What would happen if it was discovered that a president rigged an election?

[Absolute]

What would happen if, seven years into his two terms, it was discovered that the current US president had rigged the previous two presidential elections in his favor, and that it could be determined that the real winner of both elections was someone else.

I assume that Congress could impeach the "president", but what would happen legally to all his appointees: Supreme Court (and lesser court) justices, directors of various agencies, and so forth? What about laws that he signed?

I guess the question is: legally, what determines whether a person really holds the office of President of the United States? Is it being elected, or being sworn in? If the former, then this man never really was president, and all his appointments and laws should be invalidated. If the latter, then they're still valid.

Also, would the vice president then become president, or would he be impeached as well? I would think that the most sensible thing to do would be to pass the presidency on to the first person untainted by this conspiracy in the chain of succession, which would be the speaker of the house.

But, what would happen if the election-rigging affected not only the presidential race, but seats in Congress as well? If the majority of the senators were unfairly elected, what would happen if they refused to impeach the president, refused to impeach themselves, and refused to resign?

Could the justice system intervene, and remove these people from office? What if the president, in the past seven years, had the opportunity to appoint five justices to the Supreme Court, and these justices refused to take the necessary action?

[Bricker]

The President becomes the President when the Electoral College votes for him.

Assuming by "rigged" you mean he rigged the results of the state-wide votes, not the Electoral College, then his appointments nd all the bills he signed into law are legitimate. Certainly the Congress might impeach him, but that act would not undo any official act the president had accomplished.

Except for the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court has no involvement in the impeachment process.

The rest of your questions are so far-fteched as to be meaningless. What if a majority of Congress was involved in the vote fixing? Then I guess they'd stay in office; Congress has the sole authority to remove its own members. Presumably the states would act to ensure that the vote fixing didn't recur, and the guilty parties would be kicked out in the next election by righteous angry voters. At some level, you're discussing the massive failure of government at all levels. This could create a constitutional crisis. Perhaps the states will convene a constitutional convention, as described in Article V, and re-write the whole bloody thing. Perhaps the military will seize control and we'll be ruled by a junta. Who knows?

[Elendil's Heir]

Do you have any particular President in mind? ;)

That's a hell of a hypothetical.

We'd be on legal terra incognita, so what happens would be anyone's guess. If the President had any self-respect or sense of shame at all, he'd resign at once, and so would the Vice President. If they didn't, yes, I think impeachment would be the proper route.

Amendment XII provides that after the Electoral College ballots are opened before a joint session of Congress, "the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed...." Congress, having acknowledged the Electoral College tally in (presumably) good faith, would have properly recognized who they believed to be the President- and Vice President-elect at the time. If it later came out that the vote was a fraud, and that Congress refused to take the necessary steps to rectify the situation, those members of Congress and senators would eventually have to face the voters at the expiration of their terms. Members of Congress and senators cannot be impeached or recalled, IIRC.

A bit of rough justice might be for the Vice President to resign first, the President to appoint as VP the person who had actually won the last election, and then resign after he or she was confirmed by Congress pursuant to Amendment XXV, Sec. 2, thereby letting that individual serve as President for the balance of the term. That person would then have a leg up in the next campaign when, presumably, the nation would - perhaps out of embarrassment and an eagerness to make amends - elect him or her to a full term.

I suspect the courts would stay out of all this if at all possible, considering most of it to present "political questions" best handled by the other branches.

[RealityChuck]

Historically, people who fixed elections remained in office until either their term ended or they were impeached or arrested on other charges*. I doubt this would change -- it's opening an enormous can of worms.

Any actions performed by the official until he leaves office would be legal.

*Consider "Landslide Lyndon" Johnson, who probably fixed his first election to the Senate, after losing a few years before due to a fixed election. Or the history of Tammany Hall.

