posted March 29, 2007 12:34 PM            

Now, I thought democrats promised to clean up government. I thought they promised to do away with "earmarks", the device by which congressional members inserted gobs and gobs of money into spending bills to enrich lobbyists who contribute and enrich businesses..who also contribute..within their states and districts.

Say it isn't so democrats but it appears there's a gigantic "culture of corruption" within democrat ranks.

Let's see

Sitting on the "committee for Homeland Security" is a democrat from Louisiana who was video taped taking a $100,000 bribe from an undercover federal agent. Later, $90,000 of that "marked money" was found in his freezer...now that's real "cold cash"
So, why is "William Jefferson" still in the House of Representatives? Wait, that name sounds very familiar. Oh yeah, "William Jefferson" Clinton, Commander Corruption. If democrats were determined to clean up the "culture of corruption" on Capitol Hill, why didn't they expel this corrupt little democrat. They could have refused to seat him in the new democrat House...but didn't.

Then, there's John "Let Me Think About Taking That Bribe" Murtha, otherwise known as "Surrender Now Murtha". For years, Surrender Now has been earmarking and otherwise directing hundreds of millions of dollars for companies his brother represents as a lobbyist...and he still is. There is famous...or infamous film footage of Surrender Now talking with an undercover federal agent about taking bribes. "Not now, says Surrender Now Murtha, I want to get to know you guys better. Maybe we'll do some "business" in the future. We knew that as the ABSCAM scandal.
"Let me think about it because you know, 15 maybe 20 years later some sonofabiitch gets nailed for something and rolls over on everyone" Not, "You sleazy basta*d, bribery is a federal crime. Expect some federal agents to show up on your doorstep and frog march your sorry ass straight to a federal prison for 12-15 years.

Then, there's Harry Reid, a wheeler dealer in real estate in Nevada...and perhaps other places as well. Harry got such a sweet deal on some vacant property that he just couldn't pass it up. Seems that vacant land adjoined some vacant land he owned and a political/business friend owned it. Friend sold it to "Dirty Harry" at a price well below it's market value. Problem, it was zoned rural/agricultural. No problem, Dirty Harry sent his lawyer to the county zoning commission and attempted to get it rezoned so it could have commercial buildings erected. Even using "Dirty Harry's name as a US Senator, the zoning commission turned Dirty Harry down cold. No problem, Dirty Harry next sent his attorney to the County Council to have the zoning commissions ruling overturned...again, using Dirty Harry's name as a US Senator. Presto Changoooo, Dirty Harry gets his zoning change and a permit to build. Dirty Harry turned a profit of $1.2 million dollars on that sweet deal...by using his influence and name as a US Senator.

These types of "deals" are legion for politicians of both parties in congress and there's been not one substantive change by the democrat controlled Congress to stop any of it. All the wheezing, whining and pants wetting about the "Republican culture of corruption" has translated to exactly....nothing...zip...nada...zilch.

Of course, no one really expected anything to actually happen. democrats think talking about something is the same as actually doing something. To democrats, talk equals action.

posted March 29, 2007 12:57 PM            

Seems this "Straight and Narrow" Senator is married to a man who goes under a different last name, Richard C. Blum. Blum...and Feinstein too, since California is a community property state...own at least 2 corporations, Perini Corp. and URS Corp. Both of these corporations have received government contracts..some with no other bids allowed..which total more than a Billion Dollars....$1,000,000,000.

These contracts passed through a Senate Committee on which Feinstein was either Chairperson or Ranking member and "Straight and Narrow Feinstein" regularly reviewed...and "accepted" those contracts benefiting and enriching both herself and her husband.

Nice work...if you can get it. This "Straight and Narrow" democrat, Diane Feinstein could get it and did get it.

Gee, and all this time I thought the Iraq war was really all about enriching Haliburton and stealing Iraqi oil for American oil companies. Isn't that what leftist democrats have been screeching at the top of their lungs?

ON CAPITOL HILL
Feinstein quits committee under war-profiteer cloud
Report documents military contracts for firms owned by senator's husband
Posted: March 28, 2007
10:05 p.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has abruptly walked away from her responsibilities with the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after a report linked her votes to the financial well-being of her husband's companies, which received billions of dollars worth of military construction contracts she approved.

As reported in Metroactive, an online report from the Silicon Valley, Feinstein's resignation followed six years of subcommittee work during which time her alleged conflict of interest stemmed from her husband Richard C. Blum's ownership of Perini Corp. and URS Corp.

