The Question of Impeachment - by Senator Russ Feingold

[kpete]

The Question of Impeachment
by Senator Russ Feingold
Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 10:41:41 AM PDT

Last week I came here to discuss how I plan to tighten my legislation to end the open-ended military mission in Iraq so the Administration would not be able to exploit it and keep tens of thousands of troops, if not more, stuck in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. I appreciated all of the responses and of course I noticed that many of you advocated for the impeachment of the President as well as the Vice President and the Attorney General. I’ve been hearing some of those same comments in Wisconsin.

It is clear that there are many people in this country, including myself, who demand accountability from this Administration for the terrible mess it made in Iraq and its egregious and even illegal power grabs throughout its six-plus years in power. I believe that the President and Vice President may well have committed impeachable offenses. But with so many important issues facing this country and so much work to be done, I am concerned about the great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country. The time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials, would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do – end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years.

While some have pointed to Republicans’ decision to impeach President Clinton, I am also concerned about the over-use of impeachment. And I am conscious of the fact that I would have a specific role to play as a sworn, impartial juror should an impeachment be tried in the Senate. If charges come to the Senate, I will approach them and the trial with the same seriousness that I had when I participated in the Clinton impeachment trial. I would not prejudge the case one way or the other should it come to this.

I fully respect the anger and frustration many Americans feel with this Administration. I share much of it. But on balance, I think Congress’s time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation.

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/16/133049/958

[Mythsaje]

1. "And leaving the Republican structure intact

so they can try this shit again and we can do this all over again in fifteen or twenty years."

Fuck off, Russ.

And before anyone attacks me for changing direction toward a DU hero, I'm not. I never climbed on board that particularly train. So far nearly EVERY "hero" has failed us. Pretty much as I expected.

[bryant69]

18. So you favor what? Banning the Republican party?

Driving them underground?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Mythsaje]

20. How 'bout just leashing them?

I already covered this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1338786&mesg_id=1338786

[bryant69]

26. That scenario doesn't seem likely.

I kind of expect to share this nation with Republicans until I die.

Bryant

[King Coal]

55. Yeah, and we can guess which republican that will be.

:eyes:

[bryant69]

59. What?

I didn't mean any specific Republican. I meant that the group of people called Republicans aren't going anywhere. Individual Republicans will die but they will be replaced by people who think like that.

Oh, and just so you know, since you don't seem very well informed, Nancy Pelosi is a Democrat.

A "smiley" is a poor excuse for rational thought.

Bryant

[King Coal]

157. Wow! Thanks for telling me. Now, is Romney a Moonie, or is he

just your favorite republican?

:eyes: :eyes:

[bryant69]

160. You sure a lyin' piece of work, aren't you?

For the record, although I and Romney are both Mormons, since he has promised to continue the Bush plan of aggressive idiocy, I do not support his bid for Presidency. Maybe he would be better than some of the other people running on that side of the fence, but that's a bit like saying Leukemia is better than Liver Cancer.

So once again, for those who haven't picked it up yet, I don't support Romney for President; rather I like Edwards.

Bryant

[EFerrari]

2. You're wrong on this one, Russ. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

113. I agree, my friend. I agree.

NGU.

[EFerrari]

134. I deeply admire Russ. He has an independent mind

and we know how rare that is.

Let's keep talking.

[orleans]

125. no kidding. how disappointing. n/t

[speakclearly]

164. Time for Russ to go!

He had his opportunity, now he is just another rock in the road to victory. Move him out! He has left us, we never left him! He is just another apologist for those who stand in the way of progress.

[MonkeyFunk]

3. How DARE

he act all pragmatic and adult-like?

Doesn't he understand the base needs raw meat?!

[Usrename]

72. Yeah, he's much too busy to worry about these criminals.

I'm glad he has so much more important stuff to do, and he's such a big boy, and he uses grown-up talk and everything.

Besides, you know how how much fun the torture and extraordinary renditions and war crimes are, this stuff is kool, dude, and anyone who wants to hold these criminals to account is just being childish.

[MonkeyFunk]

82. Like it or not

he's a realist. I like that in my politicians.

[pberq]

87. violating the oath to uphold the Constitution is not "realism"

See the discussion on the Bill Moyers show:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

Sorry, but Russ is wrong. As much as I admire him, these criminals must be held accountable. Otherwise it gives the green light for more of the same by future administrations.

[Joe Chi Minh]

90. Deleted. See below.

[MrMickeysMom]

136. Yes, but do you "like that" in your statemen? n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

93. The Republican party will go the way of the British Conservative party post-Thatcher.

Only more so. They'll have to regroup under a different brand. I'd be surprised if even the least worldly Americans don't sense that the term, GOP, somehow doesn't quite ring true to them any more.

I'm sure destitution or living on the margins of it has a way of focusing the attention on what imperils personal survival like nothing else, other than perhaps capital punishment.

Your avatar would suggest it's you who need raw meat. I hope you didn't submit it as a passport photo. They don't like your expression to show extremes of emotion, positive or negative.

[MonkeyFunk]

96. That's the best you can do?

insulting my avatar?

How silly.

[Joe Chi Minh]

108. Your avatar isn't silly? What I prefaced it with, but you conveniently overlooked,

wasn't rocket science, so, no, I didn't give it my best shot. Never have to with you, do I?

Like my new signature line?

[MonkeyFunk]

109. My avatar

is the Speaker of the House, a woman I admire greatly.

No,it's not silly.

[Joe Chi Minh]

172. Sorry. I thought it was the monkey, below. What's the monkey then?

Just your signature?

[cynatnite]

4. Ending the war should take precedence over impeachment...

at this point in time. I agree with him on this. Stop the bloodshed first.

[Owlet]

15. Why?

..if there were the remotest chance of its happening. But let's face it: the odds of the war being brought to an end by Congressional action are as about as likely as hitting the Powerball. In the meantime, why not go for impeachment? The war will last for as long as George W. Bush is in office, so it would seem that those in favor of ending the war would also be supporters of ending Bush's term before Jan. 2009. Dump Bush = End of War.

[cynatnite]

40. Impeach george, then you get cheney...

Cheney isn't going to stop the war. I don't know if both can be impeached at the same time. It seems to me that this would take too much of congress' time and unlikely to happen.

Chances of ending the war are better than impeaching both of them, IMO.