[Rico]

<not a mod>

Some people just can't let things alone. "W" will be out of office in two years, but they still can't get past the last two elections. If you're that upset with the fact that a Republican has been in office for the last six years, volunteer at your local Democratic headquarters and try to change things within the system. Don't make up hypotheticals that could never happen.

</not a mod>

<mod>

Thank you for keeping this civil. However, I think this could have some better answers and discussion in Great Debates.

Moved.

</mod>

[BrainGlutton]

Judging by the history of John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and the "Corrupt Bargain" of 1824, nothing at all would happen.

[Absolute]

<not a mod>

Some people just can't let things alone. "W" will be out of office in two years, but they still can't get past the last two elections. If you're that upset with the fact that a Republican has been in office for the last six years, volunteer at your local Democratic headquarters and try to change things within the system. Don't make up hypotheticals that could never happen.

</not a mod>

My post was not about Bush. I did not intend this to be anything more than a legal/constitutional question about a purely hypothetical situation. I don't believe the situation has any basis in reality, and I didn't imply that it did in my post.

You're the one who brought up Bush here, not me. For the record, if I had been eligible to vote in the last election (I was 17 at the time), I would've voted for Bush.

And I don't agree that this situation "could never happen". It's unlikely, but not implausible. As we move further and further down the path of badly-implemented, insecure electronic voting systems, it only gets more likely. It would take a lot of effort to engineer, but the payoff would be huge. I don't think it's that far-fetched to imagine a hostile foreign government attempting something like this in the next few decades.

[BrainGlutton]

<not a mod>

Some people just can't let things alone. "W" will be out of office in two years, but they still can't get past the last two elections. If you're that upset with the fact that a Republican has been in office for the last six years, volunteer at your local Democratic headquarters and try to change things within the system. Don't make up hypotheticals that could never happen.

</not a mod>

But it could happen, Rico.

[Martin Hyde]

From what we've seen historically, once you're officially in the office, the election certified, the EV's cast, and sworn in, you're the man. It doesn't matter if you cheated or not. It's sort of like an NFL game. If a ref cheats, makes an incredibly biased call, or if a player cheats and gets away with it, the game stands as decided on the field. Even if "in fairness" it should have gone the other way.

It really, sadly, has to be that way. Because the societal meltdown that would ensue if every law passed under a fraudulently elected Administration was instantly thrown out we'd see the greatest crisis in the history of this country aside from the Civil War. We'd have grave economic collapse as thousands of court cases, corporate regulations and etc were suddenly retroactively changed.

[Der Trihs]

My guess, if it's a Democrat he'd be impeached, his laws erased and appointments tossed out. If he's a Republican, nothing.

[Captain Amazing]

My guess, if it's a Democrat he'd be impeached, his laws erased and appointments tossed out. If he's a Republican, nothing.
Well, it would probably depend on who's in charge of Congress. :) But seriously, while the president might be impeached, there's really no way the laws could be erased and appointments tossed out. That would cause total chaos, and if you think about it, you can probably see that.

[XT]

My guess, if it's a Democrat he'd be impeached, his laws erased and appointments tossed out. If he's a Republican, nothing.

The really amazing thing is...s/he really believes this. Even more amazing...s/he is not alone. The level of ignorance as to how our nation actually works BY OUR OWN CITIZENS is appalling sometimes.

Sometimes I think that tin foil will one day be standard issue...

-XT

[rjung]

That's because we've had the last ten years of conservative skulldruggery to affirm that the American right will use every trick possible to get their way, laws be damned.

[Jackmannii]

That's because we've had the last ten years of conservative skulldruggery to affirm that the American right will use every trick possible to get their way, laws be damned.Skulldruggery? What does Bush's past drug use history have to do with this??

[garygnu]

What do you mean "if"?
(couldn't resist)
What is the statute of limitation time for federal election fraud prosecutions.
His (or theoretical her) power as president begins at the swearing in ceremony. His actions while president would remain in place because voiding all of it would create more chaos than is necessary.
After being removed from office (impeachement would probably not be the right procedure as the crime was committed before taking office), there would probably be enough political backlash to change much of what was done soon after.

