CORRUPTION! PELOSI/ FEINSTEIN / BOXER

Nancy Pelosi Actually Most Corrupt Member of Congress
Pelosi abuses lowest paid workers for her personal wealth!! Pelosi forces down pay of poorest people to increase her stock profit


CORRUPTION! Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi’s home district includes San Francisco . Star-Kist Tuna’s headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi’s home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi. Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan work force. Paul Pelosi, Nancy’s husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock. In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte p roducts less expensive than their competition’s. Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an ‘economic development credit in American Samoa ‘.
Pelosi has called the Bush Administration ”CORRUPT” ? ?How do you spell “HYPOCRISY” ?
EVERY PERSON IN THE WORLD SHOULD GET THIS FORWARDED
Why do we not get media coverage of stories like this?
”SNOPES” VALIDATES
Please forward links to this so Pelosi is exposed for the monster she is

It's Official: Hawaii Refused To Certify Obama's Eligibility in 2008
As opposed to previous years from 2000 to 2004 where Democratic candidates for the presidential elections were Constitutionally certified by the party and National Election Committee, in 2008 this was not the case. The state of Hawaii actually refused to certify Barack Obama as being eligible for the presidency of the United States. Based upon the Constitutional provision stated in Article 2 Section 1 which proclaimed that no candidate could run for the office of president unless they were a natural born citizen, obviously the requirement had not been met. The Constitution also specifically states that dual citizens are expressly excluded from running for office of the presidency.
Election official Tim Adams was there and has stated for the record that he could not find any trace of Obama’s long form birth certificate nor could he have even stated this fact when asked under the discretion imposed upon him as an election official. Adams was also quoted saying that among state agency officials and other senior election personnel that it was a foregone conclusion that there was indeed no long form birth certificate to confirm that Barack Obama had been born in the USA.
In the year 2000 Al Gore as President and Joe Lieberman as Vice President of the Democratic party were issued an Official Certification of Nomination as well as John Kerry and John Edwards were also given the green light by the state of Hawaii in 2004, something different happened in 2008 though. Apparently the state of Hawaii ignored the protocols and refused to nominate Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate for the presidency as there was no corroborating evidence to prove that he was Constitutionally eligible for the office. Why? They had no long form birth certificate to substantiate proof that Obama was a natural born citizen of the USA.
So, what did Nancy Pelosi do? A slightly different form was drafted and sent to the other 49 states of the union. It looked almost like the original Official Certificate of Nomination only with one big difference. Instead of showing that in compliance with the US Constitution Obama’s eligibility is certified by the Democratic National Convention, it stated that by acclamation the Democratic National Convention had nominated Barack Hussein Obama as their candidate for President along with his running mate, Joe Biden. This copy went to 49 states with the exception of Hawaii.
The only copy that read like the previous documents that had been used to nominate Gore, and Kerry using the language of the US Constitution was sent to Hawaii. This was an act of illegal deception and violated the Constitutional provisions that defined an eligible presidential candidate. Nancy Pelosi literally committed fraud in certifying Obama as being eligible to run for the office of the presidency.
According to writer J.B.Williams, most states never even certified Obama as their choice for the Democratic presidential candidacy. Hawaii was the only state that was issued an Official Certification of Nomination. Failing to certify their candidate’s eligibility in 49 out of 50 states was a complete and total defiance of the law. State laws require that the presidential nominee is certified in specific language in affirmation of the US Constitution. This was not done. A virtual coup was undertaken in order to elect Obama.
To date President Obama has spent 1.5 million dollars of tax payers money sending US Attorneys all over the country to quash law suits challenging the eligibility of Obama to qualify for president of the United States of America. Why? Why do his school records in Hawaii remain locked down. Why are records of his senatorial and attorney status in the state of Illinois still locked down? What does this man have to hide other than the obvious lack of legal proof that he is qualified? Now, the Supreme Court is even challenging the right of anyone to allege damages as a result of Obama’s ineligibility and warning that they can be sued for pursuing legal action against this president. Our courts are now intimidating the citizens of this country!These actions are so ludicrous and devoid of due process of law that Americans should be shocked and out raged!
Our political and judicial system under Barack Obama and the Democrats has descended into the equivalent of any other lawless dictatorship that will rig the system and intimidate witnesses and plaintiffs in its quest to stay in power! When our courts and attorney generals fail to enforce the Constitution of the United States of America, then surely our great republic is in peril. Our way of life is teetering on the abyss of revolution brought about by the deliberate actions of our corrupt politicians.

