Russ Feingold Proposes Censure of Bush on Illegal Spying

Forums: Politics, George W Bush, Impeachment, Russ Feingold
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Just announced on ABC's This Week, he will propose censuring Bush for his illegal domestic spying and "thumbing his nose" at the Constitution. He lso leaves open the possiblity of impeachment but notes that one must consider if such a move would be "good for the country."

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 8,313 • Replies: 141

No top replies

Feingold is a Senator and can't introduce articles of impeachment.

Censure opens the door for discussion and investigation.

0 Replies

Step by step.

0 Replies

Nothing of any consequence will happen until the 2006 elections. If the Democrats win both houses, which I doubt, there are going to be a lot of scared Republicans, especially in the Bush administration.

I would love to see some investigations into the corruption that's going on in Iraq today with American contractors. Remember when Republicans used to scream about waste and fraud in the government; well I don't think the Democrats in their wildest dreams could match this administrations waste, fraud, corruption and incompetence.

0 Replies

Russ Feingold? The only Senator to vote against the original Patriot Act? Half of the guys who "reformed" campaign funding? He is an impressive thinker, after the fact. He is also handsome, young, compared to the dinosaurs that run the party, and articulate.

But he plays to the fringe, a club that gets smaller every day. Saying something is illegal doesn't make it so. What congress is doing currently is to clarify the current laws so that there isn't the LEGAL loophole that a president can use to wiretap domestically without warrant, exactly the one that Bush used. This it the proper thing to do, to fix things that are broken. Throwing stink bombs, the usual tool of the democrats, is getting old.

0 Replies

paull wrote:

Russ Feingold? The only Senator to vote against the original Patriot Act? Half of the guys who "reformed" campaign funding? He is an impressive thinker, after the fact. He is also handsome, young, compared to the dinosaurs that run the party, and articulate.

But he plays to the fringe, a club that gets smaller every day. Saying something is illegal doesn't make it so. What congress is doing currently is to clarify the current laws so that there isn't the LEGAL loophole that a president can use to wiretap domestically without warrant, exactly the one that Bush used. This it the proper thing to do, to fix things that are broken. Throwing stink bombs, the usual tool of the democrats, is getting old.

Ummmmm. paull, in case you weren't living in the real world. Bush's approval ratings are going down, down to historically low levels in fact.

Great proposal. If the President breaks the law, then lets just change the law. (If the King breaks the law he just changes it.) Seems we have given the President the power to break any law and change it after the fact. I wonder why the GOP didn't just change perjury and obstruction laws before Clinton was impeached?

There isn't a LEGAL loophole. Either he broke the law or he didn't. If he didn't then there is no need to change the law. If he did, then GOP is just changing it after the fact to cover his behind instead of doing their job.

0 Replies

yup...

bush should be held accountable for his actions, not coddled by his rubberstamp brigade.

but i'm really not in favor of impeachment. the idea of president cheney is way too scary.

ya say, remove both ? that would be a complete disaster. who would be in the oval ? hastert?

nope. for me, the idea of lessening the hard right stranglehold on congress via elections is first. then, keep bush from enacting anymore foolishness.

with the approval at 34-37%, it's not just the left that's fed up with this president.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,this political stunt is going nowhere fast.

right. the republicans may beat bush up a little now and then over the next couple of years (if they keep control of congress) like they did on dubai, but i don't think they'll ever feed him to the lions.

0 Replies

Thank You, Mysteryman- Political Stunt it is.

But after reading some of the responses, I note that there are some who do understand IMPEACHMENT.

Parados shows his knowledge of the impeachment process when he indicates that Finegold can't process Impeachment- Only the House can do that according to the Constitution and, at this time, the Ranking member of the House Committee, the Judiciary, which would process formal impeachment is Sensebrenner(R).It is highly unlikely that he would entertain such a notion.

But Parados may not have kept up with his reading on Historically Low levels of approval ratings.

President Bush has a way to go before he would reach President Truman's Job Approval low of 22 in Feb. 1952 or President Carter's low of 28 in August 1974 or Reagan's low of 35 in Jan 1983 or even Clinton's low of 37 in June 1993.

0 Replies

uh... I believe this supasses Clinton....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/13/bush.poll/index.html

0 Replies

It does if you consider USA today/CNN as the only viable and respected poll, but anyone linking to Rasmussen Reports- a highly rated and, in the last election, very accurate polling organization, one finds that President Bush has a 42% Approval Rating!!

0 Replies

mele42846 wrote:

It does if you consider USA today/CNN as the only viable and respected poll, but anyone linking to Rasmussen Reports- a highly rated and, in the last election, very accurate polling organization, one finds that President Bush has a 42% Approval Rating!!

Link?

0 Replies

Yes, type Rasmussen Reports in your Search Web box and click on it!!

0 Replies

42% for a "wartime" president? That is supposed to be good? AP-ipsos is the latest out and it has him at 37%.

0 Replies

mele42846 wrote:

Yes, type Rasmussen Reports in your Search Web box and click on it!!

Type "I am delusional" in your search engine and click on it. In fact, click THIS!

0 Replies

So Feingold's measure hasn't created any collateral support. It will fade as have most of his initiatives.

0 Replies

mele42846 wrote:

Parados shows his knowledge of the impeachment process when he indicates that Finegold can't process Impeachment.

That is high school civics. No one who posts on a political forum should know impeachment formally starts in the House Judiciary Committee. However, a Senate investigation could uncover offenses taht could lead to impeachment.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Going nowhere? I don't think so, Feingold has separated himself from the gutless Dems who won't stand up for what is right. It is a masterful move by Feingold.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

from dailykos

Quote:

Pressing Forward
by georgia10
Mon Mar 13, 2006 at 06:40:23 PM PDT

To no one's surprise, the media is dutifully minimizing this historic moment. Take this horribly written AP story, headlined "Feingold Draws Little Support for Censure." The article claims "several Democrats" are holding back and aren't "inclined simply to scold the President." Several, whoa, wow, I thought. The article made it seem like the AP had better info than we had this morning. I read the article, and who does it cite? Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman. That's not "several" Democrats, that's one and a half. And Reid didn't reject Feingold's motion, he just said he wanted to read it first.

Fifty-one percent of Americans think Bush is a weak President. Only some 34% approve of his performance. The Congress has conspired to hide the President's crimes from the American people, and instead of reporting the reality of the situation, the press is once again manufacturing a self-fulfilling prophecy to make this scandal go away.

It hasn't even been 48 hours since Feingold announced his motion. We're in for the long haul. Tomorrow morning, we pick up where we left off--calling on Democrats to vote for the law, not the lawbreaker.

0 Replies

Russ Feingold Proposes Censure of Bush on Illegal Spying

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know