Sen. Feingold responds to Kossacks' call for impeachment.

I am proud that Sen. Feingold represents my home state.  In his diary on legislation to end the war in Iraq, I posted a comment asking him to support impeachment because this administration has subverted the Constitution and admits that it will defy legislation ending the war.  

Our response may have shocked the Senator -- he took a few hours to respond our loud call for impeachment.  I am reposting his response to a set of fresh eyes:
   

Impeachment (3+ / 0-)

As many of you have pointed out, articles of impeachment originate in the House, not the Senate.  While I agree that the President has committed offenses right in the strike zone of impeachment (most notably with his illegal warrantless wiretapping program) and I share the outrage of many Americans at this President’s conduct, I am not sure multiple impeachment trials would be best for the country.

by Senator Russ Feingold on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 05:18:04 PM CDT

Clearly, the Senator wanted to think this through.  But, I just can't see the logic of his reply.  After all, Sen. Feingold has shown extreme courage in taking unpopular stands (against the Patriot Act and AUMF, for example).  We know he isn't against impeachment, per se because he went against his own party in voting against dismissing the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.

Sen. Feingold -- I am hoping you might be able to shed more light on your position.  If the President has committed offenses "right in the strike zone," why doesn't impeachment serve the best interests of the country?  

Isn't our Constitution in great peril?  We have:

1. A President who directly broke the law requiring FISA court approval of warrants for wiretapping, and who will not allow investigation into who was wiretapped.

2. A President who subverts the will of the people, as expressed by Our Congress, in the use of signing statements.

3. A President who obstructs Congressional inquiry through unlawful directives to his assistants to resist Congressional subpoenas.

4. A President who has stated that he will defy legislation ending the War in Iraq.

5. A President who dismissed U.S. Attorneys for political reasons related to ongoing investigations of his political enemies and allies in order to obstruct justice.

6. A Vice-President who refuses to comply with record preservation regulations, claiming he is, in effect, a Fourth Branch of government.

7. A Vice-President who directed his chief-of-staff to disclose the name of a covert CIA agent working on weapons of mass destruction.

These are just the ones I can come up with off the top of my head.  And that would only include the transgressions we are aware of!

Sen. Feingold -- perhaps you think that the American people haven't been paying attention to these issues.  Maybe you think they won't stand behind Congress.  Opinion polls have shown as great or greater support for initiating impeachment hearings as before the House moved to impeach President Nixon -- even among political independents (20% of whom remain undecided).  And as John Dean has noted, the transgressions of this administration are far worse.

The cynic in me is afraid that the Democratic Party knows it will win the White House in 2008 and simply wants to wield the power of the Unitary Executive.  While the partisan in me may chuckle a bit at that thought, the American in me is aghast.  Forgive my geekiness, Senator, but Lord of the Rings has a lesson for us:  We do not wield the ring of power, the ring of power wields us.  

If we do not stand up to repair the damage caused to our Constitution by this administration, I am afraid it may never be repaired.  Indeed, we see many of the same ideas (and indeed, same people) of the Nixon era's executive power grab creeping around today.

Please, Senator.  We need people like you who are Americans first, and who take the duty of their oath to the Constitution seriously.  We need your support.

•  Tips to Convince Sen. Feingold.

  Please support Barack Obama.

  by DaveV on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:11:11 PM PDT

  •  Its not about convincing Feingold.

    It's about convincing Frank, Pelosi, Rangel, etc.

    by ablington on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:14:08 PM PDT

    •  We've got to convince Washington.

      Washington is a subculture of its own.  Right now, impeachment is not resonating there.  We need to change that -- Senator by Senator, Representative by Representative.

      Of course, we need to lobby the HJC, Pelosi, etc.  But we can do more than one thing at a time!

      Please support Barack Obama.

      by DaveV on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:15:27 PM PDT

      •  we can, but

        I'm not sure they believe they can

        ...walk and chew gum at the same time, that is.

        by Sybil Liberty on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:21:02 PM PDT

    •  agree to an extent but

      It would be important to get senators like feingold, et al. on board.

      by ksh01 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:25:17 PM PDT

    •  It's not even about convincing them

      It's about convincing Lieberman, Brownback, Chambliss, Cornyn, Inhofe, DeMint, Hagel, Lott, McCain, Stevens... until eighteen of them are even open to the idea of convicting Bush, then Feingold, Pelosi, Rangel etc aren't going to move. Right now we're looking at it moving to the Senate and then every charge the House sends up gets a "NO IT NEVER HAPPENED BUSH IS GOD LIKE" response from the entire Republican delegation. The votes barely dribble over 50, far less than the 67 needed, and the mainstream media paints the Dems as foolish partisans and the charges as lies that Bush was, after all, found not guilty of.

      by Cecrops Tangaroa on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:02:19 PM PDT

  •  We're going to have to keep working on him...