[John Q. Citizen]

46. Chaney first! . If the war was more important than our constitution, your point would be val

[mopinko]

47. yes both can be impeached together

a question that has been asked and answered a couple thousand times here and elsewhere over the last year or so. pay attention.

[cynatnite]

53. I actually haven't seen it...

but I'm not on DU 24/7.

Chances of it happening are slim to none, IMO. I'm for ending the war which has a better chance of happening with elections not far off.

[MonkeyFunk]

80. in theory, yes

but vote articles against both, and Cheney resigns. Bush appoints a replacement. A non-objectionable one.

If the Senate refused to vote on the confirmation, there'd be a huge backlash against the Dems, accusing them (rightly so) of staging a political coup.

But it's an academic discussion - it will never happen.

[tomp]

132. we already have cheney!

who do you think is running things now? there's no logic in your post.

[Yukari Yakumo]

140. So simple a simpleton can understand

While the odds of the war being brought to an end by Congressional action are as about as likely as hitting the Powerball, the odds of impeachment going anywhere right now are even less.

Plus dump Chimpy and what do you get, Cheney. And before we can get to him, someone like the Ghoul or Mitt will be placed in the VP spot. The presence of the Red State Senate Democrats will ensure that would happen.

[Sam Ervin jret]

122. Impeachment Vs war ending

Excuses

War has come to this republic before and we have survived. Our greatest threat is not from outside this republic but from within.
As Thomas Jefferson said keeping the republic is the difficult part and he was not referring to foreign powers. How much blood has ben shed t create this great republic shall we forget them? I don't think you see the death of the problem

[MrMickeysMom]

137. ...and you REALLY think that ending "the war" can take place without it?

If you do, there's some swamp land in Florida you might be interested in...

:-(

[librechik]

155. it's clear we won't get anything done this term anyway

they have decided to block EVERYTHING and th epresident is a block to getting out of Iraq. I say we table everything and just concentrate on throwing the bums out.

[mzmolly]

5. I understand this thought process.

I'm planning to be patient with Democrats until fall personally. At that time I may get uptight. ;)

[John Q. Citizen]

48. I'm not patient when it comes to our constitution. It's far more important than

the Dems.

It doesn't mention the name of any political party in the document, and there is a reason for that.

[mzmolly]

68. I understand this thought process

as well. ;)

[John Q. Citizen]

94. What did hightower say, the only thing in the middle of the road is a yellow stripe and

a dead armidillo?

Sorry, i had to say that cause I like the line so much.

I hear you, but really, time is of the essence here.:)

[mzmolly]

95. I agree on both the war and this issue. But the war issue is heating up now,

and I support an end to that NOW. So I'm not in the middle, I am wishing to accomplish both goals in their time.

Speaking of Hightower, I love em' but he supported Nader, so I kind of feel a bit superior ya know? ;)

[John Q. Citizen]

98. He votes in Texas so it was a stratigic vote.

[mzmolly]

107. Yeah, I know.

But I still feel superior. :P Hightower didn't appear to advocate a safe state stragegy?

I agreed with Paul Wellstone, if that makes me a "centrist" - fine with me. http://commondreams.org/headlines/102500-04.htm

SEN. PAUL WELLSTONE: ... But, you know, Jim talks about history. The other argument I've heard is, it doesn't make any difference. Then if you get George W. Bush in and you turn the clock back on a lot of issues that are important to people's lives, the most vulnerable citizens in this country, then people will get out, galvanize and make things better. I don't want to take that chance for our country. I really don't want to take that chance for our country.

Well, we took that chance, sadly.

[Solly Mack]

6. Well, George P Bush is 31......go ahead...laugh...but we got Shrub didn't we?

Don't count on anyone's memory preventing anything...

Just look at Iran-Contra....

Let'em go free and they come back...

[bbgrunt]

61. not only that, but it gives a green light to all other criminals.

I must say I am extremely disappointed in Russ.

[Poiuyt]

7. Feingold is my senator, but I disagree vehemently about this one

The war is not going to end while Bush is in office.

More importantly is the precedent that Bush's abuse of power is setting for future generations. This country's esteem around the world is shot and impeachment would show that we mean what we say.

I can't figure out while all (or at least most) of our Democratic leaders are so against impeachment. Feingold himself said that Bush has committed impeachable offenses, but he's still against it. Can't Congress walk and chew gum at the same time?

[rodeodance]

69. he is my senator also. I am actually a bit stunned (I just read this).

[John Q. Citizen]

76. The senator took and oath of office to defend and protect the constitution... not

to get troops out of Iraq.

The executive branch has usurped unconstitutional powers. From warrentless searches, to signing statements, to lying to congress, the executive is an enemy to the rule of law and to our constitution.

First things first Senator.

Your oath wasn't -To defend and protect the constitution, unless there were other pressing issues.

[snappyturtle]

77. I SO agree with you. The time is now. nt

[Amonester]

91. Not only the war is not going to end while Bu$che is in office...

It's gonna get a gazillion times worse.

Maybe Cheney will succeed at getting us all killed before his pump...

Thanks for not listening, Russ.

I'd hate to have to tell you: "We told you so." some day.

But maybe "we" will all be dead so it won't matter much then.

[Oreo]

8. Disgusted

and disappointed

Remember this the next time you see the House or Senate debating whether this year's National Champion of X sport should have a proclamation read.

Impeachment is not an option... it's a mandate in the Constitution and our Democratic Senators and Reps ignoring it is just as bad as Bush's disrespect for it.

[Zensea]

12. Where is the text that says it is a mandate?

Back up your opinion.

[hootinholler]

16. It's not written in the constitution but,

The founding fathers considered it a duty and not at all optional.

-Hoot

[Zensea]

21. Then it's not a mandate and is optional

All of the founding fathers?
Some of them?
Did some of the founding fathers have no belief in the separation of church and state?

Doesn't matter what the founding fathers (allegedly) considered it to be one way or the other except for what actually got put in the constitution.

At least as far as the legalities of it are relevant.

[John Q. Citizen]

56. Here

ARTICLE II
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.



Is say shall, not 'if they don't have too much other stuff on thier plate.'

[Zensea]

66. already discussed that Exact thing here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1347721&mesg_id=1348312

Those words do not say that impeachment is required.
They are about what happens after impeachment.

[John Q. Citizen]

88. not according to one of the foremost constitutional authorities in the country.

