Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Its clear she had a conflict of interest but its hard for me to understand how she had any control over contracts approved by the Milcom subcommittee when she was in the minority from 2001 to 2005.
She should have abstained from any votes in which her husband''s company may have been a beneficiary. But, the Senate Ethics Committee under the Repubs saw no reason to initiate an ethics investigation against her.
So... ace...do you have any links that show how she "may have directed" any decisions by the subcommittee or that she was "up to her ears in the same sort of shenanigans that landed California Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham (he took $1 million in bribes) in the slammer"?
|
The key issue in my view is the conflict of interest. Cheney took heat for the appearance of a conflict of interest, Feinstein will get a pass. Cheney took steps to minimize the appearance of a conflict of interest and still took heat.
I can not support Cunningham.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Old news, and something this liberal didn't ignore. She resigned back in March from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee as there was suspected of allowing her husband's company to profit from her position (the 'vet-care' scandal). Has Dick Cheney resigned from his role as Vice President? Has he taken himself from governmental decision making around Haliburton? No? Think about that.
All this tells us is that we need legislation that prevents conflicts of interest like these. Whether they're guilty or not (Feinstein was probably not, Cheney probably is), the opportunity for corruption should be taken away.
|
The point of the OP was that it is both parties.
I don't think we need more legislation to police ethics, we need term limits in my opinion. Conflicts of interest will always be a problem, but it is worse with long-term career politicians.
Is the Reid "land deal" old news as well?