General Discussion

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)

60. I believe you are being too sensitive. The "place" in this case is "NOT EXECUTIVE."

Reply to alp227 (Reply #43)

Thu Jun 5, 2014, 05:35 AM

Jun 2014

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

63 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Dianne Feinstein: WH "totally not following the law" in Bergdahl affair. [View all] DanM Jun 2014 OP

she's become little more than a washed-up apologist for the security state bigtree Jun 2014 #1

Unless the security state surveills her or her computers . . . then she's "oh noes!" n/t DanM Jun 2014 #8

Actually she's more than that tularetom Jun 2014 #53

Ugh. abelenkpe Jun 2014 #2

She's up in 2018 Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #4

she isn't going anywhere.. frylock Jun 2014 #18

Well, if it's another Dem *worse* than her on criticizing a Dem WH, we might want to keep her. n/t DanM Jun 2014 #10

On the bench: Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #13

Like that list :) abelenkpe Jun 2014 #16

Gavin Newsome would be fine. Laelth Jun 2014 #34

Time to retire Feinstein. Obama was correct to do what he did. Autumn Jun 2014 #3

Don't want her to retire until she gets another AWB in, then she can go. n/t DanM Jun 2014 #11

DiFi wants the everlasting war to go on and on and on and on. deminks Jun 2014 #5

Difi, did you follow the law when you voted for things that got your husband millions? hobbit709 Jun 2014 #6

+30,000,000. closeupready Jun 2014 #14

No Kidding Aerows Jun 2014 #54

Take your precious consultations and stuff them, DiFi BeyondGeography Jun 2014 #7

Swear to god, would LOVE for Pres O to publicly smack her down verbally. Just once, PLEASE! DanM Jun 2014 #12

Somehow this didn't seem to bug her so much back in 2003 n/t n2doc Jun 2014 #9

Easily explained, actually. DanM Jun 2014 #15

Informative post. Thanks. n/t Laelth Jun 2014 #35

Her oversight role has been very profitable for her household. bobduca Jun 2014 #17

And if I recall correctly, Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #19

16.5 million. ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2014 #26

Looks like she sold it in 2009 bobduca Jun 2014 #44

Perhaps she should have had congress allow prosecution of the 5 men in question Johonny Jun 2014 #20

KamaAina: DiFi "totally worthless" in Senate. KamaAina Jun 2014 #21

Duly noted is your concern MattBaggins Jun 2014 #22

Isn't this the same law offered as why we can move on Gitmo? Not that I object to the release but TheKentuckian Jun 2014 #23

What's her endgame with this? Jenoch Jun 2014 #24

You can always depend on HER to be on the wrong side of things. Why she calls herself a Dem sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #25

She keeps getting elected Le Taz Hot Jun 2014 #45

Will she be totally pissed or pleased ... GeorgeGist Jun 2014 #62

I hope she is. People like her who consistently support the Security State and all the sabrina 1 Jun 2014 #63

DiFi is a waste of space.... mike_c Jun 2014 #27

Obama AMENDED that law with his signing statement AngryAmish Jun 2014 #28

Signing Statement don't mean anything. They're unconstitutional toilet paper. n/t NOVA_Dem Jun 2014 #29

This incident represents something of a catch-22 for the President. Maedhros Jun 2014 #30

The BOGrs always say "He can't close Gitmo without approval from Congress." NOVA_Dem Jun 2014 #39

He can't close Gitmo without doing something with the prisoners, hughee99 Jun 2014 #49

If they don't mean anything, why would President Obama create them? AngryAmish Jun 2014 #31

You don't know much about the Constitution let President Obama tell you about "signing statements:" NOVA_Dem Jun 2014 #38

You should start a new SamKnause Jun 2014 #57

He did not amend the law, that is a power reserved to Congress. tritsofme Jun 2014 #32

I am no fan of DiFi. Laelth Jun 2014 #33

She's defending the congressional oversight role here bobduca Jun 2014 #46

She didn't want this deal to go through, she knows the signing statement TwilightGardener Jun 2014 #52

even if what you said is true DonCoquixote Jun 2014 #58

President Obama should put her in her place! Michigander_Life Jun 2014 #36

You know, best to edit out the "put her in her place" reference, alp227 Jun 2014 #43

I believe you are being too sensitive. The "place" in this case is "NOT EXECUTIVE." WinkyDink Jun 2014 #60

who gives a shit, the republicans haven't been following the law ANYWHERE FOR onecent Jun 2014 #37

Feinstein is a waste. bigwillq Jun 2014 #40

Next that that can happen is 2018. She's probably retiring anyway. alp227 Jun 2014 #41

Ugh bigwillq Jun 2014 #42

To paraphrase The Doctor MurrayDelph Jun 2014 #47

Whine Whine Whine. nm Cha Jun 2014 #48

Okay, wake me up when they decide to sincerely care about the decade of maleficence under W. Rex Jun 2014 #50

"and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States" phleshdef Jun 2014 #51

There is a reasonable argument that the 30-day notification provision is unconstitutional. PoliticAverse Jun 2014 #55

I hope so and I hope it gets smacked down hard. phleshdef Jun 2014 #56

I give you an "A+" in Reading Comprehension! WinkyDink Jun 2014 #61

1% is as 1% does. WinkyDink Jun 2014 #59