Allowing citizens to sue China for damages caused by the novel coronavirus would backfire and open up the United States to the same level of scrutiny from other countries around the world, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Thursday. Feinstein, whose remarks came during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, said, “We launch a series of unknown events that could be very, very dangerous. I think this is a huge mistake.” “Where I live… we hold China as a potential trading partner,” she said earlier. “As a country that has pulled tens of millions of people out of poverty in a short period of time. And as a country growing into a respectable nation among other nations. And I deeply believe that. I’ve been to China a number of times. I’ve studied the issues.” Feinstein claimed other countries, including China, may decide to use the new legal precedent against the U.S., setting off a chain reaction, resulting in global chaos. Her comments come three months after Missouri’s Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican, provided a statement to Fox News about a lawsuit he filed against China on behalf of the state, saying that the impact of COVID-19 has led to thousands of Missourians being infected, killed and economically devastated. “In Missouri, the impact of the virus is very real — thousands have been infected and many have died, families have been separated from dying loved ones, small businesses are shuttering their doors, and those living paycheck to paycheck are struggling to put food on their table,” he wrote. After the lawsuit was filed, an article posted on the Global Times, which is a branch of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP’s) People’s Daily, said the nation is “extremely dissatisfied with the abuse of litigation” by U.S. leadership,” and is considering punitive countermeasures against U.S. individuals, entities and state officials, including Schmitt. As the partisan divide with respect to China continues to deepen, Democrats have refrained from condemning the CCP’s actions while Senate Republicans — along with members of the Trump administration — have chosen to take the Chinese government head-on. In addition to Schmitt’s efforts, GOP Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., and Rich Scott, R-Fla., have been publically critical of the CCP, with Scott going so far as to introduce a Senate bill to shield vaccine research from Chinese spies and infiltrators. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has also taken a hardline stance against China, warning state governors of China’s sophisticated practices with regard to U.S. infiltration and later claiming the CCP poses a real “risk” to the safety and security of America. In 2018, President Trump slammed Feinstein for having a Chinese spy on her staff serving as her driver. Feinstein was said to have been “mortified” when she learned the news, according to Politico. The FBI wasn’t able to charge the individual, but Feinstein “forced him to retire,” a source told the San Francisco Chronicle. Feinstein’s comments come as the results of a new Pew Research Center survey were released, showing that over three-quarters of American adults blame the Chinese government for the global spread of the coronavirus and over 60 percent of respondents said the country has done a poor job handling the aftermath of the outbreak. The survey, which polled 1,003 individuals and was conducted from June 16 to July 14, showed 73 percent of U.S. adults have an unfavorable view of China, which marks the most negative rating in the 15 years that Pew Research Center has been conducting polling on the subject.
Again, we see another high-profile Democrat lauding and kissing up to China, even while we’re all suffering in one way or another from the Wuhan virus. In the case of Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA)…she’s in her late 80s (currently 87), and is an old-school, liberal globalist. So, this totally makes sense for someone like her. She was also the former mayor of San Francisco, which is over 35% Asian. So, probably on some level, it’s ethnic pandering. But, her timing couldn’t be worse. She’s utterly clueless about the current paradigm, and how a solid majority of Americans feel about the Wuhan virus , and whom they rightfully blame; China. So, her comments here are at best ill considered, ill timed, and shows just how tone-deaf and out of touch with Americans she is. She is clearly more worried about China and appeasing them, then Americans. As a U.S. Senator, she should be far more worried about putting Americans FIRST.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) claims the 1994 “assault weapons” ban lowered crime even though a Department of Justice report shows it had no impact on recorded figures. On August 20, 2019, Feinstein tweeted: “While the federal assault weapons ban was in effect (1994-2004), the number of gun massacres fell by 37% and the number of gun massacre deaths fell by 43% compared to the previous decade. After the ban lapsed, gun massacres rose by 183% and gun massacre deaths by 239%.” She followed that tweet with a second that said, “It’s long past time to reinstate a ban on military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines before more lives are lost.” On February 19, 2018, Breitbart News reported the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) report showing the federal “assault weapons” ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime. The NIJ report was authored by University of Pennsylvania professor Christopher Koper. And the Washington Times quoted Koper saying, “We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.”
