Feinstein Resigns (from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee)

[Newsjock]

Source: Metro Silicon Valley

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has resigned 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.

Edit: fixed link ... sorry about that

Read more: http://metroactive.com/metro/03.21.07/dianne-feinstein-resigns-0712.html

[robinlynne]

1. she should have recused herself. obviously.

[shance]

17. No, she should resign from the Senate.

n/t

[Hieronymus]

23. Absolutely, she's a republican as sure as Lieberman is.

[robinlynne]

28. actually, she's just starting to do good things now.

[shance]

33. Please name us some. I would love to support this Senator, however I believe

as others do as well, she's been too shifty for too long, including back in her mayoral days.

[Ignacio Upton]

34. Then Ahhnold would appoint her replacement

I don't like Feinstein, but I'd rather have her than a Republican.

[rinsd]

38. self delete, another poster brought it up (nt)

[razorman]

51. I agree. But let's be honest about it.

If these same facts were reported about a Republican member of this committee, we would be screaming bloody murder and demanding a Congressional investigation.
As long as we excuse corruption in our own ranks, we would as bad as the other side. She has at least taken one proper step to regaining our faith by resigning from the committee.

[fooj]

2. What does this mean?

[MADem]

6. It means she did the right thing. She really should have done it sooner. Or not

gotten on MILCON at all--it's just not good to mix it up like that.

[JDPriestly]

16. It is about time she got off that committee.

She is an example of a Democrat who has needed to clean up her act. She is my senator, and she is great in some respects, but she needs to avoid the appearance of corruption more carefully.

[MADem]

18. I agree. Although I have to admit, I was impressed with her knowledge of projects down to the

details. A lot of times you have to spoon feed this shit to the Principals, so they can chew it for their bosses, many of whom are, if not clueless, not totally in the loop (granted they have a lot of issues to deal with, so I shouldn't be mean). She always was as well prepared as the briefers, and sometimes better prepared than they were. She had an aptitude for MILCON.

That said, ya just can't shit where ya eat. And she was way too close, with her husband in that line in a big way.

[fooj]

22. Good. It IS about time.

She's been making some very good moves lately.

[pokercat999]

25. It's time she left the Senate as it is for everyone

that has served a full term. What do they do that is so great that someone else couldn't do it? One term and out for all, we need to end career sucking at the gov't teat.

[MADem]

30. That's just the strangest post I have ever read....we'd have "cluelessness in perpetuity"

if everyone who has "served a full term" left. Sorry, I don't want a hundred idiots on the public payroll all at once. There IS a learning curve, and the way you get rid of BAD senators isn't through bullshit rules like term limits, it's by putting up a BETTER candidate and knocking the assclown out of the chamber.

We'd have no Ted Kennedy, we'd have had no Paul Wellstone at his best, we'd have not seen the best of Robert Byrd, or a host of others, if that half-baked idea were enacted.

Go read up on the RULES of the Senate. It takes years just to get those down to the fine points. I like it when our team can out-Parliament the other team. And usually, we can, because we're the 'literate' party--we bother to read the rules.

[pokercat999]

41. We'll have to disagree, two of your three examples

are (IMO) no longer fit to "serve" and are as corrupt an example as one might find in the senate.

By the way I didn't refer to getting rid of "Bad" senators, I want to get rid of them ALL after one term.
Learning curve, Christ, this isn't an "on-the-job" training program. It's the fricking US Senate, you'd think they'd KNOW the rules before they got there. Also all Senators have STAFF that help guide them in their daily activities.
If they didn't have to raise millions for their "re-election", they could concentrate on legislating instead of raising money from the instant they took office.
OK make the term 8 years but move them along, these should be temporary legislators not the lifetime "appointments" that they are today. You need to rethink your position and not knee jerk cause your favorite felon might have to go get a real job.

[MADem]

42. Well, one of my examples is DEAD. You're saying Ted Kennedy isn't fit to serve?

You're saying Robert Byrd isn't fit to serve? Two of the most forceful antiwar Senators on the floor of the Senate? That's quite...interesting...

I'm quite pleased that your lousy and absurd idea has absolutely not a hope in hell of ever becoming reality. It is probably the most UN-democratic thing I've ever heard. People have the right to return the representative of their choice to the appropriate chambers. That's what Democracy is all about. If the legislator in question campaigns on a platform of a self-imposed term limit, that is one thing. But proposing "Newt-ish" term limits as an element of law in the Congress is just silly. That's a lawmaking body, and the making of laws is the business of the people. The people have the right to return experienced lawmakers who meet with their approval to the legislature.

You clearly don't know the rules of the Senate or the House, or you'd realize that it takes a LONG time to learn them all. Hell, the freshmen have to go to class for several weeks just so they don't step on their tails when they make their maiden speeches.

You'd also, if you knew what you were talking about, realize that the "staff" have a learning curve, too. They aren't like office furniture, waiting for the legislator to arrive--they're often coming to the Hill for the first time along with the lawmakers. They frequently are campaign workers who have been with the candidate through the years in local positions, and they're as green as the legislator.