[BrainGlutton]

After being removed from office (impeachement would probably not be the right procedure as the crime was committed before taking office) . . . .

But the Constitution provides no other procedure.

[kidchameleon]

Ooooh, or what if this president rigged the first election but did a bang up job and got voted in by a landslide for term #2? Like say 65/35. Maybe it would be in the best interest of the people to leave him or her at that point.

[Whack-a-Mole]

The really amazing thing is...s/he really believes this. Even more amazing...s/he is not alone. The level of ignorance as to how our nation actually works BY OUR OWN CITIZENS is appalling sometimes.

Sometimes I think that tin foil will one day be standard issue...

-XT

If it was proven that the president became president via a rigged election I do not think Congress would be able to get away with not impeaching him (even if the president was actually innocent of being a part of the rigging). That said I definitely agree if it was today (with Bush and our current Congress) nothing short of smoking gun proof would prompt Congress to impeach and they'd Texas-two-step around anything less than smoking gun proof.

I assume if the hypothetical is taken that the VP would have to be impeached along with the president (which I would assume would have to be an entirely separate proceeding). Not sure but just guessing.

[Whack-a-Mole]

(impeachement would probably not be the right procedure as the crime was committed before taking office

As mentioned there really is no other procedure and of course Congress can impeach for any reason. There need not be a crime committed in office to impeach.

[garygnu]

As mentioned there really is no other procedure and of course Congress can impeach for any reason. There need not be a crime committed in office to impeach.
OK, you're right. However, I think there would be Federal court proceedings possibly reaching SCOTUS first. Why? Inevitably underlings and other fall-guys would be prosecuted first, and this wouldn't be by congress. Only after this would the fakey president be removed, and that would be by congress.

[Digital Stimulus]

Yeah, I don't think any retro-active measures would be proper, much less legally possible.

While the following is a hijack, I don't feel too bad about it, as I think the OP has been answered. Feel free to ignore it; I just thought it might be of interest. The latest I've seen regarding questionable voting comes from Black Box Voting (http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/19421.html) regarding the Sequoia voting machines in Florida.

Now, in an attempt to defuse the ensuing nastiness, let me say that I'm not claiming there was proven vote fraud on a large enough scale (or any scale, for that matter) to affect the election outcome, nor am I even laying blame on any particular person or party. All I'm saying is that there remain some apparent...umm...anomalies (the above, questions in Alaska (http://www.votetrustusa.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=91&Itemid=296), and let's just agree not to discuss Ohio) in the last election that should be (and, it appears, are being) investigated, although not by the appropriate authorities.

Perhaps vote fraud is a constant in US elections (i.e., "no big deal, happens all the time"). If so, all I can say is that it shouldn't ever happen and the requisite steps to stop it should be taken.

[XT]

If it was proven that the president became president via a rigged election I do not think Congress would be able to get away with not impeaching him (even if the president was actually innocent of being a part of the rigging). That said I definitely agree if it was today (with Bush and our current Congress) nothing short of smoking gun proof would prompt Congress to impeach and they'd Texas-two-step around anything less than smoking gun proof.

I think you misunderstand what I was saying. Let me go back for a sec. Der Trihs said the following (which I was responding too):

My guess, if it's a Democrat he'd be impeached, his laws erased and appointments tossed out. If he's a Republican, nothing.

This implies that, even with iron clad proof of a rigged election a Republican would not be impeached...presumably because he's a Republican, part of the dictatorship of the Kingdom of America. The other implication being if its a Democrat then any old trumped up charge would do...the guys a Democrat after all.

