Interview with Bruce Fein
This is the transcript of an interview Thom Hartmann did with Bruce last week. Fein.
Bruce Fein is a constitutional scholar, a lawyer, international consultant with Bruce Fein & Associates and The Lichfield Group. He's also the chairman of the American Freedom Agenda, ... an organization devoted to restoring checks and balances and protections against government abuse. He served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration as General Counsel of the Federal Communications Commission and has been affiliated with conservative think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation, and now writes a weekly column for both the Washington Times and Politico.com. Bruce Fein, welcome to the program. He was one of the guys who authored the original articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton. He thinks Bush should be impeached and explains why in this interview. Comments?
4 comments:
Interesting interview.
I agree with Fein in principle, but strict proof would be demanded of offenses should an impeachment go forward.
The Dems seem much more interested in promulgating the appearance of scandal than actual proving it.
That statement is ridiculous. Totally idiotic.
You don't see a scandal already? If they did nothing wrong, why is everybody either lying about it or claiming executive priv.?
A couple of questions for you, Gonz.
1) As a Constitutional Scholar and student of the Federalist Papers, what do you think the purpose of Impeachment Hearings are?
2) How should the Dems go about finding "strict proof" since compeling Administration officials to testify is off-limits?
3) In your opinion, what was the turning point in the Watergate investigations?
-dta
dta, perhaps you misunderstood me. As to point 1, I'm not saying to wait for strict proof before starting an impeachment, I'm saying that strict proof of offenses would be demanded once it started. You can't impeach a guy just because you don't like him.
As to points 2 and 3 you raise good questions but I'm not sure it's the same circumstances. With Watergate, at the core, was the blank-and-white crime of break-in by aides to Nixon.
Find that crime and then you have a better analogy.
Post a Comment