For those comparing this to Clinton's impeachment here are some key differences
1. This is censure, not impeachment. Many Senate Democrats supported censuring Clinton.
2. Clinton only lied about a blow job. Bush has lied about everything else.
3. Currently Bush has an approval rating in the mid-30s, while Clinton was in the mid-60s for most of 1998.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm
Jfern apparently cannot comprehend the difference between lying and perjury. In Bush's case, he hasn't been placed under oath, so perjury is not an issue. Whether or not Bush has lied has not been determined. Whether or not a statute has been violated has not been determined and Jfern, and others, have raised the issue, but have not cited any evidence as of yet.
Clinton technically didn't lie when he said: "I did not have sex with that woman".
His statement, when he made that famous statement on television wasn't perjery; he wasn't under oath. He did with his "That depends on what 'is' is," was. As was his his statement in the Jones case.
However, Bush has not sunk to that level, for the simple reason, he's never been under oath.
The questions here are:
1. Did Bush violate a statute?
2. Is that statute constitutional?
3. Does a violation of the statute rise to impeachable offense?
My answer to #3 would have been yes, prior to the Clinton impeachment trial; now I'm not sure. My answer to #2 is probably. My answer to #1 is, "Show me the evidence."
Fiengold effectively said,
"Don't confuse me with evidence. I want to say that we (meaning I) don't like it, if he did it, and it isn't impeachable."It's a bit like claiming someone committed armed robbery, not proving that there was a robbery of any kind, and then saying if there was one, there won't be any penalty for the person who did it.
It was stupid on so many levels that the Democratic Senate Conference did the right thing by ignoring it.
