VIDEO - Senator Feingold's Press Briefing on Bush Censure

[dogday]

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002558.htm


I don't know if anyone has seen this, I haven't...

Go Russ Feingold....:dem:

[blm]

1. This press conference was great if you only want censure.

It's a huge kick in the ass for those of us who want censure AND support the growing impeachment case in congress.

[dogday]

2. Russ, as a Senator can only ask for censure----

It will be up to those in Congress to impeach and I hope by elections end, we will be able to....

[blm]

3. That's not what Russ said, is it? He clearly pushed censure INSTEAD OF

impeachment because the country is at war.

He should have done what any senator should do and not mention impeachment at all, since impeachment is the perview of the congress, and many of us have been supporting the growing impeachment case since Conyers first held his Iraq hearings.

What Feingold did here in this interview (which too few are recognizing) is destroying any forward movement for impeachment.

He PRE-JUDGES impeachment as not good for the country in a time of war, which is EXACTLY how Reagan and Bush skipped out on IranContra accountability.

I support the censure, but Russ should NEVER have brought up impeachment this way to sell his censure - he didn't HAVE to do it.

[dogday]

5. I don't think Feingold brought up Impeachment

He doesn't think this merits it as I recall... I was trying to explain who can do what by law, not that Russ did that...

[blm]

7. Here's transcript from the press conference - NO LEGAL REMEDY.

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/06/03/2...

[dogday]

10. Your link doesn't work

[blm]

11. Well, that's the part of the transcript that deals with my point.

It's clear what Russ is saying here.

[radio4progressives]

8. Not true BLM... I pointed out the evidence before, but you keep ignoring

it... why is that? :shrug:

[blm]

9. Read the transcript yourself - I gave him benefit of the doubt that he

just misspoke the FIRST time - then the second time. Now iread his statement at the press conference - it's CRYSTAL CLEAR.

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/06/03/2...

[blm]

12. So, radio... no explanation for this THIRD incident?

.

[Pam-Moby]

4. Thanks for posting this. I had not seen it.

You rock Russ. :bounce:

[caledesi]

6. This guy is great. So happy he mentioned how the thugs try

to intimidate us. Go Russ!