Feingold thought the impeachment of Clinton was a "close case." Will he

call for the impeachment of George W Bush or is leading the United States into an illegal war and illegally spying on Americans not as close a case as efforts to avoid exposure of consensual sex? (I write this as someone who thinks that of all the Democrats making rumbles about running for President, Feingold is our best bet).

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.statements/feingold.html

<edit>

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.

more...

I, for one, worry that his personal "baggage" and Jewish roots would keep him from flipping any red states (and that's my ONLY concern about his running).

I want someone who can flip a purplish-red state to carry the Electoral College, better unite this country and stymie Diebold. I worry that a twice-divorced, single Jewish man wouldn't fare very well in Virginia, Arizona and New Mexico - three states we might have a chance to flip with someone like Wes Clark or Mark Warner.

BTW, after Clark, Feingold is my second choice, so don't take this the wrong way.

I remember back then that around 95% of the constitutional law professors in the country said that this was not a close...not close at all. Not a high crime and misdemeanor!

shame for a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Your linked statement says Feingold voted guilty on both counts -- but he didn't. (Am I missing a divider or was there an error or something?)

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/02/12/senate.vote/

guilty, but the table shows Feingold as voting not guilty on both counts.

but the linked statement indicates a guilty vote (see the bottom grafs).

:shrug:

in a very misleading way. I had to read through twice to see CNN had just added Hutchinson's statement to Feingold's.

What in the blue hell is he babbling about?

The Clinton impeachment was an attempted political lynching orchestrated by Gingrich and his henchmen. Why will even Democrats not say this out loud. It isn't like the people didn't recognize it for what it was - Clinton's approval ratings went UP during that sham show trial. There was no impeachable offense there. No abuse of office or official power. Clinton was guilty of bad judgment in his personal life and lying to his family.

I just lost a lot of respect for Feingold.

a stand against Clinton, surely a similarly stand is demanded by the criminal actions of the current president.

I think he is also the most principled member of the Senate. He had the responsibility to give due consideration to the issue of impeachment, and he did so. The matter was put before him; he didn't ask for it. He REALLY didn't like being lied to by Clinton, but in the end he decided it was not an impeachable offense.

He's not flamboyant, and I doubt he'll be the first to call for impeachment. But when and if the time comes for him to vote on it, he'll weigh everything in the balance & vote as his conscience and his interpretation of the legal & factual issues dictate.

If that's not the kind of person you want to support for President, you can always back Kerry again.

show he can lead when the going gets tough. If he thought the Clinton case was a close one, he should be able to pretty quickly make up his mind about the Criminal in Chief's latest grab for dictatorial power.