Feinstein, chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee, regularly reviewed and accepted contracts from her husband's companies for not only construction work for military bases, but also addressing "quality of life" issues for the veterans of the United States military services.

"As MILCON leader, Feinstein relished the details of military construction, even micromanaging one project at the level of its sewer design," wrote Peter Byrne in the report. "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."

He suggested perhaps Feinstein resigned "because she could not take the heat generated by metro's expose of her ethics… Or was her work on the subcommittee finished because Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005?"

The writer also noted another reason could be that since that subcommittee is responsible for veterans' "quality of life" issues, perhaps she was trying to distance herself from the military's failure to provide decent medical care for wounded servicemembers.

"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," he wrote.

The Metroactive report, based on research partly funded by the Investigative Fund of the Nation Institute, noted that as of the end of 2006, federal documents showed three companies in which Blum's financial entities owned a total of $1 billion in stock got $17.8 million for medical equipment and supplies (Boston Scientific Corp.), $12 million for medical supplies and equipment (Kinetic Concepts Inc.), and additional funding through lease contracts (CB Richard Ellis).

"You would think that, considering all the money Feinstein's family has pocketed by waging global warfare while ignoring the plight of wounded American soldiers, she would show a smidgeon of shame and resign from the entire Senate, not just a subcommittee," Byrne wrote. "Conversely, you'd think she might stick around MILCON to try and fix the medical-care disaster she helped to engineer for the vets who were suckered into fighting her and Bush's panoply of unjust wars."

Byrne earlier had documented the connections between the dollars Feinstein voted on and the revenue for Blum's companies.

From 1997 through 2005 Blum, with Feinstein's knowledge, was a majority owner in both URS Corp. and Perini Corp., both of which were regularly among the companies awarded major military contracts proposed by the Department of Defense.

According to those reports, from 2001 to 2005, URS earned $792 million from military construction and environmental cleanup work approved by MILCON, while Perini collected $759 million for the same.

Feinstein's annual Public Financial Disclosure Reports record sizeable family income from investments in the Framingham, Mass.-based Perini and the San Francisco-located URS. But there was no acknowledgment of any conflict of interest, according to Metroactive, a "Northern California meta-site" that specializes in arts and entertainment information from area publications: Metro, Silicon Valley's Weekly Newspaper; Metro Santa Cruz; and the North Bay Bohemian.

Byrne also reported Michael R. Klein, an adviser to Feinstein and business partner with Blum, said that starting in 1997 he routinely told Feinstein about federal projects coming before her in which Perini had a stake, in order for her to avoid those votes and as such, a conflict of interest.

However, instead of withholding a vote, she did act on those pieces of legislation, Byrne reported. Ultimately, "the Congressional Record shows that as chairperson and ranking member of MILCON, Feinstein was often involved in supervising the legislative details of military construction projects that directly affected Blum's defense-contracting firms," Byrne's report said.

"Sen. Feinstein has had a serious conflict of interest, a serious insensitivity to ethical considerations," Wendell Rawls, of the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, told Metroactive. "The very least she should have done is to recuse herself from having conversations, debates, voting or any other kind of legislative activity that involved either Perini Corp. or URS Corp. or any other business activity where her husband's financial were involved."

One example was that in 2005, MILCON approved a Pentagon plan to fund "overhead coverage force protection" for Iraq to reinforce the roofs of U.S. Army barracks. About three months later, Perini announced an award of a $185 million contract to provide "overhead coverage force protection to the Army in Iraq."

Byrne noted when Blum divested ownership of URS and Perini in 2005, the conflict of interest was resolved. "But Feinstein's ethical dilemma arose from the fact that, for five years, the interests of Perini and URS and CB Richard Ellis were inextricably entwined with her leadership of MILCON ... ."

The investigation examined thousands of pages of documents, including transcripts of hearings in Congress, filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and reports and government audits as well as corporate press releases.

The result? "The paper trails showing Sen. Feinstein's conflict of interest is irrefutable," according to Danielle Brian, of the Project on Government Oversight.

"Because of the amount of money involved," said Melanie Sloan, of the Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, "Feinstein's conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than [other] conflicts [involving U.S. Rep. John T. Doolittle, former Speaker Dennis Hastert and others]."

In 2005, Roll Call calculated Feinstein's wealth at $40 million, up $10 million from just a year earlier. Reports show her family earned between $500,000 and $5 million from capital gains on URS and Perini stock. From CB Richard Ellis, her husband earned from $1.3 million to $4 million.

Public records show Blum's company paid $4 a share for controlling interest in Perini, and later sold about three million shares for $23.75 each.

