Question about Feingold regarding Clinton's impeachment.

[Lisa0825]

I was trying to counter some defeatism in a Democratic friend's email, and replied with several examples of Democrats showing spines lately, including Feingold. She replied back that she was pissed at Feingold due to him voting to impeach Clinton.

I was only just starting to wake up to politics back then, and I didn't remember the details of the vote, so WestHoustonDem looked up some links and sent them to me. the problem is, they seem to be totally contradictory.

This link says he voted "no" on impeachment:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00017

But this link to his personal statement says he voted "yes" on obstruction and perjury.
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/feingold.shtml

Can someone clear this up for me?

Thanks.

[ClassWarrior]

1. Senators don't vote to impeach. Reps do. Feingold voted to hear...

...evidence in Clinton's trial in the Senate (the result of a House impeachment). He believes that once charges are handed to the Senate, it's the Senate's responsibility to hear the evidence.

NGU.

[Lisa0825]

4. so even though

it specifically says, "I vote `Guilty' on Article I, Perjury. I vote `Guilty' on Article II, Obstruction of Justice," what it really means is "I vote to hear evidence?" I'm not trying to be snarky. I really just want to be clear on what happened.

Thanks:-)

[ClassWarrior]

6. What says that? Link please?

NGU.

[Lisa0825]

8. That was from the end of the second link above...

here is the link again:
http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/trial/statements/feingold.shtml

[doc mercer]

2. Feingold

Feingold right now does not want Bush impeched ... he wants him censured and forced to apologize to
Americans

[Nite Owl]

3. See above...

Class Warrior is correct. It's like a trial, the House votes on whether or not the case should go to trial, the Senate is the trial and Feingold voted to hear the case but voted not to 'convict'. Impeachment means bringing the case to the Senate.

[still_one]

7. perfectly consistent

[Lisa0825]

10. OK, lets see if I have this straight....

the intro to the statement by Feingold atthe second link above says :

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, Feb. 12.

So, were these "deliberations" on whether or not to go to trial, or on whether or not he was guilty? If it was on whether or not to go to trial, I can rectify the apparent contradiction, because he could vote to go to trial, and then vote not guilty. But what confuses me is the last part of the statement, because it does not say, "I vote that this go to trial."

It says:

I cannot make that choice. I cannot look away. I vote `Guilty' on Article I, Perjury. I vote `Guilty' on Article II, Obstruction of Justice.

I ask unanimous consent an analysis of the Articles of Impeachment be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows.


Sorry if I am being dense. I'm no lawyer, and the formal language may be what is hanging me up.

[bornskeptic]

12. Here are links to the actual votes.

No Democrat voted to convict on either count.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00017

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00018

Feingold was, however, the only Democrat to vote against dismissing the charges prior to the actual trial.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00004

[Lisa0825]

13. Thanks.

I still don't understand why his statement says what it does at the end, but it doesn't look like I am going to find any clarification on that.

[still_one]

5. feingold voted no

as far as your friends defeatism this is the only game in town, and until we have proportional voting a third party in this country will not suceed on a national level

Ned Lamont is a perfect example of bringing change into the party. Start at a local level and work up. One seat at a time. It will not happen overnight, and even if we take 1 or both houses in 2006 a lot of work needs to be done. So if your friend wants instant gratification, she isn't going to get it. It is going to take years.

[Nite Owl]

9. It has taken decades for

the right wing to get this far. They persisted, they never gave up and we can't either. We are really just beginning to form the message that we need to get out there! For me any work I am doing now is for my kids so they will know we fought for them and they will have to carry on. There is a lot to be undone.

[still_one]

11. ditto