Exactly… Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a former mayor of San Francisco, is infamous for pulling bs stats out of her butt to push her anti-gun narrative. The actual facts say something completely different. The ’94 ban, which since has expired, did nothing to reduce gun violence. It was all political theater and bs. Thanks to AWR Hawkins for this little piece. 🙂
Democrats are protesting Sen. Chuck Grassley’s beginning Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court and the process for getting Kavanaugh documents, but recent history shows they have nothing to complain about, because they approved the very same process for the most recent nominee from a Democratic president. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Grassley (R-IA) decided to go the extra mile to accommodate Democratic senators. He will begin Kavanaugh’s hearing 57 days after President Trump nominated him, as compared to 48, 49, and 48 days for Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch respectively—the three most recent nominees from both parties. Grassley also agreed to provide 900,000 pages of documents involving Kavanaugh’s government service, more than any nominee in history, and more than four times the number provided for recent nominees of either party—including Kagan (who had only 172,000 pages). Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) considers that all-time high of 900,000 documents on President Trump’s nominee to be insufficient, and so is requesting numerous additional documents from the National Archives. But as The Hill’s Jordain Carney reported, Archivist David Ferriero informed Feinstein that both the Justice Department and the Archives’ general counsel, Gary Stern, have advised him that the Presidential Records Act authorizes only committee chairmen to request documents, not individual senators. Feinstein is crying foul at the archivist’s decision, despite the fact that Ferriero was appointed by President Obama. The Archives are not able to complete Grassley’s document request until late October due to its enormous size, but senators are determined to have Kavanaugh confirmed in time for the Court to start its annual term on October 1, so that the Court will not be short-staffed with an even number of justices that could result in cases unnecessarily wasted on 4-4 tie votes. (These efforts are not to be confused with the separate effort by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), who is leading committee Democrats in filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for additional documents.) But Republicans have actually stepped up to the plate to help. Hundreds of thousands of the documents from the National Archives are also available through other sources, like President George W. Bush’s presidential library and the Office of George W. Bush. The Presidential Records Act (PRA) is the federal law that allows presidents to refuse to release many documents from an administration until 12 years after that president leaves office, after which many documents can still be kept private. The PRA also empowers a former presidents to designate someone to act for that president in deciding which documents he is willing to make public during that 12-year window. The man Bush designated under the PRA before the 43rd president left office in 2009, former White House Deputy Counsel William Burck, is leading a team of 50 lawyers who are reviewing all the document requests regarding Kavanaugh. Between Burck and the Archives, over 200,000 pages of documents have already been given to the committee – which is already more than the total number for any Supreme Court nominee in over 200 years.
And of course this is ALL completely irrelevant. These Dems intend to vote against Judge Kavanaugh anyway. So, this is just time-wasting, partisan politics at its worst. Sen. Grassley (R-IA) is right to make sure that every REASONABLE attempt is made to secure as many docs as possible, to ensure that these hand-wringing Dems can’t disingenously cry foul during the hearings. But, the good Senator from Iowa is also right to just keep the hearings on schedule and Kavanaugh’s confirmation moving forward. The confirmation is forgone conclusion. It’ll happen. And none of these stalling tactics by these hypocritical Dems will stop that.
