Plain and simple, you should read what I posted.
It was a smear campaign without merit that has been going on for some time.
http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/03.14.07/byrne-0711.html
Blum divested ownership of his military construction and advanced weapons manufacturing firms in late 2005.
But the campaign continued. I think she just decided it was time for someone else to do that job, and she will do something else.
And yeah, it did not pass the sniff test for those with a nose for it, or axe to grind.
Let's see, except for having them put all their holdings in a blind trust, they did the next best thing. As Blum was the lead for his team, putting everything in a blind trust would be abrogating his responsibility to his investors.
More from the muckraker
On the face of it, there is nothing objectionable about a senator closely examining proposed appropriations or advocating for missile defense or advancing the cleanup of a toxic military base. Blum profitably divested himself of ownership of both URS and Perini in 2005, ameliorating the conflict of interest. But Feinstein's ethical dilemma arose from the fact that, for five years, the interests of Perini and URS and CB Richard Ellis were inextricably entwined with her leadership of MILCON, which last year approved $16.2 billion for military construction projects.
Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington, remarks, "There are a number of members of Congress with conflicts of interest. [California Republican Congressman John T.] Doolittle, for example, hired his wife as a fundraiser, and she skimmed 15 percent off of all campaign contributions. Others, like [former] Speaker [Dennis] Hastert and Cong. [Ken] Calvert were earmarking federal money for roads to enhance the value of property held by their families.
"But because of the amount of money involved," Sloan continues, "Feinstein's conflict of interest is an order of magnitude greater than those conflicts."
Yeah right.