But I'm sure you and some other DUers probably are better informed than he....

Russ took an oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution.... not to get some troops out of Iraq.

We have an executive branch who has usurped unconstitutional powers, from warrentless searches, to kidnapping, to lying to congress to drag us into an illegal war and more.

His "well I tried to introduce a censure motion..doesn't cut it.

If Russ won't honor his oath because he has some other pressing issues on his plate, he's not fit to serve.

The constitution is more important than Russ, or the Democratic Party, or any party. If they fail to defend and protect it then they are failing the country.

[Zensea]

97. Cut the snark

I hadn't been making any claims of being better informed although now I'm tempted.

Personally, I'm more concerned about actual logic and reasoning than resorting to quoting of one particular scholar. That's the thing about scholars, they don't always agree with each other.

By the way, Feingold can't introduce impeachment anyway since he is a senator.

[John Q. Citizen]

102. Yes, I know Fiengold can't, My guess is he's been sent out to try to put out

fire in the people. My local Dem Senator's office told me people are calling in constantly about impeachment. It took 15 minutes today to get through to Pelosi'DC office.

Did you see the Moyers program on impeachment? If not, I highly recommend it.It's viewable on line.

[Zensea]

106. If it's online, I'll look for it

I'm one of those folk who avoids television (since I think it is basically a propaganda/brainwashing machine), haven't owned one in years or lived in a house with one either for a long time.

[marions ghost]

116. put out the fire?

I'd say he fanned the flames....:grr:

[Yukari Yakumo]

143. Uno Question...

What the heck are you going to do abut those 50 dildos also known as the Rethugs and UnHoly Joe?

That's what's preventing the "shall" part from happening.

[John Q. Citizen]

145. The problem is with the party in power. They lack the will to uphold their oaths to

protect and defend the constitution from all enemiesforeign and domestic

Their oath doesn't say, 'unless Joe Lieberman is in the Senate or unless our margin is thin.
Their oath doesn't say 'unless we think we might have a better chance in 08 if we ignore our oath.'

They have a duty to at least attempt to impeach the men who would be kings. Not to try to be those kings themselves by ignoring their duty.

Our Congress has a duty and an obligation to bring articles of impeachment against the executives. If they fail to convict in the Senate, the American people can then kick out the Senators who betrayed their constitutional duty. The people will know the crimes committed, see the evidence of the crimes committed and can act accordingly.

If the Democrats don't attempt to to honor their oath of office and to defend and protect the constitution, and to honor their obligation under the constitution to impeach, then they are no better than the usurpers themselves. They are then enablers of tyranny. Because if they roll over and allow bush/chaney to get away with murder, torture, kidnapping, secret warrant-less search and seizure, and usurping of unconstitutional power that will become the norm. That will be the purview of every executive in the future.

The Dems will be remembered as putting their lust for party power first, above the constitution, above the country, and the D behind their name will come to symbolize deceit, dynastic despotism, and dictatorship.

The woman you disparage with your clever little graphic at least has the will to fight for her country and her constitution. All you seem interested in fighting for is that D. Not any different really from the people who are fighting for their R. Because without a constitutional democratic republic what difference will it make?

What kind of health care reform we get or don't get, how many troops we withdraw or commit, how much funding we give our vets, NOLA, and food stamps is all negotiable.

The constitution isn't negotiable, due process isn't negotiable, warrant-less searches aren't negotiable, unrestrained executive power isn't negotiable, tyranny isn't negotiable.

impeachment is imperative.

[Oreo]

30. Constitution and Impeachment

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Shall: To owe; to be under obligation for.
(imp. Should .)

or

shall (shăl) pronunciation
aux.v., past tense should (shʊd).

1. Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:
1. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow.
2. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison.
3. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it.
4. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.
2. Archaic.
1. To be able to.
2. To have to; must.


Feingold states in his diary that he thinks there are impeachable offenses.

If you didn't watch Bill Moyers Journal this week you should check it out.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07132007/profile.html

[MonkeyFunk]

34. you're not seriously

using "shall" in that sentence to mean it's an obligation?!!

It means IF impeachment occurs, and IF conviction occurs, the officer SHALL be removed. It refers to the remedy, not impeachment itself.

[John Q. Citizen]

57. Not according to the constitutional expert on Moyers. He said it was a duty not

an option, and that was why and how it was written into the constitution.

[MonkeyFunk]

75. then he's just wrong

the plain text of the constitution is there for all of us to read.

I doubt there's been a single President who hasn't broken the law at some point. should they all have been impeached?

[John Q. Citizen]

92. I think Moyers should have invited you instead of a recognized expert.

Call or write him and tell him why his guest is wrong.

Russ took an oath to defend and protect the constitution. We have an exeutive branch that has usurpt unconstitutional powers.

Russ is violating his oath. He didn't swear an oath to reduce the number of troops in Iraq, after all.

If the Dems want to forsake their sworn duty then I ain't voting for them. They are just trashing the constitution like bush and chaney and trying to pretend they aren't.

[MonkeyFunk]

103. I'm not allowed to disagree with a guest on Moyers?

I watched 2/3rds of it, and I didn't see any place where Fein said it was a constitutional obligation to impeach. He certainly made it seem like it was a good idea, and perhaps a moral obligation.

I'll watch the last third in a bit and see his argument then.

But your argument is silly - because a scholar on TV said something, that I'm totally out of line for disagreeing with him.

If I find a scholar who agrees with me, will you change your mind? If not, why not?

[Yukari Yakumo]

144. Good point

because a scholar on TV said something, that I'm totally out of line for disagreeing with him.

It's like saying Dr. Phil is the ultimate authority on psychology.

I have a better challenge. Tell him to watch the Faux Noise Network and count how many "experts" they bring up in one day. Are we supposed to agree with all of them since they too are on TV?

[Ghost in the Machine]

115. well yes... yes they should!

"I doubt there's been a single President who hasn't broken the law at some point. should they all have been impeached?"

Damned straight they should have, if they broke the law. By your logic, we shouldn't even arrest other criminals, should we? I can see a police officer saying "well, he broke the law, but hey, there's been others who have gotten away with it, so let's just let this one go too"...

I don't understand the mindset of you apologists and enablers, but apparently you have no concept of the rule of law and/or accountablilty.

