Social Diane Feinstein RIP

[Yoricks Wisdom]

I remember that day clearly when Dan White shot Moscone and Milk.
I was a bicycle messenger, which sounds like such a quaint thing now, and when I got to City Hall
at one point to drop some shit for City Planning, the place was swarming with cops and press.

Dan While served 5 years of a 7 year term for manslaughter claiming the famous "Twinkie Defense."
He then moved to LA and sat in his running car inside a locked garage and checked out.
Moscone was a really good guy, and I actually met Harvey Milk early on in the Castro.
Also a very decent guy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I remember that day clearly when Dan White shot Moscone and Milk.
I was a bicycle messenger, which sounds like such a quaint thing now, and when I got to City Hall
at one point to drop some shit for City Planning, the place was swarming with cops and press.

Dan While served 5 years of a 7 year term for manslaughter claiming the famous "Twinkie Defense."
He then moved to LA and sat in his running car inside a locked garage and checked out.
Moscone was a really good guy, and I actually met Harvey Milk early on in the Castro.
Also a very decent guy.

Before my time, but it seemed like Feinstein was the perfect person to step in there, in part because neither major faction of local politics liked her (so no one took the assassination as a win). She just poured some cold water on the super hot environment in the city at the time. One of the worst days in city history:



Timeline cleanser:

 

[Yoricks Wisdom]

Yea, agreed.
She was well respected eventually and did an overall good job IMO.
Ironically, she had considered leaving politics altogether before this incident.

 

[nhbbear]

Doesn't look like he really was, but he was rich, and that's the main source of her wealth. No evidence at all to support your accusation.

Oh, well if you say so, I guess I can’t argue thet.

I looked up his net worth at the time of his death and it said he was worth one billion and she 110 million.

As for the other bullshit, you’re insane. Politicians-almost every single one of them, abuse their power to get extremely wealthy and make their friends and families wealthy. They fuck over the lesser humans in the serf classes, putting this country further in debt to benefit whoever’s pockets they’re in.

How on earth can you possibly ignore all the times Feinsteins husband greatly benefited from just about every vote she ever did? All the overseas deals she made with china, yet again, benefitting her and her husbands finances. It’s a really amazing coincidence that he always seems to be in the right place with his companies, no matter where in the world the deals occur-china, Jerusalem. Crazy coincidences that his companies always benefited from her votes and the uncanny way they dumped six million in stock just before Covid shit hit the fan, just like multiple other politicians who just happened to be knowledgeable of when shit was going to shut down. Just like pelosis husband buying a shit ton of stocks in a company that was going to benefit from the vote on microprocessors the night before. Amazing coincidence, right? And somehow, this will never change because the freedom to deal in the stock market is protected by the first amendment. Every one of these fucks use insider trading and inside knowledge to make themselves even richer. Republicans democrats are both guilty of it, the only differences are which industries they are in bed with.

I actually don’t believe you are this blind or stupid and I think you must be trolling

 

[nhbbear]

“Oh boy, did you fucking step in it and before you run your mouth, maybe you should have googled Feinstein. She has been accused of abusing stocks in the past.”

a clinic.

I obviously focus most of my issues on police and crime and rarely delve into straight political debates, but two things that absolutely get my goat are the constitutional encroachments(mainly second) and politicians using their positions to become extremely wealthy. And as I told js, I know trading stocks and accepting bribes, I mean political donations, are protected under the first amendment, but my belief is that the only reason that was ever framed and protected under the first was because the people ruling on it were benefiting from the practice remaining permanently and perfectly acceptable.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Oh, well if you say so, I guess I can’t argue thet.

I looked up his net worth at the time of his death and it said he was worth one billion and she 110 million.

As for the other bullshit, you’re insane. Politicians-almost every single one of them, abuse their power to get extremely wealthy and make their friends and families wealthy. They fuck over the lesser humans in the serf classes, putting this country further in debt to benefit whoever’s pockets they’re in.

Again, I can see regular jackasses saying shit like that, but I expect (or hope for) better from a cop. Is that how you did your job? "Let's just go and arrest people because everyone with their job by definition is a crook and the only thing I can support that with is personal insults."

How on earth can you possibly ignore all the times Feinsteins husband greatly benefited from just about every vote she ever did?

Your first link was to him selling a stock at a low, and then that same stock subsequently rose greatly in value. What is the potential impropriety there? It seems like you just linked to a story you hadn't read.

I actually don’t believe you are this blind or stupid and I think you must be trolling

Of course. There's no possible way anyone could disagree with you about anything sincerely without being stupid. Again, sad commentary on the cops.

 

[Terry Noonan]

I obviously focus most of my issues on police and crime and rarely delve into straight political debates, but two things that absolutely get my goat are the constitutional encroachments(mainly second) and politicians using their positions to become extremely wealthy. And as I told js, I know trading stocks and accepting bribes, I mean political donations, are protected under the first amendment, but my belief is that the only reason that was ever framed and protected under the first was because the people ruling on it were benefiting from the practice remaining permanently and perfectly acceptable.

You are not incorrect.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I obviously focus most of my issues on police and crime and rarely delve into straight political debates, but two things that absolutely get my goat are the constitutional encroachments(mainly second) and politicians using their positions to become extremely wealthy. And as I told js, I know trading stocks and accepting bribes, I mean political donations, are protected under the first amendment, but my belief is that the only reason that was ever framed and protected under the first was because the people ruling on it were benefiting from the practice remaining permanently and perfectly acceptable.

