Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Russ Feingold Supported Clinton Impeachment process, doesn't support it for Bush.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:17 PM
Original message
Russ Feingold Supported Clinton Impeachment process, doesn't support it for Bush.
Among Democrats, Feingold was the most persistent and vocal critic of Clinton and the greatest Democratic proponent of continuing the GOP investigations throughout the period from 1997-1999. During the Lewinsky scandal in particular, Feingold was Clintons strongest and earliest Democratic critic.

When the scandal first broke, Feingold said, If there is any proof that (Clinton) lied under oath, I will have no trouble voting on his impeachment, making him the only Senate Democrat to openly consider that most extreme measure.

He later said that Clinton should seriously consider resigning. Even in the wake of the House impeachment vote, when Clinton was at his most politically vulnerable, Feingold refused to say Clinton shouldnt resign - even as fellow Wisconsin Senator Herb Kohl strongly insisted that Clinton should remain in office.

At the actual Senate trial, Feingold was the Democrats Critic-in-Chief, voting to continue the trial and keep the charges on the books right up to the final vote:

Feingold was the only Democrat to vote against Robert Byrds motion to dismiss the charges.

Feingold was the only Democrat to support the motion to subpoena witnesses to testify against Clinton.

Feingold was the only Democrat to vote against either of Daschles motions to proceed to closing arguments - and he voted against both of them (on January 28 and on February 4).

But when it comes to Bush, Feingold sings a different tune.

Feingold says he worries about The great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country.

Feingold says the time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years.

Feingold claims to be concerned about the overuse of impeachment.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_dave_lin_070717...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Unfuckingbelievable.
Bush could shoot a grandmother on TV and then run a truck over her but this congress won't impeach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I'd actually cheer it if it were...
...Jenna's grandmother. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
racaulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #3
18. ROFL
Yeah, we all would! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
2. That solves it - he's a republican deep-cover mole...
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. This makes me think that taking impeachment "off the table" is a top-down decision from above
Who is responsible?

Pelosi?
Clinton?
Rahm Emanuel?

Keep in mind that Feingold didn't cite the lack of votes as a reason, he cited the excuse that it would take too long, and keep them from the productive filibustering that Congress is supposed to engage in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. The people you mentioned hold no sway over Feingold.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
5. Well, I'll give Feingold a failing grade on this.
Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 01:27 PM by AndyA
First of all, what Clinton did, admittedly very wrong, was more of a personal issue. He had an affair while in office. Technically, he didn't really even have sex with Monica, although I'm sure other Presidents have no doubt screwed their brains out with those they were not married to. So, not a good thing to do, but not unprecedented, and certainly no worse than what - half of America?

Clinton lied and he shouldn't have. He should have fessed up right off and been done with it.

What Bush has done is not even in the same ballpark. While an adulterous affair is certainly a bad thing, it is not a high crime that invades the civil liberties and rights of all American citizens.

Clinton didn't lie to start a war, a war which has cost us billions of dollars and killed thousands of our troops.

So, the gap in comparing the two is as big as the Grand Canyon, and growing larger every day. Now we know about the politicizing of the Justice Department, a government function that must not be swayed by politics, regardless of party.

And the firing of the USAs. And the outing of a covert CIA agent during a time of war. And the signing statements, which make a mockery of our laws.

Comparisons aren't really possible, but Feingold, much as I love him, deserves a rap on the hands for this one, it's a huge misstep for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
6. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. I really don't understand why he's so opposed to impeachment.
He strikes me as a pretty straight shooter who has dared to be outspoken on a lot of issues in the past few years. His position against impeachment doesn't seem consistent with his reputation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Bernie Sanders says the same things on Hartmann's show on Fridays...
Edited on Wed Jul-18-07 02:56 PM by calipendence
Much to Thom Hartmann's frustration.

These two people are the two that I would least expect "keeping it off the table". I really do believe that there's some sort of undercover pressure being applied to lawmakers in Washington now that we still don't have a clue to what is really going on. When you have these two saying things that don't really figure into their normal "combative" demeanor, I sense something seriously wrong under the surface there.

Whether its the nature of the domestic spying and the FISA Court that's a part of this undercover pressure, it's hard to say, but I'm guessing that those two issues might be related, and we might have some form of blackmail (whether it's blackmail to prevent exposure of things they don't want, or it's some other form of political pressure) to the extent that our country has never seen before.

I fear this is happening. As those of us who have been following Sibel Edmonds are also frustrated. Perhaps the same stealth forces are at work keeping Waxman from calling her to testify before the Government oversight committee too.

