McClatchy article recycled weekly's claims against Feinstein without noting inaccuracy in report
In an April 13 McClatchy Newspapers article, reporter Michael Doyle highlighted allegations in two reports by freelance writer Peter Byrne published in the Bay Area's various Metro Newspapers (including the North Bay Bohemian and Metro Silicon Valley) that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had a conflict of interest "by serving through last year as chair and ranking member of the Senate's military construction appropriations subcommittee [MILCON] at the same time that her husband had financial interests in two firms that rely on defense contracts." Doyle wrote, "The Metro stories also contended that Feinstein had 'resigned' from the military construction subcommittee, suggesting she departed under pressure."
Byrne had written in his second article: "Perhaps she resigned from MILCON because she could not take the heat generated by the Bohemian's exposé of her ethics."* But the Senate Appropriations Committee announced its new subcommittee assignments in a January 10 press release -- approximately two weeks before Byrne's original "exposé" appeared in the January 24-30 editions of Metro Silicon Valley and the Bohemian.* That press release did not list Feinstein as a member of MILCON. It reported that she is a member of the following subcommittees: agriculture, rural development, and FDA; commerce, justice, and science; defense; energy and water development; transportation and Housing and Urban Development; and interior and environment.
According to Doyle's article, Byrne "received a grant from the liberal Nation magazine's investigative fund" to write the story on Feinstein. Doyle wrote that after The Nation rejected the article, "Byrne said he 'flogged it around to a lot of liberal publications' before getting it published in Metro." His first article, "Senator Feinstein's Iraq Conflict," which reported critics' allegations that Feinstein's membership on MILCON posed a conflict of interest, appeared in the January 24-30 editions of the Bohemian and Metro Silicon Valley. A subsequent article, "Feinstein Resigns," appeared in the March 14-20 edition of the Bohemian. A version of this report published in March 21-27 edition of Metro Silicon Valley bore the inaccurate sub-headline "Senator exits MILCON following Metro exposé, vet-care scandal." Both versions of Byrne's report stated, "Perhaps she resigned from MILCON because she could not take the heat generated by the Bohemian's [or Metro's] exposé of her ethics."*
Doyle reported:
The Metro stories also contended that Feinstein had "resigned" from the military construction subcommittee, suggesting she departed under pressure.
Senate Appropriations Committee spokesman Tom Gavin replied Thursday that seven other lawmakers besides Feinstein had flipped appropriation subcommittees this year.
"This is a process that happens at the start of every Congress," Gavin said. Feinstein left the military panel to chair the subcommittee that handles the Forest Service, the National Park Service and other agencies crucial to California.
"Frankly, for California, it's a better opportunity for the senator, and she took it," Gerber said, adding that the claim that Feinstein had resigned from the military subcommittee was "just not true."
Doyle portrayed the competing explanations for Feinstein's subcommittee departure in a "he said-she said" fashion, failing to note the fact that Feinstein left the panel before the publication of Byrne's first article.*
Describing the alleged "conflict of interest," Doyle reported:
Critics have accused Feinstein of having a conflict of interest by serving through last year as chair and ranking member of the Senate's military construction appropriations subcommittee at the same time that her husband had financial interests in two firms that rely on defense contracts.
The Senate panel approves some $16 billion annually for military construction projects.
Until 2005, Blum had major holdings in two firms, URS Corp. and Perini Corp., that rely on defense contracts.
Perini received $200 million in federal contracts from 2000 to 2006, primarily with the Army, according to records compiled by the private watchdog group OMB Watch. URS received $1.8 billion worth of contracts - primarily Air Force, Army and Navy - during the same period
Feinstein's spokesman, Scott Gerber, declared that the senator has always "acted appropriately" and within the Senate's ethics guidelines. He sternly denounced suggestions of conflict, first raised in articles published in the Bay Area's free Metro weekly newspaper, and noted that the Pentagon, not Congress, decides who is awarded contracts.
Yet after noting that "[Byrne's] original story goes into considerable detail," Doyle added that "Feinstein's office has in turn prepared a detailed rebuttal" -- without informing readers whether or not Feinstein's rebuttal undermines Byrne's reporting.
Doyle also quoted Feinstein's spokesperson Scott Gerber as saying: "The story is filled with inaccuracies, errors and distortions ... and it has been pushed by the right-wing bloggers." He then wrote:
Actually, the story has migrated from left to right and back again.
On Sunday, it was the left's turn, as female anti-war protesters gathered outside Feinstein's San Francisco home. Code Pink leader Medea Benjamin declared that Feinstein and Blum "have profited from this war" in Iraq.
Doyle failed to mention that Benjamin was a Green Party candidate for Feinstein's Senate seat in 2000.
Rush the druggie
Was also yapping about this today, I confess I put him on in search of news on the shooting while driving and heard him go on and on about this. What liars these people are.
