Comments (27)

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 11:18 AM:

When is Sen Feinstein going to understand that after her meeting and capitulation to McConnell she has no credibility out here, oh wait maybe that's why she's making the suggestion, the only place she may have credibility is with the criminals in the WH

Chris C wrote on August 27, 2007 11:25 AM:

I have sent Senator Feinstein innumerable e-mails about her positions about the administration's policy, the Iraq War, warrantless spying, Guantanemo, the DOJ firings, and possible impeachment proceedings. As a citizen of the State of California, I can no longer vote for her, and I tell everyone I know about her DINO credentials. I do not listen to her anymore.

kentuck wrote on August 27, 2007 11:44 AM:

Feinstein's suggestions are not necessarily to be trusted. She does not have the best judgement when it comes to choosing those names that would uphold our laws and would open up the secrets of this Admisnistration so this nation would not be so divided by distrust.

Doctor Jay wrote on August 27, 2007 11:45 AM:

I am pretty unhappy with Sen. Feinstein myself. I remind you of two things, though. First, Mayor Moscone died in her arms, so she's gonna be pretty pro-law enforcement.

Second, on the intel committee she deals with lots of classified information. Since the administration can selectively declassify stuff whenever they want, they have the power to lie to her, and make her look bad, without fear of exposure.

My favorite bits of AG's testimony have been the interactions between him and her. She's sent him a look or two that would fry eggs, and set him trembling and stumbling over himself to correct himself.

Still, she's been something of a disappointment to me.

Slim Pickins wrote on August 27, 2007 11:46 AM:

Dear Sen. Fienstein,

If you are so concerned about the new AG, then get your ass back from vacation before a recess appointment occurs!

Thanks,

Slim

chisholm wrote on August 27, 2007 11:51 AM:

Wait a minute---can he really make a recess appointment if Reid is keeping someone around to stay in session? Wasn't Reid doing that to avoid just this scenario? Not necessarily Gonzo, but a recess appointment?

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 11:55 AM:

"Second, on the intel committee she deals with lots of classified information. Since the administration can selectively declassify stuff whenever they want, they have the power to lie to her, and make her look bad, without fear of exposure."

What ever happened to "Once bitten, twice bitten, three times shy?"

In so far as being pro-law-enforcement she should have taken the cue from that fine example of SF's finest "Dan White".

12string wrote on August 27, 2007 12:00 PM:

Bush and Reid have an agreement on recess appointments - Reid let some judicial nominees go through and Bush promised he wouldn't do the recess thing.
If I were Reid though I'd still have someone start a pseudo session right now.

PJ White wrote on August 27, 2007 12:01 PM:

I agree re: Feinstein. She has sold out the American people and the Constitution. I, too, write to her constantly and get her little "don't rock the boat of government" form letters. She doesn't care what I think; I don't have a billion dollars and she is indistinguishable from a Repugnican, IMO. Nobody cares who she thinks should be AG. If I were the Congress though, I would be hightailing it back to Washington to avoid one of Dumbya's infamous recess appointments.

Hoplite wrote on August 27, 2007 12:06 PM:

FLASHBACK: Feinstein Moved to Censure Clinton

In 1999, Senator Dianne Feinstein ferociously condemned and sought to censure President WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON for lying about sex.

But now, in 2007, after the spilling of a few oceans of blood and treasure in Iraq, she writes no such motion of censure in response to the never ending string of lies that were told by President Bush, Vice President Cheney, AG Gonzales, et al in the Bush admin?

Lying about sex but not causing a single drop of blood to be shed is unequivocally worthy of condemnation and censure BUT lying about WMD, torture, FISA, etc. and causing oceans of blood and treasure to be wasted is much ado about nothing?