The California Democratic Party will not endorse Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s re-election bid this year, with delegates at the party’s annual convention giving the majority of votes to her top primary challenger, progressive State Sen. Kevin de Leon. De Leon got 54 percent of the vote, compared to 37 percent for the more moderate Feinstein, according to results released Sunday. But neither Democrat will receive the state party endorsement because they failed to reach the 60 percent threshold. The vote totals were not a surprise, considering the state party’s liberal leaning. And Feinstein leads de Leon by 29 percentage points in the primary race, according to the most recent RealClearPolitics polls average. “The outcome of today’s endorsement vote is an astounding rejection of politics as usual, and it boosts our campaign’s momentum as we all stand shoulder-to-shoulder against a complacent status quo,” said de Leon, according to Politico. “California Democrats are hungry for new leadership that will fight for California values from the front lines, not equivocate on the sidelines.” Feinstein, the oldest member of the Senate at 84, is seeking a sixth term. Feinstein took heat last fall from some on the left after appearing to voice optimism about Trump becoming “a good president.” Feinstein also recently said that former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which Trump is ending, was on shaky legal ground. DACA provides a level of amnesty to certain illegal immigrants — many of whom came to the U.S. as children. Still, Feinstein will be difficult to beat, considering her establishment support and standing among independents and women, two key voting blocs. “It will be tough to outflank her in that capacity,” Ben Tulchin, a San Francisco-based pollster, recently said.
Agreed.. That’s why this really isn’t much of a story. But, what makes it interesting is that the state party no longer endorses Sen. Feinstein (D-CA), who is now 84, and will be at least 85 when she starts her next term in the Senate. That alone should make ANY California voter think twice before just blindly voting for her, just because she’s a Democrat, the general election…should she win in her primary. Hopefully, the California Republican party will find a quality candidate who might, just might, be able to mount a credible threat to Dianne’s Senate seat.
California Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had to turn to Google during an interview earlier this week when asked to name her former colleague Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments in the Senate. Feinstein, who met with The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board on Tuesday, ultimately said that Clinton was not in the Senate “long enough…to do more.” Clinton was elected to the Senate from New York in 2000. She left in January 2009 to serve as secretary of state. “As someone who worked with Hillary Clinton for nearly a decade in the Senate, what in your view was her signature accomplishment as a senator?” The Chronicle’s editorial board asked Feinstein. “Golly, I forget what bills she’s been part of or authored. I didn’t really come prepared to discuss this,” said Feinstein, who had planned to pitch a new water plan. Clinton has been dogged by her flimsy senate record. She authored only three laws during her Senate stint. The legislation designated a highway, post office and government building in New York. She co-sponsored another 74 bills that ultimately passed. “But she’s been a good senator,” said the 82-year-old, who has endorsed Clinton. “There are things outside of bills that you can do, and I know that she’s done them for her state.” Feinstein was able to name one Clinton accomplishment. But that came after she was prompted by an aide, and it pertained to Clinton’s work as first lady to get the Child Health Insurance Program off the ground. “I should have a list,” said Feinstein, who The Chronicle described as “famously well-prepared.” “Get on Google,” she told an aide. Feinstein told the editorial board that it is difficult for senators without seniority to make a name for themselves in the upper chamber. “I couldn’t have done that as a freshman (senator) or even as a sophomore,” she said. “[Clinton] was never there long enough to achieve the degree of seniority that affords her the ability to do more.” But as The Chronicle notes, Feinstein pushed through significant legislation early in her career. Elected in 1992, Feinstein authored the 1994 federal assault weapons ban. It is unclear what the Feinstein aide’s Google search returned.
Dianne is a dithering idiot.. And, she’s supporting another dithering idiot.. It’s ok, Dianne. Even Hillary was stumped by that same question. About a year ago, she was asked what her biggest accomplishment was as Sec of State. She went totally blank.. And then she mentioned some obscure policy she implemented at the State Dept…that nobody could care less about. That’s all she could come up with. After all, she was a total disaster as Secretary of State. Russia “reset?” FAIL. Benghazi, Libya (and Libya in general)? EPIC FAIL!
Senate Democrats’ ‘torture report’ claims tactics played no role in finding al Qaeda leader
And their “crap” report (to quote former VP Dick Cheney) has been disproven by the facts, many of which were conveniently left out of that self-righteous, agenda-driven, blow hard Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) report. This is an EXCELLENT breakdown of those facts, and how those “enhanced interrogation” methods helped bring an end to bin Laden and some of his associates.