Feingold Voted To Impeach Clinton Rather Then Censure Him

[KittyWampus]

and yet he thinks impeaching Bush is too 'radical' as compared to censure?

So what lies at the root of his move to censure Bush now?

Why not allow Conyers to continue getting ducks in a row for after 2006 and impeachment?

Why undercut the potential for impeachment by calling it too radical compared to censure?

Why did Feingold jump the gun with censure when a censure doesn't remove the cancer but simply shakes a stick at it?

Well, impeachment comes from the House... and Gee, no glory for Feingold there.

So Feingold is willing to prematurely pull a maneuver to advance his own political ambitions regardless of its practicality or potential for success.

That's my take. Feingold hasn't helped Conyer's efforts in any real way and has proven himself short-sighted and self-serving.

Oh, and the potential for a Censure of Bush to pass is as likely as the move to Impeach him. But then, Feingold knows this... and is using it to his own advantage.

Sorry, but I'm not impressed. Unless this practically leads to an investigation. Too bad Feingold isn't using his attempt to get a spotlight on himself to push THAT agenda.

[Mass]

1. He did NOT - He voted to hear the facts, then voted against impeachment.

Roll calls

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00018
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00017

Here is what Feingold voted for: not dismiss the trial
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00004

[papau]

8. He voted against the Byrd idea to toss the Clinton impeachment.

I never understood why.

[MH1]

32. By voting not to dismiss, he voted FOR the trial.

Yet there is a frontpage post at dkos, which I also saw here at DU, that is beating up Senators who voted to censure Clinton and haven't yet come out in support of Feingold...YET many of those Senators voted for censure of Clinton in lieu of impeachment - they voted AGAINST impeachment - i.e. to dismiss the charges.

Instead Feingold voted to HAVE the trial - i.e. FOR an impeachment trial - then voted "Not guilty."

As I understand it, impeachment = trial for charges. Convicted = found guilty of the charges.

If I have the terms right then Feingold did indeed vote to hold the impeachment trial, so it is correct to say he voted "for impeachment."

I could be wrong though.

I think the point, if we get past semantics, is that Feingold went the more draconian route with Clinton, where Senators who supported censure of Clinton but voted to dismiss the impeachment chose the less draconian route. Which is not what kos' post (and similar spinoffs) is presenting.

[warpigs]

2. No he didn't

He voted in favor of a hearing in the Senate. Please get your facts straight.

[mattclearing]

9. Nice one, warpigs.

and welcome to DU! :hi:

[htuttle]

3. IIRC, he voted against Impeachment

He did vote against a move to throw out the trial at one point, because he felt it would be short-shrifting the process. Again, IIRC.

[DainBramaged]

4. Sorry, I disagree with you.

I'd rather have him grow balls now and get this out in the public eye than our party continue to be afraid of the Cons.

And one more issue. How many people must you impeach before you remove the cancer? Just asking.

[wtmusic]

5. As a senator Feingold can't introduce articles of impeachment

Did he actually say it was too radical, or is that your interpretation?

[SeattleRob]

6. huh?

Get your facts straight!

I would ask what lies at your move to post this?

[Cocoa]

7. crying shame is right

boo to you for your disinfo against Feingold.

:thumbsdown:

[eyesroll]

10. He did not vote to impeach. First of all: Senators don't vote to impeach.

That's the job of the House of Representatives.

Senators vote to convict, or not, after an impeachment trial. Feingold voted NOT to convict. (Transcripts of his speech that seem to show otherwise actually show the testimony of Kay Bailey Hutchinson.)

Feingold did, however, vote AGAINST a motion to dismiss the case, which is consistent with most of the rest of his philosophy.

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

[JohnnyCougar]

11. If you had any dignity, you would delete this thread.

[harpo]

42. lol

[Nite Owl]

12. Impeachment begins in

the House of Representatives. He wanted to hear the facts and then he voted NO.

[Pryderi]

13. Move along people...nothing to see here.

[dogday]

14. Feingold was the only Democratic to

Vote to see evidence on Clinton, not to impeach (please get your facts straight) he believe no matter what party, if you break the law, you are not above it.... He voted No to impeach....

He also was the only one to vote against the Iraq war...

The only to introduce amendment to the Patriot Act and one of 10 Dems to vote against it...

[Mass]

19. He was the only one to vote againstthe PA

not the Iraq War.

And he did not introduce amendment to the PA. Nobody did as Frist prevented it to happen.

[dogday]

38. Sorry -but Russ Voted against the Iraq War!!

He did try to introduce an amendment but Frist would not accept. There were a total of 10 Democrats who voted against the last Patriot Act Bill... Check it out Russ Feingold voted against the Iraq war.. It is published in many articles.....

[Mass]

39. He did - He was not the only one, as you said.

They were 22.

[dogday]

41. 22 Democrats voted against the Iraq War?

That does not seem like a true figure because so many of them were afraid of being called unpatriotic... Do you have the reference?

[Mass]

43. Here - 23 senators - 21 democrats + Jeffords + Chafee.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

[dogday]

44. Thanks, I will correct my statement

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

May I take the opportunity to support each and every Senator who voted NO! to the Iraq War!!!!! :toast: :thumbsup:

[DainBramaged]

15. We do forgive. God, I've made a fool of myself dozens of times

say you're sorry.:hug:

[WI_DEM]

16. Is he trying to get the spotlight on him or is he trying to hold a

president accountable?

[wtmusic]

20. Of course it's a big political stunt

Look at all the political capital he gained, being hung out to dry by 96 out of 100 senators! Yeah, Feingold's playing this for all he can! Dumb like a fox! :silly:

[KittyWampus]

25. Someone has to go for the "Howard Dean" role in 2008

and I've now read "Feingold has my support in 08" many times in the last several days.