-------------------------------------

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has paid nearly $100,000 from her Political Action Committee to her husband’s real estate and investment firm over the past decade — a practice that she wanted to ban as recently last year. The Washington Times reports the money covered rent, utilities and accounting fees.
Federal Election Commission records show the payments have quadrupled since Paul Pelosi took over as treasurer of his wife’s committee in 2007. His company is set to rake in $48,000 this year alone — eight times as much as it received annually between 2000 and 2005 when Pelosi’s PAC was run by another treasurer.
Pelosi supported a bill last year that would have banned any payments by Political Action Committees to spouses. The bill passed the House but did not get out of committee in the Senate.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): Last year House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made the "most corrupt" list for sneaking a $25 million earmark for her husband into a $15 billion Water Resources Development Act passed by Congress. This year, Pelosi ran afoul of federal election law by participating in an illegal advertising campaign funded by Al Gore's non-profit Alliance for Climate protection. The advertisement featuring Pelosi ran at least 300 times nationally, including in the House speaker's district, during campaign season, representing an illegal in-kind contribution to her campaign. Perhaps more disturbing than this incident, however, is the fact that Speaker Pelosi has allowed corruption to run rampant in Congress and has ignored serious incidents of crooked behavior within her own party. Pelosi promised a new era of ethics enforcement during the 2006 campaign and she has failed to deliver. Instead, she continues to protect the worst of the worst of political corruption in the House of Representatives.
NANCY PELOSI – THE VULTURE OF CORRUPTION!
posted by ANGRY WHITE DUDE 4:21 PM
Friday, January 29, 2010
“Let them eat cake” once cost an arrogant, corrupt female leader her head. Yet that same sentiment is what Americans hear from crooked, big-spending liberals in Washington today! Nancy Pelosi pummeled the Republicans over the alleged “culture of corruption” over the lobbyist Abramoff connections to Republican congressmen in 2006. She campaigned for Speaker saying she would “drain the swamp” in Washington of corruption. Since DemonRats took control of Washington, the monkeys have been running the zoo (I’m sure there is some racism in that statement somewhere). Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, Christopher Dodd, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Roland Burris, William “Cold Cash” Jefferson, Charlie Rangel, and so many more have had themselves a time with chief alligator Pelosi in charge of the swamp!
Today, Americans learned we have spent over $100,000 for Speaker Pelosi’s jet….on liquor alone in the last year! When I first read that, I thought Pelosi might have bought the Jack Daniels distillery! $100k in booze in one year? Either most of that is walking off the plane or Pelosi drinks like Johnny Cash (may peace be upon him) back in the day! Either way, this is an outrage and Pelosi should be charged out of her own pocket for booze. If Americans have to fly our Congress critters back and forth from their districts to Washington, put their asses in coach! It would do them good to see how the hoi polloi paying the bills in America are treated going through the worthless TSA strip-a-thons! Now that you’re worked up over $100k on booze, here is a photo of Pelosi’s jet:
Traditionally, the Speaker gets the use of a Gulfstream III (which is incredible!) but that wasn’t good enough for the Bolshevik from San Fran. She had to have herself a 757! Nancy Pelosi has the use of a 200 seat aircraft that costs $60,000 in fuel EACH way! On top of that, out of her 101 trips last year, she had relatives on the plane 31 times! Why did Pelosi insist on the bigger jet? So she wouldn’t have to suffer the inconvenience of refueling!
When America is bankrupt and Pelosi and her commie friends are borrowing every yuan from China they can to blow on stupidity, Americans must take note of this utterly selfish corruption. It always is the same with communists. The few at the top live lives of opulence while the citizenry struggle to make ends meet!
Back door deals, halting investigations on her corrupt DemonRat friends, wasting vast sums on expensive travel, $100k in booze, Pelosi does indeed have a lot in common with Marie Antoinette. Marie told the French to “eat cake.” Americans are telling Pelosi to “eat sh*t!”