[MonkeyFunk]

165. lol

"apologists and enablers"

Because I agree with Al Gore, Russ Feingold, et. al, that impeachment would fail to remove them, and thus be a waste of time, I'm an apologist?

No. I'm just a member of the reality-based community.

[MrMickeysMom]

139. This is is an argument a fifth grader would make

... and unless yolu come up with a more intelligent argument, I have a pretty good idea you'll be going to middle school next year.

Good luck interpreting your future options of life!

:crazy:

[MrMickeysMom]

138. "Shall" means JUST that

Wording is quite specific.

It does not mean "should"...

It does not mean "may"

"Shall" implies what is expected under the criteria. If this isn't clear enough for you, go ask a constitutional lawyer. Or watch the one being interviewed in the Jul 13th Bill Moyers Journal on pbs,org, okay?

[Zensea]

36. It really does depend how you define shall doesn't it?

in my dictionary it also says

The use of shall in the second and third person may express determination, promise, obligation, or permission depending on the context.

MAY express a variety of different things, one of which is obligation.

Add into this that the meaning of shall has shifted over the past 200 years (it also has a slightly different meaning regarding the imperative in England than it does in America today -- I know this from working with British lawyers).

Add that in and I think it is not clear at all that those words demand a mandate of impeachment.

Plus which those words do not mandate impeachment anyway, they are speaking about what happens after impeachment.

[MonkeyFunk]

81. no it doesn't!

Shall means what it means. the issue is where in the sentence is it used?

It doesn't say "The house shall impeach...."

It says the officer shall be removed... IF the house impeaches and IF the senate convicts.

[Zensea]

84. That's what I said also

read my whole post, particularly the last sentence where I wrote what you are saying.
I agree with you on this subject already.

[MonkeyFunk]

85. LOL... ok

sorry.

[MonkeyFunk]

You're wrong

impeachment is entirely optional. There's no affirmative obligation on the House to impeach anybody.

[nebenaube]

25. You're partially correct...

But as far as I'm concerned failure to protect the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic is dereliction of duty if not outright treason in itself.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. really?

if you'd read the constitution, you'd know the definition of treason.

[John Q. Citizen]

60. Too bad Moyers didn't get you for his show, MF. Instead he got one of the

foremost constitutional scholars in the country.

A Republican, he said Congress has a duty to impeach a President who attempts to usurp unconstitutional powers.

Did you watch it?

[MonkeyFunk]

105. Yes

a scholar on Moyers disagreed with me.

If I find a scholar who does agree with me, will you change your mind? Will you object if I condescend to you and insult you? If not, why not?

Try to argue like an adult.

[John Q. Citizen]

126. If you can find a scholar of Riens stature I'd sure listen. IM me when you find

one.

[MonkeyFunk]

166. so that conservative

cock-sniffer is now your prototype of a respected scholar? LOL

[John Q. Citizen]

167. He 's right about impeachment. So is the author of "The Genius of Impeachment."

That republican certainly much more respect for our constitution tahn Pelosi. At least he's publicaly laying out the case to defend the constitution and impeach the executive. Pelosi is more concerned with her personal aquitition of power than defending the constitution.

[MonkeyFunk]

168. Pelosi

doesn't have the luxury of making this an academic debate. She merely has to be able to count to 67.

[John Q. Citizen]

171. The oath she took had the number 67 in it? Now she runs the Senate too?

You are mistaken; willfully; but mistaken.

i think your first allegence is to the Dems instead of to the constitution. This seems to be the thrust of your writing.

Unfortunatly, between those whose primary allegence is to the Dems and those whose primary allegence is to the Repos, the constitution, and our constitutional democratic republic will be the clear loser, and will fail.

Tyranny will be the result.

Evil can only trumph when good men (and women) do nothing. And at this point, Pelosi is doing nothing.

[MonkeyFunk]

173. Why question my motives?

It's possible to disagree without making it personal.

She knows that impeachment would result in acquittal, therefore shouldn't be pursued now.

[snappyturtle]

79. Putting us in more peril, via the war, is treasoness enough for me. nt

[bdamomma]

9. hey Senator Feingold, it didn't stop your friends across the aisle

when they wanted to impeach Clinton, you are to forgiving man.

and will he say this, when and if this thuggish regime ever attacks Iran


"I fully respect the anger and frustration many Americans feel with this Administration. I share much of it. But on balance, I think Congress’s time is much better spent ending the war in Iraq, conducting the oversight that was absent for the last six years, and advancing progressive legislation"

excuse me Senator we are well beyond Frustration, these thugs are shredding the Constitution and giving us the middle finger salute.

[shireen]

10. interesting response

I appreciate his points.

But he's also implying that in order to get the peoples' business done, Congress has to ignore accountability and justice. So future presidents can get away with crimes because they know Congress will be too "busy" to come after them.

Nixon resigned before Congress finished the impeachment process. I doubt if Bush and Cheney will do that.

If Congress won't start impeachment hearings, what can be done to make these sewer rats accountable for their actions?
- Can the General Accounting Office start an investigation, is that within their purview?
- Special prosecutors can only be appointed by the Justice Department, right? Perhaps we'll have to wait till 2009, when a Democratic president takes office, so they can appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush adminstration.
- What are the laws regarding citizen legal action, like a class action lawsuit brought against the administration by people who have lost loved ones in Iraq, and those soldiers who have suffered life-long disability due to combat?

[Mr. Ected]

11. Congressional Oversite Over the Executive Branch IS Paramount

If our duly-elected Congressmen and -women can't handle the workload, they had no business running for office in the first place.

If the executive branch is allowed to run amok because our Congress "has better things to do" than holding up its constitutionally-mandated responsibility of checks and balances, then I'm afraid we've been plagued by a Congress complicitous with the criminals in the White House.

[snappyturtle]

83. Here, Here!!! nt

[hootinholler]

13. Russ,

It's not about accomplishing the end of the war, it's about stopping an imperial president. The illegal power grab, secrecy and etc. have to be dealt with now. We can't afford *any* president to have these powers, even a benevolent one let alone a malevolent one like we have now.

There is no more pressing problem facing us, I don't care what MonkeyFunk says.

-Hoot

[Zensea]

14. Regarding time being better spent

Since it is already half way through 2007, I'm inclined to agree.
At the rate these things go it's unlikely much would get done even if they started today before 2008.
And once 2008 rolls around everyone's attention is going to be on the election and it will be a relatively moot point regardig impeachment.