I could care less. I can't believe Feinstein was re-elected after voting for the Iraq resolution in a state that was overwhelmingly against it. She has personally profited from this debacle and I haven't heard a peep from her about ending the occupation. Maybe she's too busy counting the $$.
Yup, just another Demo-con making money off dead arabs.
As many journalists have discovered "making stuff up" especially in making accusations is easier and pays better then digging for facts and getting corroboration.
No, those aren't "journalists". Those are just flacks for the lies of the Corporate Media, which has a vested interest in attacking Dems and liberals.
Peter Byrne responds:
First of all, the person who wrote this story broke the most basic rule of journalism and wrote about me without trying to contact me. Second, that person critiqued a reprint of my Feinstein Resigns article that appeared in the Metro paper in San Jose, CA. But I write on contract for the North Bay Bohemian alt-weekly in Santa Rosa and that is where the original article appeared ([link to www.bohemian.com] without the deficient subhead that the Metro editor unfortunately tacked onto the story (which he also cut). The original story simply said the senator had resigned. It did not say exactly when she left. Before filing the story I contacted Feinstein's office, asking for the date of and the reason for her resignation, a term which simply means "to leave or turn over an official position," and her office did not answer me. Nor could I find a press release at that time, despite looking hard for one. I did, however, confirm with official sources in Washington that she had resigned from chairing MILCON and gone to another appropriations subcommittee during the turn over in January. I did not put the date in my story because I could not find it; even the senator's web site said she was on MILCON until recently. But the fact is: she did leave (resign) the subcommittee. Whether or not that was before my first investigative article was printed is irrelevant because Feinstein's office knew in early September 2006 that the story, with its particular facts and allegations, was coming out soon and the senator was given oodles of time to comment on the facts and declined to comment except for one item. Two and one-half months later, she has not asked for any corrections. Her so-called "rebuttal" does not contain a single correction of fact, so Doyle cannot be faulted for not quoting ten pages of spin which tries to reframe my story as about steering contracts, when it is not about that: it is about micromanaging appropriations that ended up benefitting her family and it does not even allege nefarious intent.
Doyle, who did have the professionalism to call me for comment, unlike Media Matters, did make one error (which he admits): he wrote that Perini pulled down $200 million for military construction projects over a six year period. In reality it was three-quarters of a BILLION dolllars in payments to Perini (and a like amount to URS Corp.), and many billions more in contract awards to both firms--most of these contracts based on particular appropriations approved by Feinstein.
Lastly, anyone who wants to conflate me with the right wing media machine should check out my reams of liberal, antiwar articles for Salon, Mother Jones, SF Weekly, the Bohemian and elsewhere at www.peterbyrne.info before you falsely try to paint me as a conservative writer. It is odd that the conservatives have been so vocal about promoting my investigation, but that is because the MSM has shied away from doing the kind of in-depth investigative reporting that, thanks to the Nation Institute, I was able to do over the period of 8 months. I demonstrated with factual reporting that the senator was taking actions on her subcommittee that benefitted herself. If anyone can prove that the facts I reported are incorrect, please do so before descending into dumb statements such as saying a "central falsehood" in my reporting is a subhead that was not written by, nor approved by me, and that had little if anything to do with the 4,500 word investigation.
If I am going to get caught in a war between right and left wing bloggers, I will appreciate it if y'all read the main story. Feinstein Resigns was but a small follow-up to the main dish.
Thank you for your hard work in exposing this corruption. MMFA clearly owes you an explanation.
This Media Matters item should be withdrawn, because the inaccuracy it complains about (the claim that Feinstein resigned because of the article)was not part of the article itself, but rather in the blurb Metro used to promote the article. Also, as the author pointed out in a separate item, Sen. Feinstein knew that this article was coming out last September, well before her leaving the subcommittee.
Media Matters is devoting enormous attention to a side issue here to defend a right-wing Democrat. We California Democrats love Barbara Boxer, and hold our noses when we vote for DiFi. I'm sure that Sen. Feinstein managed to stay on the good side of the law, because she's no fool, but her husband has gotten very rich on the taxpayer dollar, and I don't care for it. Is the right going to use this to attack Democrats? Of course they are. The answer is to clean our own house. We can only run on the corruption issue if our side is squeaky clean.
Byrne on Byrne once more:
I am glad to see that Media Matters made a partial correction of it's choppy article on an article on my article. I would like to thank my editors and publishers at both the North Bay Bohemian and the Silicon Valley Metro for their fine work in editing and presenting the Feinstein stories. They have been totally supportive of my work and I am grateful for the opportunity to be associated with such committed professionals.
Martin on Byrne:
Sorry, but “resigned” in political parlance strongly connotes bowing out under pressure -- which was simply not the case. You shouldn’t have implied so if you weren’t sure. You chose a decidedly loaded word in a blatant attempt to bolster a shaky argument.
