You’re splitting hairs.
Feinstein was mostly alone in her convictions but not completely.
Again:
> In the United States, there is effectively nobody in this position. The committee hearings on anti-trust and encryption have little overlap between interested parties or ideology.
> there is effectively nobody in this position.
Wrong. There are people and Feinstein is a great example of someone who worked quite hard to kill encryption while also being on various committees handling anti-trust.
If her anti-encryption bill passed or if she was able to push through some anti-trust through the Judiciary committee she would brag about it in her reelection campaign.
Feinstein is perfect model for someone who would gladly tout her legacy while on the judiciary committee and equally her accomplishments on a national security subcommittee.
You are wrong sir, now tuck your tail and go away. I’m done wasting my time with you. But now I know you quite well, you are a narcissist and you have to have the final word. So go ahead and prove me right…
Quote: "Cantwell has repeatedly upended privacy negotiations. In 2019, she broke up a working group trying to hash out a compromise. In 2022, she rebuffed a landmark agreement from three key lawmakers, a first-of-its kind bipartisan deal. Again and again, aides said, she has thwarted promising talks by refusing to iron out key disputes, speaking out publicly against colleagues’ efforts and not empowering her staff to fully negotiate."
Ahhh, the good old two-facedness of American lawmakers.
> Since she was just reelected and there's no recall procedure, we're stuck with her-- but we could get her off the intel committee with just a Senate resolution.
"Just a Senate resolution". So you only need to get a filibuster-proof supermajority of the Senate to agree.
> Feinstein has a faulty understanding of the Constitution and seems pro-elite and authoritarian.
Neither "pro-elite" nor "authoritarian" are likely viewed as a problem by other Senators.
> I'm a constituent of hers and want to start a campaign, but have never done this before.
It'd probably be easier to convince Feinstein to change her ways or resign than to get her off the intel committee (and I'm not saying either of the former options is easy.)
> We definitely need to support someone who actually has a track record for this.
Ahem. Russ Feingold is best known for his collaboration with John McCain on campaign finance reform, but was the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act the first time (joined by a few others the second time). Voted against the Iraq war. One of 3 Democrats to vote against Geithner as Treasury secretary. Fought pork, returned his raises to the government. Voted against dismissal of impeachment charges for Clinton, brought a resolution to censure George W. Bush for illegal wiretapping. After losing his seat to a Tea Partier, he formed a PAC, Progressives United, which has opposed Citizens United, Wall Street and SOPA, and calls out the Democrats when their spine softens, but was just shipped off to an African ambassadorship.
> She had a background in forensic accounting, was instrumental in getting a particular state senator convicted of corruption, and lost the support of the state party in the process.
You point out a different, and arguably way more important, problem in our politics: we have no real pathway for domain experts to become powerful representatives and provide meaningful oversight. Instead you just have corrupt lawyers vouching for other corrupt lawyers, writing corrupt laws and appointing corrupt judges, all with the active approval and participation of the two major parties. It's just evil all up and down the chain.
> And yet, Feinstein was the one who did battle with the CIA to get the torture report published.
And she's great at doing just that: throwing the liberals a bone once in a rare while, which keeps them happy (no offense meant). She had no choice about releasing the report: she was going to get booted out of the SIC at the end of the year. If she didn't release the report (as was demanded by lots and lots of people), it would have been impossible to do so after January 1.
In any case: if she hadn't released it, Mark Udall would have, since he has nothing to lose.
> So while I agree with the spirit of what Frankin is saying, I'm just left with distaste for what obvious posturing and pandering it is.
At least someone is speaking up. You criticize Al Franken for not going after everyone else as well, but why not criticize the other 99 senators who haven't done anything. I apologize in advance if I'm missing another senator that has done anything like this about privacy.
>IPA, is a continuing supporter of the PATRIOT Act and SOPA, FISA, warrantless searches,
Except this describes at least 80% of Congress and 95% of the GOP congress. Not sure what you're expecting here, she isn't exceptionally liberal if that's your criticism. Replacing her with a GOP politician will only make the things you complain about worse and it'll add ending Net Neutrality, questionable anti-Immigration policies, gutting the EPA, Muslim bans, and Climate Denial to the mix.
Also the warrant-less search criticism is a little unfair, perhaps not terribly so, but she's one of the few that has called out the CIA for this:
That said, she's too old to run for re-election and this is her last term. Hopefully, you'll get the unicorn politician you want, but I think we're destined for a Californian Republican that'll just make matters worse.
> Why does Hillary get better treatment than Bryan H. Nishimura?
The cases aren't comparable. One was a wilful mishandling of classified documents; the other was a widely accepted way of dealing with email.
> since the emails were found, there was no law broken?
A Senate committee said "[T]his subversion of the justice system has included lying, misleading, stonewalling and ignoring the Congress in our attempts to find out precisely what happened." That sounds like they broke the law.
> "the other side is doing it, too."
Not really - it's more that "Oh, look, the female candidate is getting slammed for things that everyone in USGOV has done, is doing, and will do whilst the male candidates and aides ... do not."
> And I would feel the same way if it were a male republican we were talking about.
Then presumably you are now calling for Kushner's indictment?
> Our own Senator Feinstein regularly votes against the interests of Silicon Valley
So when are you (plural you) going to put your money and your time where your mouths are and find someone to challenge her, including in the primaries?
> I'm saying that they are the only party that doesn't actively portray you as a villain to their base.
On surveillance? They do. High-profile Democrats consistently talk about privacy advocates and encryption developers/users as threats to the security of the country. This is my point - surveillance is perhaps the most nastily bipartisan issue going.
More broadly: I absolutely support primary challenges from the outside. But I see no particular reason to pretend that Feinstein is any more open to change stance on this issue than your conservative of choice; if anything she's more unapologetically pro-surveillance than Republican moderates like McCain.
> Why did she believe that? I like to believe are politicians aren’t completely insane
I'd hope that any appreciable amount of time spent looking into Michele Bachmann would disabuse you entirely of the notion that the presumption of good faith is appropriate for all politicians.
> I cannot believe that the one thing we have bipartisan consensus on is destroying strong encryption.
Most differences between republicans and democrats are superficial. Republicans don't really believe in small government no more than Democrats really believe in social justice.
> (I'm not American so I don't know who she is, I guess the continuation of Clinton?)
She has represented San Francisco in the US congress since the late 80s, and has been in national democratic congressional leadership for about 20 years, so, legislative rather than executive.
For that same 20ish years Republicans have been trying to use her as a symbol of vilification in various media or campaign material, in my opinion it's all very over the top.
Again: > In the United States, there is effectively nobody in this position. The committee hearings on anti-trust and encryption have little overlap between interested parties or ideology.
> there is effectively nobody in this position.
Wrong. There are people and Feinstein is a great example of someone who worked quite hard to kill encryption while also being on various committees handling anti-trust.
If her anti-encryption bill passed or if she was able to push through some anti-trust through the Judiciary committee she would brag about it in her reelection campaign.
Feinstein is perfect model for someone who would gladly tout her legacy while on the judiciary committee and equally her accomplishments on a national security subcommittee.
You are wrong sir, now tuck your tail and go away. I’m done wasting my time with you. But now I know you quite well, you are a narcissist and you have to have the final word. So go ahead and prove me right…
reply