcing the lawsuit, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers said, "We will not allow the administration to steamroll Congress."
Conyers said he is confident the federal courts will agree that the Bush administration's claims to be immune from congressional oversight are at odds with constitutional principles.
The House committee early last year subpoenaed Bolten for documents and Miers for testimony in trying to make a case that the White House directed the firing of nine U.S. attorneys because they were not supportive enough of Republicans' political agenda.
Bolten and Miers refused to comply.
On President Bush's behalf, White House Counsel Fred Fielding said such information is private and covered by executive privilege.
The House passed the contempt citation by a 223-32 vote that most Republicans boycotted.
A week and a half ago, Attorney General Michael Mukasey said he would not refer the House's contempt citation to a grand jury and that neither Bolton nor Myers had committed a crime.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., then announced she had given the Judiciary Committee authority to sue Bolton and Myers in federal court.
The lawsuit says executive privilege _ intended to protect the confidentiality of advice from the president's closest advisers _ does not cover documents that don't involve the president.
The privilege also does not cover documents whose contents are widely known, previously released or that were the subject of extensive, previously authorized testimony, the lawsuit adds.
The lawsuit says the White House is making a blanket claim of executive privilege, despite the administration saying that the president was not personally involved in communications subpoenaed form Bolten.
It says Miers' conduct is inconsistent with representations that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel made to Congress in 1971 when OLC was being run by future Justice William H. Rehnquist.
Rehnquist told Congress that a witness intending to invoke executive privilege may not simply ignore congressional subpoena and fail to appear.
Conyers said the administration "simply will not negotiate towards a compromise resolution, so we must proceed."