In true "Boyda-Pelosi" form, we have this press release.
In it, Nancy tried to explain why she agreed with the Democrat majority in the House that it was a good idea to spend the day voting for a do-nothing contempt resolution rather than voting to reauthorize FISA.
Nowhere in the statement, did Nancy say specifically why she was against FISA only some mumbo jumbo about the Constitution, which last time I checked did not apply to terrorists who don't live in the United States.
As I have previously pointed out, the Democrat majority has one, and only one complaint against the Senate-passed version of FISA - liability of telecommunications companies. They have one, and only interest group demanding that telecommunications companies be held liable for helping the government wire tap terror suspects - trial lawyers.
And we know, that the "first constituent" of the Second District is Steve Boyda - trial lawyer to the core. We also know that Nancy's number one campaign benefactor is - trial lawyers.
The reason Nancy is not going on the record as being pro-trial lawyer over being pro-national security is that the people of the Second District are overwhelmingly pro-national security and anti-greedy trial lawyer.
If I were the national republicans, I'd be running radio ads during this entire recess hitting her on taking trial lawyer contributions to stop investigating terrorists. If I had the money, I'd do it myself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
why do we need to make the telecoms immune to something if they haven't done anything illegal?
since they've done something illegal, shouldn't we take them to court?
of course we should...this is a losing point for the Republican party.
"If I had the money, I'd do it myself."
It's called a 527. File the paperwork and let us know where to send the checks.
Ummm, why should the telecommunications companies be forced to spend millions of dollars in legal fees to defend themselves from these lawsuits. Frivilous lawsuits are a losing point for the Democrats.
the point is they aren't frivolous law suits...they're valid suits because the telecoms ARE BREAKING THE LAW.
And genius where do you think the money to pay for lawsuits might come from???
The consumer, big companies don't pay they increase prices and average citizen pays for them.
Of course if we did away with frivilous lawsuits Steve Boyda wouldn't have an income.
they lawsuits aren't frivolous...the telecoms are BREAKING THE LAW
Well I guess we've offended some lawyers here .... who want to be judge and jury too. Isn't there an ambulance that you should be chasing somewhere?
So you've seen the evidence of wrongdoing or basing it off of TV reports.
Post a Comment