Feingold: impeachment is bad for the country and an alternative to censure

[ProSense]

Why twist the man's words:

"it may not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong."

Senator Russ Feingold Holds a News Conference
On His Resolution To Censure President Bush

March 16, 2006
TRANSCRIPT

NEWS CONFERENCE

U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)
WASHINGTON, D.C.

SPEAKER: U.S. SENATOR RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI)


Snip...

QUESTION: Senator, this resolution, if it were passed, would
have no legal effect.

FEINGOLD: No.

QUESTION: So the only thing that would affect the NSA program,
if it's illegal, is to cut off the funding? You don't support that,
do you?

FEINGOLD: Well, there are several things that could affect the
program. First of all, one would hope, if this passes, that the
president would acknowledge what Congress has said and would bring the
program within FISA, which is what he should do.

Another approach, of course, is the legal system, is hoping that
we could get some kind of a court order and a response in the legal
system ordering the president to come within the law.

So I don't think that necessarily the idea of cutting off funding
-- even cutting off funding, how are you going to enforce that? If
the president has inherent power, he'll just shift some money around.
He'll just keep doing it. I mean, that's the problem with this
doctrine. If the president isn't going to acknowledge that a law we
passed, such as FISA, binds him, why should the cutting off of funding
affect him?

QUESTION: Senator, for those who are your critics who would
liken this or they talk about your central resolution in the same
breath that they talk about impeachment, and just say this is nothing
but one step ahead of impeachment. How do you counter that,
especially when they're using it as a weapon before the midterms to
say: The Democrats get in power, you're going to see impeachment.

FEINGOLD: Clearly, I chose to pursue censure rather than
impeachment, certainly at this point, because I believe at this point
it's a way to help us positively resolve this issue.

In other words, without getting the country in the middle of a
huge problem, like we had with the attempted Clinton impeachment, we
have a passing of a resolution of censure, and hopefully the president
would acknowledge it and say that he maybe went too far, and we would
be able to move forward and stop worrying about this and get a pledge
from the president that he's going to come within the law or make
proposals to change the law to allow it.

I think this actually is in the area of an impeachable offense.
I think it is right in the strike zone of what the founding fathers
thought about when they talked about high crimes and misdemeanors.

But the Constitution does not require us to go down that road,
and I hope that in a sense I'm a voice of moderation on this point,
where I'm saying it may not be good for the country to do this, it may
not be good for the country in a time of war to try to remove the
president from office, even though he's surely done something wrong.

But what we can't do is just ignore the wrongful conduct. So
this is a reasonable road. And

anybody who argues this is a sort of
prelude to impeachment forgets the history of the Clinton impeachment,
where censure was offered by some, especially Democrats. Senator
Feinstein offered a censure resolution of President Clinton after the
impeachment trial as an alternative because impeachment was regarded
by many as too drastic of a step.

Snip...


QUESTION: Do you see any chance whatsoever that your resolution
would be passed by this Republican Senate?

FEINGOLD: I'd be pretty surprised. But this president,
presumably, will be president for several years. And it is very
possible that others will later on control the Congress. And this is
something that could be examined at different points.

If the president changes course and indicates that he understands
that this was not lawful and that he should not have done it, then it
becomes less important.

But if he continues to assert not only this but other extreme
executive power doctrines, it will continue to be important to push
back and to ask the president to return to the law.

http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006316.html

[rodeodance]

1. "ask the president to return to the law"==it is shameful that we

even see this in print.

[ProSense]

2. Maybe this will be reframed before a vote. n/t

[ProSense]

3. Democrats on the path to impeachment

My Congressman is there:

H.RES.635
Title: Creating a select committee to investigate the Administration's intent to go to war before congressional authorization, manipulation of pre-war intelligence, encouraging and countenancing torture, retaliating against critics, and to make recommendations regarding grounds for possible impeachment.
Sponsor: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. (introduced 12/18/2005) Cosponsors (31)
Latest Major Action: 12/18/2005 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(31), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Rep Abercrombie, Neil - 1/31/2006
Rep Baldwin, Tammy - 1/31/2006
Rep Capps, Lois - 12/22/2005
Rep Capuano, Michael E. - 3/9/2006
Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy - 1/31/2006
Rep Farr, Sam - 2/7/2006
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. - 2/7/2006
Rep Honda, Michael M. - 2/8/2006
Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila - 12/22/2005
Rep Lee, Barbara - 2/1/2006
Rep Lewis, John - 2/7/2006
Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. - 2/7/2006
Rep McCollum, Betty - 3/14/2006
Rep McDermott, Jim - 1/31/2006
Rep McKinney, Cynthia A. - 2/7/2006
Rep Moore, Gwen - 2/14/2006
Rep Nadler, Jerrold - 1/31/2006
Rep Oberstar, James L. - 2/1/2006
Rep Olver, John W. - 2/16/2006
Rep Owens, Major R. - 1/31/2006
Rep Payne, Donald M. - 12/22/2005
Rep Rangel, Charles B. - 12/22/2005
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav - 3/2/2006
Rep Sanders, Bernard - 3/9/2006
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. - 1/31/2006
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete - 1/31/2006
Rep Tierney, John F. - 2/16/2006
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. - 2/14/2006
Rep Waters, Maxine - 12/22/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. - 12/22/2005
Rep Wu, David - 3/14/2006

[Disturbed]

4. Is Feingold being satirical?

He can't be serious that shrub would admit to violating the FISA Law when shrub and his lackeys have already stated that nothing has been violated and that they will continue on their course, can he?

[ProSense]

5. I don't think so. n/t