The report also showed URS' military construction work in 2000 was only $24 million, but the next year, when Feinstein took over as MILCON chair, military construction earned URS $185 million. Additionally, its military construction architectural and engineering revenue rose from $108,000 in 2000 to $142 million in 2001, a thousand-fold increase.

posted April 02, 2007 12:26 PM            

It would seem the US Attorney for a district that includes California would have been interested....but wasn't.

She was fired by Bush and company yet, democrats are moving heaven and earth to make it appear US Attorney's were fired for investigating Republicans.

This is a big time scandal and dwarfs anything Abramoff and Cunningham were accused of, prosecuted for, convicted of and imprisoned for. That was peanuts by comparison.

So where are the democrats demanding an investigation of Diane Feinstein conflicts of interest and funneling government contracts to her husband?

Not to be found in the known universe.

And, democrats were hysterical over the maintenance of military hospitals and attempt to blame that on Bush too. Bush did it is the daily mantra of democrats.

But, one of those corporations Feinstein funneled government money to was directly involved in quality of life issues...for US military personnel..including those injured and being treated at military hospitals in the US.

So, why haven't democrats brought up Feinstein's name as a person who might be able to answer some questions in a congressional investigating committee..under oath.

No one in the known universe knows the answer to that question.

Monday, April 2, 2007 8:51 a.m. EDT
Sen. Feinstein Resigns Military Appropriations Post

This article was written by Fred Lucas, CNSNews.com Staff Writer

Government watchdog groups want more answers as to why Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., stepped down from a military appropriations subcommittee at a time questions were being asked billions of dollars in federal defense contracts going to her husband's companies.

Feinstein resigned her post as chairwoman of the Senate Subcommittee on Military Construction Appropriations last week.

The decision came less than two months after Metro Newspapers, a group of alternative weekly papers in northern California, detailed the number of defense contracts awarded to Perini Corp. and URS Corp., both of which her husband, Richard C. Blum, has ownership, according to the newspapers.

The investigation was partially funded by the Investigative Fund of The Nation Institute, a non-profit organization affiliated with the liberal magazine The Nation.

"This was a critique from the left," Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, told Cybercast News Service. "These were left-leaning papers. The fact that she stepped down from the committee lends credibility to the charges."

Fitton said this is something Judicial Watch wanted to further investigate, possibly by seeking public documents on the matter and by asking the Senate Ethics Committee to look into the matter for a possible conflict of interest on Feinstein's part.

"On the face of it, it seems she at least had influence on how contracts were awarded," Fitton said. "There should be an investigation."

Feinstein's press office was contacted several times Friday by Cybercast News Service, but her office did not provide a statement on the matter at the end of the day.

The California weeklies detailed examples that included a subcommittee hearing in which Feinstein asked Pentagon officials about increasing anti-terrorism protection for Army bases.

The next year, in March 2003, Feinstein asked why the funds for anti-terror protection had not been spent. Just over a month later, URS announced a $600 million contract to provide services for U.S. Army bases that included anti-terrorism force protection.

In another instance, Feinstein asked another military official when money would be spent on a maintenance facility for the C-17 Hickam Air Base in Hawaii. URS later announced a $42 million contract to build it.

Also, Feinstein's subcommittee in mid-2005 approved funds to reinforce roofs at military stations in Iraq, and in October of that year, Perini got a $185 million federal contract for that purpose, the papers reported.

The matter should be probed further, said Kenneth Boehm, chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative government watchdog group. However, he isn't that confident in the Senate's ability to police itself.

"The real problem is there is too little objectivity," Boehm told Cybercast News Service. "Congress needs an independent watchdog. The ethics committees are partisan. They have an equal number of Republicans and Democrats, but the reality is that things don't get looked at that should get looked at."

Meanwhile, Melanie Sloan, executive director of the liberal watchdog group Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, reportedly said the Feinstein matter could eclipse other congressional scandals.

"There are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest," Sloan told Metro Newspapers. "But because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein's conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts."

The paper proudly reported Feinstein's exit from the Senate panel on its website last week, as reporter Peter Byrne stressed that Feinstein's subcommittee had jurisdiction over medical treatment for veterans long before the poor conditions were exposed at the Walter Reed Army Hospital.

"You would think that, considering all the money Feinstein's family has pocketed by waging global warfare while ignoring the plight of wounded American soldiers, she would show a smidgeon of shame and resign from the entire Senate, not just a subcommittee," Byrne wrote.

posted April 02, 2007 01:54 PM            

Who knows why democrats do anything?