Tax penalties and prison
By Donald Lambro
5:45 a.m., Thursday, November 12, 2009
of the Day
1 - Do you think the Bush tax cuts eventually will be extended into 2011?
In all the sanitized TV news reports about the House-passed health care plan, no one mentions the shocking tax penalties and maybe jail time implicit in the bill's nearly 2,000 pages.
This is what could await uninsured Americans who do not want to buy health insurance as the bill demands them to do - or else.
Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), in a letter to the House Ways and Means Committee, confirms that failure to comply with the terms of the law that the Democrats passed last weekend could put people in jail. The JCT told the committee that anyone who decides not to maintain "acceptable health insurance coverage" or, absent that, pay the individual health insurance mandate tax of about 2.5 percent of income, would be liable to large fines or prison sentences.
"This is the ultimate example of the Democrats' command-and-control style of governing - buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and should be stopped immediately," said Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, ranking Republican on the tax-writing committee.
"H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at anytime during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax," the JCT letter stated.
"Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual" under these circumstances if the government determines the taxpayer's unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the JCT explained. It gave two examples when these penalties could be applied under the U.S. tax Code:
c "Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
c Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years," the JCT letter said.
The Congressional Budget Office says the lowest-cost nongroup family plan under the House bill would cost $15,000 in 2016 - a hefty sum for millions of middle income, mostly younger Americans and families whose budgets are stretched as it is.
The Senate Finance Committee reduced the penalties for the failure to purchase health insurance, although noncompliance could still hit uninsured Americans with significant tax penalties. But that will lead to further financing problems because it creates an incentive for younger workers who would prefer paying the fine than costlier insurance premiums, shrinking the risk pool of healthier people needed to offset the costs of everyone else.
The $1.2 trillion House legislation, with its other insurance mandates, price controls, taxes and a massive federal bureaucracy made up of 118 new programs and agencies, barely passed on a virtual party line vote. Few if any lawmakers read the bill or fully understood what it contained. Thirty-nine Democrats voted no, and the loss of three votes would have killed it.
That's hardly a vote of confidence in a government takeover of one-sixth of the American economy that will make getting any bill over the Senate's 60-vote hurdle even more problematic.
"Many Democratic House members were strong-armed into voting for a bill that they know violates the basic freedoms upon which this country was founded, but they didn't want to be the ones to hand defeat to their president or party," said health care analyst Grace-Marie Turner.
Now the battle moves to the Senate, where Republicans are preparing to filibuster any bill Majority Leader Harry Reid brings to the floor, where he faces a number of potential defections in his party.
Sens. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana, among other Democrats, have expressed misgivings about Mr. Reid's plan.
But Mr. Reid's problems are not confined to his own caucus: An army of special interests that represent much of the Democratic Party's base are aligned against key parts of the bill.
The AFL-CIO is bitterly opposed to the bill's tax on more generous or so-called "Cadillac" health care plans that would hit organized labor where it hurts most: health care benefits that rank-and-file union members have won over several decades of negotiations.
Then there are seniors who strongly oppose the Senate plan, despite the AARP's endorsement, because its financing is based on deep cuts in Medicare.
The Senate Finance Committee bill "cuts Medicare by around $470 billion over 10 years. The House version takes an even bigger bite out of Medicare ... around $540 billion. That's more than half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts," Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, ranking Republican on the panel, told his colleagues in a floor speech last week.
This is a bill that will not cut health care costs - it will increase them with a wave of government mandates, regulations and taxes that will drive up insurance premiums and put hospitals and doctors under new financial pressures that will result in lower quality medical care for everyone.
Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.




