Of course---she finally resigned AFTER 6 years on the Committe and AFTER 6 years of a conflict of interest.


Dianne Feinstein resigns in ethics scandal…not that the media cares
Posted Friday, March 30th, 2007 at 8:04 PM by Karl

If she had been a republican this would be a lead item, but since she is prissy DiFi from California, former Mayor of moonbat central, San Francisco, this is a back page yawn.

Feinstein Resigns

Senator exits MILCON following Metro exposé, vet-care scandal

SEN. Dianne Feinstein has resignned from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee. As previously and extensively reviewed in these pages, Feinstein was chairperson and ranking member of MILCON for six years, during which time she had a conflict of interest due to her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of two major defense contractors, who were awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Feinstein.

As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design. She regularly took junkets to military bases around the world to inspect construction projects, some of which were contracted to her husband's companies, Perini Corp. and URS Corp.

Perhaps she resigned from MILCON because she could not take the heat generated by Metro's expose of her ethics (which was partially funded by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute). Or was her work on the subcommittee finished because Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005?
Oh, interesting twist. She didn't quit during the time she had a conflict of interest but after her conflict of interest was effectively over? How Bizarre.

Feinstein abandoned MILCON as her ethical problems were surfacing in the media, and as it was becoming clear that her subcommittee left grievously wounded veterans to rot while her family was profiting from the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. It turns out that Blum also holds large investments in companies that were selling medical equipment and supplies and real estate leases—often without the benefit of competitive bidding—to the Department of Veterans Affairs, even as the system of medical care for veterans collapsed on his wife's watch.
Who knows. Congress has a focus that is solely anti Bush and anti republican, so don't expect too many people to care. She will just walk away from this.

Thanks again to the Democrats for fighting against the culture of corruption.... "

http://leaningstraightup.com/2007/03...e-media-cares/

I found this on an obscure Blog. So where was the mainstream press during all this? This is the first I heard of it. Shameful how they "pick and choose" which issues they want to blow up over.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

You got me going there! I thought you would have news that she is resigning from the Senate and that she would never affect the public again, but I have to settle for a small victory.

This also shows evidence for the assertion that the media is run by liberals, or at least has a liberal bias. You are correct that if she were Republican instead of Democrat, the media would have a field day. This is proven by the media portrayal of former senator Mark Foley, who was accused of inappropriate relationship with a minor (not the legal term for it). The liberal media hit this story over and over again, and it caused many voters to want a political unheaval of both houses of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Later it was found that he not only wasn't guilty, but that the original claims were completely unfounded. But the "mainstream" news-media didn't report this story. I had to find out about it by accident!

__________________
I think America is finally ready for another president with polio.

I started writing a blog entry on it a while back, then stopped after realizing there just wasn't a lot there.

While Feinstein sat on the subcommittee that approves construction projects, she had no role in awarding contracts; that's done by a government agency.

Further, for the entire time in question she was in the minority, and thus didn't lead the subcommittee. So to assume she had any influence on who got contracts, you'd have to argue that the Republican leadership abetted her.

Even further, her husband sold his interest in the defense contractors in 2005. So for more than a year there hasn't even been a question of it being improper.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Wow! That sure as heck didn't stop the Democrats from demonizing Dick Cheney over Haliburton----even though he had no role in awarding contracts.

Oh? So can you show me the rule that says "conflicts of interest ONLY applys to those in the Majority?" I'll wait.....

That leaves ONLY 5 years that WERE.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Setting aside the difference in influence between a veep and a minority Senator, I'll make two points: I've never been one of those people demonizing Cheney over Halliburton, and two wrongs don't make a right. If you thought Cheney was just fine, then you can't complain about Feinstein.

Not what I said. My point was that for it to be a conflict of interest, there has to be a credible mechanism by which Feinstein could use her position to benefit her husband. I don't see one, *especially* because she was in the minority and so would have to convince multiple Republicans to go along with her.

Agreed. But you still have to suggest a way she could have used her position to benefit her husband. That's why I ended up writing nothing (and abandoning a half-written post): I couldn't see a way for it to be a credible problem.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

If Feinstein's husband had given up his ties to these companies BEFORE she took the position, you'd have a good point.
http://www.factcheck.org/article261.html

You lose this argument, raytri. How can you say she doesn't have conflict of interest when something like $1.5 BILLION was awarded to companies her husband had ties to. It's like you're saying she couldn't possibly be interested in these contracts because her vote didn't count. Wow.

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt

Oh yes I can. I'm complaining about the lack of coverage on one....and the overkill coverage on the other.

Well,gee.....what about "where there's smoke; there must be some fire?" Where was the investigation to take a little "look see??"

Well, I can't see a credible problem with the firings of 8 political appointees either. But we're sure getting a big TO DO over that!!

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

No, because the causation goes the other way.

1. Congress approves money for Project X (through the MilCon subcommittee that Feinstein sat on).

2. Independent government agency puts Project X out for bids, selects contractors and begins work.

How does Feinstein having one of a dozen votes in #1 create a conflict in #2? The point here is that Congress/Feinstein is not selecting or approving contractors.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Okay, then we have to get into the relative prominence and influence of the Veep -- and the use of no-bid contracts -- versus a single senator voting on projects that are subject to competitive bidding.

I've never said that. The quality and quantity of smoke is important.

What would be the basis for the investigation? With Gonzales, you have a specific action to investigate -- the unusual firing of eight prosecutors, and the false and changing explanations that followed. With Feinstein, the only thing you've got is that she sat on the MilCon committee, and her husband owned two defense contractors. There's not a scrap of a suggestion that there was wrongdoing -- just an independent weekly saying it could be a conflict.

Opinions vary, of course. But I think that there's an objective difference between the two.

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

Too Conservative:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20172

Too Liberal:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Frank05.htm

Just right:
http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/

__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive. - Theodore Roosevelt