Sen. Feingold responded to my inquiry regarding impeachement

[LittleClarkie]

We've already seen a position statement from him, but this is what he wrote to one of his constituents, me, regarding the issue:


July 19, 2007

Dear Erica

Thank you for contacting me regarding presidential impeachment.
I appreciate hearing from you.

The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the authority
to draft articles of impeachment, and gives the Senate the power to
try an impeachment. Each decision as to whether or not to convict
on each article must be made separately, and a conviction on any
single article is sufficient grounds for removal from office.

I believe the President should be held accountable for breaking the
law by authorizing warrantless wiretaps of Americans on
American soil. The President's claims of inherent executive
authority, and his assertions that the courts have approved this type
of activity, are baseless. He has broken the law, and he has made it
clear that he will continue to do so. The President must be held
accountable for his actions, and Congress must take action to
check the power of an executive branch that is willing to flout the
law.

That is why, on Monday, March 13, 2006, I introduced a resolution
to censure the President because of his actions. I believe that this
is an appropriate response to the President's illegal wiretapping
program. Congress must hold the President accountable for
authorizing a program that clearly violates the law and for
misleading the country about its existence and legality.

There is no question that the government should wiretap suspected
terrorists both inside and outside the United States to protect our
national security. But the President has not explained why the
government cannot comply with the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), which sets out the procedures by which
the government can obtain a warrant from a secret court known as
the FISA Court to authorize electronic surveillance of individuals
in the United States who are suspected of terrorism or espionage.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate
Select Committee on Intelligence, I will continue to push for a full
congressional investigation and for full accountability. If you
would like to read the text of the censure resolution please go to
<http://feingold.senate.gov/censureresolution.pdf>. To view the
statement I delivered on the Senate floor just prior to introducing
the resolution, please go to
<http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/06/03/2006313.ht
ml>.

Thank you again for contacting me regarding holding the President
accountable for his actions. I look forward to hearing from you in
the future.


Sincerely,

Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Senator Feingold, please explain

Why do you believe your censure resolution, even if passed 100-0, would be greeted by anything but hackles in the imperial palace (the structure formerly known as the White House)?

Just as Me. Bush cannot explain why he won't comply with FISA, why can't you explain why a toothless censure resolution is more appropriate than impeachment and removal of this outlaw regime?

[Jack Bone]

2. Here's a ?...

If Sen. Feingold's censure resolution does get approved by The Senate...will that stop possible future impeachment charges for the same offense(s)?

Would that be considered "Double Jeopardy"?

[Zensea]

4. Double jeopardy only applies to criminal charges in a court

to an actual criminal trial that is.
Impeachment charges are a different sort of animal.

[Jack Rabbit]

5. And a censure resolution is totally meaningless

What are you going to do? Refuse to give Bush a promotion?

[Jack Bone]

10. thanx...

:hi:

[AZCat]

14. Did you mean...

"hackles" or "cackles"? The latter seems more likely, IMO.

[Senator]

3. Senator Feingold, Why Do You Torture Us...

...with your weasel-worded rationalizations for inaction?

And why must real torture continue -- in our names while -- you do so?

Your censure resolution and a dollar-fifty will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks -- and hails of derisive laughter from those you pretend would be "held accountable" by it.

But Yes, the regime HAS "explained why the government {won't} comply with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)," they've claimed monarchical power in a "time of war" defined by their whim.

You have not explained why you continue to enable such an Anti-American claim and the resulting impeachable acts.

You say "The President must be held accountable for his actions, and Congress must take action to check the power of an executive branch that is willing to flout the law. "

And revealingly, you say it in the passive voice -- totally devoid of specifics, substance, or your own personal responsibility to "take action" on your own. This is the testimony of a Groupthinker.

It's unlikely you'll be "hearing from {us} in the future," because you're not listening in the present.

---

[mopinko]

6. yeah, i am getting tired of the talk, talk, talk

as well. f'ing get it on. how many more have to die while you all fiddle? it is all the harder to take from guys like feingold who know and admit the wrongs, but do nothing. fiddle, fiddle, faddle. jesus h christ.

[bbgrunt]

46. exactly. Nicely said. Mind if I borrow it?

[Senator]

47. Feel free to do what you will

It's not like one can copyright simple, tragic reality.

--

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. What is the status of the censure now?

[Phredicles]

8. Censure is the big leagues of non-binding resolutions;

it's like the strongest-worded letter EVER.