A Senator Barbara Boxer Voting Records, Corruption, & Earmarking

Barbara Boxer Voting Records on Recent Issues Affecting America
Corruption in Congress or Ethical "Challenges"
Earmarking Tendencies
Corruption in Congress or Ethically Questionable Deals:
Payback history:
According to the Seattle Times, in 2008 Boxer funneled $1 Million dollars of taxpayer money to Quasar Fed Systems after receipt of $250 from company CEO, $2.4 Million to Innovative Micro Technologys after receipt of $1000 from company CEO, $1.6 Million to Agilent Technologies after receipt of $500 from company executive, and $2.4 Million to American burn Assoc in Illinois (not CA) after receipt of $2000 from that company's CEO.
Barbara Boxer Earmark History:
Prolific:
Extensive earmark history supporting in-state and out-of-state entities including rewards for campaign donors.
$677,315,738 of taxpayer money requested by in 2009 budget specifically for entities and projects not considered worthy of financing through transparent means in the official federal budget.(Ref: Legistorm.com)
Barbara Boxer Voting Record or Legislative Record:
Tort Reform - Medical Malpractice Reform S11 7/03:
No, Against reform
Balanced Budget Amendment:
No, Does not support requiring Congress to spend within government means.
2009 Stimulus Bill HR1 2/09:
Yes, Barbara Boxer supported the $787 Billion spending plan
2009 Omnibus HR1105 3/09:
Yes, Boxer supported the 9000+ earmark, 8.3% government expansion bill
Auto Company Bailouts HR 7005 12/08:
Yes, Supports taxpayer bailouts of private industry
Bank Bailouts -TARP HR1424 10/08:
Yes, the Senator supports taxpayer bailouts for financial institutions that gamble and lose.
Oil Drilling in US - ANWR (Alaska) A2358 11/05, Offshore VA A1566 6/07:
No, Prefers oil importation from other countries over US production.
Health Care HR3590 12/09:
Yes, Senator Boxer supported laying groundwork for federal takeover of Healthcare delivery
Amnesty/Citizenship for Illegal Border Crossers S2611 5/06:
Yes, Supports citizenship for those who enter the country illegally.

Prolific:
Extensive earmark history supporting in-state and out-of-state entities including rewards for campaign donors.
$677,315,738 of taxpayer money requested by in 2009 budget specifically for entities and projects not considered worthy of financing through transparent means in the official federal budget.(Ref: Legistorm.com)
· Sen. Barbara Boxer’s Corrupt Travel
· From NRO’s Campaign Spot:
· ince 2000, Sen. Barbara Boxer, California Democrat, has taken 18 trips sponsored by outside organizations, at a value of $97,975.
· Naturally, if you want to learn about the Islamic world, you go to . . . Paris, France. With your spouse. For a week. At a cost of $12,272, as Boxer did in 2008.
· If you want to become more familiar with the impact of U.S. policy on Latin America, clearly, you go to . . . the Punta de Mita beach resort in Mexico. With your spouse. Three times, in 2006, 2005, and 2002, at a cost of roughly $6,000 per trip.
· If you want to learn more about U.S.-Russia-European relations, you go to . . . Dublin, Ireland, for five days, at a cost of more than $6,000, as she did in 2005. (I salute her taste.) Or perhaps you go to London, at a cost of $8,260, as she did in 2002.
· The Aspen Institute was most often underwriting the cost of Boxer’s trips; in addition to the destinations above, the group covered the costs of Boxer’s trips to the Cayman Islands, Puerto Rico, the outdoor-sports resort town of Banff, Alberta, and Barcelona, Spain…
· Now, do all Senators do this? No – as is pointed out later, California’s other Democrat Senator, the equally liberal Diane Feinstein, pretty much pays her own way. The Aspen Institute, itself, is just another one of those global, liberal groups which claims to be in favor of all the peoples of the world, but sure seems to spend a lot of time at swank resorts, with bought Senators in tow.
· In Boxer’s defense, she hasn’t proved as arrogant in this as, say, our First Lady – but, then again, that might be because Boxer lacks access to Air Force one and thus can’t bring a massive entourage to lavish resorts in Spain. But, still – come now, liberals: is this a defender of the working class? Are these the actions of those who care about the poor? Or are they just the acts of out-of-touch elites, feeding off the productive people of our nation?
· We report, you decide.
-----------------------------------------------
Corruption in WashingtonTo:President Barack ObamaRep. Ken CalvertSen. Dianne FeinsteinSen. Barbara BoxerNovember 21, 2009It is obvious our elected officials in Washington have turned out to be the most corrupt government we have ever witnessed in our Nation. You say you are giving the American people health care. But you lie and deceive, you have to even bribe some to get people to vote for this bill. Those people will not win another election - they will be defeated. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi should be fired on the spot and face charges of corruption and bribery to get this so called health bill passed. Nancy Pelosi has threatened to put people in jail who do not participate in this obscene program, I submit Nancy will be going to jail before that happens. Every one who voted for it should be fired as well for not representing the electorate. Over 50% of Americans are against your present health care bill. You don't give a damn about the uninsured or you would seek to do the right thing and that is to correct what is actually wrong. What this health care bill really is, is taxation without representation, why we had an American Revolution. You are also forcing many Americans to help pay for the killing of babies with their tax money. I will not be an accomplise to murder. The fact that you folks won't sign on to this health care for your own coverage only proves it is substandard care. This change is a disgrace and the hope we once had for our first black President is severely tarnished. The truth is obvious you are Marxists out to destroy the greatest Nation that man has ever put together.Many in the Senate and Congress have sold out their souls for power.San Clemente , CA