And there's no such thing as "lifetime appointments," but of course you know that. Here are two examples of entrenched incumbents who got booted: Linc Chaffee and George Felix Allen.

That's what happens when people get sufficiently pissed off. It's up to THE PEOPLE. It CAN be done. It takes will, involvement, commitment, energy, dedication.

I don't "knee jerk" and I hardly think Byrd, Kennedy, or Kerry--antiwar Senators all--are my "favorite felon." That does, however, sound like something the other team might think, though. You might want to turn Faux off--it's apparently where you're getting your information.

[pokercat999]

46. I never, not ever, watch Fox fake news. I do however

have my own opinions and trying to fit into your jack boots isn't what this forum is all about .....is it?

You obviously think the Congress of the last several years (50 or so) has done a bang up job. I don't have the time to list the stupid things they've done and I know you could list them also. With that in mind changing every 8 years for Senators and 4 for House members would be that much worse? Something else, I believe that once served one should never be allowed to hold federal office of any kind again. Like I said, we're going to disagree.

[MADem]

48. No, this is "DEMOCRATIC" Underground. And Ted is the Democratic lion of the Senate.

And Byrd, while more conservative, is the Democrat emeritus.

If you can't have a kind thing to say about those two brave Democrats, well, I wonder which ones you DO manage to support. If you don't support Democrats, pray tell, why are you here?

I simply don't understand your snark about one of the most progressive Senators in history, who doesn't even take a salary for his work. It suggests to me that you are ill-informed at best.

Good day.

[rinsd]

44. Not fit to serve and as corrupt as one can get?

I can see disagreeing with Kennedy or Byrd but someone who claims that may be on the wrong forum.

[pokercat999]

45. Sorry I didn't know this was the jack booted lock step

page. I thought that was the repugs.

I said we'll have to disagree.

[rinsd]

52. Disagreeing with their views is one thing

Calling them examples of rampant corruption is another.

Nothing lock step about it.

[catzies]

3. GOOD. She is my senator and I love her but hate she 's making $$

off the war.

While I'd prefer if they divested of her husband's blood money, of course.

[MADem]

4. She did like to take a hands on approach to MILCON. She was very knowledgeable, too.

Her level of understanding of projects often exceeded that of very senior leadership overseeing said projects. She did have a head for that kind of stuff. I couldn't find the article at the link you offered, but this link gives some background into the problem--and it IS a problem for her: http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein/index.html

There are some serious problems with Perini's work in Iraq. In June 2004, the Government Accountability Office reported that Perini's electrical reconstruction contract in southern Iraq suffered from mismanagement and lack of competition. In 2006, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction found that Perini was paid to construct multimillion dollar electrical substations in the desert that could not be connected to the electrical grid. And the company was billing the government for purchasing and subcontracting costs that were not justified, according to the Defense Contract Audit Agency. An October 2005 audit by the Defense Department's Inspector General criticized the execution of Perini's cost-plus military construction work in Afghanistan, saying, "The contractor had an incentive to increase costs, because higher costs resulted in higher profit."

It's good she resigned. It is a conflict, no question.

[hang a left]

26. Conflict???????

Please, it is cronyism. It is nepotism. It is abuse of her position and oath. She has blood on her hands. Lots of it.

I don't see why so many people here are willing to forgive her.

[umtalal]

31. I don't forgive her and I want her out n/t

[MADem]

43. Well, there's no real requirement for her to do it. You think Frist blinked

or recused himself on health care matters despite his investments?

I'm not a particular champion of the 'two wrongs make a right' argument, and I agree that she does have the appearance of a conflict of interest, but knowing the way MILCON works, her vote during the GOP majority years was not deciding, and her influence was not overriding. That's why it doesn't bug me overmuch. She could vote in committee (when the GOP had the majority they voted in lockstep, so her vote either way wouldn't have mattered) and she still can vote in the Senate, in ANY event--on or off that committee.

Her constituents know her connections. They know her husband's business. It's not a secret. In fact, it's all in her filings. If they have an issue with it, they need to put up an alternative candidate. But to pull the old "shocked, SHOCKED" routine means that the upset constituents just didn't do THEIR homework before they pulled the lever for her.

[pokercat999]

47. Because like the repug willing to forgive anyone with

an R after their name some here will forgive and even praise unethical and even illegal behavior because that congress person has a D after their name. A crook is a crook is a crook.

We have just as many people wearing blinders as does the other "side".

[cosmicdot]

5. try this link

http://metroactive.com/metro/03.21.07/dianne-feinstein-resigns-0712.html

[MADem]

8. Thanks, that one works. NT

[az chela]

7. I read about this before she got elected and have always felt

it was a huge conflict of Interest.Her husband makes millions off these projects

[Zhade]

11. It's one of the primary reasons I left that seat choice blank.

I will not vote for a war profiteer.

