Dear Sen. Feinstein,

I do appreciate and understand your position on this matter of impeachment and I agree that it is utterly necessary to move ahead and repair the limitless destruction left behind the utterly disastrous policies, both foreign and domestic, of the Bush Administration; HOWEVER, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al, have committed unspeakable crimes. Therefore, who is and who will be responsible for prosecuting criminals?

There MUST be an answer. Perhaps a specially designed group within the new (thankfully) Obama Administration. Someone MUST ACT!! After all, who is responsible, ultimately, for upholding our Constitutional laws?

Please let me know as I will await your response.

Thank you.

Cheers,

Christina Marlowe

On Nov 14, 2008, at 11:04 AM, wrote:

Dear Ms. Marlowe:

Thank you for your letter concerning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Richard Cheney. I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.

In our last national election, voters expressed clear disapproval with the path this country is on. They are tired of partisan politics and of an Administration that pays little heed to the wishes of the American people. They want-and deserve-a Congress that holds the Administration accountable and fulfills its Constitutional responsibility to check and balance the Executive branch. I share this sentiment and am determined to work hard in the United States Senate to promote issues that are of real concern to most Americans, including the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, global warming, and the current state of our economy.

At this time, however, I believe that impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush or Vice President Cheney will only divide the country even further, frustrating our hopes for a meaningful change in direction, while having little chance of success.

I have been deeply disappointed by many of this Administration's actions and have been outspoken in those instances. Nevertheless, given the challenges our country faces I believe that we need to focus on constructive and cooperative steps that would lead us in the right direction. It is my hope that the next Presidential Administration's actions will more accurately reflect the will of the people.

Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any additional questions or comments, please contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Sincerely yours,

Dianne Feinstein

United States Senator

Certainly worthy of criticism, but nothing new.

There has always been a "law above all laws" in the United States, which was never mentioned in the Constitution and has never been explicitly adopted:

Sovereign Immunity.

The principle is presumably inherent in some components of British Common Law that preclude the "sovereign" (King or government agents) from being prosecuted for any violations of their own laws. In modern history, it is personified by Richard Nixon's assertion that, "If the president does it, then its legal."

The Supreme Court has upheld this viewpoint and even extended it to include other "sovereign rights" to evade any investigation or terminate any prosecution of illegal activities (commonly called "executive privelege").

Again, nowhere to be found in the Constitution or any provision of American law (though implied in many pieces of legislation).

The American people accept this as a necessary condition to allow executives to "get the job done," on the premise that our leaders are - necessarily, if not by divine right - endowed with unlimited wisdom and ought to have the supreme power to "run the country."

It's sick. But it's nothing new. Monarchism reigns.

The argument that centrism and bi-partisanship should take precedence over accountability for law breaking is an illusion.

One only has to look back at the Nixon Impeachment. The Republicans argued that the Democrats drove Nixon into resigning was partisan politics with little or no mention of Nixon's actual lawbreaking and, of course, the Democrats screamed partisanship and payback for the Clinton impeachment.While Clinton's behavior could be characterized as morally reprehensible it probably did not rise to the definition of an impeachable offense as defined in the Constitution, but that did not deter the Republicans.

Of course investigations into lawbreaking by Presidents and other high officials is divisive, but not doing so will only perpetuate the the imperial presidency we have had these past eight years into the future. We must do better.

1. I agree that we have very important, and very urgent, things to accomplish just as soon as Barack Obama is inaugurated.

2. Right at the top of this list would be restoring some semblance of confidence in the integrity of those in Government. The 2008 Presidential election was a 2-part statement from the American Public. #1 was a negative, throw the bums out, vote. #2 was a resounding endorsement of Barack Obama, someone who struck millions of us as a person of integrity and someone whose commitment to service was as strong as his desire to hold power. I found it inspiring to read Axelrod's statement that Barack Obama found his passion for the Presidency in what could accomplish from that office, and not in how he personally would be defined by it.

3. There will be a number of issues on which an Obama administration will need to ask those millions of his supporters who gave him our allegiance to "trust us." There will be issues on which he cannot share the information available to him as he makes certain decisions, be that because of "national security issues" or simply a case of "we don't have time to debate this."

4. Progressive are actually not stupid. We agree, by and large, that prosecuting the Bush Administration for every instance in which it broke the law would take the next 20 years. There has been no track record like the one this administration has left in its wake that even approaches the level of lawlessness we've seen over the last 8 years. We're not asking for an equivalent period of time spent in commissions and inquiries and prosecutions.

5. But, and this is the BIG BUT, we are asking for these in areas in which this administration broke the law to the extent that a sitting Congress of vertebrates would have impreached both George Bush and Dick Cheney years ago. Lies that took the country into war, spying on U.S. citizens, torture, and politicization of the Justice Department are legitimate issues for examination - and potential prosecution.

6. If an Obama administration chooses to vote in favor of "bi-partisanship" by refraining from examining areas in which laws were broken, it brands itself as believing in "politics as usual." I would be very sad to see this happen. I have higher hopes for this incoming administration than that.

7. The American public voted in favor of a Republic, one in which its elected officials understood for a change that they had a duty to those who elected them. And that no one in this country is above the law.

So shame on anyone who plays the "bi-partisan" card - from the bottom of the deck - in order to make any of us feel guilty over what is a legitimate - and much delayed - examination of the lawlessness that's gone unchecked for the last 8 years. ENOUGH.