Boxer Tied to Dubious Waters Cash-for-Endorsement Scheme
by Capitol Confidential
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee, has paid some $30,000 since 2004 for the endorsement of embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) in the context of a scheme that critics charge is unethical and amounts to Waters using her political station to benefit her family members.
According to the Washington Times, Waters “has turned political endorsements into a family business, using federal election laws to charge California candidates and political causes to include their names as her personal picks on a sample ballot, or ‘slate mailer,’ she sends to as many as 200,000 South Central Los Angeles voters.”
The slate mailer business, it turns out, is run by Waters’ daughter, Karen, via her public relations firm. Records show that Karen Waters’ firm has been paid more than $350,000 since 2004, and has billed a further $82,000 since California’s June primary, for its services in this regard.
It is a scheme that has been criticized by good governance groups including the Sunlight Foundation and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
The Sunlight Foundation, in a blog post last month, equated the scheme to Waters “selling” her endorsement and noted that the amounts of money being paid to Waters’ own campaign committee in exchange for her endorsement often exceed the federal limit applicable to campaign donations.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) meanwhile cited Waters as one of the most corrupt members of Congress in both 2005 and 2006 for operating the scheme. In both years, CREW noted that Waters’ “ethics issues stem from the exercise of [her] power to financially benefit her daughter, husband and son.” The 2005 rating placed Waters in the company of figures like former Reps. Randy “Duke” Cunningham and Bob Ney—both subsequently convicted of corruption-related offenses—and was directly connected to the operation of the political endorsement scheme.
Critics charge that Boxer has actively aided and abetted this scheme, both in the context of her 2004 and 2010 re-election campaigns.
In 2004, Boxer paid $25,000 for Waters’ endorsement. But ahead of this year’s California primary—in which Boxer faced no serious competition– and when it was well-known that Waters was under investigation by the House Ethics Committee, Boxer paid Waters $5,000 for her backing. It is this later payment that those monitoring Waters’ ethical woes say could act as an anchor tied to Boxer’s ankle, as she heads towards November.
“The amount is lower than what Boxer paid in 2004, yes,” said one Republican operative with whom we spoke. “But the Chair of the Senate Ethics Committee paying for an endorsement of an official under investigation for ethics infractions connected to her using her standing to benefit her family when that fact has been widely reported presents a major optics problem, to say the least. Ethics are already something of a surprise Achilles Heel for Boxer. Her committee let Chris Dodd off the hook, and she’s been criticized for using her repeat candidacies for the financial benefit of her family, too.” Added that operative, “This is an attack ad waiting to happen.”
Indeed, Boxer has been called out for steering about $500,000 in contributions made to her political action committee to her son’s consulting firm between 2001 and 2009. Like Waters’ scheme, this arrangement has attracted the attention of CREW, which focused on Boxer in a 2007 exposé entitled “Family Affair.” “Waters’ problems run far deeper, of course,” said the same operative. “But there are some interesting parallels here, to be sure.”
Boxer is facing what some observers say is her toughest political contest in a career that spans three decades, facing off against former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. The three-term Senator has previously said that she does not expect Democratic ethics scandals, including that of Waters, to affect the race.
Real Clear Politics’ polling average places Boxer about 4 points ahead of Fiorina, with recent SurveyUSA polling showing Fiorina ahead. The race has been rated a “toss-up” by numerous pollsters and analysts.