[mike_c]

9. great-- after her husband made millions in war profits....

She did the right thing? Yeah, right-- is she gonna give the money back?

[Zhade]

12. ...

:rofl:

Ah, thanks for the laugh. Dianne "I like Margeret Thatcher" Findspine return her blood money? Fat chance!

[Pastiche423]

24. She can't give it back

She and Dick bought on an eight million dollar house in Pacific Height, SF.

When she was the Mayor of SF, I liked her. DiFi was a liberal back then.

[Zhade]

10. Good.

Her conflict of interest was no different from Cheney's.

[AndyA]

13. So it took her SIX YEARS to determine she had a conflict and needed to remove herself

from this?

She's no better than Dick Halliburton Cheney.

This kind of sh!t is what is wrong with America today. She should have immediately resigned, refused the position, or she should have been told to step down by another Dem due to the conflict.

I suppose she wants kudos for finally realizing she was doing something wrong?

[MADem]

19. Well, she was in the minority, anyway. If she'd removed herself, they probably would have replaced

her with a REPUBLICAN. Seriously. That's probably why she stayed.

The GOP didn't run those committee assignments very nicely. They used them to reward their good little acolytes, and they didn't care about parity very much.

[karynnj]

27. I think she would have been replaced by a Democrat

but the difference is significant - the Democrats had very little power. She likely should have left to avoid even the appearance of Conflict of interest. Did she recuse herself whenever her husband could benefit?

[MADem]

29. The majority leaders under the GOP (Trent AND Fristie) didn't go by parity rules.

If a legislator dropped out, they made the decision. It wasn't fifty-fifty (minus one) like it is now. Some of those committees were two or more over on the GOP side.

You'd have to check the transcripts of the hearings to see if she did recuse or not. The odds are good that any vote she made in committee had no effect on if the proposed legislation went forward or not. The Democrats had little or no power in committee during the GOP reign. They couldn't even participate in setting the agenda, that's how out-of-the-loop they were kept.

That said, even if her presence didn't make any practical difference, your point about conflict of interest is on point--even the appearance of it is not good at all.

[shance]

35. The Republican legislators, especially the men love Mrs. Feinstein. Are you kidding?

She is one of their favorite female legislators on the hill.

That's well known in DC circles.

[MADem]

49. Those committee seats are plums, favors. It's not ABOUT liking. It's NEVER about that.

You'd be shocked at which senators are friendly on a personal level. Orrin Hatch and Ted Kennedy? John Kerry and Trent Fucking Lott?

It's all about favors, influence, and deal making. If DF left, the committee chairman, or the party leadership, could and probably WOULD use a seat assignment as a 'reward' for some jerk with a good sized base in his constituency. The GOP, if they'd made the rule that those who leave are replaced by a choice of the chair, would replace any leave-takers with GOP schmucks.

[rinsd]

36. Good point MADem (nt)

[fed-up]

14. profiteering off the soul and lives of our soldiers- may she rot in hell nt

[shance]

15. So someone remind me, how different are the parties?

You'd never know it, looking at this war profiteering.

How is it any different?

The same exploitation, the same bilking of taxpayer funds for their wealth, in this case the Blums and/or Feinsteins.

[rinsd]

37. The Nader canard?

:eyes:

[brentspeak]

20. It took her six years and a recent newspaper investigation for her to "realize"

this was a conflict of interest.

[IndianaGreen]

21. Considering how wasteful MCA is, Feinstein was the wrong person for the job

She lives in a very nice mansion, which I am sure, did not come from questionable business dealings by the Feinsteins.

:eyes:

[mikelgb]

32. Feinstein was THE Senator who started the fuss about USA-gate

the attorney scandal is getting huge

I think this is a positive step

I don't normally stick up for my Senator, but it is NOT a good time for her to resign from the Senate.

[windy252]

39. Stupid question

Did she resign from the Senate itself or just the committee?

[melody]

40. She has done many good things to counter the bad

She's pro-Democratic values in general and she does a lot to help her constituency (though Barbara Boxer is still my favorite Senator, due to her helping my friend). I'm very pleased to see she's done the right thing, finally, on this matter. Let's hope all the Repugs (who've done far worse) follow suit.

Of course, the freepers will defend the thoroughly miscreant wingnuts while we'll eat the comparatively decent Feinstein alive ...

[Robson]

50. Where have I been all week?

I happened to hear 2 callers on C-SPAN ask about her resignation, which was the first that I heard it. What I find frustrating is how the rich are never rich enough. They always need another hundred million or a billion. One would think that anyone with common sense and a believer in ethics 101 means that you don't take public positions where you can positively influence and affect the wealth of your spouse. I personally find this very frustrating as it weakens the Democratic position on integrity.

I agree with a previous poster on term limits. Give senators one term and out so they don't get a chance to learn the ropes of wheeling dealing, and don't spend time posturing for the next election, and most important don't become entrenched. It's more important to our democracy to have representatives that are independent and not beholden.