    ...as well as the cowards who don't at least concede at this point that Bush's illegal acts fall "right in the strike zone of impeachment."

    by wiscmass on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:21:37 PM PDT

  •  tell him to watch Bill Moyers from tonight

    and if that doesn't convince him, I will be somewhat surprised.

    by teacherken on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:43:37 PM PDT

•  I might even agree somewhat with him.

  I am not sure multiple impeachment trials would be best for the country, either.

  But what he really needs to convince me of at this point, given where we are, is that multiple impeachment trials is demonstrably the worst thing for the country.

  There's really not much left under that end of the curve, you know?

  by Kagro X on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:15:13 PM PDT

  •  What does he think *is* best for the country?

    I didn't see any alternatives presented.  So, I'm hoping he might reply.

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:16:27 PM PDT

•  I notice he didn't say what WOULD be best for the

  country - sweeping it under the rug?

  No, I am becoming more convinced by the day that the Dems want the power left intact. If this is true, our country is gone and all of this is just a shadow dance.

  by bablhous on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:16:40 PM PDT

•  Is it appropriate

  for a Senator, who will sit in judgment on an impeachment trial, so suggest that the House impeach the president? I'm not sure. What do others think?

  by MakeChessNotWar on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:19:20 PM PDT

  •  Is it important for a concerned American

    to suggest that the house impeach the pResident?

    My answer would be, "hell yeah!"

    But that's just me.

    by witchamakallit on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:35:04 PM PDT

•  An essential mistake on the part of congressfolks

  Is that they are under a delusion that impeachment is a cry found only in the "lefty" blogs.  

  They need to go back to their states and districts and talk to their constituents.  I have a very strong feeling that they'll find ample suport for impeachment back home.

  by ksh01 on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:24:25 PM PDT

•  I honestly don't think it is a cynical

  POV related to elections in 2008.  I think they are still under the impression that one of the other Constitutional remedies for poor Presidential leadership - that being elections - may be their only option.

  I don't necessarily agree that elections would be "better" for the country or that impeachment hearings would not be "good".  I just wanted to make sure that people understand that relying on an election for change isn't always cynical.  Sometimes it is an honest belief in they system of The People making the judgment.

  by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:28:28 PM PDT

  •  I would agree with you...

    but it's not just about this President or his poor leadership.  It's about the Presidency.  It's not about change in the normal sense.  It's about fixing damage to the Constitution.  I don't want the next Democratic president using signing statements, ignoring laws, subverting oversight.  I want my checks and balances back, damnit!  :)

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:31:44 PM PDT

    •  I agree - I am not defending them - just

      trying to point out that there are people who believe in the power of the Constitutional checks including elections - no matter how naively they believe that - they aren't necessarily being cynical - they are thinking that it "will work out".

      Fiengold imo is a perfect example of the kind of guy who is such a freakin' boyscout that he has no capacity to really see how sinister this administration is.

      It is important for you and others to start looking more closely at what these people really are thinking and start coming up with rational arguments that they can understand from their POV.  There is a disconnect that I see here.  There are numerous people in Congress who still believe that no matter how extraordinarily this President operates, he will eventually relent to the natural course of the democratic process.  I don't think that is true and the question is how do we make people like Fiengold and others like him really see how insane this sh*t is.  You won't get there with them by calling them criminals.  You have to be more clever and convicing than that.

      And I would like all those things back too btw and I'd make it happen myself if I could - sorry I can't do it myself.

      by inclusiveheart on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:50:15 PM PDT

•  ? Trial =

  what?

  If we don't have the votes to remove from office, then what would trials do........I'm thinking seriously about this.

  To protect our Constitution = ? impeachment alone doesn't do that, so WHAT DOES?

  by LNK on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:31:49 PM PDT

  •  All in good time.

    The trial comes after investigation and hearings that the President cannot pardon, commute or "executive privilege" his way out of.

    That will be a different ballgame.

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:35:16 PM PDT

•  I note he said "mutliple impeachment trials"

  which is a little more specific. I assume he means impeaching Cheney and Bush (in that order), since otherwise he would be talking about reimpeaching after the first attempt failed, and that would definitely not be good for the country.

  So maybe this is a hint that getting rid of Cheney would be enough to do the trick.

  And we thought figuring out the Kremlin was hard!

  by DanK Is Back on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:33:47 PM PDT

  •  Interesting point.

    Or perhaps Gonzales?  Still, interesting point.

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:36:01 PM PDT

•  I hope he watching Bill Moyers right now.

  Wow are they going to town on saying impeachment is the right thing to do.

  by flumptytail on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:37:50 PM PDT

•  Dear Senator Feingold

  I would like to know how many laws must a President and/or Vice-President break, circumvent, ignore, or generally thumb their noses at until we move from "in the strike zone of impeachment" to ejecting the batter from the game?

  1? 5? 18? 42? 69? 100? some round multiple of pi?

  Better yet, if all of this doesn't reach the threshold of impeachment, please describe what actually would.

  Forget the strike zones and other nebulous geometry. Draw a line and say, "This far and no further!" If he crosses the line, remove him from office.

  Simple enough?

  by Aragorn for America on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:37:52 PM PDT

  •  The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind...

    Sing it like Dylan:

    "How many laws must a President Break
    before we impeach the man?"

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:40:16 PM PDT

•  Even if I disagree

  Sen. Feingold's opinion is always considered by this Kossack.

  Impeachment is really about accountability for me. I want accountability for all that has happened, so my country can move forward again.

  by pseudopod on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 06:45:32 PM PDT

•  I unrec'd his comment

  I was just there and saw his comment.  At first I was glad that he at least showed up to reply so I gave him a 4.  And then I realized he was just repeating what he said in November (Ben Masel posted this quote in the same thread) so I took it back.  It made his comment sound like talking points to me.

  He doesn't need  convincing.  If he shares our outrage and believes that the President has committed impeachable offenses then I'd like to see him do something about it!  What's best for our country?  We're already screwed.  How can it get any worse? (rhetorical question - please don't answer.  It will kill my Friday night buzz)

  (To DaveV - great way to start that diary!  Muchas gracias.   I'm rec'ing this one too.  )

  by On The Bus on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:03:02 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the kind words.

    Couldn't agree with you more.

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:05:21 PM PDT

•  We're in a Constitutional crisis now - the Cure

  is Impeachment, as John Nichols just said on Bill Moyers.

  Along with Bruce Fein, it was a great discussion.

  What we need now is a Statesman who will put protecting the Constitution, the Nation and the rule of law above party politics - and speak up for impeachment of the imperial President and VP.

  Or we're stuck with a vastly expanded power of the the presidency beyond what has existed before and certainly beyond what the framers envisioned.

  We the People need to assert our rights as Citizens.  If there is no statesman in Congress to make public the need for the Constitutional Cure of Impeachment, then we must each do it on our own.

  Be public and outspoken about the need for impeachment

  by cumberland sibyl on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:03:05 PM PDT

  •  "Be public and outspoken"

    Yes -- we need to break through the Washington bubble.  It's not easy.

    Please support Barack Obama.

    by DaveV on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:10:43 PM PDT

•  Don't forget GONZO!

  Feingold is only partially correct.

  George Bush is also defacto leader of the Department of Justice.  

  It is obvious to the people of the United States of America that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is under full control of the President of the United States; both of whom protect one another...this gives Bush and his Administration the full ability to effect the outcomes of legal cases across the country.

  In cooperation with a Republican-led Congress, his Attorney General, and others in his Administration, Bush has enjoyed benefits afforded to him by virtue of subversion of the Constitution.

  This is not good that Feingold could not find his nerve.

  by FreeFallin on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 07:13:45 PM PDT

•  Letter like this? Whaddya think?

  Dear [Senator or Rep],

  If you could just pick this letter to read while you give yourself five minutes to breathe, I would appreciated it.

  This constituent is concerned that our President and his Administration is too severely damaging to our Constitution to allow George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney to remain in office until the end of their terms.  As an informed citizen, I believe there is sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable jury or Congress to convict them of High Crimes and Misdemeanors outlined in the guidelines in the Articles of Impeachment.

  To make matters even more severe, but with the greatest respect, I regretfully believe that our own representation in Congress is being compromised by Representatives and Senators who will not faithfully execute their oaths to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States of America.

  I am forwarding this statement to the ACLU to request a consultation regarding a possible class action suit against The 110th Congress of the United States on behalf of the People of the United States.  I believe that there is evidence that Congress is no longer fit to uphold and defend the Constitution.  

  I seek only the remedy of Congress executing the will of its constituents.

  by FreeFallin on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:02:41 PM PDT

•  Is the Clinton campaign holding us back?

  how many of you posters who are not rallying behind the impeachment movement are Hillary Clinton supporters?

  It stands to reason that she would be damaged politically by any prolonged exposure to the old Monica fiasco.

  If you're trying to do that, and you are a Hillary supporter then it's not quite a legitimate position for you to take, simply based on the implications.

  I don't think Hillary is or feels she can be behind this impeachment due to her candidacy, so I would not find it incredulous that her staff would work against it.  

  Could Hillary trying to stop us?

  by FreeFallin on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:38:52 PM PDT

•  Moyers

  If anyone saw the Moyers show on PBS tonight, believe that those most eloquent men speak the truth!!!

  by FreeFallin on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:44:01 PM PDT

•  boy

  if Feingold can't get behind it, then it's probably not going to happen....

  by Buffalo Girl on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 09:45:19 PM PDT