We Are Being Gamed! Feingold's "Censure" Motion

[JFN1]

Okay, I am trying to understand this.

How is "sense of the Senate," another check for $190 billion (no questions asked), or any of the other toothless ventures the Senate has thrust upon the American people in the guise of "action," worthwhile?

Has the "sense of the Senate" protected our troops from being killed, maimed, and psychologically injured in this war of aggression?

Has "tough questions" and "demanding accountability" stopped our National Guard and Reserves from being used as fodder?

Now, along comes Russ Feingold, "hero" of the Senate, using provocative language suggestive of strong action, supposedly "demanding accountability."

Bush ignores Congressional subpoenas, blatantly lies literally hundreds of times, loses billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq, and states unequivocally that he will not obey any laws the Senate and House pass if he doesn't want to.And along comes Mr. Feingold, asking us to praise him as he readies himself for another round of playground antics - or as Mr. Feingold calls it, "censure."

Mr. Feingold's self-serving, politically motivated diary this morning truly underscores for me the sense of urgency we must now adopt in getting Bush and his criminal cohorts impeached and out of power.

It is clear to me from Mr. Feingold's bumbling, cheerleader-quality plea to support his intention to ask the Senate to censure President Bush for his conduct of the Iraq war: If we are to protect the Constitution, we are going to have to do it ourselves.

The Senate is clearly drunk on it's own sense of self-importance - and I don't mean as a collective body, I mean as individual politicians, fearful of doing anything that might upset their personal hold on power.

Impeachment is NOT going to happen, unless We the People, force it to happen.

Read Senator Feingold's http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/1077/74921">diary. See it for the political stunt that it truly is.

And get a real sense of urgency about impeachment.

Clearly, from Mr. Feingold's performance today, We the People, do not have much time left.

Impeachment demands accountability - censure merely demands our attention.

So what do you think the Senate cares more about - their individual political futures - or the Constitution?

[mmonk]

1. Hard to say. Is this cover for something or someone?

[JFN1]

2. Nothing so glamorous

It is simple political posturing, without risk, designed to score political points with Democrats while effectively doing nothing to protect the Constitution.

In other words, it is all just a game...

[pstans]

3. Attacking Feingold for taking action won't help convince other Senators to take action.

Why attack Sen. Feingold for taking action when no other Senators has the guts to do so? Some action is better than no action at all.

We need other Senators to join in and attacking Feingold won't help this at all.

[JFN1]

5. Action?

WHAT ACTION?

Show me one single action the Senate or house has taken as a collective body that can rightly be called "action."

I see lots of political posturing.

I hear lots of tough talk.

But I don't see any action.

So how many of our soldiers, and Iraqis, are going to die while Mr. Feingold pushes his censure resolution through? How many deaths should we accept for this "action" by Mr. Feingold?

And what if the censure fails to pass? What then? Does this not weaken any future attempts by Democrats to bring this administration under the Rule of Law?

Oh, and one more thing: IT IS OUR JOB AS CITIZENS TO QUESTION OUR GOVERNMENT. OUR JOB.

If one of my employees isn't doing his job, or does something stupid, then addressing that mistake will make him a less effective employee? You suggest that if I somehow discourage Mr. Feingold by "attacking" his short sighted political stunt and calling it what it is, then he won't be as apt to do his Constitutional duty?

If that is the case, then our Democracy is truly lost.

Here, check out this video, and then tell me Mr. Feingold is doing the right thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3slsCBqrQfk

Folks, we need to wake the hell up and remember our duty as citizens. Democracy isn't free, and the future of our country, in a very real sense, is in our hands.

[pstans]

8. Feingold is not the enemy

Impeachment begins in the House. Tell your Representatives to impeach and once that happens, Russ will have your back. He always has and always will.

This is one way to hold this administration accountable. Some action is better than none. If the consensus was there with the rest of Congress, Feingold would be leading the impeachment proceedings.

[JFN1]

14. Bullshit

Feingold has his OWN back first.

And what is this "enemy" crap? Hyperbole, I hope? Because I know a Democrat didn't just seriously suggest that criticizing a government employee is equivalent to declaring him an enemy...

[pstans]

15. Who was the lone vote against the Patriot Act and the first to call for a timetable to withdrawal?

Who was the lone vote against the Patriot Act and the first to call for a timetable to withdrawal? And who voted against the War in Iraq? That would be Senator Feingold.

Attack the Senators that aren't doing anything to get us out of Iraq and aren't doing anything to hold the President accountable for breaking the law. Attacking Feingold is ridiculous.

[saltpoint]

17. I second that, pstans. Convincing and right to the point.

[JFN1]

20. Once again.

Criticism is not an "attack." It is criticism.

You say Mr. Feingold voted against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war? Good for him - IT WAS HIS DUTY TO DO SO, HE IS PAID TO DO HIS DUTY, AND I DON'T OWE HIM SOME KIND OF HERO WORSHIP FOR DOING HIS DUTY.

And why do you see my words as an attack on the man? I am criticizing the job he is doing. As his boss, it is my right and responsibility to do so.

As it is yours...

[pstans]

23. Where is your post criticising the other 99 Senators?

Why single Sen. Feingold out for taking an action that, even though it isn't as far as you'd like, is greater than every other Senator?

[JFN1]

30. Right here

You are reading it. I refer throughout my post and comments to Feingold and the Dems. However, since Feingold went on Daily Kos today ASKING FOR OUR OPINIONS, it is appropriate (and what Mr. Feingold asked of us) to offer my opinion on his toothless, spineless censure motion.

[rodeodance]

49. BINGO. YEt-----an endorcement by ANY Senator carries much weight.

[aquart]

38. This is no more the right action than running off a cliff is.

[dkofos]

4. Were you really expecting more?? After all, he is a politician first.

[JFN1]

7. I expect him to uphold his oath

TO THE CONSTITUTION.

[dkofos]

9. Maybe you should send him a copy of the oath he took.

It might wake him up. But I doubt it.

[hfojvt]

33. and how is he supposed to do that?

Are you another one of those morans who thinks that Feingold should impeach? If so, here's a newsflash - Feingold is in the Senate and the Senate does not impeach. As a Senator it is not even his job to call for impeachment. If there is impeachment, he is basically part of the jury and is supposed to give the impeachee a fair trial.

And far from a stunt, I think a censure is a great idea. It's far better than nothing. It goes on the books, it goes on the TV shows, and it goes down in history. You think Bush/Cheney wants any of that? He hates criticism. Imagine if the Senate voted 80-20 or even 65-35 to censure him. That would be very humiliating.

The sad thing is people like Reid who will not support it, and it will end up going nowhere, being tabled or resoundingly defeated. BTW, if we cannot even pass a censure vote, how the heck could we even pass impeachment?

[JFN1]

36. I see

So I must be a moron because I want Feingold to support impeachment. And because I want a Senator to support impeachment, I must be a moron who didn't pass 10th grade civics class.

I understand the impeachment process - anyone who paid attention to Clinton's impeachment understands it.

But my question to you, now that I have hopefully established I am NOT a moron, is this:

What is censure fails? What if the motion fails to pass, like Mr. Feingold's last censure attempt a year ago?

IF CENSURE FIALS TO PASS, THIS WEAKENS OUR ABILITY TO HOLD BUSH ACCOUNTABLE TO THE RULE OF LAW.

Why is this so hard for you to see?

Why do you people believe we have ENDLESS TIME to deal with this?

Why do you continue to act as if it is all business as usual?

Do you not see how our Constitution is under attack?

Where is your sense of urgency? Do you really believe we have time to waste on toothless censure measures that have no guarantee of passing?

HOW MANY MORE OF OUR SOLDIERS WILL DIE WHILE FEINGOLD AND THE DEMOCRATS FLAP THEIR GUMS ABOUT A POWERLESS CENSURE MOTION?

[Wednesdays]

51. Interesting...

"Why do you people believe we have ENDLESS TIME to deal with this?"

You people...?

Interesting.

[JFN1]

59. Strange that it is interesting

Since the comment addresses those who are arguing with me, attempting to demonize me for having a divergent opinion. Are you saying it is wrong to personalize this process? because it seems pretty personal to most of the people responding.

Or am I not allowed to be personal, since I dare to have a different point of view from yours?

[KoKo]

81. I saw new Dem Senator Sheldon Whitehorse who's a pitbull on the Judiciary Committee

looking very dejected when asked if he thought Senate would vote for Impeachment if the House did and he said...No..it just won't go... I got the impression that he felt Harry Reid would never support the House in this...and I assume that Reid and Pelosi must have meetings about strategy.

So...by Feingold keeping pushing for Censure, I guess he can hope that more Repugs will get on Board and it will weaken Bush and fuel more hope for House to begin Impeachment Process. Without Reid and Pelosi standing up to Bush...it's all we can hope for. So, from that standpoint I don't think he's doing a stunt.

[saltpoint]

6. For some years now I have admired Russell Feingold.

I consider him invaluable to the U.S. Senate.

Nothing this week has changed my mind.

[dkofos]

10. I guess that makes you part of the problem!

[saltpoint]

12. Or part of the process by which solutions are found.

That would suggest participation, not dismissal.

[dkofos]

21. However you want to look at, it is still a problem to me.

[saltpoint]

37. Then, if you are a Wisconsin citizen, and dislike him, vote for someone else.

If you are not a Wisconsin citizen, it is my view that you are very possibly more poorly represented than you would be if you WERE in Wisconsin and Russ Feingold were your U.S. Senator.

Absent a conversion on your part, if you are not a Wisconsin citizen, you go ahead and vote for your own state's U.S. Senators.

By near landslide percentages, Senator Feingold enjoys enthusiastic support among Wisconsin voters and should he decide to seek re-election is likely to build on those percentages.

We'll see him in the Senate Chamber for some time to come. That is my wish and my prediction.

He's a good man.

[dkofos]

46. I'm not. But if I were I wouldn't.

[saltpoint]

48. Nor would anybody here force you to.

We wouldn't want to spoil your baseless rant against an excellent representative.

[JFN1]

50. Baseless?

You are the one with baseless arguments. You rave against my speaking out against a strategy (censure) which could potentially do more harm than good, yet you offer nothing of substance to refute my fears. I warn I see the potential that we are all being gamed, and your response is to belittle me and call my concerns baseless?

HAVE YOU BEEN PAYING ATTENTION THE LAST SIX YEARS?

[saltpoint]

52. Some of us pay fairly close attention to matters, yes.

You might be surprised.

[JFN1]

62. Please, then.

Surprise me. Or is it the way of things to attack a veteran who criticizes a politician? You stated earlier my service was no less significant than his. So why then is it okay to attack me, simply because I believe this man is attacking our Constitution every time I perceive he fails in his duty?

I am merely doing what I see as my duty, attempting to shake you out of this apathetic complacency that causes you to reward any action by our Congress as the actions of a true American hero.

Please. Look deeper.

[saltpoint]

63. Your posts today require no deep look.

They all suck.

Your intent was to slam Feingold and you came in bashing and smearing.

Dialogue?

No trace of it by tone or content in your OPs.

None.

[JFN1]

64. How mature

Resort to name calling if you must. It is surely a constructive way to deal with your frustration.

I, on the other hand, am deeply fascinated by your suggestion that there is no depth to my words here. Humorous, that all you hear is a rant, that you detect no substance to my fears.

So none of you believe Senator Feingold's actions are insufficient? All of you believe our Democrats are doing everything they possibly can to protect the Constitution?

[saltpoint]

65. For having trouble posting, you seem to be quite the adept at the

keyboard this afternoon.

Curious.

[JFN1]

69. Oh, now I'm a liar?

I'm having a good day, as I said. And Feingold's censure bullshit has me quite stirred up - even energized. If you notice, you'll see many of my posts are edited, since I cannot feel my right hand, I make many typing errors and must go back to correct them.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You cannot beat me down with a fair argument, so you resort to name calling and questioning my integrity.

Thanks.

[saltpoint]

77. There's no integrity to question.

You came in slamming and you're still slamming.

No. I don't think you're a liar at all.

I think you're a Republican.

[JFN1]

11. Really?

Because a few threads down, a woman and her husband are talking about martial law being declared in this country under Bush's recent Executive order. Fellow Americans are wondering if our President can simply declare himself Emperor. But what Feingold and the Dems are doing about it is appropriate.

Right.

Feingold and the Democrats fiddle while the Constitution burns...

And you respect this exactly why?

[saltpoint]

13. I'm responding to your thread here. Not someone else's.

And I think you've missed the boat completely on Senator Feingold.

[JFN1]

18. Then please.

Enlighten me.

Explain to me how this censure motion is going to be effective in bringing Bush and his cronies under the Rule of Law.

Explain to me why Mr. Feingold said this today:

I am as frustrated as you are about this administration’s actions and I hope the proposal I made today is something you’ll consider helping me with (in addition to other efforts you may support). Together we will hold this administration accountable for its many abuses. The history books will show we were vocal in condemning the President’s abuses of power.

. . .

As far as impeachment is concerned, as I have stated, I do not believe it is the right course of action right now. Censure is a way to formally rebuke the administration for its misconduct so that the historical record is clear, without putting the country through a very trying process.

. . .

Censure is not a cure all.

Read it carefully and you will see Mr. Feingold's primary concern appears to be HOW HISTORY WILL SEE HIM AND OTHER DEMOCRATS.

And the best he hopes for is to be seen as being "vocal?" When he has the ability to do so much more than that?

And I must correct Mr. Feingold on this point: Impeachment is not something the country is "put through." It is a Constitutional remedy for the abuses of power Mr. Feingold notes in his own http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/1077/74921">diary.

So please. Instruct me. What am I missing about Mr. Feingold?

[saltpoint]

22. This isn't Burger King, buddy.

You don't get it your way.

A great many of us are for an end to the Iraq War and for the impeachment of SEVERAL Bush administration officials.

But we must navigate in a political landscape that may produce neither of those outcomes.

At Burger King, if they screw up your order you get your money back.

That's not how it works in the chambers of Congress.

Your assault on Feingold is untoward.

[JFN1]

27. Okay...

Tell me then: What power does censure have to affect the President's performance?

And it is not Burger King, it is a Democracy, and a moajority of Americans want Bush and Cheney IMPEACHED.

Not merely censured.

So is it Feingold's job to play politics, or to exercise the Will of the People?

[saltpoint]

31. You present false choices. The polls are not at all consistent in

favoring impeachment. As with most polls, the wording determines public response, just as public opinion can be shaped and molded by polling. The wording sometimes provokes support for ouster of Bush and Cheney. The wording sometimes does not.

The percentage also drops when the question involves articles of impeachment, which by the way must begin in the U.S. House, not in the U.S. Senate.

Russell Feingold is a U.s. Senator.

He is within Constitutional bounds and within the zone of public sentiment in his current actions against the Bush administration.

[ProgressiveFool]

83. Correction: he is concerned with how History will see Bush

What does Feingold have to gain from this "publicity stunt" or trick as you accuse him? He is not running for president, and as the previous poster has stated, his seat in Wisconsin is safe for years to come.

I understand that Censure is not going to solve everything magically, or even solve anything. But then, if you've ever paid any attention to the way Congress works, that's par for the course, especially in the more symbolically-minded Senate.

[saltpoint]

16. If anyone is interested in Senator Feingold's actual positions in the

U.S. Congress, they are here:

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Russell_Feingold.htm

I find quite a lot to admire in a voting record like that.

[havocmom]

25. You are not alone in your admiration for the man

He has taken some bold moves. Somebody had to be first in some areas and he was pretty damned brave a time or twelve.

[saltpoint]

28. I'm with ya. And twelve sounds closer to it than one. He's a good soul.

And his constituents love him. A very popular U.S. Senator, and deservedly so.

[pstans]

19. Feingold standing up for the Constitution

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3393397

[JFN1]

24. Feingold standing up for Feingold

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/1077/74921

[Disturbed]

26. I believe that Feingold is missing the mark.

Censure will not accomplish anything. Inherent Contempt of Congress is the only remedy short of Impeachment.

[saltpoint]

29. Any gesture that does not satisfy your requirement is useless? Not so.

Each wave washing against the child's sand castle brings it closer to collapse and dissolution.

I support Feingold's action here completely.

[JFN1]

32. Interesting metaphore

A child at play...and very telling about our politicians and the games they are playing with us and our Constitution.

[saltpoint]

35. The allusion is to the Bush administration in its sand castle.

[NMDemDist2]

41. OK I've read you rant on about Feingold on this thread (which was a cut and paste from your blog-

which I also glanced at) and wonder what it is you expect him to do??

It's easy to criticize his actions but fruitless unless you have an alternative (and more effective) idea.

What is it you want him to do exactly?

[JFN1]

72. It is an easy list - here you go:

1. Lead the charge to stop all Senate business until the House begins impeachment proceedings.
2. Go public every day with the message that he supports the Constitution, and therefore supports impeachment.
3. Challenge EVERY Republican lie - not just the easy ones.
4. Stay in the public eye as much as humanly possible arguing on behalf of the Constitution and the remedies our Founders gave us for situations like this.
5. If the House fails to implement impeachment immediately, put the request in himself. As pointed out somewhere in the comments, any citizen can ask the House to begin impeachment proceedings. As a Senator, his request will surely get more support than, say, mine will.

How's that for a start?

[NMDemDist2]

73. how is he not doing these things already? he's asking for Censure

and when I watch CSpan2 he's on the floor calling them on their BS every chance he gets

[man4allcats]

34. Apparently there IS a way to IMPEACH without waiting

for Pelosi and the rest of Congress to get off its ass. I will preface the following by stating in advance that all comments from nattering nabobs of negativism will be ignored. The link is for information purposes only. Do or don't do what you will with it, but spare me the BS diatribe. That said, here is an excerpt:

Before the House Judiciary Committee can put together the Articles of Impeachment, someone must initiate the impeachment procedure. Most often, this occurs when members of the House pass a resolution. Another method outlined in Jefferson's Manual (1) (my emphasis), however, is for individual citizens to submit a memorial (2) (my emphasis) for impeachment.

After learning this information, Minnesotan and Impeach for Peace member (Jodin Morey) found precedent in an 1826 memorial by Luke Edward Lawless which had been successful in initiating the impeachment of Federal Judge James H. Peck. Impeach for Peace then used this as a template for their "Do-It-Yourself Impeachment." Now any citizen can download the DIY Impeachment Memorial and submit it, making it possible for Americans to do what our representatives have been unwilling to do. The idea is for so many people to submit the Memorial that it cannot be ignored.

(1) Jefferson's Manual - an interpretive guide to parliamentary procedure, included (along with the Constitution) in the bound volumes of the Rules of the House of Representatives. It is ratified by each congress (including the current one), and has been updated continuously through the history of our democracy. The section covering impeachment lists the acceptable vehicles for bringing impeachment motions to the floor of the House.

(2) memorial - in this sense, "a written statement of facts accompanying a petition presented to somebody in authority"



And before anyone asks, yes, I myself have recently participated in this process.

[JFN1]

39. Thank you

I, too, have participated in this process.

Anyone else who wants to should go to www.impeachbush.org and sign the petition.

[MonkeyFunk]

75. all that does

is require a member to introduce articles. It doesn't compel the House to act on them.

[madrchsod]

40. gee whiz, let`s throw

one of the few people who actually has been constraint about the war and our country under the bus. ya that`s the ticket, we`ll cleanse the party of those who do not tow the idealogical line. ya good idea....

[Exultant Democracy]

42. Yeah we know you want impeachment, but that power rest with the house. So don't poo

all over a good man who is doing the best with what he's got.

Ok maybe you are right, Russ should find a way to become a house member (maybe magic) and then work on impeachment.

[JFN1]

43. You think censure is the Senate's best possible effort?

You believe Mr. Feingold and the rest of the Democratic leadership has done "all they can?"

Maybe a review of American history is called for, if you believe that...

[Exultant Democracy]

57. Well all you had to offer in your OP was impeachment, Russ can't do that

so why are you on his case? What do you think that he should be doing?

[walldude]

44. Thanks for using the word urgency

I have been using it for awhile now and that is the entire problem, there is no sense of urgency in Congress or the Senate. I just read a thread about how they put voting reform measures on the back burner till 2012. I guess that's not one of those really important things they are busy doing instead of impeaching. :eyes:

[Alizaryn]

45. IMO I don't see anything that

Feingold does as being a "stunt". I honestly think he is trying to get a toe in somewhere for all of us.

[MiniMe]

47. The Senate doesn't start impeachment proceedings, the House does

He is doing what he can to get the Senators on record. Unfortunately, due to the secrecy of this administration, they don't have enough evidence of anything else. This is pretty much what happened with Nixon.

[Disturbed]

55. I am not throwing Feingold under any bus.

Instead of this Censure, which accomplishes nothing he should throw his power behind Inherent Contempt of the Senate regarding those that ignore a Subpoena. Short of Impeachment this action carries a consequence. I admire Feingold for his stand against IWR, Patriot Act and other BS that the Busholini Regime has foisted upon Amerika.

[pinto]

53. As you know, it's the House that impeaches, the Senate serves as a jury of 100.

Censure in the Senate is really the only direct action the body can take against the President, personally, for his conduct. The House has the lead in this venue.

Censure, successful or not, may carry little weight outside the beltway, but it would make a difference within the federal bureaucracy.

The other actions in play in the Senate are obviously aimed at targets within their effective purview - oversight, committee hearings, subpoenas, and legislating a federal agenda to move specific items forward.

[Wednesdays]

54. Oh! We're being gamed!

Is that like being finessed in bridge, or blitzed in football? Or is it something along the lines of being spammed by freeper trolls? :shrug:

[saltpoint]

56. I pick Door No. 3.

:thumbsup: :dem:

[AntiFascist]

58. It still sounds like we're being swept under the rug n/t

[Exultant Democracy]

71. Oh, opps I fell for it.

I'll try not to feed the next one.

[JFN1]

79. Why don't you look

in my signature. There is a link to MY website, Justice For None, and a little project of mine called 'Freedom Press Handbills'.

I don't make a dime from my website, nor do I even try to. I host the Cindy Sheehan posters, I have a link to the entire Constitution up there, and I have had more than 1,000,000 visitors on my site this month alone. I could make lots of money from this, if I wanted to, and could likely make even more if I but pandered to the popular view. Why don't I cash in? Because I won't accept a dime for speaking truth to power.

So go ahead. Call me a troll, if it makes you feel better.

And I will think of you as an ostrich, since you seem to prefer hiding your head in labels, rather than reality.

[Thickasabrick]

60. I find this post extremely offensive. Russ Feingold is doing everything

he can do. What exactly would you have Mr. Feingold do? At least he is doing something besides sitting around whining about impeachment. Bitch about Pelosi if you want to talk impeachment. Did you write this post just to promote negativity about his censure motion?

And by the way, he is the "hero" of the senate.

[ClassWarrior]

66. I agree. Hit the...

...alert button.

NGU.

[Oilwellian]

61. Just out of curiosity....

Who are your senators and how do they stand where Bush is concerned?

[JFN1]

78. My Senators

are not for impeachment - and I live in Oregon (Ron Wyden is my Senator, and Gordon Smith is a Republican - 'nuff said). However, by Mr. Wyden's actions, I do not see him as being for impeachment. Perhaps the Dems just want Bush's extended powers for themselves, as suggested by a Randi Rhodes caller (from another thread).

[Swamp Rat]

67. dupe

[Swamp Rat]

68. 1. Impeachment starts in the House. 2. Russ Feingold is one of the best Senators we have.

Don't shoot yourself in the foot.

Call your Reps and demand they support John Conyers.

[JacquesMolay]

70. Maybe censure with conditions ....

.. that hint at possible impeachment. I think right now, Impeachment is too late. Might as well ride it out with the dumbass.

[JFN1]

76. Tell that to our soldiers

while they ride it out in 130 fucking degrees, with bullets and bombs and blood and hate and despair as companions.

Tell that to their families, while you're at it.

[JFN1]

74. Man, some of you are gooood

You almost had me convinced I was the lone ranger here. But one look around the blogosphere, including what is being discussed here on DU, tells me I am safely in the majority. I feel much better.

So to all of you hero worshipers out there - get a grip. Your heroes are letting us down, and failing the Constitution.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

80. I'd suggest you head over to FR, where TRUE unmitigated hero worship has been occurring since Dec

2000, to the detriment of our great country. If you're so anxious to accuse others of lockstep, then that is the place to do it.

Only, they don't allow any dissent, unlike our forum. Interestingly, that may be the very reason you prefer our company to theirs, which then negates your argument.

One veteran to another. MKJ

[bdamomma]

82. does anyone feel if the Congress balks at censure, impeachment

is gone.