You used quite a few loaded words in the original article. Like characterizing Feinstein’s mode of questioning as “interrogated” or “grilled,” implying that she was somehow strong-arming witnesses who were in a position to award contracts. Did you speak to any of the people she questioned at the hearings you cite? Did they tell you they felt coerced to award contracts to Perini or URS? Were they even the people responsible for awarding the contracts?
Did you try to compare the number of times Feinstein questioned someone at a hearing and then a contract was subsequently awarded to a company Other than Perini or URS? Say, just to “investigate” if maybe there was an actual pattern of undue influence on Feinstein’s part?
After an 8 month “investigation” and after examining thousands of pages of documents, the best you could come up with were 5 instances that fall under some vague “called into question” category? And even then, the examples you run with are nothing more than the logical fallacy that correlation implies causation.
For example, you write:
“At a March 30, 2004, MILCON hearing, Feinstein grilled Maj. Gen. Dean Fox about whether or not the Pentagon intended to prioritize funding the construction of "beddown" maintenance facilities for its new airlifter, the C-17 Globemaster. After being reassured by Fox that these funds would soon be flowing, Feinstein said, "Good, that's what I really wanted to hear. Thank you very much. Appreciate it very much, General." Two years later, URS announced a $42 million award to build a beddown maintenance facility for the C-17 at Hickam Air Base in Hawaii as part of a multibillion dollar contract with the Air Force. Under Feinstein's leadership, MILCON approved the Hickam project.”
First, under Feinstein’s leadership (though she was the ranking minority at the time), MILCON approved appropriations for ALL the Military Construction projects they approved -- which are requested by the Pentagon, NOT by the Senate. So what? That’s the job of an appropriations sub-committee. It sounds like you’re trying to imply that Feinstein pursuaded the Pentagon to request a project so URS could get the contract. Your entire article relies on this kind of off-handed inuendo to make your weak argument appear to work.
Second, Feinstein questions Fox about a project and two years later a contract is awarded to URS. So? Do you have some proof that Fox or anybody at the Pentagon knew Feinstein’s husband had stock in URS? What would they get out doing that kind of highly unethical “favor” for Feinstein? Do you evidence of some kind of quid quo pro? Do you have any proof that Feinstein actually pressured Fox into awarding a contract; or if, indeed, he was even part of the contract awarding process? Was it clear in the transcripts that she wasn’t simply thanking Fox for his testimony? In other words, do you have any proof that she in any way actually Caused the contract to be awarded to URS – two years later? Which, by the way, let’s see… 2004 + 2 years = 2006. Oh, hey, that’s after Blum sold his stock. Oops.
Look, I’m no great Feinstein supporter. She’s done things thank have deeply disappointed me. And I think it’s disgusting that anyone profits from any war, let alone this war -- especially as much she apparently has. And if you ever want to write a piece about reforming the lax Senate rules around conflict of interest, or about creating more transparency in Senate ethics hearings I’d be interested in reading them. Well, probably not anymore, actually.
This piece was shoddy journalism at best; and a partisan hack job at worst. I wouldn’t count on another grant from anyone real soon, if I were you. Though, you may be able to get plenty of work writing for the Right. I hear that 90% inuendo and 10% fallacy pretty much aces the interview over there.
I hate to say it, but this is our own Halliburton scandal. And it's a ticking time bomb. When the MSM finally picks up these allegations, it could be huge -- we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars. Fortunately, big papers like the SF Chronicle and Washington Post haven't touched it, and I hope that continues. But if it breaks nationally, the Dems will have a lot of explaining to do -- it will sink other things we're working on. I'm not happy she did this!
Baloney. This doesn't even compare to the rampant corruption of the last 10 years with k street and the Repubs. So the Dems have 1 or 2 crooks. I lost count of how many Republicans are in jail or about to be sent there.
The reason there aren't any stories in the MSM, even the most right of the MSM, is because this story is a bunch of unsubstantiated crap. This isn't about earmarks, there's no one in the Pentagon claiming Perini or URS were given preferrential treatment. There was nothing illegal about her husband owning stock in Perini or URS (though maybe there should be); and Feinstein got a green light from the Ethics Committee. There's just no there, there.
Cheney got taken to task for still having options and he had to sign over future profits to charity, but still he didn't do anything illegal as far as I know (though maybe it should have been). Halliburton itself is under fire for alleged wrong-doings of bribery, over-charging, kickbacks; and mis-handling of billions in reconstruction money in Iraq. Those allegations, at least, are actually backed up by information from whistle-blowers. The Pentagon itself investigated Halliburton for de-frauding the federals government.
Personally, I think the laws on conflicts of interest need to be toughened up. Both sides needs to keep their hands out of the cookie jar. But Byrne's story is base attention-grabbing at it worst.