[jgraz]

17. Russ proves again he's not perfect

Didn't he also vote to confirm John Roberts?

The guy is my second favorite Senator behind Sanders (who's also wrong on impeachment) but he's not always right. I guarantee that you will see him recant this position before his career is over.

[AntiFascist]

19. More double-talk and broken promises...

the war is not going to end while Bush/Cheney are in office, but impeachment might force them to reconsider. The Senators must be looking forward to attacking Iran.

[LittleClarkie]

37. What broken promise

I don't think impeachment was ever promised, esp. not by Russ.

[AntiFascist]

41. I'm talking about ending the war in Iraq....

if you analyze the DLC strategy (which is ultimately what guides much of Democratic Senate leadership) it calls for even stronger military (translate as a bigger surge), trying to pull together more allies to fight the war, and getting tougher with Iran and Syria. Sound familiar?

[LittleClarkie]

44. Impeachement and ending the war are two different issues

it looks like Russ wants to concentrate on one over the other.

Have you heard what's going on in the Senate, btw?

[AntiFascist]

52. I've always argued that impeachment proceedings could lead to ending war...

I know about the filibuster, but I also know that all Senators seem to be leaning toward declaring war against Iran. It would make sense to free up troops in the current quagmire if we are going to be starting a new one.

[checks-n-balances]

39. Amen! Sounds like few at DU saw Bill Moyers' show this weekend

Bruce Fein & another guest STRONGLY came out against letting this admin. get away with anything else - i.e., impeachment is not only a must, but with this much reason staring us in the face, it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL NOT TO IMPEACH. They described impeachment as a gift from our Founders to PREVENT any "Constitutional Crisis (usually attributed to the act of impeachment). It would be akin to allowing a highly suspect criminal with much evidence against him/her to be treated as above the law.

The two guests on the Moyers program speculated that perhaps current members of Congress (including Democrats) do not fully understand the U.S. Constitution nor their duty in upholding it. They couldn't be more correct, since even the Dems seem only to be concerned with scoring the most political points - thus out-repugging the repugs.

[PBass]

22. Not impeaching would make permanent, the damage Bush has done.

If you like the changes that Bush has brought to the office of President, and want future Presidents to cite Bush as precedent, then don't impeach.

[Mr. Ected]

23. They Had A Two-Year Window of Opportunity

Beginning in January of 2007.

They knew what their constituents wanted from Day One.

Just another abdication of responsibility.

And yet another lame excuse from one of our last hopes for sanity in Washington.

[sandnsea]

28. The war ended

Funny how every time Democrats move to do what the left wants, the left moves the goal post. Just a few weeks ago the left was screaming that Democrats weren't doing enough to end the war. Now it's impeachment. If Democrats moved on impeachment, the left would start yelling about NAFTA or single payer. They aren't happy if they aren't bitching.

[Mr. Ected]

35. As If It's An Either/Or Proposition

Please.

Are you saying that our Democratic Congress can only do one thing at a time?

Bring the war to an end AND bring the lying bastards to justice.

There. Was that too hard?

[sandnsea]

117. When impeachment is one item

You damn right it's the only thing Congress is going to be able to do. You think Republicans are going to let Democrats talk about anything else while there's an impeachment in process?? How quickly people forget I guess.

[LiberalHeart]

127. I think "now it's impeachment" is a direct result of...

...the Moyers show. It converted me into favoring impeachment. It was a powerful, intelligent discussion and helped me see how urgent it is that the destruction of our Constitution and our civil rights be stopped now, before it can become the precedent that guides all future administrations. It's not about party politics. We're way beyond that. It's about who we are and what we will tolerate, and how much we treasure what America used to be.

[sandnsea]

24. Continue trying to end the war

I agree that we should keep working on that. If they've made a deal with Republicans to end the war rather than go for impeachment, then that's a good deal. If we haven't got progress on ending this war by October, then there's nothing to lose, move on with impeachment. I hope that is what is happening right now.

[AntiFascist]

58. This is where we have been betrayed...

I fear that Democratic Senators have made a deal with Republicans all right. Just wait and see where it leads - Iran.

[mzmolly]

70. This is what I'm thinking.

By fall we'll know what will happen.

[ThomWV]

27. Well, there's one more man who will never receive a vote from me.

Some day far in his future he may wish he had thought better about that.

[RethugAssKicker]

29. Impeachment proceedings would stop an attack on Iran !

Russ is wrong. plain wrong. This congress is not going to stop the OCCUPATION of Iraq either !!!

Fuck these Dem leaders

[MNWild]

32. Russ, I love ya most of the time, but how do these question tip your balance?

1) Can you name even 1 piece of advancing progressive legislation that you expect to clear the Senate with at least 67 votes? Because IMHO, if it's progressive, it will be vetoed.

2) If by oversight you mean the Sargent at Arms overseeing the confinement of Sarah, Harriet, and most of the inhabitants of the OVP, I say bring it, otherwise, quit supplying them with toilet paper in the form of Congressional subpoenas. It diminishes all of Congress if threats of consequences aren't followed up on.

3) Congress was not only elected to end the war and reverse all of the policy blunders, but if i recall correctly, there was a little something on everyone's first day of work about upholding and defending the Constitution from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Anyone here feel as if the Constitution is being too vigorously defended?

[Klukie]

33. why can't we do both?

It seems to me that the impeachment process and fixing the problems of this country go hand in hand. I don't view them as mutually exclusive.

[LSK]

38. I always knew Feingold was a freeper troll

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[demgurl]

42. There is no "QUESTION" about impeachment,

James Madison said they were including in the constitution because of pardons and commutations and if a President used it to cover their butts then they would be impeached. No, Mr. Feingold, there is no question since our founding fathers thought up this exact situation. They were smart enough to see this far into the future for this scenario with Scooter and so I trust them and their dedication to the Constitution. I too am dedicated to that piece of paper many of us hold so dear and I say there is no question except when will impeachment proceedings start.

[Nunyabiz]

43. That is an ignorant position for any democrat to take

Without Impeaching these criminals the Democrats will get NOTHING accomplished as anything worth a damn will be stonewalled, filibustered, and or vetoed.
The only things these democrats have gotten through are very watered down and virtually worthless bills.
Basically they are going right along with whatever Bushco wants.

