About that Sen. Feinstein article... The reporter who asked the ?s says article isn't correct.

[MelissaB]

I think the @latimes has this story backwards. I was the reporter who asked @SenFeinstein these questions. She told me she was initially going to vote against impeachment "before this"

But when I asked her to clarify, she said she's changed her opinion

Link to tweet

From the senator:

Link to tweet

[hlthe2b]

1. Thank heavens... K&R so everyone might see

[ElementaryPenguin]

2. Thank goodness.

[Dennis Donovan]

3. Kick and recommend - holy SHIT I didn't need this kind of agita tonight!

[dewsgirl]

4. Thank God, that's a relief.

[2naSalit]

5. K&R

[tulipsandroses]

6. It figures. I was just about to post in the other thread, that I would wait for audio confirmation

Not the first time, someone's words were reported completely out of context. I'd rather wait to hear audio in cases like this.

[calguy]

7. Glad she quickly corrected the misinterpretation of her comments

Faithful DU'ers were going bonkers. And rightfully so, if she had said what they thought she said. I'm glad she didn't.

[Zoonart]

8. So good to hear.

I thought DiFi had lost her mind.

[stillcool]

9. that was quick...

thank you DU

[bluestarone]

10. THANK GOD!!!!!

[Mike 03]

11. Thank you. My sister lost her mind when she heard that story.

[Roland99]

12. The "this" being Bolton?? And she was gonna acquit before this???

WTAF??

[SilasSouleII]

22. I think she cleared it up

She meant to say before this she would keep an open mind. Like the oath to do impartial justice. She's my moms age so I can understand the word mixup and knowing what she meant.

[coti]

30. "Before" what, now?

What exactly is cleared up?

She said the election is in nine months and this is something to be left to the voters, and that's still what she thinks.

[SilasSouleII]

36. Long way to 67

And it isn't going to happen, let's be real. So yes the voters will decide in November. That said, the longer we can stretch the Senate trial with witnesses and keep all the R's under pressure for their support of the corrupt administration, the more that will help elect Democrats all the way down the line to local elections. We need big numbers in November, actually historic numbers that will be indisputable. A small margin victory for a D POTUS has me worried that the election will be disputed and quite possibly head to the SCOTUS to be declared invalid.

[coti]

39. She said that it's ok to leave the guy in for an election, when he's trying to cheat and steal the

election.

[Kurt V.]

27. right. She's a career politician. she should know better. wtaf?

[bucolic_frolic]

13. Acquittal takes Trump off the hook

Conviction might let a few GOP Senators off the hook. And give us Pence.

Yeah, Trump should be removed, but there are pros and cons with everything. No perfect choice.

[question everything]

14. So I contacted all three reporters and the first, Eli Stokols replied

We're aware, working to update the story. Thank you

[coti]

15. Just doesn't pay to be a do-nothing mealy-mouthed Senator these days. nt

[CrispyQ]

16. I'm glad that's cleared up, but why was she going to vote against impeachment before she heard

everything?

[pnwmom]

31. She didn't say that either. She said she was going to keep an open mind.

That is, not prejudge the case before she saw the evidence -- which is what a juror is supposed to do.

[SilasSouleII]

35. +1

N/T

[Wellstone ruled]

17. Wow that was fast.

[Mersky]

18. K&R

[justhanginon]

19. K & R

[alwaysinasnit]

20. I did have a question though. If she was initially against impeachment before the Senate trial,

and there was no new evidence nor testimony introduced in the Senate trial, what made her change her mind?

[pnwmom]

32. Because she wasn't initially against it. She was initially neutral. Now she's seen the evidence

and she has taken a stand.

[alwaysinasnit]

34. I guess my confusion arose from this posting.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212921776

"I think the @latimes has this story backwards. I was the reporter who asked @SenFeinstein these questions. She told me she was initially going to vote against impeachment "before this"

But when I asked her to clarify, she said she's changed her opinion https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-01-28/trump-team-wraps-impeachment-defense-with-an-elephant-in-the-senate-john-bolton …"

(Bold emphasis is mine.)

[pnwmom]

37. Her initial statement was also misinterpreted by some as being against impeachment.

And it clearly wasn't.

She had never publicly said she was going to vote against impeachment. But perhaps she had previously thought she might end up voting against it.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?id=F3158B5F-1F94-47C4-B020-BA723153481F

Dec 18 2019

Washington—Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) released the following statement on today’s House impeachment vote:

“By approving two articles of impeachment, the House of Representatives has moved this process to the Senate for trial.

“I served in the Senate during the Clinton presidency, and his impeachment was a very sobering experience. Only three times in our country’s history has a president been impeached, and the weight of history falls heavily on these decisions.

“When the trial begins, each of us will swear an oath to ‘do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.’ To me, that means objectively reviewing the information presented and making an informed judgment. That’s why it’s so important that the facts are laid out before the Senate.

“The Constitution and the people of America expect and deserve an impartial but informed jury.”

[coti]

40. That's...nothing.

And I honestly have no idea why people are going out of their way to defend Feinstein. She's been this awful for decades. We shouldn't have to put up with the wishy-washy nonsense, either, from a California senator- it should be perfectly clear with every word she says that Trump needs to be impeached. We shouldn't be having to make excuses for her.

[sheshe2]

21. I did not jump to condemn her.

I researched.

Funny, she is actually paying attention and listening to the evidence.

Thank you Diane and thank you Melissa for posting this.

[still_one]

26. +++

[coti]

41. Others of us have been paying attention for 3+ years.

She seems to be saying that she's just now learning of Trump's character. Wow.

[sheshe2]

42. Knowing his character...

Knowing his character and hearing cold hard facts, from reliable witnesses are two different things, things that she had not been privy to are separate issues. You want to condemn her, go for it.

You and I have know his character and that in of itself was never impeachable. His crimes, that none of us knew about until now are.

[coti]

43. His character has been completely impeachable this entire time. He has never been fit for the

presidency. Because his character is that of a criminal- which is why he keeps committing crimes.

[sheshe2]

44. Really?

He is a piece of filth and a criminal. That does not near impeachable standards per our Constitution which all needs to be documented and proven..

Democrats are working with the rule of law and presenting facts.

[coti]

45. Yes, really. Impeachment is a political process. A crime is not even necessitated

(not that there is any shortage of those on Trump's part).

[scarletwoman]

23. Thank you so much for posting this. So many Duers were losing their minds over the other OP.

And too many didn't notice the corrections that were posted in that thread.

[Iggo]

24. Vote against/for removal, not impeachment. He's already been impeached.

[griloco]

25. The Dude abides

[Butterflylady]

28. That sounds more reasonable.

[Nitram]

29. OK, now that makes more sense. Quite a few Dems were reluctant to impeach until the

smoking gun appeared.

[NBachers]

33. I will not trip-wire condemn Dianne Feinstein over this.

[tosh]

38. The original tweet

was already getting poo-poo’d when I tuned in, discredited by a few people I trust. It is great to hear the truth from these direct sources. Thanks for posting this, Melissa !

[hughee99]

46. So according to the reporter, Feinstein had originally told her

She had already made a decision to vote against impeachment before she had all the information?