from? 60 minutes basically accused paul pelosi of insider trading. i want to ask you why you and your husband in march of 2008 accepted and participated in a large ipo dealv from visa at a time when there was major legislation affecting credit card companies making its way through the house. did you consider that to be a conflict of interest? i don t understand the point of your question. i guess what i m asking is do you think it many all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential stock deal and you participated while you were speaker of the house. you didn t think it was a conflict of interest? it only had the appearance if you decide usual going to elaborate on a false premise.
from? 60 minutes basically accused paul pelosi of insider trading. i want to ask you why you and your husband in march of 2008 accepted and participated in a large ipo dealv from visa at a time when there was major legislation affecting credit card companies making its way through the house. did you consider that to be a conflict of interest? i don t understand the point of your question. i guess what i m asking is do you think it many all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential stock deal and you participated while you were speaker of the house. you didn t think it was a conflict of interest? it only had the appearance if you decide usual going to elaborate on a false premise.
from? 60 minutes basically accused paul pelosi of insider trading. i want to ask you why you and your husband in march of 2008 accepted and participated in a large ipo dealv from visa at a time when there was major legislation affecting credit card companies making its way through the house. did you consider that to be a conflict of interest? i don t understand the point of your question. i guess what i m asking is do you think it many all right for a speaker to accept a very preferential stock deal and you participated while you were speaker of the house. you didn t think it was a conflict of interest? it only had the appearance if you decide usual going to elaborate on a false premise.
the courts, and that reason is delay. consider just three lawsuits filed by house committees over the past two decades to enforce subpoenas against senior executive branch officials. now, i served on the judiciary committee when we decided that we needed to hear from former white house counsel harriet meyers. in committee on the judiciary versus meyers, the judiciary committee tried to enforce a subpoena is that required her to give testimony about the contentious firing of nine u.s. attorneys. the committee served the subpoena in 2007. we negotiated, as courts indicated you should, with the white house, and we finally filed suit in march of 2008. we won a favorable district court order in july 2008. but we didn t receive testimony
action without involving the courts, and that reason is delay. consider just three lawsuits filed by house committees over the past two decades to enforce subpoenas against senior executive branch officials. i served on the judiciary committee when we decided that we needed to hear from former white house counsel harriet miers. in committee on the judiciary, the committee tried to enforce a subpoena that required her to give testimony about the contentious firing of nine u.s. attorneys. the committee served the subpoena in 2007. we negotiated, as courts indicate you should, with the white house. we finally filed suit in march of 2008. we won a favorable district court order in july of 2008.