When your husband controls your blind trust, how blind is it, really?

[Stinky The Clown]

I am not bashing DiFi. I *am* stating the facts as she stated them. Her husband controls her blind trust.

I sniff leftovers before deciding to eat them.

I sniff rooms in my house where our new dog may have left a gift.

I sniff my garage for gasoline.

Those things, and others, have to pass my smell test for me to consider them okay. I'm sorry, but the "my husband runs my blind trust" excuse doesn't pass my smell test.

[Hoyt]

1. Agree completely. It may be that Feinstein's stock sale was innocent, but the

“blind” trust excuse doesn’t cut it.

The GOPers, though, clearly cheated and need to be prosecuted.

[Hortensis]

8. This is why we should always choose for good character first.

Requiring proof that we can trust those we put in power.

It seems you'd like to rule out all who are so wealthy they don't need more money, but do need to put it in blind trusts in order to hold office. Sounds counterproductive to me.

Maybe, instead, we should consider only voting for people so wealthy that everyone knows they can't be bought, don't even need donors to get reelected if it comes to it, and are completely free to tell those who expect something in return to go take a hike.

That's Feinstein. Of course, her $94 million or so is peanuts compared to her billionaire husband's wealth.

Btw, politics is an absolutely terrible place for people to seek wealth. Even venal, corrupt young Republicans, using it as a first career step to the rewards that come with serving the very wealthy, understand those come AFTER putting in their poor years in office. ITM, their talented corruption minded friends who went straight for the gold in business are raking it in.

Dianne Feinstein: 86 years old and still working long, stressful days. For pocket change.

[jimfields33]

2. I've heard some say on the news that maybe elected leaders should sell

all stocks before they are sworn in. Sounds like a good idea. I’d normally be against it but 99 percent of congress are millionaires anyway.

[we can do it]

3. Stock did go up after they sold at a loss. So there's that.

[still_one]

4. +++

[dansolo]

10. Irrelevant

The issue is whether they sold the stock in response to priviledged information. If DiFi mentioned something to her husband, and he took that information and decided to sell stock, that is illegal. That is why a "blind trust" overseen by a close relative or associate cannot truly be "blind".

[Hortensis]

9. But highly unlikely to be, right? One biotech company,

not her stock -- her husband Richard Blum's in a company that develops cancer therapies. Note taken because she's a senator and he sold that stock when its price had been dropping, before its price rose somewhat again. Also because it was misreported that she was in the same intelligence meeting as the Republicans around the time of the sale. (She wasn't but would have known it all anyway.)

Everyone should take note that EVEN the MSM have been separating Feinstein's sale from the Republicans', mentioning it after, without the insinuations. There's a big clue there. The Republicans sold off multiple stocks in industries expected to take heavy hits, like hotel chains.

[madville]

6. Feinstein has always received a pass on this, remember the Iraq war contracts her husband made

tens of millions of dollars on after she voted to authorize the war?

[Hortensis]

7. As good as your character, as strong as your integrity.

Of course, a trust is also as blind as unconscionable greed is small.

It doesn't hurt to be so stinking rich and well established that there's literally never a temptation (that lack of need and greed thing) to break the law in your personal or professional lives.