Redstate

I thought that Feinstein was supposed to be the *smart* CA Senator.

By Moe Lane Posted in Democrats — Comments (17) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Let's establish the scenario (Via Fark):

Senator Feinstein's Iraq Conflict
By Peter Byrne

In the November 2006 election, the voters demanded congressional ethics reform. And so, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., is now duly in charge of regulating the ethical behavior of her colleagues. But for many years, Feinstein has been beset by her own ethical conflict of interest, say congressional ethics experts.

As chairperson and ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON) from 2001 through the end of 2005, Feinstein supervised the appropriation of billions of dollars a year for specific military construction projects. Two defense contractors whose interests were largely controlled by her husband, financier Richard C. Blum, benefited from decisions made by Feinstein as leader of this powerful subcommittee.

Hold your objections: it gets better. Read on.

Here's what makes this noteworthy: Sen Feinstein's legal advisor Michael R. Klein attempted to defuse this issue, and in classic fashion merely turned it from something that merely gets a raised eyebrow (you'll see why in a minute) to something that's actually now an issue. You see, Klein let her know when Perini Corp (a company that her husband had a majority interest in) was up for bids, so that she could recuse herself. Problem solved? Not precisely:

Klein said that he regularly gave Feinstein's chief of staff, Mark Kadesh, lists of Perini's current and upcoming contractual interests in federal legislation, so that the senator would not discuss, debate, vote on or participate in matters that could affect projects in which Perini was concerned. "Earmarks, you know, set asides, you name it, there was a system in place which on a regular basis I got notified, I notified her office and her office notified her," Klein said.

"We basically identified any bid that Perini was going for and checked to see whether it was the subject of already appropriated funds or funds yet to be appropriated, and if it was anything that the senator could not act on, her office was alerted and she did not act on it."

This is an extraordinary thing for Klein and the senator to do, since the detailed project proposals that the Pentagon sent to Feinstein's subcommittee for review do not usually name the firms already contracted to perform specific projects. Nor do defense officials typically identify, in MILCON hearings, which military construction contractors are eligible to bid on upcoming work.

In theory, Feinstein would not know the identity of any of the companies that stood to contractually benefit from her approval of specific items in the military construction budget--until Klein told her.

[Bolding mine]

I'm pushing violating fair use - so I'll note that the article goes on to note that there seems to be a shell game going on, here. Supposedly, Sen Feinstein was recusing herself on Perini Corps' activities, while not recusing herself on URS Corps' (another group that her husband had a majority interest in) activities. It was not claimed that she was being made aware of what URS Corps was bidding on; this would, if true, keep her out of serious trouble. And the article does not provide a smoking gun.

However (you knew that there'd be a however), Sen. Feinstein has a problem. If it is true that she was being advised on one group's proposals with which she has ties, it raises a legitimate question about whether she was being advised about any other groups as well. Particularly when it comes to the kind of money that we're talking about, here. I rolled my eyes at CREW's ritualistic invocation of Halliburton and Cheney*, myself - but the point can still be considered from a theoretical perspective.

This is, in fact, a good deal more like the Halliburton 'scandal' than the Halliburton 'scandal' itself; a wealthy public official in a position to personally profit from government contracts, who has declined to answer questions about certain activities involving them. With two rather significant differences: one, Sen. Feinstein's husband was actively involved with the company during the period at issue. Two: Sen. Feinstein may not make the executive privilege argument to explain why she will not disclose the information that might exonerate or condemn her**.

One last bit of information: her husband made a tidy sum of money divesting himself of interests in both Perini and UFS - two companies that are heavily involved in Iraq reconstruction. Shortly thereafter, Senator Feinstein began calling for a timetable for American withdrawal from Iraq. Coincidence? CREW doesn't think so - and, do you know, after six years of listening to applied conspiracy theories applied to every politician with an R after his or her name, I am distinctly uninclined to just let it slide. Let's see the books, Senator.

Really, you'd think that she'd realize that this sort of thing was going to happen.

Moe Lane

*They'll learn soon enough that their old allies won't be mollified by such gestures and that their new allies aren't buying it.

**Yeah, the energy meeting thing. I bring it up because one can anticipate certain objections, after a while. Regardless of whether or not they're actually germane to the topic at hand.