As you put it, 'smoking gun proof' certainly WOULD impeach Bush, Republican or no Republican...just as it would a Democrat in a similar position. IOW Der Trihs is pretty much either ignorant of how the US actually works, is simply talking out his/her ass, or just tossed that out for mysterious reasons I can speculate on but won't go into here...I think the latter but it could be the first one (or the second I suppose). THATS all I was sayin...

-XT

[alaricthegoth]

If it was proven that the president became president via a rigged election I do not think Congress would be able to get away with not impeaching him (even if the president was actually innocent of being a part of the rigging). That said I definitely agree if it was today (with Bush and our current Congress) nothing short of smoking gun proof would prompt Congress to impeach and they'd Texas-two-step around anything less than smoking gun proof.

I assume if the hypothetical is taken that the VP would have to be impeached along with the president (which I would assume would have to be an entirely separate proceeding). Not sure but just guessing.

stab me and sink me for a sea sick swab, but I have to urge the horrendous hurdle presented by a 67 to 33 senate vote for conviction, Not to mention, as long as we're strapping on the foil and powering up the laserjets, if a miscreant prez were down to his last twenty senators, the convenient sequestration of forty senators would put him back in good jury health.

[Evil Captor]

So, let me get this straight. It's a well-established element of American criminal law that a criminal shall not be able to profit from his crimes. But in the case of crimes committed relating to the electoral process, the chief beneficiary(ies) of the crime not only are permitted to profit from it, but cannot even be charged with anything by a criminal court (in the case of the Presidency)?

Dude, that is SERIOUSLY fucked up.

[alaricthegoth]

So, let me get this straight. It's a well-established element of American criminal law that a criminal shall not be able to profit from his crimes. But in the case of crimes committed relating to the electoral process, the chief beneficiary(ies) of the crime not only are permitted to profit from it, but cannot even be charged with anything by a criminal court (in the case of the Presidency)?

Dude, that is SERIOUSLY fucked up.
you are correct on all points

[alaricthegoth]

If it was proven that the president became president via a rigged election I do not think Congress would be able to get away with not impeaching him (even if the president was actually innocent of being a part of the rigging). That said I definitely agree if it was today (with Bush and our current Congress) nothing short of smoking gun proof would prompt Congress to impeach and they'd Texas-two-step around anything less than smoking gun proof.

I assume if the hypothetical is taken that the VP would have to be impeached along with the president (which I would assume would have to be an entirely separate proceeding). Not sure but just guessing.
separate, but companion

The good news is that a determined congress could do the whole job in a day.

I believe the only hope may be for a cadre of brave repugs to run in primary contests as impeachment republicans, so that a pledge to impeach and convict can becom the new contract with america, as it were.

I mean, if you want to nationalize the election, why not go all the way and do it in those safely republican districts that are otherwise uncontested.

[alaricthegoth]

So, let me get this straight. It's a well-established element of American criminal law that a criminal shall not be able to profit from his crimes. But in the case of crimes committed relating to the electoral process, the chief beneficiary(ies) of the crime not only are permitted to profit from it, but cannot even be charged with anything by a criminal court (in the case of the Presidency)?

Dude, that is SERIOUSLY fucked up.
we havent even really gone into the recondite question can the prz pardon hisself in advance of indictment? inquiring minds parsed this for tricky dicky, but I don't have access to the memos (actually, my dad was sent to Haldeman from a sort of temp agency, (consligieres are us)before the shit hit the fan.

[Whack-a-Mole]

So, let me get this straight. It's a well-established element of American criminal law that a criminal shall not be able to profit from his crimes. But in the case of crimes committed relating to the electoral process, the chief beneficiary(ies) of the crime not only are permitted to profit from it, but cannot even be charged with anything by a criminal court (in the case of the Presidency)?


I think the President CAN be criminally charged and prosecuted while he is president. In Clinton v. Jones (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZS.html) the SCOTUS ruled that then president Clinton was not immune from litigation while he was president. Granted that was a civil case but I can see no reason why they would except criminal proceedings. One would hope if Congress would get around to impeaching him once the Oval Office was moved to Leavenworth.

