A message to Senator Feingold

Dear Senator Feingold,

I respectfully request that you post an explanation in your diary of how you think the long term survival of our great republic is best served by not impeaching the president and vice president.  You also assert that it would involve separate trials, but could they not both be named on the same articles of impeachment?

Remember that your oath of office is not even to serve your constituents (who I suspect may even agree with us here anyway) but to uphold the Constitution.  Any act which contravenes the Constitution surely undermines its effectiveness and by extension the effectiveness of our government and our entire system, both at home and abroad.

A nation with laws unheeded and unenforced is surely no better off than a nation of no laws at all.  One need only look to the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics for a sound historical example.  The various Soviet constitutions described a variety of rights granted, but they were never enforced.  The government was basically free to ignore its own laws and the people could do little or nothing about it.  I think there are a number of other similar (possibly better?) examples around the world  In our situation, the problem is one branch against another rather than the whole against the people, but the situation is similar in that there are clear abuses taking place, but the Congress is completely usurping its power to remedy them.

If the current situation is allowed to persist, you may say, "Oh well, no harm done, he's leaving office anyway."  I'd like to call that reckless at best, however, or perhaps more appropriately, outright dereliction of duty.  If this persists unchecked, it is already obvious that it will have set a major precedent for expansion of executive power.  Historians are already describing Dick Cheney as the most powerful Vice President in American history, having presided over an extraordinary expansion of the powers of that office, even when compared to just the most recent office-holders.

Amazingly, a great many examples of that expansion of power are activities that in some cases go clearly against the letter of the law, but in nearly all cases run completely counter to the spirit of the law.  Failure to resolve this swiftly and surely will result in a precedent of lawlessness and unaccountability by future executives from both parties.  If you consider yourself a patriot, progressive or otherwise, I would hope you'd consider such a breach of public trust worthy of immediate rebuke by the Congress, at the very least in the form of censure, but which will likely only be remedied by serious action in the form of removal from office.

Mere words and veto-destined toothless resolutions are no longer sufficient to restore our citizens' and the world's faith in our Constitution and our way of government.  Our future must be protected and your action, should you wish to live up to your constitutional duties is required post-haste.

•  Fantastic.

  Now we're using diaries to call out sitting Senators. This can only end well...

  by dennisl on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:40:47 AM PDT

  •  Was that meant to be sarcastic?

    It's not like I'm the first to do it.

    You must agree, however, that he chose to use this forum as a venue for expressing his positions.  Many of us here certainly agree with most of them, but on one as important as this and on which so many of us disagree so strongly, is there anything to be lost through a spirited but polite debate on the subject?

    The Internet represents, as Al Gore said last year, the rebirth of Frankin's Marketplace of Ideas.  I'm glad to be but one small part of that if at all possible.

    by Sean Robertson on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:46:45 AM PDT

    •  I'm with you on this...

      and I have another message to Sen Feingold and all Dems not on board:

      Don't send me anymore fundraising letters.  When you are as tired of this shit as I am then I will reconsider.

      by kharma on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:54:35 AM PDT

•  Introducing a bill of impeachment...

  does not necessarily mean that investigation/evidence gathering ends.  The Judiciary Committee would hold hearings before voting the bill out to the floor of the House.

  by jgilhousen on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:42:47 AM PDT

  •  My point precisely - it makes it more targeted

    Lets focus on the investigations into those deeds most harmful to our nation's survival.

    by Sean Robertson on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:43:47 AM PDT

    •  And most importantly

      Impeachment investigations CANNOT be thwarted by claims of executive privilege.

      by MKinTN on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:11:45 PM PDT

  •  more to the point

    an impeachment investigation means that many of the DOJ challenges to the White House providing witnesses and evidence suddenly become irrelevant.

    An investigative committee might make several times as much progress per week if the White House can't stonewall anymore.

    by alizard on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:42:19 PM PDT

•  Good for you.

  Now if we could just make him come back and read this diary.  