By LAW the worthless democrats don't have a choice whether to Impeach or not, THEY KNOW damn well these bastards have committed MANY crimes, ranging from TREASON to war crimes, crimes against humanity, mass murder, they have broken so many Constitutional/National & International laws that the list is as freaking long as your leg, so NOT Impeaching these criminals is actually a complete dereliction of duty.
They are bound by the Constitution to Impeach.

[Zensea]

51. Let's see, if not enough votes to accomplish anything then

where are they going to get the votes for impeachment?

sheeesh.

[Nunyabiz]

150. sheeesh yourself

Does not matter at all if there are not enough votes, you anti Impeachment knuckle heads need to get that through your head.

Rethuglicans right now are running from Bush like the plague, now imagine a real investigation bringing out all the crimes these bastards have committed, can you imagine rethuglicans then having to stand behind and defend a treasonous war criminal?.
Its not like there isn't any evidence of all these crimes, hell the majority is on freaking video tape.
Now imagine rethuglicans being forced to defend these neofascist especially when their guilt is undeniable.
You can kiss the rethuglican party off for decades if they didn't vote for Impeachment.

So for democrats its a win/win situation, not to mention it is their constitutional duty. These crimes must be put on the permanent record.
Impeachment is mandatory

[John Q. Citizen]

45. Boo - The war and occupation is the result of an out of control imperial executive.

The Constitution specifically demands action be initiated. There is no option. The wording is "Shall impeach" not "Maybe impeach if there's not a lot on your plate."

Russ, nobody is pointing to Clinton. We are pointing to the US Consitution.

The greatest threat to the country, now or ever, is and out of contol imperial presidency.

Don't you get it?

[Thothmes]

162. Imperial executive

This is only paritally true. The war and the continuing occupation of Iraq is also the responsibility of the Congress of the United States. Remember, they were the ones that authorized the war in the first place.

[John Q. Citizen]

163. When bush lied to the congress and the nation, as the Downing Street memo proved

he became impeachable.

When bush lied in his constitutionally mandated State of the Union Address he became impeachable.

[Nunyabiz]

174. actually Bush became Impeachable

the very day he stole the 2000 selection.
He has committed no less than 25+ Impeachable offenses since then and the list grows with every passing month.

[porphyrian]

49. He's perpetuating a false binary - it isn't impeachment OR ending the war. I call bullshit.

The very idea that Congress couldn't do both effectively at the same time is simply ludicrous, especially given that the former will likely be necessary for the latter. Who are you lying for, Russ?

[Nunyabiz]

151. exactly

[Hubert Flottz]

50. Now who can Al Gore pick for a VP?

There went my 16 year dream ticket.

[bbgrunt]

63. I'd like to see Gore support impeachment too.

[Alexander]

146. Russ didn't take impeachment off the table.

He just said it shouldn't be a priority.

[Blue_In_AK]

54. One thing that really sticks in my mind

from the Bill Moyers Journal are these words -- impeachment doesn't cause a constitutional crisis, it's the CURE for a constitutional crisis. I'm disappointed that Russ Feingold doesn't seem to recognize the seriousness of the breaches that have occurred. Of course, there are many, many issues that need to be dealt with right now, but they all stem from **'s and the Dick's overreaching. If they were removed, we could get on with trying to get our country back on track.

[Disturbed]

74. Feingold is wrong on this and so are the rest that have the

same excuse. The Iraq Occupation will not end because the Dems will not let go of the Oil. The Dems are playing a game and the Repugs are in on it. Impeachment is off the table because it would spoil the game for both parties. The Constitution no longer matters to the players.

[SaveElmer]

62. Feingold showing a little common sense...

He is absolutely correct on this...

[bbgrunt]

64. It's time to man the barricades screaming: "RULE OF LAW!! RULE OF LAW!!"

[kpete]

65. FEINGOLD UPDATES with this:

UPDATE: I know that many of you disagree with my approach to this issue, but I thought it was important to make it clear where I’m coming from and explain why I am not calling for impeachment.

I certainly do believe in holding this Administration accountable and upholding the Constitution and the rule of law. That’s why last year I called for the President to be censured for his authorization of the illegal wiretapping program. I thought that was the appropriate course because it would have put the Senate on record in condemning the President’s wrongdoing. I still think that the censure resolution played an important role in focusing the public and the media’s attention on the issue. And I am working to make sure that Congress finally exercises its oversight responsibility by holding hearings and demanding information about the wiretapping program, the U.S. attorney firings and other abuses of power.

Many of you also wrote that if I recognize that the President and Vice President may have committed impeachable offenses, than it is our responsibility to impeach. As I pointed out, it is the role of the House to impeach, and it is the role of the Senate to try impeachments. But the Constitution left it up to the judgment of members of Congress whether or not moving forward with impeachment is best for the country.

Please keep the comments coming. I’ll do my best to read them all. I very much appreciate your honesty and directness. This exchange is very important to me.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/16/133049/958

[mzmolly]

99. Thanks for the follow up.

:kick:

[marions ghost]

110. GIT back...

"But the Constitution left it up to the judgment of members of Congress whether or not moving forward with impeachment is best for the country."

--Hmmmmm. :eyes:

And sometimes lately the judgment of Congress has been kinda shaky on what is best for the country.
Apparently you DO need our help, Senator.

[Solly Mack]

123. Yeah, Lee Hamilton thought letting Reagan and Bush go during Iran-Contra was

good for the country too.

And Ford claimed it was good for the country to pardon Nixon

And well...

just saying...

America is dying from all that healing

[LiberalHeart]

128. It sounds like he hasn't closed the door on those of us who favor impeachment.

Not totally, anyway.

[EFerrari]

130. Oh, please. "The judgment of members of Congress"

wouldn't risk a parking ticket, let alone impeachment.

These are the same people that are signing off on Bush's SECOND war of choice.

[rodeodance]

67. I did not expect this from Russ F. not at all.

[rodeodance]

71. oh well, it is the House that brings charges. I trust him to re-think this IF it

comes to the Senate for a vote.

