Via a report written and released by the Judiciary Committee in 1974 in the aftermath of the Watergate crisis:
Comments in the state ratifying conventions also suggest that those who adopted the Constitution viewed impeachment as a remedy for usurpation or abuse of power or serious breach of trust. Thus, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina stated that the impeachment power of the House reaches “those who behave amiss, or betray their public trust.”60 … In the same convention George Mason argued that the President might use his pardoning power to “pardon crimes which were advised by himself” or, before indictment or conviction, “to stop inquiry and prevent detection.” James Madison responded:
[I]f 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…63
But will they?
“But will they?” I don’t think they will…
They couldn’t even take away Cunningham’s pension and Harry Reid’s office still takes the Washington Post even though they basically called him a criminal when they compared him to Gonzales.
They don’t have a choice, they just don’t know that yet. All those investigations? Documents are not going to be forthcoming I guarantee you. You think we can just sit here in stalemate for 18 months? With a multitude of committees sitting there waiting? I certainly don’t. Even if it were possible, the damage to the power of the Congress would be enormous. It would be clear proof that that body no longer functions.
They have swept away most of our constitutional rights, and they will not stop until someone stops them. The Dems better get it the f** together because the way to win for the foreseeable future is to impeach. If they don’t, well they still might win this next time but don’t forget the Diebold super vote.
Can we impeach Diebold? That might be a nice starter model for the Dems.