Speaking of censure, Andy McCarthy has this to say over at National Review Online:
On that score, it looks like Tuesday's [Senate Judiciary Committee] hearing will include testimony from some legal experts (including perhaps some past or present FISA court judges). Expect the program's opponents to try to glean from Tuesday's witnesses "expert" opinions that the program is illegal, which said opponents can then use at Friday's hearing as part of the argument that the President has committed crimes and could be impeached, therefore -- so the argument will go -- censure is an entirely reasonable middle ground.An entirely acceptable analysis of opposition motives, as far as it goes. But why the pettiness? You would expect the testimony of legal experts to consist, more or less, of expert opinions. But no; not when such testimony might aid the other side. Then it's sneer-quoted "expert" opinion that must be gleaned (presumably with a magnifying glass and a sharp pair of tweezers).
Anyway, if the experts do testify that Bush has committed impeachable crimes, it won't be by virtue of any "argument" that censure becomes a middle ground, but rather by virtue of plain fact. And very exposed middle ground at that.