[marions ghost]

73. Over at Daily Kos

there are over a thousand responses right now to Feingold's statement. The overwhelming majority are appalled and calling for impeachment. Go over there if you want to see how big the support is running for impeachment.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/16/133049/958

Here's one post from over there I thought was good:

Senator Feingold,

While I understand impeachment may take up time away from policy matters with all due respect, policy issues can wait. They'll always be there for Congress to tackle. We are living in one of those rare moments in our history where investigations into impeachment is necessary AND appropriate. If you believe policy is of the utmost importance right now, then it's also my belief that the Democrats can pass legislation and have hearings at the same time. Back in '73-'74 the Dems had impeachment hearings and passed the Endangered Species Act, established the EPA, and many other major pieces of legislation. With all the BA's, MA's, MBA's, phD's, and law degrees members of Congress has, the Dems are fully capabble of doing the same, just like the 93rd Congress.

As for ending the war, my concern is this Congress has already demonstrated that it has no intention of ending the war. Pelosi has sworn that cutting off the funding is "off the table" and the recent 80-14 Senate vote doesn't indicate to me that the war's going to end anytime soon. What could help move Congress end the Iraq war would be the same thing that helped a previous Congress find the nerve to end the Vietnam War and convinced Nixon not to veto the cut-off in funding: impeachment. In this case, even more so than Nixon's, impeachment would drive the war debate in the right direction, because impeachment would be for offenses either directly connected to the war or offenses that have been justified by "war on terror."

If Congress could actually cut off the funding and end the war, I think it would be also very likely that Bush and Cheney would misappropriate funds from the Pentagon to keep the occupation going. They did so in order to secretly begin the war, and they have never been held accountable for it. So, removing them from office is not only needed in order to give Congress the nerve to end the war, but is also needed if the war is ever to actually end.

As I said, this is one of those rare moments where impeachment is necessary and appropriate. The health of our democracy is at stake and Congress now has lower approval ratings that George W. Bush. Want to get those approval ratings higher? Pursue investigations into impeachment. The public will support it, especially since the latest impeachment poll shows that close to 46-47% support it AND Bush and Cheney's approval ratings are horrendous. If the Dems do, I guarantee it will bring the results your party is looking for in 2008.

Stand for the Constitution, not for the party. This is one of those moments where party politics, policy, and elections MUST be tossed aside to implement a cure to our fragile democracy.

Pursue investigations into impeachment for Bush and Cheney!

more at:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/7/16/133049/958

IF YOU AGREE, CALL or EMAIL FEINGOLD'S OFFICE TODAY!

[Disturbed]

86. "The health of our democracy is at stake."

Indeed!!!

[in_cog_ni_to]

78. That's the same excuse I got from Durbin and Obama. They must have had a meeting and decided

this would be their talking point on Impeachment. What a bunch of BULLSHIT. They don't have time? WTF? THIS IS THE GOVERNMENT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE! and the CONSTITUTION! They don't have enough time to save the Constitution?

[Oak2004]

142. It's the same tune Sanders is singing

Those are talking points, dictated to the Dem. caucus from on-high by someone. Consultants? The DLC? Lieberman's conditions for giving the Dems a Senate majority? Major donors? Your guess is as good as mine.

[Senator]

147. Here's A List of Some of Their False Meme Talking Points

It's all just masturbatory rationalizing for inaction.

A bunch of utter nonsense fostered by the Euphemedia to avert tense moments at their Georgetown cocktail parties and taxpayer-funded gala luncheons.

The exact same "groupthink" that got us into this mess in the first place.

---

[pstans]

89. Russ, if you decide to run for President you have my vote

[bbgrunt]

100. Here's a tune for ya, Russ, and all you other troglodytes:

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'.
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

[G_j]

101. utterly disappointing

I want to know how we can stop these criminals from new crimes, they are still capable of worse things, including using nukes.

[eridani]

104. Hey Russ--how do you do oversight if they ignore your subpoenas? n/t

[Vadem]

111. They're ALL being blackmailed.... even Russ.... ya think? n/t

[ClassWarrior]

114. Yes, we're all powerless under their Master Conspiracy...

Give up!! Give up!!! Bow down before the Bush/Cheney** or suffer the wrath!!

:eyes:

NGU.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

112. WTF is this shit?

"I am concerned about the great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country. The time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials, would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do – end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years."

Impeaching the president IS addressing the terrible mistakes they've made over the last six and half years.

If Feingold spent half the time working on impeachment that he does coming up with excuses for not impeaching, it'd be over and done with.

[Zensea]

120. Another way to address the mistakes is through elections

and through enacting legislation.
I don't really understand why people are so focused on impeachment, particularly the closer it gets to the next election.
I'd love to see this whole administration out of office and prosecuted for their crimes -- doesn't mean I think impeachment is the only way to go or even that smart a way to go.
Particularly since the chances are it would fail anyway. I just don't see it as being that realistic to think that all these Republicans who have been marching in lockstep so effectively will wilt enough to create the 2/3 of Senators needed to convict.

Also calling Feingold out for not spending time on impeachment is silly because he's a Senator.
Senators don't impeach and I don't think they should spend any time on impeachment unless the House sends them someone to impeach.
It's not their business until then and if they make it their business it overly politicizes things.

[MrMickeysMom]

141. Trying ti get you to understand that impeachment is the way,,, look-

Do you have the time to view Moyers Juk 13th Journal online? Maybe that will drive the reasoned criteria for suggesting impeachment for the over-due correction due this executive branch gone wild.

Maybe you'll watch Moyers and come back to the discussion. I just can't believe what I'm reading here from some folks on this.

[bdamomma]

156. the root of the problem is Bush Co.

eliminate that cancer and stop the spreading of it.

[and-justice-for-all]

118. Its an easy decision to get on the road to recovery.

..which begins with IMPEACHMENT.

[eggman67]

119. Good work Senator

I support your common senes.

[Sam Ervin jret]

121. impeachment

Enough with the excuses. It is not a matter of there being too little time or of there being bad media ramifications for the democrats, or of there being a war on or that there is only so much time left in his administration or didn't we just do this with Clinton, or any of the other multitude of excuses that the congress has come up with for not doing its DUTY! I do not believe Thomas Jefferson could ever envision such a bunch of duty dropping, belly aching, jellyfish with both media, poll driven, inferiority complexes magically homogenized with delusions of grandeur as members of our elected officials. Or perhaps he did...