[garygnu]

we havent even really gone into the recondite question can the prz pardon hisself in advance of indictment?
This wouldn't work vs. Congressional impeachement, and if he tried it anywhere else in this situation, he'd be asking for one.
Every prez supporter who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution would be in a serious bind over such an obvious and public abuse of power.

[Zabali_Clawbane]

IMO, I would think that the fact that the election was not legal would invalidate the swearing in, so even if the prerequisite is being sworn it, it wouldn't matter in such a case. (If that poorly phrased tenous thought makes sense.)

[Der Trihs]

This implies that, even with iron clad proof of a rigged election a Republican would not be impeached...presumably because he's a Republican, part of the dictatorship of the Kingdom of America. The other implication being if its a Democrat then any old trumped up charge would do...the guys a Democrat after all.We saw what Clinton got over a blowjob, and we've seen what Bush has gotten away with. Short of emptying an Uzi at Congress, I don't think Bush can do anything that will get him impeached. Less specifically, I've noticed that Republicans are always held to a much lower standard than everyone else, including Democrats.

As you put it, 'smoking gun proof' certainly WOULD impeach Bush, Republican or no Republican...just as it would a Democrat in a similar position. IOW Der Trihs is pretty much either ignorant of how the US actually works, is simply talking out his/her ass, or just tossed that out for mysterious reasons I can speculate on but won't go into here...I think the latter but it could be the first one (or the second I suppose). THATS all I was sayin...Simply a lifetime's worth of watching the Republicans loot and destroy everything they touch, and never facing any consequences for it.

[Martin Hyde]

If it was proven that the president became president via a rigged election I do not think Congress would be able to get away with not impeaching him (even if the president was actually innocent of being a part of the rigging). That said I definitely agree if it was today (with Bush and our current Congress) nothing short of smoking gun proof would prompt Congress to impeach and they'd Texas-two-step around anything less than smoking gun proof.

I assume if the hypothetical is taken that the VP would have to be impeached along with the president (which I would assume would have to be an entirely separate proceeding). Not sure but just guessing.

I'm not sure what purpose would be served by impeaching a sitting President if it proved he won an election due to fraud he had no control over.

There's absolutely no constitutional way to put his defeated opponent in office, it just simply could not happen. Any impeachment would just be promoting yet another person who wasn't properly elected to the office into the position.

[Martin Hyde]

So, let me get this straight. It's a well-established element of American criminal law that a criminal shall not be able to profit from his crimes. But in the case of crimes committed relating to the electoral process, the chief beneficiary(ies) of the crime not only are permitted to profit from it, but cannot even be charged with anything by a criminal court (in the case of the Presidency)?

Dude, that is SERIOUSLY fucked up.

Uh, and I think you're aware Presidential politics isn't anything like the rest of society and the idea that general legal principles should apply in all situations isn't a very good stance on the issue at hand.

Also, the general idea that you shouldn't profit from your crimes is based on financial motives as opposed to being a principle generally applied to situations like this.

[Martin Hyde]

brave repugs to run in primary contests as impeachment republicans, so that a pledge to impeach and convict can becom the new contract with america, as it were.

It's funny how you can't control your hate for republicans even when it makes the entire sentence look silly and ridiculous.

[alaricthegoth]

This wouldn't work vs. Congressional impeachement, and if he tried it anywhere else in this situation, he'd be asking for one.
Every prez supporter who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution would be in a serious bind over such an obvious and public abuse of power.
not the impeachment itself. The assumption is that seeing the impending impeachment, and considering it inevitable, Nixon was (not unreasonably) concerned lest the fix with Ford fail--ie, he gets doublecrossed.