The Silence On The Feinstein Corruption Story

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."
Just as in the Reid land deal we get nary a peep out of our MSM on this even though there is a big difference between the two stories, that being the amount of money involved. Feinsteins corruption eclipses Reids by leaps and bounds.
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.
How about some insider trading? This story has got it. She was fed insider information from her attorney, Michael Klein:
Klein stated that, beginning in 1997, he routinely informed Feinstein about specific federal projects coming before her in which Perini had a stake. The insider information, Klein said, was intended to help the senator avoid conflicts of interest…
“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… 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.
However, the public record shows that contrary to Klein’s belief, Feinstein did act on legislation that affected Perini and URS.
So she received the information and then voted the way in which her husbands companies benefited.
If this story involved a Republican the loonies would be going apes&%t. Recall the hysteria over an email sent to a Congressional Page, but no hysteria over millions upon millions of taxpayers dollars going to benefit a Democrat politicians family.
Hell, some of the lefty watchdog groups are even shaking their heads:
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 silence is deafening, and telling….
Senator Dianne Feinstein Corruption Buried by Major Media
Posted on May 2, 2007 by Mick 14 Comments
Mick Gregory
Feinstein’s Corruption Hidden by the SF Chronicle, LA Times and NY Times
Appropriations Committees Chairs control billions of dollars that pass through their hands.
California U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) chairs the Senate Rules Committee, but she’s also a Cardinal. She is currently chairwoman of the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee, but until last year was for six years the top Democrat on the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (or “Milcon”) sub-committee, where she apparently directed more than $1 billion to companies controlled by her husband. Mr. Blum.
Yet, not a word in the mainstream media. There were some articles in the local weekly Bay Guardian and Michael Savage read the reports on his national radio talk show, “Savage Nation.”
What circulates as “journalism” are rants that Dick Cheney should step down becuase Haliburton got contracts in Iraq.
No mention that Cheney had resigned from Haliburton well before he was VP. More importantly, when Mr. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton he was against any military contracts and is on record for speaches on that subject.
The Di Fi problems stem from her subcommittee activities from 2001 to late 2005, when she quit. During that period the public record shows she knowingly took part in decisions that eventually put millions of dollars into her husband’s pocket — the classic conflict of interest that exploited her position and power to channel money to her husband’s companies.
In other words, it is becoming clear that Senator Feinstein was up to her pearl earrings in the same sort of corruption that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R) in prison. Indeed, it may be that the primary difference between the two is basically that Cunningham was a Republican and open target for the LA Times and NY Times. Feinstein is a Democrat from San Francisco and the his state’s senior senator.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was the best friend of real estate developers, landlords (like Shorinstein) when she was mayor of San Francisco, has developed a high national profile in the Senate. She was on everyone’s short list as a Democratic vice presidential candidate. But her record hasn’t improved a bit: She’s still pro-big business, and now she’s pro-big military and pro-globalization. And she has signed over contracts worth $1.5 billion to her hubby’s businesses.
Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, or CREW, focuses on the ethical lapses of Republicans and conservatives, but even she is appalled at the way Sen. Feinstein has abused her position.Sloan told a California reporter earlier this month that while”there are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest … because of the amount of money involved, Feinstein’s conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts.”
And the director of the Project on Government Oversight who examined the evidence of wrongdoing assembled by California writer Peter Byrne told him that “the paper trail showing Senator Feinstein’s conflict of interest is irrefutable.”
It may be irrefutable, but she almost got away without anyone even knowing what she was up to. Her colleagues on the subcommittee, for example, had no reason even to suspect that she knew what companies might benefit from her decisions because that information is routinely withheld to avoid favoritism.
What they didn’t know was that her chief legal adviser, who also happened to be a business partner of her husband’s and the vice chairman of one of the companies involved, was secretly forwarding her lists of projects and appropriation requests that were coming before the committee and in which she and her husband had an interest — information that has only come to light recently as a result of the efforts of several California investigative reporters.
This adviser insists — apparently with a straight face — that he provided the information to Feinstein’s chief of staff so that she could rescue herself in cases where there might be a conflict. He says that he assumes she did so. The public record, however, indicates that she went right ahead and fought for these same projects.
During this period the two companies, URS of San Francisco and the Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass., were controlled by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum, and were awarded a combined total of over $1.5 billion in government business thanks in large measure to her subcommittee. That’s a lot of money even here in Washington.Interestingly, she left the subcommittee in late 2005 at about the same time her husband sold his stake in both companies. Their combined net worth increased that year with the sale of the two companies by some 25 percent, to more than $40 million.
In spite of the blatant facts coming out of corruption, no major publication has picked up on the story, the Senate Ethics Committee has reportedly let her slip by, and she is now chairing the Senate Rules Committee, which puts her in charge of making sure her colleagues act ethically and avoid the sorts of conflicts of interest with which she is personally and so obviously familiar.
This is a the state of media control by the left. This is the reason citizen journalism and talk radio are so important. And why you will see the Democrats try and shut it down with “fairness” laws.
Feinstein routes government money to firm doing business with husband