Political donations are very limited in how they can be used. It's not just giving money to politicians to have. And at a certain level of name recognition, no one cares. It's not like people are going to violate their principles so they can buy another radio spot. The stock stuff is also a lot of noise about nothing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You are not incorrect.

Did you read his link? I'm curious if you'll put hackery over your presentation of yourself as knowing something about finance.

 

[Terry Noonan]

Did you read his link? I'm curious if you'll put hackery over your presentation of yourself as knowing something about finance.

You summarized she sold it, then it went up. Sounds good. Selling at a loss though doesn’t mean you didn’t do anything wrong. This situation? This stock? No idea, don’t care enough to look.

There’s always been a trend about her making money off upcoming legislation. This is pretty recent and more than one person did it. Unethical but they’re not held to the same standards as others.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_trading_scandal

 

[Jack V Savage]

You summarized she sold it, then it went up. Sounds good. Selling at a loss though doesn’t mean you didn’t do anything wrong. This situation? This stock? No idea, don’t care enough to look.

That was the first thing presented to make the case against her. Lots of words, but the facts don't support the accusation.

There’s always been a trend about her making money off upcoming legislation. This is pretty recent and more than one person did it. Unethical but they’re not held to the same standards as others.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_congressional_insider_trading_scandal

Yeah, it repeats some of that same info. Anyone who panic sold in February 2020 made a mistake.

 

[Terry Noonan]

That was the first thing presented to make the case against her. Lots of words, but the facts don't support the accusation.



Yeah, it repeats some of that same info. Anyone who panic sold in February 2020 made a mistake.

No one knew what the market would ultimately do. Panic did set in. Then came the money printer.

 

[Jack V Savage]

No one knew what the market would ultimately do. Panic did set in. Then came the money printer.

No one knew what the market would do, but we have an accusation of insider trading (in effect) with no evidence, and the trade was unprofitable. That's pretty weak, you gotta admit. And part of a general trend of circular reasoning used to defend cynicism.

 

[Terry Noonan]

No one knew what the market would do, but we have an accusation of insider trading (in effect) with no evidence, and the trade was unprofitable. That's pretty weak, you gotta admit. And part of a general trend of circular reasoning used to defend cynicism.

you can act on insider information to cut future losses. Selling a stock at a loss doesn’t absolve you of wrong doing. For example, you could sell at an individual loss but find out some scandal happened that isn’t yet public and sell before it falls to zero. That would get you in hot water, if discovered.

im not sure an elected official has ever been held to a standard for this type of stuff. Professionals in the space of finance, accounting, legal would be prohibited from a similar situation. They also oppose being held to such a standard which is where the disdain comes from.

Hope that’s helpful.

 

[Jack V Savage]

you can act on insider information to cut future losses. Selling a stock at a loss doesn’t absolve you of wrong doing. For example, you could sell at an individual loss but find out some scandal happened that isn’t yet public and sell before it falls to zero.

It's not just selling it at a loss. It's selling at a loss before it then went up. That doesn't suggest *material* non-public info. It's not literally impossible, but it is, as I say, a really weak case. You can't admit that?

 

[Terry Noonan]

It's not just selling it at a loss. It's selling at a loss before it then went up. That doesn't suggest *material* non-public info. It's not literally impossible, but it is, as I say, a really weak case. You can't admit that?

I bet she regrets it. I don’t know if these rules even apply to elected officials. I’m not sure it does which means she was never wrong.
I think politicians have opposed standards being applied to these situations which is why I’m a skeptic and have disdain for them when they trade on direct knowledge of upcoming legislation.

in short, was she wrong? I don’t think the law applies to her or any of the other politicians. So no, I don’t think she can be wrong. I think it’s unethical.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I bet she regrets it. I don’t know if these rules even apply to elected officials. I’m not sure it does which means she was never wrong.
I think politicians have opposed standards being applied to these situations which is why I’m a skeptic and have disdain for them when they trade on direct knowledge of upcoming legislation.

in short, was she wrong? I don’t think the law applies to her or any of the other politicians. So no, I don’t think she can be wrong. I think it’s unethical.

She had her assets (separate from her husband's) in a blind trust, though she had to report his transactions. There does not appear to be anything fishy about that sale, and I think charlatans like Carlson were just taking advantage of unsophisticated viewers to give the appearance of smoke.

In general, the concern about this stuff is wildly overblown by journalists who don't have the background needed to properly understand related issues. One thing you'll see is people looking at a single year or other short period, and finding the Congressfolk with the best record, suggest it's implausibly good, and write a story alleging impropriety. But if you just pick a random group of 500 people, the top five (say) for any particular period would be expected to do really well--not because they have great skill or inside info, but because that's how random distributions work.

 

[scoopj]

That was the first thing presented to make the case against her. Lots of words, but the facts don't support the accusation.



Yeah, it repeats some of that same info. Anyone who panic sold in February 2020 made a mistake.

You’re being disingenuous. She sold millions worth in Jan and Feb 2020 after they were briefed on the pandemic. The market crashed in Feb just 2 days after her second big sale. It miraculously recovered (and then some), which nobody was expecting.

 

[HomeCheese]

I was working downtown in SF when she was mayor, I was never a big fan but not hostile towards her.

One thing she did as mayor bothered me and it had to do with the Blue Angles. They would perform in SF during fleet week and would practice during the week. They used to buzz the city really low and fly in between the buildings during practice. I was working on California and Kearny pretty high up in a skyscraper and it was fun to have them roaring above us. Our conference room used to look out over the bay and made for great viewing.

Lady Die put an end to this practice and they started just practicing over the water.

 

[Yoricks Wisdom]