Sen. Feingold: 'The President Has Created A Constitutional Crisis'

This morning, after my previous post, I called the local offices of my Senators- Schumer and Clinton- to ask if the Senators had made on decision on whether to support the censure resolution. The Schumer staffer said the senator had not made a decision yet (shocker). The Clinton staffer said the same thing, but did tell me that the phones had been ringing off the hook with calls like mine and there was lots of support. I'd be curious to call the offices of "red state" senators like DeWine or Roberts and see what the situation was there. If I do, I'll post the response(s) I get.

In my last entry, I also expressed concern that the media would take a pass on this story. For the most part, that seems the case. Considering how a rare a move to censure a President is, I assumed it would get as much press as the President's latest Iraq speech. I don't expect/want the media to take sides on this issue (although look for the Fox crew and the MSNBC Matthews/Russert-type crowd to smear Feingold), but at least present the debate honestly.

In my email to Sen. Feingold, I said "Most likely, these coming days will be difficult for you, with many in Washington and in the media questioning your motives and attacking your character". Not exactly a long shot of a prediction. Hellen Keller could've seen the political attacks on Feingold coming before he finished speaking. The usual suspects are trying to paint Feingold as an opportunist, which makes no sense whatsoever since this move is practically political suicide for a Presidential contender, which is why no Democrats (save for John Kerry) have yet issued a statement of support. In fact, most Democrats are distancing themselves from this for political reasons. If Feingold was playing '2008 politics' (as Scott McClellan insists), then he would've played it safe and kept his mouth shut until after the midterm elections. But Russ Feingold is a man of principle and, after the awful decision of the Intelligence Committee not even to investigate, he felt this was necessary. So he's putting himself on the line for something he believes in. Not a common move for a Senator of either party.

The crux of the White House's statements today (and what we saw in the Malkin link above) involved again presenting the false debate that not supporting the President's warrantless wiretapping means not supporting the war on terror. It's a low move, but I understand they've had success with it. McClellan said today-

"I think it does raise the question, how do you fight and win the war on terrorism? And if Democrats want to argue that we shouldn't be listening to al Qaeda communications, it's their right and we welcome the debate. We are a nation at war."

This is an ouright lie and McClellan knows it. Not one Democrat, not a one, has ever said we shouldn't wiretap and intercept Al Qaeda communications. Using surveillance is not a new thing and has unanimous support. But there are laws that govern surveillance (laws that give the President extremely broad powers and leeway) and the President has broken them. I posted yesterday what Glenn Greenwald has outlined as the three main points of this scandal-

(1) We all want eavesdropping on Al Qaeda and the law allows that;

(2) The problem isn't that the President eavesdropped; it's that he did it in a way that broke the law by eavesdropping without judicial oversight and approval, which Americans required in 1978 in order to prevent abuse of the eavesdropping power; and,

(3) We cannot maintain our constitutional republican form of government if the Congress stands by meekly and silently and allows the President to break the law, no matter what his intentions are. We did not declare martial law on 9/11. We are still a nation of laws and it is intolerable for the President to act illegally.

The White House and their supporters will not address those points and instead sidestep the actual debate with political smears and accusations of weakness on fighting terror. If they want to debate this issue on substance, I imagine most people are all ears.

McClellan also said-

"The American people have made it very clear they support the president’s efforts to defeat the terrorists and prevent attacks from happening."

More of the above. Regardless, it should have been pointed out to McClellan that the polls are against him on this. Polls show that the majority of Americans believe that "the president had definitely or probably broken the law by authorizing the wiretaps". Other polls show a declining support of how President Bush is (mis)handling the war on terror.

CNN interviewed Sen. Feingold this morning. It was exactly the type of interview I wish we saw more of... the reporter spitting talking points at the Democrat and the Democrat actually knocking them down. The reporter starts out the interview with Frist's statement, therefore beginning with the notion that Feingold is "crazy". Feingold's responses were absolutely perfect. He mentioned how there is general consensus among both Republicans and Democrats in Congress that the President broke the law and that investigations are getting nowhere and being scuttled. When the CNN reporter asked why not just wait for an investigation, Feingold reminded her that the Intelligence Committee refused to do one! He also mentioned that this isn't about removing Bush from office, but about sending a signal that the President must abide by the law. So given their refusal to cooperate with investigations and their stated decision to continue breaking the law, he reiterates that censure sends an important message while we continue to find out the facts of the President's actions. Feingold reminds the reporter that the President is the one who has harmed the war on terror with distractions like Iraq and other bad decisions. And as the reporter questions his assessment and reads an RNC statement, Feingold warns against taking seriously the "politics of intimidation". Finally, he reminds viewers that the President repeatedly lied in 2004 about the use of warrants in ordering surveillance.

Sen. Feingold has issued a a new statement on his decision today.

And while the Senator doesn't mention it in any of his arguments, I would like to note that another point here is the mass evidence of abuse by the White House on domestic spying. This has gone far beyond looking for Al Qaeda members. Government officials have confirmed that the White House has targeted innocent Americans. We know that Quakers and protestors and U.N. officials have been illegally spied on upon by this administration. We have numerous accusations that even people like Christopher Hitchens or CNN's Christine Amanpour have been wiretapped. We know that they are keeping databases of political activists and engaging in datamining activities. We also know that this program has flooded the F.B.I. and other agencies with phone calls of thousands of innocent Americans, which has slowed down their ability to follow important leads. We also know that the Attorney General has all but admitted the existence of other programs of secret surveillance.

The fact that those things are on the sideline here shows just how far-reaching the President's misdeeds are.

Anonymous Liberal has a good take on how this is the most textbook use for censure:

Senator Feingold's call for Congressional censure is an eminently reasonable response to the NSA scandal by any objective measure. Just eight years ago, Congressional Republicans impeached a president for lying about a private consensual affair in the context of a frivolous civil suit which was financed and litigated by the president's enemies. We are now faced with a president who is engaged in ongoing violations of a criminal statute intended to protect the constitutional rights of the American people. There is agreement that extends well beyond party lines that the President does not have the constitutional or statutory authority to do what he is doing. This administration has repeatedly ignored, misled, and marginalized Congress. If such facts do not warrant censure, it's hard to know what does.

Agreed. The very fact that so many don't even want to have this debate makes you wonder what they would actually consider an action justifying censure/impeachment. After all, it was the Republicans who set the bar to a new low by impeaching the previous President. And now when you have a textbook case of Executive abuse (considering the first censure and impeachment was about an issue where the President sidestepped Congress), they're ready to throw the whole idea out the window. As I said last night, that sounds more like an authoritarian dictatorship than a democracy.

I don't care what anyone says about this move, I believe this is democracy in action.

[PS- Sen. Feingold is on C-Span 2 right now.]

[PPS- A former senior national security lawyer at the Justice Department doesn't buy the White House's case:
Ex-Justice Lawyer Rips Case for Spying]