*****************************************************************
Whereas [the] president of the United States, deliberately misled and deceived the American people, and people in all branches of the United States government;

Whereas [the president’s] conduct in this matter is unacceptable for a president of the United States, does demean the office of the president as well as the president himself, and creates disrespect for laws of the land;

Whereas [the president] fully deserves censure for engaging in such behavior;

Whereas future generations of Americans must know that such behavior is not only unacceptable but also bears grave consequences, including loss of integrity, trust and respect;

*****************************************************************

[keywords: Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), United States Senate, President WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, sex sex sex, censure resolution, WMD, torture, FISA, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, (202) 224-3841, sex sex sex, Senate Commitee on the Judiciary, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration (Chairman), Senate Committee on Appropriations, Monica Lewinsky, War Profiteering, Feinstein]

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 12:09 PM:

I suggest that Senator Feinstein should resign.

moondancer wrote on August 27, 2007 12:21 PM:

I'm sure the White House is relieved that Feinstein gave them some suggestions. To show bipartisan cooperation bush has offered cheney to any dem candidate to head VP search committee.

Jake D., get a life. Shouldnt you be watching fox news or something?

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 12:27 PM:

I actually enjoy it here.

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 12:36 PM:

Jake:

Still sitting on your butt collecting Social Security like all of those other welfare queens?

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 12:40 PM:

So, anonymous, does that mean you agree with Bush and me about privatizing Social Security?!

Forrest wrote on August 27, 2007 12:49 PM:

I'm pretty much disgusted with Feinstein too, especially after her capitulation to Bush in the gutting of FISA, so I'm reluctant to spend any time contacting her to urge her to ensure any AG nominee isn't just another BushCo sycophant. I'm afraid my pleas would just fall on the fingers stuck in her ears and so would be a waste of my time.

Jake D. wrote on August 27, 2007 1:16 PM:

Forrest or Chris C:

If you live in San Francisco, may I suggest you consider voting for Cindy Sheehan rather than Nancy Pelosi as well?

http://www.cindyforcongress.org

RUN, CINDY, RUN!!!

Hoplite wrote on August 27, 2007 2:20 PM:

Jake D: San Francisco,

SF is such a great example of Americanism.

Remember...."Bring me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breath free"

In such a small area, so many kinds of people from so many lands live and breath.

It is so unlike Mid America where 3rd, 4th, 5th generation Americans are stuck socially, economically, educationally, etc. where there is incessant bitching about big government despite being a heavily subsidized by it, where there is all-white all-English mentality, etc.

regular lurker wrote on August 27, 2007 2:22 PM:

While I'm not a Feinstein fan in general terms, she has been consistently strong on the Justice Committee. It's the one place that I actually do trust her judgment. Yes, she's pro-big-business. Yes, she's conservative. But -- and this is key -- she really does understand you don't mess with the impartiality of the Justice Department and you don't mess around with ignoring legal precedent.

jimijazz wrote on August 27, 2007 3:25 PM:

Remember, Feinstein voted for the FISA survellance bill that Bush and his cronies wanted. The same bill that they (the senators) brought up in Senate hearings to rake Gonzales over the coals with. The one Ashcroft apparently didn't want to go along with.

Anonymous wrote on August 27, 2007 5:49 PM:

Senator Feinstein has been tireless in her pursuit of justice. Her efforts have contributed to this progress in undoing the politization of the DoJ. I look forward to observing her oversight role in the forthcoming nomination approval process.

* Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Statement of Senator Feinstein on Attorney General’s Failure to Respond to Question about the Firing U.S. Attorneys

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has received a letter from the Department of Justice in response to her questioning of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during a July 24, 2007, Judiciary Committee oversight hearing.

At that hearing, Senator Feinstein asked Attorney General Gonzales about the total number of U.S. attorneys that he approved to be fired:

FEINSTEIN: We’re now up to nine that we know about. How many --
this is important -- how many U.S. attorneys did you approve to be
summarily fired?

GONZALES: Senator, there may have been others. I would be happy
to get back to you with that kind of information about who has left.
But I don't know the answer to your question. But I can certainly
find out.