C'mon, Sen. Feingold, you know better than this...

[WilliamPitt]

9. He voted to impeach Clinton, but wants to censure Bush.

That makes sense.

[Poiuyt]

12. Feingold did NOT vote to impeach Clinton

He voted to continue the hearings and listen to the evidence, but he voted not guilty when the time came.

[WilliamPitt]

16. So I'm reading this wrong?

But I would like to conclude by just talking a little bit about this
impeachment issue in the modern context. When I say that the vote in 1996
is the primary issue, I don't just mean that in terms of the rights of
people. I mean it in terms of the goal of the Founding Fathers, and our
goal today; that is, political stability in this country. We don't want a
parliamentary system. And we don't want an overly partisan system.

I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the
second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment
proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the
entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just
happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we
feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding
occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years?

What would we be telling Americans--and those worldwide who see in America
what they can only hope for in their own countries--if the Senate of the
United States were to conclude: The President lied under oath as an
element of a scheme to obstruct the due process of law, but we chose to
look the other way?

I cannot make that choice. I cannot look away. I vote `Guilty' on Article
I, Perjury. I vote `Guilty' on Article II, Obstruction of Justice.

I ask unanimous consent an analysis of the Articles of Impeachment be
printed in the Record.

http://australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/feingold.shtml

[mb7588a]

17. Not how he voted.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/

That quote must not be his.

[WilliamPitt]

18. How freakin' weird is that.

Thank you. I'm going to get to the bottom of this. You will have my apologies and gratitude if I've wrongfooted this thing.

[LittleClarkie]

19. That's our Russ

We do love our mavericks here in Wisconsin.

[WilliamPitt]

20. OK, now I'm really confused...

Your link:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/

..has him voting no on both.

This link:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/28/feingold.01/

...has him voting with the GOP against a motion to dismiss.

But this:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/feingold.html

...is his statement about voting guilty.

All three are CNN links.

Wha?

[mb7588a]

22. he did vote against the motion to dismiss.

and from the Congressional Record:


Rollcall Vote No. 17
Subject: Article I—Articles of Impeachment
Against President William Jefferson Clinton
GUILTY—45
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Thomas
Thurmond
Voinovich
NOT GUILTY—55
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Gorton
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thompson
Torricelli
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden

The CHIEF JUSTICE. On this article
of impeachment, 45 Senators having
pronounced William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States, guilty
as charged, 55 Senators having pro-
nounced him not guilty, two-thirds of
the Senators present not having pro-
nounced him guilty, the Senate ad-
judges that the respondent, William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, is not guilty as charged
in the first article of impeachment.

(snip)

Rollcall Vote No. 18
Subject: Article II—Articles of Impeach-
ment against President William Jefferson
Clinton
GUILTY—50
Abraham
Allard
Ashcroft
Bennett
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cochran
Coverdell
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Domenici
Enzi
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gorton
Gramm
Grams
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
Mack
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Nickles
Roberts
Roth
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
NOT GUILTY—50
Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Breaux
Bryan
Byrd
Chafee
Cleland
Collins
Conrad
Daschle
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerrey
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Moynihan
Murray
Reed
Reid
Robb
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The CHIEF JUSTICE. The galleries
will be in order.
On this article of impeachment, 50
Senators having pronounced William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, guilty as charged, 50
Senators having pronounced him not
guilty, two-thirds of the Senators
present not having pronounced him
guilty, the Senate adjudges that the re-
spondent, William Jefferson Clinton,
President of the United States, is not
guilty as charged in the second article
of impeachment.
The Chair directs judgment to be en-
tered in accordance with the judgment
of the Senate as follows:
The Senate, having tried William
Jefferson Clinton, President of the
United States, upon two articles of im-
peachment exhibited against him by
the House of Representatives, and two-
thirds of the Senators present not hav-
ing found him guilty of the charges
contained therein: it is, therefore, or-
dered and adjudged that the said Wil-
liam Jefferson Clinton be, and he is
hereby, acquitted of the charges in this
said article.
the Senate in the case of William Jefferson
Clinton, and transmit a certified copy of the
judgment to each.

[WilliamPitt]

23. Which makes me wrong

but what's the deal with that statement? It matches the one on the other link?

I was wrong, and thank you for correcting me. But I'd love to know what that statement was about.

[mb7588a]

26. It's not his statement? His actual statement:

From the Congressional Record (pages S1465, S1466), February 12, 1999.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. Chief Justice,
my colleagues, like many others, the
day the President wagged his finger at
the American people and indicated he
had not been involved with Ms.
Lewinsky, I had the sense that he
wasn’t telling the truth and I felt some
genuine regret. The President and I
began here in Washington in the same
month, in 1993. I had high hopes and ac-
tually felt very close to what he was
trying to accomplish. So all along in
this process, I have had to fight an
urge to personalize that regret in a
way that would affect my ability to do
my job in this impeachment trial. And
I will tell you that taking that sepa-
rate oath helped me get into the
mindset necessary to do that task.
But let me say that I do regret that
the President’s public conduct—not his
private conduct—has brought us to this
day.
But we are here, and I want to take
a minute to praise my colleagues on
the process. I think it would have been
unfortunate had we not had any wit-
ness testimony—at least in the form of
deposition testimony. I think it would
have been an unfortunate historical
precedent. I found the video testimony
helpful. I didn’t enjoy it, but I found it
helpful in clarifying some of the things
that I was thinking about. So I am
glad, on balance, that we did not dis-
miss the case at the time it was first
suggested.
But as we get to the final stage and
get immersed in the law and facts of
this case, it is too easy to forget the
most salient fact about this entire
matter, and that is one simple fact
that many others have mentioned: In
November 1996, 47 million Americans
voted to reelect President Clinton. The
people hired him. They are the hiring
authority. An impeachment is a radical
undoing of that authority. The people
hire and somehow, under this process,
the Congress can fire. So, I caution
against, with all due respect to the ex-
cellent arguments made, the attempt
to analogize this to an employee-em-
ployer relationship, or a military situ-
ation, or even the situation of judges—
those situations are all clearly dif-
ferent. Along with the choice of the
Vice President, in no other case, do the
American people choose one person,
and in no other case can a completely
different authority undo that choice.
Having said that, the Presidential
conduct in this case, in my view, does
come perilously close to justifying that
extreme remedy. There really have
been three Presidential impeachments
in our Nation’s history. I see this one
as being in the middle. The Andrew
Johnson case is usually considered by
historians to have been a relatively
weak case. President Johnson had a
different interpretation of the con-
stitutionality of the statute that he be-
lieved allowed him to remove the Sec-
retary of War, Mr. Stanton. He was not
convicted, and subsequently the U.S.
Supreme Court, I believe, ruled that in
fact that was constitutional. I see that
as having been a relatively weak case.
The case of Richard Nixon, in my
view, was a pretty strong case, involv-
ing a 1972 Presidential election and at-
tempts to get involved with the aspects
of that election—frankly—an attempt
to cover up what happened during that
1972 election. I think that had more to
do with core meaning of ‘‘high crimes
and misdemeanors.’’
This is a closer case; this is a close
case. In that sense, it may be the most
important of the three Presidential im-
peachments, in terms of the law of im-
peachment, as we go into the future. I
agree neither with the House managers
who say their evidence is ‘‘overwhelm-
ing,’’ nor with the President’s counsel
who says the evidence against the
President is ‘‘nonexistent.’’ The fact is,
this is a hard case, and sometimes they
say that hard cases make bad law. But
we cannot afford to have this be bad
law for the Nation’s sake.
So how do we decide? There have
been a lot of helpful suggestions, but
one thing that has been important to
me is the way the House presented
their case. That doesn’t bind us, but
they did suggest that two Federal stat-
utes had been violated. Mr. Manager
MCCOLLUMsaid that, ‘‘You must first
determine if a Federal crime has oc-
curred.’’ Many others have said that. I
will reiterate a point. If that is the ap-
proach you want to take, then it is
clear, in my view as one Senator, that
you must prove that beyond a reason-
able doubt. Otherwise, you are using
the power and the opprobrium of the
Federal criminal law as a sword but re-
fusing to let the President and the de-
fense counsel have the shield of the
burden of proof that is required in the
criminal law.
I do not have time to discuss the per-
jury count this afternoon, but will do
so in a longer presentation for the
RECORD. Suffice it to say I do not be-
lieve the managers have met their bur-
den of proving perjury beyond a reason-
able doubt.
As to obstruction of justice, the
President did come perilously close.
Three quick observations make me
conclude that, in fact, he did not com-
mit obstruction of justice beyond a
reasonable doubt. First, I am very con-
cerned about the conversations be-
tween the President and Betty Currie
concerning the specifics of his relation-
ship with Ms. Lewinsky. But the criti-
cal question there is intent. Was his in-
tent about avoiding discovery by his
family and the political problems in-
volved? Or was the core issue trying to
avoid the Jones proceeding and the
consequences of that?
I don’t think it has been shown be-
yond a reasonable doubt that the Jones
proceeding was the President’s con-
cern. Perhaps Ms. Currie could have
shed some light on this. That is why I
was extremely puzzled when the House
managers didn’t call Betty Currie. Let
me be the first to say that I don’t
think in this instance the House man-
agers ‘‘wanted to win too badly.’’ I
don’t think they wanted to win badly
enough to take the chance of calling
Betty Currie, a crucial witness.
I was very concerned about the false
affidavit until I saw Ms. Lewinsky’s
Senate deposition testimony. I am per-
suaded that you cannot say beyond a
reasonable doubt that she was urged by
the President to make a false state-
ment in that affidavit.
Finally, I was very concerned about
the hiding of the gifts. And maybe
every one will disagree with me on
this. But when I watched her testi-
mony, I thought Ms. Lewinsky was the
most indefinite about whether or not
she had gotten that call from Ms.
Currie than any other part of her testi-
mony. I happen to believe that Ms.
Lewinsky was the one who was the
most concerned about the gifts. And I
believe a showing beyond a reasonable
doubt has not been made that the
President masterminded the hiding of
the gifts.
So I cannot deny what Representa-
tive GRAHAMsaid: If you call somebody
up at 2:30 in the morning you are prob-
ably up to no good. But if you call
somebody up at 2:30 in the morning you
have not necessarily accomplished the
crime of obstruction of justice.
I realize there is a separate question
of whether these same acts by the
President, apart from the Federal
criminal law, constitute high crimes
and misdemeanors. I do not. I will dis-
cuss that in more detail in a future
statement in the RECORD.
But I would like to conclude by just
talking a little bit about this impeach-
ment issue in the modern context.
When I say that the vote in 1996 is the
primary issue, I don’t just mean that
in terms of the rights of people. I mean
it in terms of the goal of the Founding
Fathers, and our goal today; that is,
political stability in this country. We
don’t want a parliamentary system.
And we don’t want an overly partisan
system.
I see the 4-year term as a unifying
force of our Nation. Yet, this is the sec-
ond time in my adult lifetime that we
have had serious impeachment pro-
ceedings, and I am only 45 years old.
This only occurred once in the entire
200 years prior to this time. Is this a
fluke? Is it that we just happened to
have had two ‘‘bad men’’ as Presidents?
I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime
in the next 10 years a third impeach-
ment proceeding occurs in this country
so we will have had three within 40
years?
I see a danger in this in an increas-
ingly diverse country. I see a danger in
this in an increasingly divided country.
And I see a danger in this when the
final argument of the House manager is
that this is a chapter in an ongoing
‘‘culture war’’ in this Nation. That
troubles me. I hope that is not where
we are and hope that is not where we
are heading.
It is best not to err at all in this case.
But if we must err, let us err on the
side of avoiding these divisions, and let
us err on the side of respecting the will
of the people.
Let me conclude by quoting James
W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican
Senators who voted not to acquit An-
drew Johnson. I discovered this speech,
and found out that the Chief Justice
had already discovered and quoted him,
and said he was one of the three of the
ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in
his opinion about why he wouldn’t con-
vict President Johnson:
I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious
working of the Constitution for the sake of
getting rid of an unacceptable President.
Whatever may be my opinion of the incum-
bent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high
office he holds. I can do nothing which, by
implication, may be construed as an ap-
proval of impeachment as a part of future
political machinery.

[LittleClarkie]

28. A link to that

if it works

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S1466&dbname=1999_record

[LittleClarkie]

24. From senate.gov

On the first article of impeachment:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00017

On the second article of impeachment:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00018

And a wikipedia article that has him voting not guilty on both articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton

[WilliamPitt]

25. Right

Thanks. But what's that statement? Did he change his mind?

[LittleClarkie]

30. I wonder if the Congressional Record was altered

Because the speech he gives in the record isn't the same one in your link.

So either CNN got it wrong, or the Record was changed. I know that is possible.

[yodermon]

36. Kay Baily Hutchinson said that.

Link: http://www.ameriroots.com/impeachment/senator_hutchison.html

[LittleClarkie]

37. That's just weird. I wonder if CNN and that Austrailian site would fix their archives

if we pointed out they've swapped the speeches.

[LeftishBrit]

48. As far as I remember...

not one single Democratic senator voted to convict Clinton - not even Zell Miller. I am sure that Feingold didn't!

[rudy23]

11. Maybe Feingold is trying to remind us what happened the last time he tried to act without the DLC's

approval. He got left to twist in the wind on his censure resolution. Let's not forget about that.

[LittleClarkie]

21. I assure you he could give a flying fuck on a stick about the DLC

That's not a fair statement.

Do you think he had DLC approval when he was the only one who voted against the Patriot Act? Or when he voted against the war?

If there's one thing he is not, it's DLC.

[rudy23]

27. No, I'm saying he got railed by the DLC the last time he put himself out there. I'd like to think

you're right though, I'm just speculating. I'm thinking that censure attempt maybe took the wind out of his sails a bit. But you're right, it didn't stop him on the Patriot Act. That's why I'll never totally doubt him, even on something like this that I so strongly disagree with him on.

[Usrename]

13. Maybe more to the point,

perhaps the Sen. would care to explain what is so special about this regime? What makes it different somehow from the Hitler regime of the last century? Is it different because Muslims are first to the slaughter and not Jews?

That seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. If Sen. Feingold thinks that Bush's behavior is OK enough to just let it slide, I wish he would please explain what Hitler did that was so wrong. I honestly don't get it. Don't the Nuremberg principles apply to this regime?

[welshTerrier2]

15. here's a scathing editorial about Feingold

i have great respect for Feingold and offer this only for your consideration. i think the editorial has merit. that does not mean I would throw Feingold out with the bath water.

source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/17/2582/

Feingold Turns to Dross
by Dave Lindorff

In a diary entry on DailyKos, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), one of the most consistently progressive liberals in the Senate, surrendered to the Democratic Party Establishment, with an embarrassing string of lame and tired excuses for not standing for impeachment of the Bush/Cheney regime.

Feingold, who once took the lead in opposing Bush’s and Cheney’s abuses of power and their undermining of the Constitution with a censure motion filed in the Senate, wrote in the DailyKos diary that while he agreed that Bush and Cheney “may well have” committed “impeachable offenses,” he nonetheless did not support impeachment.

His reasons offered for this bizarre turnabout sounded suspiciously like “talking points” from the Democratic Leadership Council, or from the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Feingold says he worries about “The great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country.” But he fails to address what problems Congress is actually working on, or what problems it can even try to work on. The list is embarrassingly short. In fact, aside from the tiny and almost meaningless increase in the federal minimum wage that was passed as kind of “blood money” attached to the $120-billion Iraq War funding bill, there is nothing Congress has done in the last six months. And there is nothing they can do, because Bush can veto anything significant that the Democrats manage to pass, and even if he can’t veto a bill, he can kill it with a signing statement, unless Congress impeaches him for his refusal to enact laws.

Feingold says “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.” Hey Russ! Wasn’t Congress also elected by Americans who wanted to restore respect for the Bill of Rights and the rule of law? Also, remember that the whole Clinton impeachment process took all of four months-not a particularly long time. And again, without impeachment “on the table,” Congress has done nothing to end the war in over six months, and it has not been able to do anything about addressing those “terrible mistakes” of the Bush administration.

Mistakes? We’re talking about crimes here; not mistakes! <skip>

[warren pease]

29. What a disgusting crock of shit...

Censure is the equivalent of making Bush and Cheney hold hands and stand in the corner for half an hour. No actual sanctions, no limits on behavior, no repercussions except in the history books (and assuming the winners continue to write them, and BushCo's thousand year reich makes it past the first decade, censure won't even be in the history books). And the usual excuses/talking points just don't cut it. Like these:

Ooohh, impeachment leaves no time for the peoples' business. Impeachment IS the fucking peoples' only business and the first of many appropriately serious proceedings against these vampires; until these felons are removed from power -- and ideally tried and convicted in federal court of high treason in time of war, which carries the death penalty -- there's no possibility of preventing them from carrying out their agenda... which is all war, all the time, and steal from the poor and middle class to enrich arms makers and other masters of the universe who always get filthy rich when the US causes rivers of blood to flow in some country of disposable little brown people.

It's not right to subject the country to another divisive impeachment process. And yet, throughout all parts of the US not enclosed by I-495, along with the rest of the planet, impeachment would be the cause of so much glee, public drunkenness, massive partying, ad hoc sexual dalliance, high fives between strangers, honking horns, laughter and tears of joy... Feingold apparently fails to see that impeachment would ignite the party of the century everywhere but at the headquarters of the DNC and the RNC, bloated as they are with power brokers and who shudder at the thought that the peoples' priorities might for once be served.

We don't have the votes to convict in the senate. I suggest that a) that's code for we've been kicked and stomped into the ground so often for so long that we don't have any fucking idea what to do as a majority party, and that b) sufficient votes would emerge from the tortured bowels of the GOP's few remaining "moderates" once the charges were laid out, testimony and discovery proved the charges true, and millions of americans, those who would rather be gored by wild pigs than deal with political issues, would finally be forced to pay attention because their treasured televised pop culture essentials were preempted by impeachment hearings. And what the hell; after a couple of Miller Lites, it's kind of fun to watch all these little fuckers squirm and grovel.

So to hell with half-stepping. Feingold's track record suggests he's capable of much better. Which reminds me; that 97-0 vote to validate BushCo's bullshit about the alleged evils of Iran, setting the stage for yet another bombing campaign against women and children -- I was hoping to see a Feingold - not present. No such luck. That was a pretty damn important vote and, as usual, democrats chose to side with the boy king rather than assert their authority as the majority party and tell him to fuck off.

And I see these all these threads about how great a job the dems are doing and just give them time and they're setting the stage and keeping their powder dry and Reid's a hero and Pelosi is a shrewd politician and blah, blah, blah... It's exactly the same mentality as "america: love it or leave it," and about as useful.


wp

[orleans]

31. what the hell kind of game are these people playing?

censure MY ASS! (that was last year's news)

if russ doesn't get with the program he's gonna be left out in the cold. he's losing his fans. he's a major disappointment--i thought he was better than this.

[LittleClarkie]

32. Dude, you're in Illinois, how would you know if he'll be left out in the cold.

Nah, Russ pretty much has a job here in Wisconsin as long as he wants it.

[cadmium]

33. That's good to hear. A lot of people dont realize

how Wisconsin can tip Republican --- I am glad that most people there are supportive.

[LittleClarkie]

35. It was almost funny in 2004 when I'd phone bank

and the person on the other end would say "Bush... Feingold" in answer to my inquiries. There were enough of those to let me know that he'd be just fine.

Oh, the die hards might be grumpy at him, but I think most realize he goes with his honest opinion, and sometimes we like it, and sometimes we don't. But he's generally a good guy. I never understood riding the roller coaster based on every vote or stance. "He's good... he's bad... he's good..." and so on.

[orleans]

38. i guess i just didn't write what i actually wanted to say "dude"

and by left out in the cold i actually was thinking that he would slip in his hero status with the lefties (not necessarily with the wi voters)

[LittleClarkie]

44. Sorry dudette

I really gotta learn to look a profiles.

And I suspect he could give a fuck about his "hero" status. He does what he thinks is right. Sometimes the left loves him, sometimes not so much. Eh, whatchagonna do.

[mmonk]

34. Forget censure.

Make him go stand in a corner for an hour.

[VoltaireAmericain]

39. I have gone to brunch with Senator Finegold a few years back.

[Maddy McCall]

40. And...

??

[VoltaireAmericain]

41. no and I am just saying I've been to brunch with him

[Maddy McCall]

43. Oh...I thought you were holding back on a story.

:D

[MrMickeysMom]

42. Goddamnit... Have ALL of our senators lost their minds?

I was going to say, "balls", but I'd be forgeting the full anatomy of the senate.

Let's see.. we maybe could get 54 people who might agree to censure Mr. Bush, or ineffectively vote a particular way, and not a one of them who is willing to preserve the Constitution. I guess at least 20 of those have the intellectual agility of a small soap dish when it comes to stepping out of the beltway to evaluate any bold moves.

The few who have stepped forward with something important to offer, as I believed Feingold, would do, have suddenly been devoid of their nut sacks, believing they can convince folks in their state the steps to preserve democracy. They think we are as stupid as THEY are?

[bbgrunt]

45. I got the same unsatisfactory response.

[farmboxer]

49. Why is a BJ the only impeachable offense?

Outing a covert CIA Agent, ad infinitum, so saith the Pope!