This congress has (past six years) has been on duty as this administration has done almost irreversible damage to our most sacred ideals and institutions. This administration has unlawfully come into our homes and lives through means both electronic and physical without oversight and due cause of law. This administration has shown both contempt of the laws of this land and the laws we hold most sacred in our constitution, bill of rights and declaration of independence. This administration has shown contempt for the institution of congress in it's action and deed when it obstructed the congress when members of this administration, by order of this administration, refused to appear before a legal hearing in this congress. This administration has shown contempt for our Institutions of law as it refuses to see itself subject to such laws. This administration has conducted war in the name of the people without the consent of the people and in contempt of the institutions of state and foreign affairs set up to assist this administration in fulfilling it's duties to the people. This administration has shown contempt for the institutions, laws, and people of this republic. For these reasons it is the duty of the congress to bring letters of impeachment against George Bush and his Vice President.

If it is inconvenient for this congress, or for either political party, the framers of the constitution gave us "We the People " a remedy for that too. It is the duty and responsibility of the people in a republic to be watchful. If our elected officials will not do the most basic of duties left to them, then it will be for us to do. The congress must stop obfuscating it's duties and do the work of this republic. No job that needs to be done is more important than the soundness of the republic. What is the only speech the president must make before both houses each year? The state of the union. And what is the first statement the president says each time? "The state of the Union is ..." I put to you the state of the union is died. When the speaker of the house states that impeachment is "off the table" she is casually "dealing" away one of the peoples Rights. How many Rights are we willing to give up or have dealt away? Neither the Executive nor the Speaker have the right to our Rights. They are inalienable.

No executive should have so much power. Not a democrat or a republican or any party. To put your party and the needs of your party or your fidelity to your party or even your hopes and dreams for your party ahead of the constitution is treason. All public officials have sworn an oath ( on a bible NOT TO A BIBLE) to be faithful to the ideals and laws in the constitution. You cannot put your party, or even your religion before the constitution. Now people will find that politically incorrect, but I say to you to swear on a bible to be faithful to the constitution and to then put the bible before the constitution is to break the commandment that forbids taking the name of the Lord in vain. Anyone who says otherwise understands neither the bible nor the constitution.

The letters of impeachment must be drawn and the trial must take place. Both sides must be heard. The defense must be made to any challenges put forth. The people have the RIGHT to hear all the evidence. It is clear that cause has been shown. Excuses will not due. Duty and responsibility are the cries of the people. The constitution is the tool. Justice is the cause. And the goal?

A Republic if we can keep it.

[bbgrunt]

124. welcome to DU Sam. I think I like the way you think.

[marions ghost]

129. excellent post

:applause:

[tomp]

131. hogwash!

go wash some more hogs, russ. one of the best caves, so disappointing.

[maximusveritas]

133. Russ gets it right again

Senator Feingold has never been afraid to tell the truth to his audience, no matter how unpopular it may be. I've always respected that quality in a politician.

[MrMickeysMom]

135. Jesus, I find this stunning ...

...but I guess I'm learning rather quickly of late that there are no (or very, very few) heros. Out of the 100 US senators, I would have expected more of Russ Feingold to not confuse "overuse of impeachment" with the real use of it.

That dog simply will not hunt.

I think I'll give him a personal toot tomorrow and share my disbelief. Right now, I'm goping top close my eyes and dream of a time that good men and women have the vision to come to the aid of their country.

[goodgd_yall]

148. Maybe Feingold should let the American people decide how Congress should spend its time.

If that happens to include impeachment proceedings, then the will of the people trumps what a member of congress thinks is "time...better spent."

I like Feingold, but he's dissappointing me on this one.

[robcon]

149. I agee with Russ

What a waste of time impeaching a president who, even if he is impeached, will not be convicted.

[Nunyabiz]

152. That is an ignorant position and you have clearly fallen for the BS

Doesn't matter at all if he is not convicted because the only way they wouldn't be is because the insane rethuglicans still defended them at all cost regardless of the irrefutable evidence that proves all the crimes they have committed.
Basically that would effectively kill the rethuglican party for decades showing what pure scum they are by rallying around a proven war criminal that has broken every law in the book twice.

You people need to get a grip

[Rose Siding]

153. "We won't be able to do our job if we do our job"

We're on our own.

[PassingFair]

154. They are more blinded by the media than we are.

The people are ready for impeachment.
I say that everyone on this board that
supports an impeachment resolution in the House
should go forth and STICKER your neighborhood
with IMPEACH or IMPEACH ALREADY stickers.

I am seeing the word and words on freeways,
and pasted lenghth-ways down telephone poles around
here, and DAMN IT, I'm gonna start sticking
too!

[bdamomma]

158. though I probably never hear it, but I am waiting

for our servants to say, the american people were right about impeaching Bush Co. Wishful thinking huh?

[lonestarnot]

159. Hey Russ. IMPEACH! Then end the war!

[still_one]

161. perhaps telling witness not to testify before Congress by this administration

refusing to turn over papers requested by congress is OK with some, but in reality it is NOT only taking away autority from congress but a direct attack on our constitution

What is being set up here is that the executive branch is accountable to no one, and the excutive branch does not have to listen to what Congress says

goodbye Republic, goodby Constitution, and by the Democrats not doing their responsibility they are responsible

Write you Congress person and Senators, tell them they are not doing what they were elected to do

[DutchLiberal]

169. Shame, Russ, shame, shame, shame. You used to be one of the great ones.

It is clear that there are many people in this country, including myself, who demand accountability from this Administration for the terrible mess it made in Iraq and its egregious and even illegal power grabs throughout its six-plus years in power. I believe that the President and Vice President may well have committed impeachable offenses. But with so many important issues facing this country and so much work to be done, I am concerned about the great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country.

Yes, you're right, Russ. There are much more important things than removing a president who, trough those illegal power grabs, rules like a dictator and commits impeachable offenses. Like... eh... and then there's ...er.. and don't forget... hmmm...

While some have pointed to Republicans’ decision to impeach President Clinton, I am also concerned about the over-use of impeachment.

Yes, let's not impeach over lying Congress and country into war. Let's not impeach over illegal wiretapping your own citizens. Let's not impeach over torturing people. After all, we don't want to over-use impeachment, right? That should be reserved for truly important stuff. You know, blow jobs.

[emmadoggy]

170. Generally, I love Russ, but he is DEAD WRONG on this one.

It is beyond disappointing to hear this stance from him.

Impeachment is imperative.

[mmonk]

175. Impeach or capitulate.

We the people need our constitutional rights and framework restored.