So the issue arose, can a president pardon himself (generally, yes, for charges already brough; query what about crimes already committed but not yet charged? (maybe) what about crimes not yet committed, but to be committed in the future (pushes the envelope)

[garygnu]

not the impeachment itself. The assumption is that seeing the impending impeachment, and considering it inevitable, Nixon was (not unreasonably) concerned lest the fix with Ford fail--ie, he gets doublecrossed.

So the issue arose, can a president pardon himself (generally, yes, for charges already brough; query what about crimes already committed but not yet charged? (maybe) what about crimes not yet committed, but to be committed in the future (pushes the envelope)
OK.
I just thought of a new issue regarding pardons. His own pardoning of himself would keep him from serving jail time, but wouldn't keep him from being removed from office, right?

[XT]

We saw what Clinton got over a blowjob, and we've seen what Bush has gotten away with. Short of emptying an Uzi at Congress, I don't think Bush can do anything that will get him impeached. Less specifically, I've noticed that Republicans are always held to a much lower standard than everyone else, including Democrats.

IIRC Clinton got impeached for lieing under oath...not for getting a blow job. Now, what exactly has Bush done that warrents impeachment right now? Can you list actual things he COULD be impeached for...leaving aside this fantasy OP about iron clad proof that the President rigged the election?

Please try and list things he actually could be impeached for from a legal perspective, ehe?

Simply a lifetime's worth of watching the Republicans loot and destroy everything they touch, and never facing any consequences for it.

You must have a pretty short lifetime is all I can say...were you born just as GW became president or perhaps a year or so before? :p You also have an incredibly skewed perspective...but then I knew that already.

-XT

[garygnu]

Please please please let's not get into impeaching Bush.

[Whack-a-Mole]

IIRC Clinton got impeached for lieing under oath...not for getting a blow job. Now, what exactly has Bush done that warrents impeachment right now? Can you list actual things he COULD be impeached for...leaving aside this fantasy OP about iron clad proof that the President rigged the election?

Please try and list things he actually could be impeached for from a legal perspective, ehe?-XT

Not directed at me but I'll take a shot at it.

Yes, Clinton was impeached for lying to Congress about getting a blowjob. Mind you lying about a blowjob was the best Ken Starr could come up with after a (IIRC) 7 year, $40,000,000 investigation into Whitewater which itself was a dubious "scandal".

In Bush we have:


Lying to Congress and the public about reasons for invading Iraq (lying same as Clinton albeit for MUCH bigger stakes)
Violated international law invading a sovereign country (thus breaking treaty obligations which are defined as the supreme law of the land in the US Constitution)
Violation of the Geneva Convention on torture of prisoners (treay obligations again)
Illegal wiretaps (broke the law)


Not sure it is impeachable but staggering incompetence also comes to mind in the handling of hurricane Katrina. I also seem to remember something stunk about Enron and Whitehouse involvement but it has been so long I forget the particulars.

Now, I expect you will help dance the Texas-two-step around all of these claiming things like wiretaps are legal and Bush did not actually lie about Iraq as he himself was misinformed. Fine...but where are the investigators? If Clinton got hounded for 7 years over Whitewater why are there no serious, independant investiagtions into any of the above? Investigations that would then be handed to Congress who would have to make a public declaration on why the president should or should not be impeached on the basis of those investigations?

Clinton's lie was a little poodle turd in comparison to the stinking elephant sized mound Bush has left.

[Whack-a-Mole]

Oh yeah...I wouldn't mind a serious look into government handouts to corporations for Iraqi reconstruction. Have we gotten $9 billion (or whatever it is now) worth of work out of Halliburton (to name one in particular)?

[Whack-a-Mole]

Please please please let's not get into impeaching Bush.


Sorry...you are right and that all constitutes a serious hijack. I'll leave it to another thread if necessary to continue (not that it hasn't been done to death around here anyway).

[XT]

Now, I expect you will help dance the Texas-two-step around all of these claiming things like wiretaps are legal and Bush did not actually lie about Iraq as he himself was misinformed. Fine...but where are the investigators? If Clinton got hounded for 7 years over Whitewater why are there no serious, independant investiagtions into any of the above? Investigations that would then be handed to Congress who would have to make a public declaration on why the president should or should not be impeached on the basis of those investigations?

Well, IANAL, but my understanding of the wire tap issue is it ISN'T illegal. If it is, then simply point me to the where and how and I'm on board. I have no great love of GW...I'm just tired of hearing about all this illegal stuff he's done without anyone taking the time to SHOW that its illegal.

Since gross imcompetence isn't impeachable (afaik) I don't see how you will get him on the 'lieing' to Congress either...especially since GW wasn't Congresses sole pipeline to the information. Assuming for a moment that GW DID lie (and I wouldn't put it past the man), you'd need some kind of proof that he did, and did so in a systematic way. Do you know of such proof?

As for the investigations...well, its a complicated issue, but let me ask you...why do YOU think there haven't been any investigations? Is it solely because the Republicans control both houses? Are you implying that if one party controls both houses that its impossible to get an investigation of the Presidency if he happens to be in the same party? My own understanding of how our system works seems to indicate this isn't so...otherwise if any one party controlled both houses and the Presidency they would essentially be a dictatorship, able to do anything they wanted without fear or penalty. If I'm wrong, again, point me to the information that indicates that once a single party controls both houses and the Presidency that they are in complete control and the other party is helpless and I'll better understand this arguement.

You claim that Clinton was hounded for '7 years over Whitewater'...and yet the Republicans didn't control both houses when he took office. How did THEY managed to hound the President on this when they didn't control both houses? Are the Dems simply incapable...or perhaps there is another explaination for why the issues you listed haven't been as fully investigate as you would wish (afaik there actually HAVE been some investigations over a few of the issues you listed...just no impeachment proceedings as, again afaik, nothing that Bush COULD be impeached on has thus far come out).


Seriously, if there is something Bush can be impeached on I'm all for it...impeach his ass. But all I ever hear in these kinds of thread are wishful thinking and the like...never anything actually solid from a legalistic/realistic perspective.

-XT

[Whack-a-Mole]

Seriously, if there is something Bush can be impeached on I'm all for it...impeach his ass. But all I ever hear in these kinds of thread are wishful thinking and the like...never anything actually solid from a legalistic/realistic perspective.


Rather than hijack this further I'll just point you to the link below which is just one of many sites that lay out the case for impeachment. The site below does a pretty good job of detailing with links and quotes the laws in question and the provable case against Bush. I think there definitely is enough there for impeachment to at least be a possibility and definitely enough to merit closer inspection.

If this was Bill Clinton having done these things and facing today's Congress I have little doubt that this would be enough for them to at start impeachment proceedings.

http://www.impeachbush.tv/impeach/grounds.html

[XT]

I'll check it out then...I also don't wish to hijack the thread. Though the wording of the OP leads me to believe its far from a theoretical excersize...

-XT

[Whack-a-Mole]

You claim that Clinton was hounded for '7 years over Whitewater'...and yet the Republicans didn't control both houses when he took office. How did THEY managed to hound the President on this when they didn't control both houses? Are the Dems simply incapable...or perhaps there is another explaination for why the issues you listed haven't been as fully investigate as you would wish (afaik there actually HAVE been some investigations over a few of the issues you listed...just no impeachment proceedings as, again afaik, nothing that Bush COULD be impeached on has thus far come out).

Forgot to address this bit.

There is an attempt at an investigation and the attempt is specifically aimed at determining if impeachment is a possibility. House Resolution 635 (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/hres635.PDF) (<--PDF) is currently out there. We'll just have to wait and see where it goes. I'm betting the pubs bury it.

[garygnu]

Sorry...you are right and that all constitutes a serious hijack. I'll leave it to another thread if necessary to continue (not that it hasn't been done to death around here anyway).
Saw the new thread, you are forgiven. :)