I listened

[ProSense]

Feingold

Says nobody was talking about the fact that Bush broke the law.


Edidted to add that this portion is verbatim:

Snip...

Now most people are saying how can we make what illegal things the president was doing legal, that's not the point. If there are changes in the law that are need, so be it and we'll work on it.

Snip..

And although this is an impeachable offense, we'd have to thing long and hard about the politics of actually removing the president from office over this matter.

Snip...

This is a moderate approach, this is one that just says let's spread it on historical record that this guy did the wrong thing, and maybe he'll apologize if we pass something like this.



This is such a bullshit move.

[TayTay]

1. Where was this? Is this a new interview?

That logic is a bit convoluted. Is this from DU or the Senator himself?

[ProSense]

2. You are not going to believe this interview.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2516651&mesg_id=2516651

[Mass]

3. I listened to it - It was totally illogical.

He even got lost knowing the people who supported him: said Harkin, forgot Boxer (Ed Schultz had to ask him), I imagine that they did not say Kerry because he did not issue a statement to this effect. Said nobody was supported it and they were coward, them said that it was too early. Also said Reid handled it as a pro when Reid is not supporting the move. So, where is he going.

Can he deliver a clear message? I can see why people are not rushing. Monday, he congratulated Specter for the hearings, then said that nobody was talking about it. There has been at least 2 hearings by now, so people are talking.

There are problems, such as Roberts cancelling his hearings, Specter not asking Gonzales to be under oath. If these are the reasons for the move, say so and it will make more sense.

For example, does he support an investigation or does he not? It is getting more and more murky.

[ProSense]

4. I posted

in GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=674371&mesg_id=674371

[TayTay]

5. It was a little strange.

BTW, did you notice over at DKos the new meme: don't be defeatists. Sigh! Too late.

[ProSense]

6. The illegal spying issue

is now being defined as spying on terrorist.

Harkin: Nothing is more important to me than the security of our country. Of course, we need to be listening to the terrorists' conversations. And sometimes there is not time to get a warrant. That's why the FISA law allows the President, when necessary, to wiretap first, and obtain a warrant afterward. But that's not acceptable to this above-the-law President. He rejects the idea that he should have to obtain a warrant before or after wiretapping.

Senator Kerry and others have made it clear this was an issue about illegally spying on Americans and about warrantless surveillance.


Tell me the public isn't going to see this issue now as Harkin described.



Edited to add: this is on the home page.

[_dynamicdems]

7. This entire thing makes me want to bang my head against a wall.

I'm just crossing my fingers and hoping that this doesn't hurt us in November. It all depends on how it gets framed in the end. I'd have much preferred to keep the issue alive but not acted upon until after the elections. The censure I personally wanted to see was a massive vote against Republican corruption and incompetence. Now that's a censure that would actually mean something.

[ProSense]

8. A groundswell of support for

an apology.

[wisteria]

9. Ridiculous isn't it. Let me add idiotic too. n/t

[_dynamicdems]

10. Oh and that would mean a whole hell of a lot coming from Bush.

Maybe I'm missing something here but what is the point in getting an apology from a liar? I'm not for censuring criminals, I'm for prosecuting them. And the only way we are going to do that is to take control of Congress. I'd rather slap the cuffs on the SOB than slap him on the wrist.

[frogmarch]

11. I read

somewhere at DU that Feingold voted YES to impeach Clinton. Is it true that he did?

I don't object to censuring Bush, but it appeared to me that when Feingold proposed the censure without discussing it first with other Democrats, he was trying to grandstand so he'd become "famous" for initiating it. It was all about him.

Kerry, on the other hand, is a true statesman. He's selfless, thinking only of what's best for America.

[Mass]

12. Not exactly ...

He voted NO to an amendment by Byrd to dismiss the impeachment trial, then he voted Not Guilty to the two charges.

[frogmarch]

15. Thanks, Mass

I'm scratching my head over Feingold voting NO to dismiss the impeachment trial, but voting Not Guilty. What was his reasoning on this? Did he think he had to listen to all the "evidence" against Clinton before deciding on whether to vote guilty or not guilty? I don't get it.

[JohnKleeb]

13. No

Feingold opposed a Byrd bill that would have dismissed all the charges against Clinton. The house votes on impeachment and the senate votes on removal from office, which has never happened, Andy Johnson almost was but it fell one vote short, I remember an old dramatic video of it from 7th grade history. The senate doesnt impeach, it convicts. So I guess the legal analogy and correct me if I am wrong since I am no lawyer is that house could represent a grand jury which votes to go to trial or not and the senate represents a jury and votes whether the person is actually guilty or not. I dont hate or dislike Feingold but I sincerely do wish he had told the others of his plan, I think it would have been stronger instead of looking like a stunt.

[frogmarch]

16. Thanks, JohnKleeb

for the clarification.

Because it did come across as a stunt, I too wish Feingold had shared his plan with others.

[ProSense]

14. From today's press conference, Feingold in his own word:

From today's press conferecne, Feingold in his own word:

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

March 16, 2006
TRANSCRIPT

NEWS CONFERENCE

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

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


Snip...

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

FEINGOLD: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But what we can't do is just ignore the wrongful conduct. So
this is a reasonable road. And anybody who argues this is a sort of
prelude to impeachment forgets the history of the Clinton impeachment,
where censure was offered by some, especially Democrats. Senator
Feinstein offered a censure resolution of President Clinton after the
impeachment trial as an alternative because impeachment was regarded
by many as too drastic of a step.


Snip...


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

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

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

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

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

[kerrygoddess]

17. What if?

JK was offering the same res? I'm not thrilled with the way this was done, but I'm not going to discount it because it's from anyone but JK. There's a ground swell of support on this (from the netroots) and the timing may be bad, but I can't discount it, personally and I think some Dem Senators can't also.

[Mass]

18. I agree \nt

[TayTay]

19. I agree.

I still think that it is right to vote for this. However, there are ancillary matters that are not so straightforward or pleasant. Sigh!

[kerrygoddess]

20. It is a mess...

sadly. like so many other things.

[ProSense]

21. Do you know something we don't?

If JK offered a resolution to censure Bush at this time, one that nixed the idea of impeachment as bad for the country, I would throw my hands up in the air and resign myself to the fact that Bush broke several laws, started an illegal war and got away with it.


It was a horrible thing to do at this time, before the elections. I would have much rather them continue to state, as Leahy just did, that we need to press for investigations. And Leahy is responding to the fact that Bernie Sanders joined Conyers because he heard rumblings from the people of Vermont.

[ProSense]

23. Additional comment

I'm also upset about how Feingold went about this. If he had drummed up support ahead of time, I wouldn't be so critical. Instead, he did it in a way that triggered disunity, and calling the Democrats out for his lapse of judgment didn't help the situation. The subject of the discussion---from the left and right---isn't even Bush, it's the coward Democrats.

[karynnj]

26. Also, his comments are a mess here

1) The question on cutting off funding - He should immediately have pointed out that he all Democrat he knew of thought the entire program was needed, but it has to be done legally.

2) His position seems 180 degrees away from his view on Clinton.

[kerrygoddess]

27. Know nothing

wish I did. Have asked and heard nothing more than everyone else.

[ProSense]

29. People are actually getting

mad at Dayton for calling Feingold out on not consulting with Democrats when it was Feingold's repeated comments, including those from his press conference, about timidity on the part of Democrats that sparked Dayton's response. When Feingold says no one is talking about Bush breaking the law, that's completely false. And none of these comments, or the excuses for not impeaching, were necessary to make his case for censure.

[sandnsea]

25. He wouldn't have done it like this

He would never have uttered the words that Bush should promise to obey the law and that the issue would be resolved so they could get back to work. That's the difference. I think there's "netroots" support for this because people don't understand this has the potential of squelching impeachment and all the attacks on Bush and his incompetence. If this were actually voted on, Republicans could use it to say the country does not think this President has broken the law. JK would never introduce something that would potentially let Bush off the hook, he'd be pushing thorough investigations like he always does.

[jillan]

22. Is this it??

I have been away from the computer most of the week.



Other than everyone analyzing everything Russ said,
is anything going to come out of his statement?

It is very frustrating trying to research.
Alot of spin out there in both directions, not much
info.

Just wondering if this is going to fizzle out, or
if Russ is going to keep this on the table?

on edit - I can tell you that the GOP site is going nuts over this.
Russ definitely hit a nerve.

[ProSense]

24. This is not going to be good

And Dayton is not running again:

Mar 16, 2006 1:35 pm US/Central
Dayton Criticizes Feingold's Call To Censure Bush

(AP) WASHINGTON Minnesota Sen. Mark Dayton Thursday strongly criticized fellow Democrat Russ Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush over domestic spying.

"It's an overreaching step by someone who is grandstanding and running for president at the expense of his own party and his own country," Dayton said of Feingold, a Wisconsin senator and potential 2008 presidential candidate.

"I think it's a very dangerous territory for the democracy that we have in this country to be playing around with those kinds of resolutions, without any consultations from his colleagues. I think it was irresponsible."

Dayton is a member of Feingold's own party from a neighboring state, and has himself been one of Bush's harshest critics.

Dayton said he and his Democratic colleagues were "blindsided" by Feingold's proposal, made on ABC News on Sunday.

"For somebody who wants to lead our party and our nation, I think consultation and forewarning is a prerequisite to that kind of leadership," he said.


http://wcco.com/topstories/local_story_075143901.html

[Mass]

28. I think Dayton's anger is more linked to the following link than anything

else:

http://www.hillary.org/hc/

He is not necessarily wrong in his assessment, but I think he is more mad because it put HRC in a difficult situation than anything else.

Last time he exploded after somebody like that, it was after Kerry because he did not like one of his move.