March 28, 2007
According to MetroActive, she resigned quietly (where was the MSM?) from a Military Construction Appropriations committee after a conflict of interest involving her husband, tens of millions of dollars in defense and construction contracts, etc. surfaced in January.
MetroActive speculates that the resignation was due to the impending release of a scathing expose (funded by The Nation) that threatened to blow the lid off the air-tight kettledrum of ethical problems:
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.
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?
WHERE IS THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA?
WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS TO CONDEMN AND ASK FOR HER RESIGNATION? WHERE IS NANCY PELOSI? WHERE IS HARRY REID? WHERE IS CHUCK SCHUMER?
More importantly, WHERE THE HELL ARE THE REPUBLICANS?
This is genuine news. Political corruption on a scale as big as Duke Cunningham, and the mainstream press is worried about 8 US attorneys losing their jobs in a completely legal hard-ball political axing-session.
The Culture of Corruption has 'returned' - bigger and better than ever before!
Welcome, Instapundit readers.
ht: Michael Savage
Posted by: Good Lt. at
07:15 PM
| Comments (13)
| Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 28, 2007 08:20 PM (8e/V4)
Unless Fox picks it up, less than 1% of the people will ever hear about it. Maybe the Washington Times will pick up on it. But even so, do you really think there will be any serious investigative journalism over it? There certainly won't be any Congressional investigations.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 28, 2007 08:35 PM (y2kMG)
Yup, the MSM will strangle this story in the crib. It's a Sandy Berger redux. She's a Democrat, which means she's protected by the Prince of Darkness himself.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at March 28, 2007 08:49 PM (8e/V4)
I cannot understand how someone who complains so vigorously as she has
about conflicts of interest in the government and Congress can have
turned such a deaf ear and a blind eye to her own. Because of her level
of influence, the conflict of interest is just as serious as the
Halliburton-Cheney connection."
It is because she is a narcissist. They don't believe that the rules apply to them the way they do everyone else. She would always in her mind have a perfectly valid reason for not needing to recuse herself or reveal her communications. Yet she might be one of the first to vote for rules that would require others to do so. She would be beyond those rules and to place those requirements on her would be am absolute insult. How dare anyone imply that she would do anything inappropriate ... etc. Typical narcissistic behavior. She probably honestly believes in her heart that those rules shouldn't apply to her.
But someone must have put the fear into her if she resigned and her rationalization would be that people just wouldn't understand. So she had to resign because it would just look bad even though she didn't really do anything wrong.
Posted by: crosspatch at March 28, 2007 08:57 PM (y2kMG)
Posted by: John Ryan at March 28, 2007 09:24 PM (TcoRJ)
Posted by: Good Lt at March 28, 2007 09:43 PM (yMbfY)
But hey? Did anyone really expect the 110th to be any different? After all they are all politicians which really is the world's 2nd oldest profession.
Posted by: NOTR at March 28, 2007 10:08 PM (GCLgj)
Posted by: sandpiper at March 28, 2007 11:38 PM (2cLBb)
Posted by: wb at March 29, 2007 04:50 AM (D4E90)
Always happy to oblige.
If this is such an open and shut case of graft why hasn't the local US Attorney charged her like the "Duke"
Oh that's right, the local US Attorney was protecting her. For the last 6 years the Republicans held strong majorities in both houses of Congress. I am not quite sure how much "juice" any Democrat had with the Republicans in such strong control. Somehow I would think that being related to a Democrat Senator in the period 2000-2006 would make it more difficult in getting US government contracts, not easier.
If this was going on for the last six years where were the Republicans on this one ??
After the results of the 2008 Federal elections when the Democrats her husband sold off his stock in these companies that were doing the milcon work. According to your logic no doubt this was done because Feinstein feared a probe more from the Democrats than the Republicans.
Good LT Show me an indictment even from a Republican US Atorney General. And if at some point in the future that does happen, I will not be saying to wait for the final court decision, I would be calling for an immediate resignation.
Posted by: John Ryan at March 29, 2007 11:18 AM (TcoRJ)
Sorry, but we're not in kindergarten. I didn't ask you about Duke Cunningham, but you predictably ignored DiFi to rant about old news that has no bearing on the post or the obvious corruption and ethical problems that have been uncovered in your party.
Try again - what do you have to say about the corruption, the hypocracy and war profiteering (as you lefties describe it) that Feinstein engaged in?
Didn't the Democrat party promise to eliminate this kind of crap from the face of the earth?
Guess they missed DiFi. And William "Cold Cash" Jefferson. And Allan Mollohan. And John Murtha. And Harry Reid. Etc.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Posted by: Good Lt at March 29, 2007 01:41 PM (yMbfY)
For the last 6 years under with the Republicans controling both Congress and the White House this was not an issue. Now that the Democrats are in control the situation has been rectified. If she has done something illegal then indict her.
So what do I say: I say indict her if she has done something illegal. But I don't think that is going to happen,do you? If you are so sure that a crime was committed why isn't the right screaming for an indictment instead of press coverage. It is not the MSM who issues indictments. As for the lack of media attention perhaps it is time for the right to bring out the old tried and true"The Jews control the media" line.
Posted by: John Ryan at March 29, 2007 03:24 PM (TcoRJ)
You obviously didn't read the links provided in the post, and instead opted for the knee-jerk defense of corruption. This expose was sponsored by your friends at The Nation. Michael Moore used to edit The Nation. It doesn't get more anti Bush than that.
Get a hold of yourself. Go read the expose and article and come back with something more mature and developed than "its only wrong when Republicans do it."
Posted by: Good Lt at March 29, 2007 04:16 PM (yMbfY)
34 queries taking 0.0635 seconds, 168 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