[wtmusic]

34. Implying that this move was calculated for political gain

is ludicrous, just as were implications about Dean's comments at the time.

[WI_DEM]

35. Well it's good that someone is going for the Howard Dean role

because I'm tired of Democrats giving lip service but doing nothing to back up their stands. Feingold is actually causing debate and giving prominence to this issue. p.s. I'm not necessarily backing Feingold in '08--I'm looking at Clark, Edwards or Warner at this point, but I don't discount Russ.

[dogday]

21. His record would indicate that he is trying to hold

the President accountable....

This is the only Democrat to vote no to the Iraq war.....

[Seabiscuit]

17. Folks, we've just witnessed

one of the latest right-wing talking points on Freep radio a la Limpballs.

Nothing but lies, lies, and more lies.

[Kolesar]

24. & and original poster that posted and fled ... eom

[Canuckistanian]

18. Censure doesn't 'undercut' anything

There's nothing that says censure will preclude later impeachment proceedings.

[ClassWarrior]

22. A Senator can't "vote for impeachment." That's a function of the House...

Feingold voted to hear evidence in Clinton's Senate impeachment trial, because he felt that it's the Senate's duty to AT LEAST hear evidence in matters that come before it.

So he's got principles. :shrug:

NGU.

[DainBramaged]

23. A Peculiar Politician

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060314/cm_thenation/20060327greiderweb;_ylt=ArpDKn8.wxXJnZeW5OdUVDb9wxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--


snip>Senator Russ Feingold is an embarrassment to the US Senate, which makes him an authentic hero of the Republic. The Wisconsin senator gets up and says out loud what half of the country is thinking and talks about every day. This President broke the law and lied about it; he trashed the Constitution and hides himself in the flag. Feingold asks: Shouldn't the Senate say something about this, at least express our disapproval? He introduces a resolution of censure and calls for debate.

Well, that tore it in the august chamber of lawmakers. Democrats scurried away like scared rats. And Republicans chortled at the thought. You want to censure our warrior President, the guy who defends us every day against terrorist attacks? Let's have a vote right now, the Republican leader demanded. Yuk, yuk.<snip

[redqueen]

26. *sigh*

:wtf:

[Little Star]

27. I'm sure that Feingold has weighed the odds

However, I do not think that political ambitions are the motivating factor. I think there is a strong possibility that he really has some convictions. Right or wrong, ya gotta say, the man has some! Just so everyone knows, Edwards is my #1 choice for the primaries and Feingold has not yet made my number 3. Why do we scream that Dem's have no balls, then when one shows some, we don't give them the benefit of the doubt? For me, Russ appears to have some convictions and is not afraid to stand by them. Just saying.....

[magellan]

28. What makes you think censure affects future impeachment?

It doesn't.

And I'm very surprised at those who think the Dems should treat Bush**'s crimes exclusively as a political football rather than finally taking an opportunity to stand on principle. When/if they initiate impeachment proceedings at some future date they'll have a very hard case to make if they DON'T support censure now.

Mark my words. The Repubs will trot out the Senate Dems' resounding disinterest in Feingold's call for censure and say, "Well, you obviously didn't think the President's actions were even worthy of censure in March 06, so what makes them worthy of impeachment now?"


edited because I appear to have disagreed with myself. Clearly the question of censure now DOES affect future impeachment, but only in how the Dems respond or not. Censure and impeachment are still separate remedies; one doesn't demand the other.

[harpo]

29. Constitution says only House members can bring impeachment...

Article I, Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

[bobthedrummer]

30. You put out a lot of disinfo, get it right-he did no such thing. eom

[JohnKleeb]

31. He voted against dismissing all evidence against Clinton

And the senate votes removal not impeachment the house does that. The senate removes the person from office and to my knowledge no democrat voted AYE on that and some republicans opposed it to like Specter, John Chaffee, were others too not sure off hand.

[RandomKoolzip]

33. Four questions:

Yeah? And? So? What?

[jane_pippin]

36. Not true. He voted to look at the facts and when the facts came in

he concluded the charges were flimsy and did not support impeachment of Bill.

Sounds like more evidence that Russ is a fair, balanced, non-partisan, sincere, principled guy to me.

[suffragette]

37. Conyers disagrees with you

From Conyers' blog:


http://www.conyersblog.us/

Sunday, March 12th, 2006
Senator Feingold Has Just Joined Me Calling for Censure

On ABC's This week with George Stephanopolous, Senator Russell Feingold has just joined my call for censure of the President. Many of you remember that I introduced a resolution, House Resolution 637, last December to censure the President at the same time I introduced House Resolution 635 to investigate the President's Administration for possible impeachable offenses. The Senator announced on the show that he planned to introduce his bill at the beginning of the week.

As you know, the Senate tends to move much more slowly on issues such as these. While Senator Feingold has not come to the same position as I have - calling for a special committee to investigate impeachable offenses - he didn't rule it out. And when asked, he didn't rule out pressing for impeachment. It is a good sign that there are others catching up with us in the call for accountability for this White House. While some are impatient for immediate action, we need to understand that pursuing this in a measured fashion will give us the best chance of success. The emergence of Senator Feingold in taking this stand is a broad and positive step toward our ultimate goal.

Blogged by JC on 03.12.06 @ 11:19 AM ET


I agree with Mr. Conyers.

[leftchick]

40. he most certainly did not vote for impeachment

why don't you google it and read the facts?

[pinto]

45. Locking.

The particular point stated in the OP seems to have been resolved.