posted at 9:28 am on April 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Washington Times reports that Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) took unusual steps to route government funding to an agency that usually works from a separate stream of revenue just after the agency awarded her husband’s firm a lucrative contract. The FDIC gave Richard Blum’s firm, property management firm CB Richard Ellis, contracts to handle residential foreclosures at a higher rate than normal market price, even though CBRE had less experience in that market than other competing firms. And Feinstein got the FDIC the money even though she has no connection to the Senate Banking Committee, the body that normally deals with the FDIC:
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein’s intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn’t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments – not direct federal dollars.
Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) – the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman – had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.
About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum’s private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE’s stock closed Monday at $5.14.
In other words, Richard Blum bought 10 million shares at the same time his wife arranged for an unusual and extremely large chunk of taxpayer money to go to FDIC. Blum must have been an investment genius to guess that his wife’s intervention would coincidentally precede the FDIC’s award, making CBRE stock more valuable. Blum’s investment made a $14 million profit for Blum and Feinstein and their partners.
But of course, that’s all just a coincidence.
The contract award to CBRE should raise a few eyebrows:
The firm, known for its commercial real estate services, is to be paid monthly maintenance fees for each foreclosed property it handles, as well as commissions and incentives. The total compensation can range from 8 percent of the sales price on many residential properties to 30 percent for properties worth $25,000 or less. A smaller firm also won a slice of the work with similar terms, records show.
Most real estate agents earn no more than 6 percent on residential, even on foreclosed properties, and CBRE doesn’t have as much experience in foreclosure sales as other firms, the experts said.
FDIC awarded this contract to CBRE even though it’s more known as a commercial real estate property management firm, and it gave them more commission than agents usually get. Why would the FDIC deliberately award a contract at relatively unfavorable terms to a company with a weak track record in this industry? Perhaps they knew that the contract award would net them a lot more cash than they would have to pay out, thanks to the political connections at CBRE … and they were right.
Now Feinstein wants people to believe that she and Blum had no idea that the FDIC would give CBRE this contract at the time she gave the FDIC $25 billion. How did CBRE get the contract — a lottery? They had to bid for the FDIC contract. Blum obviously knew that the bid was under consideration, or he’s the most incompetent board chairman in history. Feinstein expects us to believe that the board chairman would have no idea that his own company had a major bid under consideration for handling foreclosures at a time when foreclosures were exploding? Is that really going to be her final answer?
At the very least, this shows a clear conflict of interest, especially with Feinstein suddenly jumping into the banking arena and FDIC at a time when her husband was doing business with them. It looks a lot more like a payoff and a shell game to allow her family to cash in on taxpayer-funded bailout money.