  As a matter of fact, I think we should mass email it to all of congress.

  by nupstateny on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:44:15 AM PDT

  •  PS, where's your tip jar? n/t

    by nupstateny on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:45:31 AM PDT

•  Great post

  Rec'd!

  by thiebes on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:47:01 AM PDT

•  Tips and Recs, please

  Per nupstateny's request.

  My request is that you all use every available opportunity to bring this point home to your neighbors, community leaders, local reporters, and congressmen.  Now is not a time for inaction.

  by Sean Robertson on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:48:19 AM PDT

•  No one loves Senator Feingold more than...

  ...I do, and I still think he would make a GREAT president, but his non-support of impeachment is very disheartening.

  by lams712 on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:51:12 AM PDT

  •  I am in complete agreement

    Dated Feingold, married Obama, as the old joke goes, though I'm fixing to file for divorce.  LOL

    by Sean Robertson on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:06:03 PM PDT

•  Good.

  Tipped and rec'd; I read the Senator's piece, and have to respectfully disagree with his conclusions. Impeachment was never intended to be comfortable; it's the method of last resort to remove a chief executive who wantonly breaks the law and thereby endangers the republic.

  by MBNYC on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 11:52:46 AM PDT

•  We are in danger

  Save the Constitution.

  IMPEACH!

  I am awaiting the next e-mail from Sen. Feingold and the Progressive Patriots Fund so I can remove my e-mail address from the mailing list as a sign of my protest against his stance on impeachment.

  Feingold has been seen as a leader for progressive causes.

  This excuse-making on impeachment cannot stand.

  by Caneel on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:03:20 PM PDT

•  Anyone have any evidence?

  I know everyone has lots of opinions.  What evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors do you have?

  Don't bring up lying about the war, there is no clear evidence that he knew it was a lie (have any tapes?).

  Don't bring up the non-FISA taping.  That was vetted by several lawyers and the only actual case has been dismissed for lack of standing.

  Don't bring up signing statements, they have often been used and, until litigation occurs and the president ignores the result we are handling business as usual.

  Impeachment is not the solution to unpopular actions.

  It may be that oversight investigations will come up with evidence of impeachable offenses, if so, then act.  A bill of impeachment should not be used like a search warrant.  If you introduce it, it gets voted on.  If if fails, then what?  If it succeeds you move to a trial in the Senate,

  If you want the war to end, then the Democratic congress should pass a bill to end it.  When it is vetoed, overrule the veto.  It's a lot easier to overrule a veto than impeach a president AND a vice president in an entirely unprecedented action.

  by william shipley on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:23:08 PM PDT

  •  This is a joke, right?

    by noble experiment on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:09:42 PM PDT

    •  No, it's not

      Lots of people agreeing with each other is not evidence.  What hard evidence do you have of an impeachable offence?

      The belief that he has, needs to be investigated, and, if evidence can be found then impeachment is appropriate.  Remember, in Nixon's case it was the actual audio tapes of his conversations that were the final trigger.  In Bill Clinton's case, he too, was on tape as well as the rather lurid physical evidence that proved his under oath testimony false.

      So, what do you have?

      by william shipley on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:24:54 PM PDT

      •  Obstruction of Justice

        Perhaps if it wasn't all hidden behind dubious claims of "executive privilege" the American people might know if crimes had been committed.

        Youa re obviously from the camp that says Libby was the victim of a political witch hunt since no was ever charged with outing a CIA agent.  The key here is that he prevented the truth from being discovered.

        Bush's claims that his crimes (warrantless wiretapping, etc.) are Constitutional powers that are accorded him are frivolous.  The Administration has repeatedly sought to prevent their due consideration by the courts or Congress while continuing to perform the acts.  That my friend is an impeachable offense.  No crime has to be proven to have an impeachment.

        You are obviously a troll.  I will not bother to respond to anything you write.  I ignore right wing radio too.

        by noble experiment on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:02:14 PM PDT

        •  Ignore those pesky facts

          If you just talk to the people who agree with you, you can be sure you're right.