We could speculate until the sky falls, but the bottom line is that in my book something smells really fishy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ludwigb Donating Member (789 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
9. I don't agree with everything Feingold does
But it would be disingenuous to say he hasn't been highly critical of Bush. The decision to impeach is subject, sadly, to strategic rationales in addition to constitutional imperatives.

This is coming from someone who disagrees with Feingold on this issue. However, it doesn't make my appreciation for Feingold any less, or change my judgment that he represents progressives better than HRC and Edwards and probably Obama as well. The only senator to oppose the Patriot Act will be treated well by history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
10. Feingold changed his "tune" during the Clinton impeachment
Feingold voted against both articles of impeachment, making the following statement:


Statement by Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Following is a statement from the Senate's closed deliberations on the articles of impeachment against President Clinton, excerpts of which senators were allowed to publish in the Congressional Record for Friday, February 12, 1999.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chief Justice, my colleagues, like many others, the day the President wagged his finger at the American people and indicated he had not been involved with Ms. Lewinsky, I had the sense that he wasn't telling the truth and I felt some genuine regret. The President and I began here in Washington in the same month, in 1993. I had high hopes and actually felt very close to what he was trying to accomplish. So all along in this process, I have had to fight an urge to personalize that regret in a way that would affect my ability to do my job in this impeachment trial. And I will tell you that taking that separate oath helped me get into the mindset necessary to do that task.
But let me say that I do regret that the President's public conduct--not his private conduct--has brought us to this day.

But we are here, and I want to take a minute to praise my colleagues on the process. I think it would have been unfortunate had we not had any witness testimony--at least in the form of deposition testimony. I think it would have been an unfortunate historical precedent. I found the video testimony helpful. I didn't enjoy it, but I found it helpful in clarifying some of the things that I was thinking about. So I am glad, on balance, that we did not dismiss the case at the time it was first suggested.

But as we get to the final stage and get immersed in the law and facts of this case, it is too easy to forget the most salient fact about this entire matter, and that is one simple fact that many others have mentioned: In November 1996, 47 million Americans voted to reelect President Clinton. The people hired him. They are the hiring authority. An impeachment is a radical undoing of that authority. The people hire and somehow, under this process, the Congress can fire. So, I caution against, with all due respect to the excellent arguments made, the attempt to analogize this to an employee-employer relationship, or a military situation, or even the situation of judges--those situations are all clearly different. Along with the choice of the Vice President, in no other case, do the American people choose one person, and in no other case can a completely different authority undo that choice.

Having said that, the Presidential conduct in this case, in my view, does come perilously close to justifying that extreme remedy. There really have been three Presidential impeachments in our Nation's history. I see this one as being in the middle. The Andrew Johnson case is usually considered by historians to have been a relatively weak case. President Johnson had a different interpretation of the constitutionality of the statute that he believed allowed him to remove the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton. He was not convicted, and subsequently the U.S. Supreme Court, I believe, ruled that in fact that was constitutional. I see that as having been a relatively weak case.

The case of Richard Nixon, in my view, was a pretty strong case, involving a 1972 Presidential election and attempts to get involved with the aspects of that election--frankly--an attempt to cover up what happened during that 1972 election. I think that had more to do with core meaning of `high crimes and misdemeanors.'

This is a closer case; this is a close case. In that sense, it may be the most important of the three Presidential impeachments, in terms of the law of impeachment, as we go into the future. I agree neither with the House managers who say their evidence is `overwhelming,' nor with the President's counsel who says the evidence against the President is `nonexistent.' The fact is, this is a hard case, and sometimes they say that hard cases make bad law. But we cannot afford to have this be bad law for the Nation's sake.

So how do we decide? There have been a lot of helpful suggestions, but one thing that has been important to me is the way the House presented their case. That doesn't bind us, but they did suggest that two Federal statutes had been violated. Mr. Manager McCollum said that, `You must first determine if a Federal crime has occurred.' Many others have said that. I will reiterate a point. If that is the approach you want to take, then it is clear, in my view as one Senator, that you must prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, you are using the power and the opprobrium of the Federal criminal law as a sword but refusing to let the President and the defense counsel have the shield of the burden of proof that is required in the criminal law.

I do not have time to discuss the perjury count this afternoon, but will do so in a longer presentation for the Record. Suffice it to say I do not believe the managers have met their burden of proving perjury beyond a reasonable doubt.

As to obstruction of justice, the President did come perilously close. Three quick observations make me conclude that, in fact, he did not commit obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt. First, I am very concerned about the conversations between the President and Betty Currie concerning the specifics of his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky. But the critical question there is intent. Was his intent about avoiding discovery by his family and the political problems involved? Or was the core issue trying to avoid the Jones proceeding and the consequences of that?

I don't think it has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the Jones proceeding was the President's concern. Perhaps Ms. Currie could have shed some light on this. That is why I was extremely puzzled when the House managers didn't call Betty Currie. Let me be the first to say that I don't think in this instance the House managers `wanted to win too badly.' I don't think they wanted to win badly enough to take the chance of calling Betty Currie, a crucial witness.

I was very concerned about the false affidavit until I saw Ms. Lewinsky's Senate deposition testimony. I am persuaded that you cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that she was urged by the President to make a false statement in that affidavit.

Finally, I was very concerned about the hiding of the gifts. And maybe every one will disagree with me on this. But when I watched her testimony, I thought Ms. Lewinsky was the most indefinite about whether or not she had gotten that call from Ms. Currie than any other part of her testimony. I happen to believe that Ms. Lewinsky was the one who was the most concerned about the gifts. And I believe a showing beyond a reasonable doubt has not been made that the President masterminded the hiding of the gifts.

So I cannot deny what Representative Graham said: If you call somebody up at 2:30 in the morning you are probably up to no good. But if you call somebody up at 2:30 in the morning you have not necessarily accomplished the crime of obstruction of justice.

I realize there is a separate question of whether these same acts by the President, apart from the Federal criminal law, constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. I do not. I will discuss that in more detail in a future statement in the Record.

But I would like to conclude by just talking a little bit about this impeachment issue in the modern context. When I say that the vote in 1996 is the primary issue, I don't just mean that in terms of the rights of people. I mean it in terms of the goal of the Founding Fathers, and our goal today; that is, political stability in this country. We don't want a parliamentary system. And we don't want an overly partisan system.

I see the 4-year term as a unifying force of our Nation. Yet, this is the second time in my adult lifetime that we have had serious impeachment proceedings, and I am only 45 years old. This only occurred once in the entire 200 years prior to this time. Is this a fluke? Is it that we just happened to have had two `bad men' as Presidents? I doubt it. How will we feel if sometime in the next 10 years a third impeachment proceeding occurs in this country so we will have had three within 40 years?

I see a danger in this in an increasingly diverse country. I see a danger in this in an increasingly divided country. And I see a danger in this when the final argument of the House manager is that this is a chapter in an ongoing `culture war' in this Nation. That troubles me. I hope that is not where we are and hope that is not where we are heading.

It is best not to err at all in this case. But if we must err, let us err on the side of avoiding these divisions, and let us err on the side of respecting the will of the people.

Let me conclude by quoting James W. Grimes, one of the seven Republican Senators who voted not to acquit Andrew Johnson. I discovered this speech, and found out that the Chief Justice had already discovered and quoted him, and said he was one of the three of the ablest of the seven. Grimes said this in his opinion about why he wouldn't convict President Johnson:

I cannot agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President. Whatever may be my opinion of the incumbent, I cannot consent to trifle with the high office he holds. I can do nothing which, by implication, may be construed as an approval of impeachment as a part of future political machinery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Klukie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
11. Here is my email to Feingold on this matter...
Dear Mr. Feingold,

I write to you today in regard to your recent statements about impeachment proceedings against the President and Vice President of the United States. You stated that you are concerned about the overuse of impeachment and also expressed time management problems that would arise from multiple impeachment proceedings. With all due respect sir, I feel that you are wrong. I have watched you over the years,(including your views and positions during the Clinton impeachment), and I have always been left with the impression that first and foremost you stay true to the law. Knowing that you are a man of truth and law, I am left completely at a loss as to your stance on the impeachment matter. Your words don't fit who you are. As a man of the law, how can you reconcile the views you hold with the reality of the situation. We currently have a President and Vice President who feel they are above our laws, as evidenced in their numerous attempts to subvert and manipulate laws that don't fit their agenda. Has our country needed the law more than it does at this very moment? If you worry about a precedent in regard to overuse of impeachment, you may want to weigh that against the unconstitutional precedent being set at this very moment by an administration that continues to spit in the face of congress. We have never needed impeachment proceedings more than we do now. Just because these proceedings would run concurrent to President Clinton's has no bearing on the gravity of the matter. Again, I am very surprised that you would use this as a reason against impeachment. As for the worry of impeachment proceedings hindering your ability to do the nations pressing work, I offer my full confidence in your ability to multitask. In fact, I truly believe that by starting proceedings to remove the root of most of our nations current problems, many of these problems will begin to mend themselves. I hope that you will re-examine your reasoning and stay true to yourself and the law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onenote Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
34. Of course, Feingold's response would be that he is being true to himself
and that for someone who has watched him over the years, you seem to have missed the part where he made clear, in his statement accompanying his vote to acquit Clinton, that he was very concerned about the use of impeachment. IMO acknowledging what he said in that statement, and arguing why it was inapplicable here would've made your email more convincing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emlev Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
12. Some of these top Feingold donors might be interested in this info
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 02:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. NOOOoooo! I have to go out and just walk this off. Not Feingold. Argh.
In the words of Johnny Carson- I did not know that!

