"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" not required to start an impeachment inquiry

if what bush has done already doesn't warrant an impeachment inquiry, then, according to fein, impeachment as a constitutional remedy is meaningless...

bruce fein in slate...



he continues...

The House does not require, nor should it await, proof beyond a reasonable doubt of misconduct. To wait for such proof subverts the whole purpose of an impeachment inquiry.

[...]

Impeachment precedents fortified by the original intent of the Constitution's makers provide ample justification for a House judiciary committee impeachment inquiry targeting President Bush for—among other things—multiple criminal violations of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and frustration of legitimate congressional oversight with preposterous claims of executive privilege.

FISA makes it a federal felony for the president or vice president to "intentionally engage … in electronic surveillance [to gather foreign intelligence or otherwise] under color of law except as authorized by statute." A companion provision provides that the FISA's procedures are the "exclusive means" for conducting electronic surveillance.

[...]

An impeachment inquiry should further examine Bush's repeated assertions of executive privilege to operate a secret government eavesdropping program.

[...]

If what Bush has said and done falls short of warranting an impeachment inquiry, then impeachment of the president has become a virtual dead letter.

yeah, this criminal cabal needs to go, no doubt about it...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet