By Ray McGovern
July 2, 2007
Last week’s four-part Washington Post feature on Vice President Dick Cheney removed any doubt in my mind as to whether he and President George W. Bush have committed the kinds of high crimes and misdemeanors that warrant impeachment.
While President George W. Bush bears the ultimate responsibility, the nature of the evidence against Cheney and his closest associates is so specific and overwhelming that it makes sense to impeach and bring him to trial first.
Read on.
1 comment:
Focusing on 'winnable battles' can make sense, but I hope that any impeachment process does not leave important avenues unexplored.
Unimpeachably impeachable? Sure seems like it. Back in Watergate, the House Judiciary Committee addressed the pardon issue, looking back to James Madison's arguments in the debates over the Constitution.
Apparently, George Mason argued that the President might pardon "crimes which were advised by himself" or "to stop inquiry and prevent detection."
Madison asserted that "If the President be connected, in any suspicious manner, with any person, and there be grounds to believe he will shelter him, the House of Representatives can impeach him; they can remove him if found guilty... "
Post a Comment