I find it hard to believe.

Well, Byrd was a clansman... People grow up...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jasmeel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-18-07 02:40 PM
Response to Original message
14. 
He didn't say he would vote FOR impeachment, just on it. I know it's splitting hairs but.... I have been worried about Feingold a couple times though-with votes on Supreme Court justices and such he seems to be a pushover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
memory Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
16. This is very depressing to me.
>>>>>>>>>>>Feingold says the time it would take for the House to consider articles of impeachment, and for the Senate to conduct multiple trials would make it very difficult, if not impossible, for Congress to do what it was elected to do end the war and address some of the other terrible mistakes this Administration has made over the past six and a half years.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I just don't get it. Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. This is what they are elected to do. Impeachment is imperative to protect the Constitution, not to mention the ONLY way they will be able to stop this war and correct the damage.

There are many leaders whom I have admired in the past saying they oppose impeachment because it will take too much time and they want to accomplish other things. This really shakes my faith in the whole process and is just dashing what little hope I have left that truth will eventually prevail. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rufus dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
17. O.K. this is the first one for me.
I have seen it brought up numerous times in the past but doesn't this smell of "they have something on him?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MODemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
19. Feingold's vendetta against Bill Clinton, doesn't bode well with me
That's being two-faced in the highest degree. IMHO. Takeing time for house to consider articles of
impeachment shouldn't even enter into his so-called reasoning. Bush keeps committing war crimes, and he
needs to be stopped. :+ :mad: :eyes: :crazy:
I used to half way like Feingold....but he's taken care of that for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LordJFT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 05:54 PM
Response to Original message
20. Not saying I agree with it, but his position is not completely without merit.
There was no war congress was trying to stop during Clinton's impeachment proceedings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
illinoisprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 05:58 PM
Response to Original message
21. Feingold has strong credibility. He knows what he's doing and why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Indeed. One may disagree. But it's hard to doubt his motives.
Or call him a Scaredyecrat or whatever childish namecalling is all the rage at the moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
22. Feingold was for censure. No one went for it...
He understands that at this time, there aren't enough votes to impeach as well.

As for politicians with skill and leadership, I'll take Feingold over any Clinton any day of the week. Speaking of Clinton's, what is Senator Clinton's stand on impeachment?

:shrug:




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. too little too late
Feingold refused to sign onto Dianne Feinsteins bipartisan resolution to censure and move on, a resolution pushed by the founders of MoveOn.org because it would have undermined the proceedings of the impeachment trial. He only supported censure after impeachment had failed, when censure was the strongest measure left on the table to use against Clinton.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 10:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I'm glad Feingold went after a guy who can't keep his zipper closed
Bill Clinton is an embarrassment to those that have a bit of moral character. No wonder Gore thought he was radioactive in 2000. Where was he in 2004?

Clinton could talk about how much he loved the poor while biting his lip...all while he signed NAFTA into law with a smile. He cared so much about freedom of expression and winked at the crowd while signed the Telecommunications Act. He didn't have sex with that woman and we fucking believed him. Of course....he lied.

I worked on his campaign in 1992 and have felt betrayed by what he did. Yeah, I know about the 22 million Walmart jobs he brought and the Internet dot com successes that imploded...

As for Feingold's censure attempts, read about it before misrepresenting what happened, ferchrissakes.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 05:47 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. So is Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, etc.
I worked on his campaign in 1992

I wish I had a dime for every "progressive" who claims to have worked on Clinton's campaign.

As for Feingold's censure attempts, read about it before misrepresenting what happened, ferchrissakes.

What, you think just making that silly statement will make "progressives" believe you?

