I've been a political junkie as long as I can remember, and to this day, nothing—not the Iraq war, not Cheney's naked power grabs, nothing—has ever made me angrier than the subversion of democracy and the Constitution that led to the House of Representatives' cowardly, reprehensible impeachment of President Clinton in 1999. I've always been a liberal, but I became radicalized, in a sense, on that day: it was then that I truly realized, in a way that I never really had before, that the people in charge of the modern Republican Party are not just wrong on the issues but are in fact bad people who cannot be reasoned with in any meaningful way and must simply be opposed without fail. I believe, as I expect to believe until my dying day, that any member of Congress in either party who did not do everything in his or her power to fight the Republicans' dishonest, unconstitutional, wicked impeachment of President Clinton is a traitor. They are traitors to their oaths of office, to the Constitution, and to the American people, and I believe with every fiber of my being that history will judge them as such.
Which brings us back to the junior senator from Wisconsin.
During his re-election campaign earlier this year, Feingold made some strong remarks about Clinton's behavior. "If there is any proof that (Clinton) lied under oath, I will have no trouble voting on his impeachment," he said in January [of 1998] when the Lewinsky scandal broke.
In an interview this summer, Feingold said Clinton should seriously consider resigning if he "directly lied to the American people when he said he didn't have a sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky."
As impeachment loomed during the summer of 1998 following the President's public admission of an "inappropriate" relationship with Monica Lewinsky, Russ Feingold was quick to join Joe Lieberman ("D"-Conn.) and the panty-sniffers in the Republican Party in strongly—strongly!—disapproving of the President's conduct, just as if any of it was any of the goddamn business of any of us. The Washington Post reported on August 27:
Today, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) told local law enforcement officials in Milwaukee that "we have to determine whether the president can restore his credibility with the American people . . . or whether he should consider an alternative."
Later in an interview, Feingold said he was not recommending that Clinton resign, but that he "consider that one of a series of options that may be necessary if it's not possible to have the confidence of the American people."
Asked whether he thought it was possible for Clinton to repair his credibility, after misleading people for seven months about whether he had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, Feingold said: "I don't know. I think it's difficult but possible. Very difficult."
Okay, but acting outraged over President Clinton's indiscretions was the hip thing to do back then, so we have to cut Feingold some slack, right? After all, it was Joe Lieberman, not Feingold, who took to the Senate floor on September 4 to denounce Clinton's "behavior" as "immoral and harmful." Surely Feingold, the great progressive hope, the man who has come here and asked us not to get our undies in a bunch over all this impeachment talk, would be among the first to counsel Lieberman and his fellow Liebertravelers against using that kind of intemperate language.
Or maybe not:
Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.), a strong early critic of Clinton's behavior and his Aug. 17 speech, said today that Lieberman's scorching criticism "pretty well reflected" his own thoughts as well and added that Clinton's effort today was still not enough. "Explanation rather than contrition is the key . . . not just saying he's sorry but adequately saying how it occurred so people can feel more comfortable about it," Feingold said in a telephone interview from Wisconsin. "What he has to answer is [how] he said one series of things and then changed his story about it. He's got to explain this."
Still, talk is cheap; action, markedly less so. Following the House's impeachment vote on December 19, 1998, only one hundred people in America had the power to take action to stop this historic miscarriage of justice. Forty-five of them were Democrats. Forty-four of those Democrats did the right thing from day one through to the bitter end. And then there was Russ Feingold.
Republicans, as expected, mustered all of their 10-vote majority in the Senate to defeat the Democratic attempt to dismiss the trial and approve the House managers' request for witness depositions.
Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was the only senator to cross party lines, voting with the Republicans on both motions. Feingold did not talk with reporters after the vote, but issued a three-page statement.
"My view, as of this moment, is that to dismiss this case would be in appearance and in fact improperly short-circuiting this trial. I simply cannot say that the House managers cannot prevail regardless of what witness might plausibly testify and regardless of what persuasive arguments might be offered," Feingold wrote. "I want to be clear that my vote against the motion does not mean that I am leaning in favor of a final vote to convict the president. I am not."
Several Republican senators, who admit they have not made up their minds whether the president should be removed from office, echoed Feingold's reasoning after the vote.
That was CNN on January 27, 1999. At issue was a motion by Senator Robert Byrd (D - W.V.) to dismiss all charges against the President. The vote was 44 to 56. 44 Democrats voted yes. 55 Republicans and one Democrat voted no.
55 Republicans. And one Democrat. Just one. Russ Feingold.
Ten minutes later, Feingold betrayed his oath again, voting with the Republicans to allow the House managers to subpoena witnesses to testify against the President. The vote was 56 to 44. 44 Democrats voted no. 55 Republicans and one Democrat voted yes.
55 Republicans. And one Democrat. Just one. Russ Feingold.
The junior senator from Wisconsin would betray his oath twice more before it was all over. The following day, Minority Leader Tom Daschle made a motion to cut off debate and move directly to closing arguments. With two senators not voting, Daschle's motion failed, 43-55. 43 Democrats voted no. 54 Republicans and one Democrat voted yes.
54 Republicans. And one Democrat. Just one. Russ Feingold.
A week later, on February 4, Daschle tried again to cut off debate and proceed to closing arguments. The motion failed, 44-56. 44 Democrats voted no. 55 Republicans and one Democrat voted yes.
55 Republicans. And one Democrat. Just one. Russ Feingold.
On February 12, Abraham Lincoln's birthday, the Senate voted on two charges of impeachment against President Bill Clinton. Every other Democrat in the Senate was on the record favoring dismissal of both outrageous charges. With impeachment charges requiring 67 votes to convict, acquittal was a foregone conclusion. Among the Democrats, the only remaining question was how Russ Feingold would vote.
He voted to acquit on both charges.
We may be grateful, I suppose, that at long last, after his four stunning votes in solidarity with the filth on the other side of the aisle—giving the punditocracy all the reason they'd ever need to call the impeachment effort "bipartisan"—Feingold finally came around and cast two meaningless votes on the side of good. But even then, even then, the junior senator from Wisconsin refused to recognize the Republicans' sham trial for what it was. In fact, he wanted us all to know, he could very easily have gone the other way:
Not guilty, but not by much, Feingold says
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Feb 13, 1999
by CRAIG GILBERT
Despite his votes Friday to acquit President Clinton of high crimes and misdemeanors, Sen. Russ Feingold termed the case a close call.
The Wisconsin Democrat said the president "barely avoided, in my opinion, committing obstruction of justice beyond a reasonable doubt."
In his first extensive comments on the case, Feingold said the perjury charges against Clinton were "relatively weak." But he called the obstruction of justice charges "a much tougher call." And he sounded a striking note of Clinton fatigue when he told a small group of reporters before the roll call: "I'll be really very honest with you. I'm ready to serve under another president."
"Ready to serve under another president." He got his wish eventually, didn't he? I wonder if Senator Feingold—brave, principled Senator Feingold, the progressive hope of the Democratic Party—is ready to serve under another president now. Apparently not.
How dare you, sir, you of all people, come here and tell us we have more important things to worry about than impeachment?
How dare you?
To quote Joseph Welch, a truly principled man, who spoke these words 53 years ago to another junior senator from Wisconsin:
Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