          If the claims of executive privilege are dubious, then, by all means, challenge them in the courts.  If the President loses, then he better comply or you have a solid case for impeachment.

          Libby lied in the investigation, that does not prove that Bush or Cheney committed an offense, lack of evidence is not evidence.

          The wiretapping of international calls is controversial.  The administration believed, based on legal advice, that it was constitutional.  There was a case that went against them, but was ordered dismissed upon appeal.  Without a clear legal precedent, it's still a matter of opinion, and there are lawyers on both sides.

          If we are not going to move into an era where impeachment is a routine political ploy, we have to take all other steps first.  In the Nixon case, his claims of executive privilidge were appealed to the Supreme Court, where he lost.  The situation is different so this one needs to be persued.

          by william shipley on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:23:36 PM PDT

          •  As I said:

            Go in peace, troll, but please make sure you go.

            Finding one lawyer (a hand picked toadie) who supports your cause does not make it legally debatable.

            If Gonzalez says the President has the right to kill citizens with impunity will that make it "legally debatable" for you?

            feel free to write what you want.  There will be no further response.

            by noble experiment on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:27:11 PM PDT

            •  Gonzalez

              Was nominated by the President and approved by the Senate.  That's a little more serious than 'one lawyer'.  You may not like him, but constitutionally he's an authority -- not the final one, of course, the courts are.  I believe the head council for the NSA also reviewed and signed off on it.

              I'm not going anywhere, check my UID (51493), I've been here longer than you have (115063).  This is supposed to be a 'reality based' site.

              by william shipley on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:56:15 PM PDT

•  Luxury

  Out here, outside the Beltway, we have the luxury of screaming about whatever we like, since we don't have to conduct business in the Senate. We can wear tin foil hats, or we can be utterly skeptical of those who do. We can be wild-eyed idealists, or we can be completely grounded in realism.

  For a guy like Russ Feingold, who loathes Bush as much as we do but is obliged to count votes and make decisions based on practical considerations, there is no way to act solely on idealism.

  So Russ knows that impeaching a president who's leaving in 18 months and 4 days is an exercise in futility, and will cause all other work required in the interim to restrain this president to cease.

  I'm glad Russ is my senator. I'm glad to have a senator who applies his ideals where practicable, but doesn't ever act like an quixotic fool.

  by Korkenzieher on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 12:45:47 PM PDT

  •  Not impeachable? How about

    Asserted Presidential power to create military commissions, which combine the functions of judge, jury, and prosecutor in the trial of war crimes.
      * Claimed authority to detain American citizens as enemy combatants indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay on the President's say-so alone.
      * Initiated kidnappings, secret detentions, and torture in Eastern European prisons of suspected international terrorists.
      * Championed a Presidential power to torture in contravention of federal statutes and treaties.
      * Engineered the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic surveillance program targeting American citizens on American soil in contravention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
      * Orchestrated the invocation of executive privilege to conceal from Congress secret spying programs to gather foreign intelligence, and their legal justifications.
      * Summoned the privilege to refuse to disclose his consulting of business executives in conjunction with his Energy Task Force.
      * Retaliated against Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, through chief of staff Scooter Libby, for questioning the administration's evidence of weapons of mass destruction as justification for invading Iraq.

    From Constitutional scholar Bruce Fein during Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS.

    We cannot afford to look the other way as Bush/Cheney assume (and abuse) powers of a monarchy for themselves, powers never intended by our founders.

    by Happy Days on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:10:27 PM PDT

  •  If someone commits a crime

    do we just let it go?  Of course not. We try them and convict them.

    Why?  So everyone knows that what they did is not permitted by society.  Same thing here.

    We cannot sacrifice the Constitution to expedience.  We must repudiate the Administrations actions and assertions in order to affirm that we are a nation of laws and to prevent the precedent that other leaders may be tempted to follow.

    Why is it so hard for our leaders to understand this?

    Better to try and fail than meekly acquiesce.  

    by noble experiment on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:13:23 PM PDT

    •  Happens every day

      If someone commits a crime, and the DA is sure the police got the right guy but is equally sure he or she will not be able to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, no charges are filed. Or they'll try to get the accused to accept a plea bargain. Or they'll continue investigating. But they won't bring a case they know will fail before a jury.

      Our jury here is the US Senate. You and I have no doubt that Bush has committed dozens of impeachable offenses. But a large enough number of US senators do have doubts, they won't vote to convict, and so bringing charges is a waste of time.

      And it is NOT better to try and fail. If impeachment fails BEFORE the election, the Republicans will claim there was no basis for the effort, that Bush is innocent and it was all politically motivated, and that Dems aren't interested in governing, that all they want to do is play games and engage in petty partisanship, and enough people will believe that bullshit to guarantee another four years of a Republican in the White House.

      I think Congress is doing the right thing, and the polls agree. Bush's approval rating is less than 30 percent, and this will have an appalling effect on Republican candidates in the next election. I'd rather have the electorate repudiate the Republicans next year than engage in a futile attempt to impeach Bush today.

      by Korkenzieher on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:40:17 PM PDT

      •  looked at Congress's approval ratings?

        They're in Bush territory.

        Americans elected Democratic majorities to the House and Senate to get some change. What they are seeing is a bunch of spineless wimps who won't stand up to the President, even using the power of the purse (which is apparently as "off the table" as impeachment.

        If the Democrats in office give the American people no reason to believe that they care what we think, Greens and Libertarians and other third parties we've never heard of may have the best political year they ever had.

        Or the "why bother to vote, it makes no difference" meme will circulate, and if no serious effort has been made to remove Bush from office before then, I haven't the slightest idea what I'm going to tell people that has any chance of being believed.

        by alizard on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:48:33 PM PDT

        •  Why?

          When people are asked "why" they disapprove of Congress, the answer is that there's too much partisanship. I disagree, I think Congress should be even tougher on Bush, but most people want to see Congress and Bush work together.

          In any case, the approval rating of Congress as a whole is less important than the approval rating of each member of Congress within their own district. Everyone hates Congress, it seems, but most people approve of their individual representative. It's a paradox that has existed for years.

          by Korkenzieher on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:08:18 PM PDT

          •  "too much partisanship?"

            got a cite?

            by alizard on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 02:45:26 PM PDT

            •  Boston Globe

              Here's an AP article from the Boston Globe website.  http://www.boston.com/...

              The sixth paragraph in particular discusses the notion that people want the White House and Congress to do a better job cooperating, that many people are sick of the fighting.

              by Korkenzieher on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:46:13 AM PDT

              •  the plural of anecdote is not data

                and that's what the Globe article has in terms of supporting evidence for your conclusion.

                by alizard on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 12:02:53 PM PDT

      •  DAs who conclude they can't

        win cases without even fully developing the evidence and where the perpetrator is well known are often voted out of office.  Particularly when they argue that it "politically" for the best not to try the case.

        If you go back and read Feingold's argument, it is not that he can't convict, it is essentially that he doesn't believe the attempt is worth the political cost.  That is very different than your reasoning above.

        No one knows whether the evidence will drive a conviction, because no one with the means is driving the case.  

        by noble experiment on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 03:07:27 PM PDT

•  Senator Fiengold

  perhaps its time for the Democratic leaders to guit listening to their "campaign advisors" and start listening to the People who elected you in and can also elect you out...trust me thats what it has come to... I will support Cindy Sheehan over Nancy Pelosi..(I am or was a die-hard Democrat) and which ever Independent runs against Harry Reid and any other Democratic Senator or Congressman, enabling this administration in any thing they do...I have had it..enough!

  by chabuka on Mon Jul 16, 2007 at 01:15:08 PM PDT