The Attorney General’s response was contained in an August 10, 2007, letter from Brian A. Benczkowski, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General. A copy of that letter is attached to the press release.

The following are Senator Feinstein’s remarks on the Department of Justice’s letter:

“For months, I have been trying to ascertain the number of U.S. Attorneys who were targeted for firing.

We know that on December 7, 2006, calls were made to at least seven U.S. Attorneys who were asked to resign by a date certain in January 2007. We’ve also had two others brought to our attention.

I asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in a public hearing how many U.S. Attorneys he had approve to be fired.

And he responded: ‘Senator, there may have been others. I would be happy to get back to you with that kind of information about who has left. But I don't know the answer to your question. But I can certainly find out.’

The attached letter is that answer. It is wholly unsatisfactory.

The Judiciary Committee, in its oversight role, has the right to know.”

* Tuesday, August 7, 2007
Statement of Senator Feinstein on Letter From Director of National Intelligence Detailing Privacy Protections Under Modified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) yesterday asked for and received a letter from Admiral Mike McConnell, Director of National Intelligence, detailing assurances he made to Senators on Friday evening that temporary modifications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will not infringe on the rights of Americans.

Admiral McConnell’s letter is attached below.

The following is Senator Feinstein’s comment:

“Yesterday I spoke with Admiral McConnell regarding the minimization procedures, congressional reporting requirements and mandatory judicial review contained in this temporary legislation to protect the privacy of all Americans.

I asked Admiral McConnell to put these assurances in writing, which he has done in the following attached letter.

I am currently working on drafting permanent legislation to ensure the effectiveness of our foreign intelligence surveillance program and to ensure that it protects the rights and liberties of all Americans.”

The following is Admiral McConnell’s letter:

DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
WASHINGTON, DC 20511

August 6, 2007

The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader
United States Senate
The Honorable Mitch McConnell
Minority Leader
United States Senate

Dear Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell:

I write to the United States Senate after discussions with Members indicated a letter discussing the “Protect America Act of 2007,” S.1927 (Act) would be helpful. I deeply appreciate the time spent by Members understanding the need for this legislation and acting before the August recess to close critical gaps in the Intelligence Community’s ability to provide warning of threats to the country.

First, I note that this was not an issue discussed only in the last few weeks. In 2006, there were extensive hearings and meetings before the Senate and the House of Representatives, including an unusual open hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on “FISA for the 21st Century” on July 26, 2006 where the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) testified. In addition, there were numerous bills introduced in both the House and Senate. Indeed, in 2006, the House of Representatives passed the “Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act” (H.R. 5825), but the Senate did not pass legislation on this issue. In April 2007, responding to a congressional request, I transmitted to Congress a proposal to modernize FISA and appeared at an open hearing before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on May 1, 2007.

In addition, there were numerous classified briefings provided to committees of Congress, individual Member briefings, and sessions open to all Members of Congress. The legislative record of consideration of this issue has been lengthy and deep in substance.

Second, there is understandable confusion in the public discussion of what is admittedly a complex – and frequently classified – issue. But I would note that in the interest of providing an extensive legislative record and allowing for public discussion of this issue, the Intelligence Community discussed in open settings extraordinary information dealing with our operations. This will come at a price to our ability to collect vital foreign intelligence. However, to ensure there was open legislative consideration of this matter, leaders of the Intelligence Community went far further in open discussions than in any other time I can recall in my forty-year intelligence career.

As I noted in my testimony on May 1, 2007, but lost in some recent discussion of this issue, the fundamental fact is that the Act is aimed at restoring the effect of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) drafted in 1978. FISA, based on the technology of 1978, specifically excluded from its scope certain types of international communications carried by radio and satellite. Today, many of those same communications are now transmitted by different means. This change in technology resulted in requiring, in a significant number of cases, that the Government seek court orders to monitor the communications of foreign persons physically located in foreign countries. To be clear -- the Intelligence Community was diverting scarce counterterrorism analysts who speak the languages and understand the cultures of adversaries to compiling lengthy court submissions to support probable cause findings on an individualized basis by the FISA Court in order to gather foreign intelligence from foreign terrorists located overseas. This is an unacceptable and irresponsible use of Intelligence Community resources.

Related to the discussion of exclusions contained in FISA as enacted in 1978 is the proposal of limiting the gathering of foreign intelligence from targets located overseas to discrete categories such as “international terrorism.” In 1978, generally no such limitation was placed on activities excluded from the definition of electronic surveillance in FISA and directed at persons overseas -- nor is one appropriate today. The Intelligence Community must be able to gather needed intelligence information on the array of threats to our national security as it was able to in 1978.

Third, while fixing the problems created by changes in technology, the Act creates new requirements not present in FISA as enacted in 1978. In addition to requiring certain determinations from the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence, the Act requires the Government to submit its procedures established under the Act for determining that acquisitions are not electronic surveillance to the FISA Court for judicial review.

Fourth, FISA – both before the enactment of this Act and after – generally requires a court order to target the communications of persons in the United States for electronic surveillance as defined by FISA. Again, that was the case before this enactment and will remain the case after. This is a requirement I strongly support.

Fifth, there has also been confusing discussion about the treatment of information concerning United States persons by NSA. These procedures governing how NSA treats information concerning United States persons are frequently referred to as “minimization” procedures. During the course of normal operations, NSA will sometimes encounter information to, from or about U.S. persons. That fact does not, in itself, cause FISA to apply to NSA’s activities directed at persons located overseas.

Instead, as it has for decades, NSA applies procedures approved by the U.S. Attorney General to its activities that minimize the acquisition, retention, and dissemination of information concerning U.S. persons. These procedures have worked well for decades and eliminate from intelligence reports incidentally acquired information concerning U.S. persons that does not constitute foreign intelligence.

The Act makes clear in Section 105B(a)(5) that “the minimization procedures to be used with respect to [acquisitions must] meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h)” of FISA, which defines in law the requirements of such procedures. The Act does not change the definition of minimization procedures contained in FISA.

Finally, there will be intense oversight of activities conducted under the Act. There are extensive training, compliance, and other procedures in place at agencies to ensure our activities are conducted according to law. The relevant agencies have Inspectors General staffs with the appropriate clearances, training, and technical background to ensure that activities are reviewed and audited.

I am committed to keeping the Congress fully and currently informed of how this Act has improved the ability of the Intelligence Community to protect the country and reporting – and remedying – any incidents of non-compliance.

Thank you for the time afforded to me and the consideration of proposals to fix critical gaps in our intelligence operations. I look forward to continuing our discussions and working with all Members to address any concerns about the Act. If you have any questions on this matter, please contact me.

Sincerely,

J.M. McConnell
cc: All Senate Members

*July 26, 2007
Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Feingold, and Whitehouse Call for Special Counsel Investigation into Attorney General Testimony

On July 26, 2007, Senator Feinstein joined Democrats in calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate possible wrongdoing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. To watch the video from the news conference, click here. To listen to Senator Feinstein's remarks, click here.

Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), today joined Senators Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) in calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate possible wrongdoing by the Attorney General, originating with his statements regarding the removal and replacement of several United States Attorneys, in addition to his testimony before Congress regarding the Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP.)

In a letter to Paul D. Clement, Solicitor General and Acting Attorney General responsible for matters where Attorney General Gonzales has recused himself, the Senators called for a special counsel to be appointed to examine the Attorney General’s statements on the U.S. Attorney scandal, his testimony before Congress regarding the TSP, and potential charges of obstruction of justice, false statements, and perjury.

Earlier this week, Attorney General Gonzales testified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in a Department of Justice Oversight hearing. During questioning by several members of the Committee, the Attorney General gave statements in conflict with his prior testimony before Congress.

Previously, Gonzales had testified that there had not been any “serious disagreement” within the Administration regarding a domestic warrantless wiretapping program known as the TSP. That notion was sharply refuted in testimony by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who recounted a disagreement so intense that it almost led to his resignation, as well as that of John Ashcroft, Attorney General at the time. In his testimony this week, Gonzales contradicted himself by admitting that there had in fact been a dispute between the White House—where he was Counsel at the time—and the Justice Department over the TSP.

Additionally, a number of the Attorney General’s answers were in direct conflict with accounts from members of Congress and the Administration. Specifically, the Attorney General responded that TSP was not discussed at a March 10, 2004 briefing, despite a letter from John Negroponte, former Director of National Intelligence, indicating that the TSP was in fact the subject of that briefing. Testimony by CIA Director Michael Hayden also confirms that the TSP was discussed at the March 10 briefing.

The following is a transcript of Senator Feinstein’s remarks at this morning’s news conference:

“I gave a lot of thought as to whether I wanted to join in this effort or not. And I decided that I really had no choice. And I want to try to outline my reasons for that decision here today.

I deeply believe that Americans look to their Attorney General to be above reproach, to be independent, and to be free from political influence. They want a straight shooter who will enforce the law no matter what. But Alberto Gonzales has turned this office on its head.

Rather than be a straight shooter, this Attorney General obfuscates. Rather than demonstrate independence, this Attorney General states that he is dual-hatted, and serves the President as well as the people. Rather than enforce the law without fear or favor, this Attorney General has allowed politics to enter the Justice Department.

And where his mission is to uphold the law, Attorney General Gonzales may have crossed the line and misled Congress or even perjured himself.

So we’re calling for an independent special counsel, largely for three reasons:

1. To look at whether in fact the Department has been politicized;
2. To evaluate his misleading and often untrue statements to the Congress; and
3. To look at the Administration’s decision to block any United States Attorney from pursuing charges of contempt of Congress against officials who have refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas.

I have never seen an Attorney General so contemptuous of Congress and his role as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the United States.

At least 9 US Attorneys have been fired, all (except possibly one) either for prosecuting corruption cases that the Administration didn’t want prosecuted or not bringing election fraud-related cases, with insufficient evidence, that the Administration did want prosecuted.

Secondly, political considerations were used in hiring, our hearings have shown that: Monica Goodling’s testimony that she “may have crossed the line” by making political judgments about the suitability of a candidate.

And third, political considerations may have been taken into account regarding a case management example: We had testimony from the lead attorney in the huge tobacco case who stated very clearly that she was ordered by Main Justice to lower the penalty the government was seeking against the tobacco companies.

Political considerations were used in employee evaluations: Example – Brad Schlozman admitted in testimony before the Committee that he ordered career staff to change employee evaluations.

One of the U.S. Attorneys asked to resign was Todd Graves of Missouri. His replacement: Brad Schlozman.

Brad Scholzman quickly filed a lawsuit against an organization in Missouri that was registering new voters. That organization was called ACORN. ACORN offered to cooperate. There were four small cases, ACORN said they would help, they would fire the people. Well the U.S. Attorney was in such a hurry to move before the election on the cases, that they even misstated the name of one of the accused and had to redo the documents later.

Now why is this important?

There are two books.

This one book is entitled Federal Prosecution and Election Offenses, Sixth Edition. It dates to January 1995. Underlying section in this book says, ‘Thus most if not all investigations of an alleged election crime must await the end of the election to which the allegation relates.’ That’s been practiced in the Department of Justice since at least 1982 that we have discovered.

All of these rules were weakened or eliminated in a subsequent edition dated May 2007.

Why? So that the Justice Department can move in before an election, bring election fraud cases, and change the entire procedure and practice of this department.

Obfuscation, prevarication, and untruths from the leader of this huge and critical department has reached in my view a point of no return.

Two days ago, I asked a simple question: How many US Attorneys were targeted for firing? The Attorney General said that he didn’t know.

This has been on the front burner for seven months now. Does anyone believe the Attorney General of the United States in charge of the department really doesn’t know how many U.S. Attorneys were targeted for firing? I don’t think so.

On this, and so many other issues, this Attorney General simply has not been straight with the Judiciary Committee carrying out our Constitutional oversight duties, or with the American people.

The time has come for some answers.

I don’t think we can accept, ‘I don’t know; I don’t recall; Well, we’ll get back to you on that’ – and then of course they don’t.

We called again this morning to try to get an answer to that simple question, ‘How many US Attorneys were actually targeted?’ We talked to people who were sitting right behind him at the hearing, ‘Well, we’ll do the best we can.’

That is simply not acceptable.”

dejavu wrote on August 27, 2007 9:29 PM:

Geez, anonymous, shill for Feinstein much? I assume you volunteer for her office or are personally connected somehow? She is a sham. I'm sorry you've fallen for her orchestrated rhetoric, but actions speak louder than words. She's let us all down.

Not to mention how her family gains direct financial benefit from the continuance of the war. Through her husband. Look it up.

Hoplite wrote on August 27, 2007 11:59 PM:

:[Senator Feinstein] efforts have contributed to this progress in undoing the politization [sic!] of the DoJ.

Why did it take so long for her to make an effort?

The politicization of the DoJ has been going on for years (!) under AG Gonzales and it took up until July 26, 2007 for Senator Feinstein to `join Democrats in calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate possible wrongdoing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales'?

To join Democrats??

Strange no?

Clinton lied about sex in 1998 and then in 1999 Senator Dianne Feinstein **led** the charge to censure Pres Clinton.

She went after Clinton in a ferocious and speedy manner but allowed years to pass as the DoJ becomes an arm to the crazies on the right???

Anonymous wrote on August 28, 2007 12:07 AM:

Re: Feinstein and AG Gonzales

On July 26, 2007 for Senator Feinstein joined Democrats and `joined Democrats in calling for the appointment of a special counsel to investigate possible wrongdoing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales'.

Then, just a few days later, on August 3, 2007, Sen Feinstein capitulated (FISA) and then voted to give AG Gonzales more authority than he had `under a controversial warrantless wiretapping program begun in secret after the 2001 terrorist attacks'.

You're doing a heckava job Di!!

Hoplite wrote on August 28, 2007 9:50 AM:

Re: Feinstein and AG Gonzales

On April 20, 2007, after being asked about his role in the firing of federal prosecutors, AG Gonzales said "I don't recall", "I have no recollection," and/or "I have no memory" 64 times.

Despite that, on August 3, 2007, Sen Feinstein capitulated (FISA) and then voted to grant AG Gonzales even more power to monitor the behavior of Americans.

Dennis wrote on August 29, 2007 2:43 PM:

Di is worthless. She is not a democrat. I don't know how she got elected or re-elected.
In the last election I wrote in "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" rather than vote for her.
She is as bad as Pelosi. These queens sit on their fat asses & vote for legislation that will benefit their millionaire husbands.
Pelosi is so arrogant condescending and stubborn. She is sometimes just like GW. She has her "legislative agenda" & she will not let anything interrupt it, not even impeachment of a ......
I think I will give up voting for awhile. It doesn't seem to produce positive responses. "Don't vote, it only encourages them".

Malfeasancio wrote on August 29, 2007 5:02 PM:

Where are the investigations of DiFi, supporter of the War Effort, Patriot Act, tax slashes for the wealthy etc? And she and her millionaire hubby Blum have been--allegedly, as they say--- involved in all sorts of Bay Area kickback schemes. She's at least as conservative as former AG Gonzales; indeed probably even more fond of police state tactics. Of course media mavens like the goys, er, boys who run TPM are rather fond of DiFI style skullduggery.