I said nothing about Feingold's censure attempts. I said he did not support Diane Feinstein's "censure and move on" measure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. I walked the streets in the Bay area working for Clinton in '92
Edited on Fri Jul-20-07 11:15 AM by zulchzulu
"I wish I had a dime for every "progressive" who claims to have worked on Clinton's campaign."

You don't believe me...stick it up your freaking ___... you must truly be as obnoxious in real life as you are here... Do I have to freaking show you my badge? I still have it.

As for the Hannity's and the Coulters, the Clintons offer easy meat to them. Are you implying that Bill Clinton didn't cheat on his wife and didn't get caught? The person stopping the easy shit for the righties is the person providing the bullshit.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wyldwolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. oh, in that case, I've worked for every Dem nominee since 1988
Never considered canvassing "working for the campaign."

Now, about that Feingold claim you made, you freaking ___... :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. That's it...
You make absolutely no sense to me.

Where's that Ignore button... buh-bye.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
23. Fucking progressives!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LittleClarkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-19-07 11:28 PM
Response to Original message
26. And in the end voted against impeachment
Were we involved in a quagmire at the time of the impeachment? I don't seem to recall. It was all so prosperous then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enrique Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 06:06 AM
Response to Original message
29. I trust Feingold on this
I trust that his actions on the Clinton impeachment were good, and that his motives now are good.

I don't trust Counterpunch, however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
31. I think I see the logic behind Finegold's decision on Shrub.
Copied from another post in this thread and a quote from Russ during the Clinton impeachment trial:

47 million Americans voted to reelect President Clinton. The people hired him. They are the hiring authority. An impeachment is a radical undoing of that authority. The people hire and somehow, under this process, the Congress can fire. So, I caution against, with all due respect to the excellent arguments made, the attempt to analogize this to an employee-employer relationship, or a military situation, or even the situation of judges--those situations are all clearly different. Along with the choice of the Vice President, in no other case, do the American people choose one person, and in no other case can a completely different authority undo that choice.


I understand his position, although in Shrub's case, it sure looks like those voters have buyers remorse!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truebrit71 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
33. I just can't get my head around this...it's not like he's only in office for 18 more days...
...we have EIGHTEEN MORE MONTHS OF THIS CRIMINAL ASSHOLE in office....

I am very disappointed by this.

Oh, and Russ, this statement "The great deal of time multiple impeachment trials would take away from the Congress working on the problems of the country. is bullshit....WHAT FUCKING WORK HAVE YOU DONE?

GET OFF YOUR ASS AND IMPEACH THE BASTARD!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heath Hatcher Donating Member (394 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #33
36. Kinda of hard to impeach the bastard
When you don't have the 67 votes to do. And come on man, Congress have been doing there best to get things done, sadly most of the stuff the Democrats have been tharted by a block by the GOP in the Senate or a veto by Shrub.

Are you that blind on the issue of the work they've been trying to do or are you a broken record for the GOP and the MSM, whats next, your going to say the investigations Congress have done are pure witchunts?

Sorry but your not making any sense and i'm done.

Excuse me while I press the ignore button buh-bye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alexander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
37. Aww, are you sad because the new Feingold bio makes Hillary look bad?
Edited on Fri Jul-20-07 11:42 PM by Alexander
US News has an excerpt from the Bio coming out next week on Sen. Russ Feingold.


The Democrats' maverick senator, Wisconsin's Russ Feingold, surprised many when he finished a national listening tour by pulling his hat from the ring of 2008 presidential candidates, claiming he lacked the fire in the belly.

Well, don't count him out yet,at least as a provocative vice presidential candidate. That's because a new biography paints the coauthor of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law as one of the leaders of the progressive movement spreading in the nation as activists look for lawmakers who don't play politics safe.

Feingold, out next week, opens with a gripping clash between the leading character and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as she looked for loopholes around the McCain-Feingold law. In a closed-door meeting in 2002, Feingold objected to her efforts.

"You're not living in the real world," shouts Clinton. "Senator, I do live in the real world, and I'm doing just fine by it," responds Feingold, who made it known that he was moved to push the campaign finance law forward after former President Clinton larded up campaign coffers with foreign contributions and checks from guests in the Lincoln Bedroom.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2007/7 /...

By the way, your propaganda fails to point out how Feingold actually voted on the charges. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-20-07 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Thanks for that. GoBama! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pstans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-27-07 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
39. If Impeachment is brought up in the Senate, Feingold will have no problem to vote for it
Lay off Feingold. At least he is doing something. Put your effort into convincing Harry Reid, moderate Democrats, and moderate Republicans to consider impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 17th 2017, 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC