We already
know William Kristol is a liar about the FISA stuff, but when he talks about the Founding Fathers as "...intend[ing] the executive to have -- believed the executive needed to have -- some powers in the national security area that were extralegal but constitutional" is he full of even more horseshit?
I've never heard of them mentioning anything like that, but let's have a look at some quotations to see...
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers saying that impeachment should be for...
...offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.
and again:
Men in public trust will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious (subject) to legal punishment.
of course there's always the classic from Ben Franklin:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.
George Mason:
"No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice?
jeez...I wonder why he stoppped midsentence and changed "intended..." to "believed..."? Probably because he has no evidence that they ever thought that the executive should have extralegal powers.