With all this coming back about election fraud and it might be able to be proven now, then Bush stole the Presidency.

Now, if Bush stole the presidency, is that considered Treason? I mean what is the criminal offence? I have been looking and I can not find a law against stealing an election.

First off, to these folks it's not stealing if you get away with it. The truth is just a lie that's undiscovered.

But for the treason question, that word is bantered about a lot. Evidently the founding fathers thought it had been overused by the crown to put down political opposition, so in the Constitution they wrote:

Article III. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

But I would call anyone elected by the people who doesn't resist their efforts to further solidify their unchallenged power a deserter. Republican or Democrat or Independent, they are deserters if they don't stand and fight against this coup.

This post here is merely my opinion on the Presidency and Treason:

Bush stealing the Presidency may not be treason as defined in the Constitution, but Bush stealing the Presidency is treason against the principles of Democracy isn't it? In a Democracy, a president is elected soley by the people, the president does not just take the office like a child stealing candy in a candystore. A president who had to lie, cheat, and steal his or her way into office does not reflect the ideals of Democracy, but rather the ideals of Authoritarianism.

~Mike: The Political Guy

Just so you don't misunderstand my previous post, I believe that he has perpetrated numerous acts of treason while in office, all of which fall sqarely under the definition of levying war against us, adhering to our enemies, and giving them aid and comfort. They are so numerous that we would have difficulty listing them all. And he has done many of them in secret and many in plain view.

He is not on our side, not on the side of the U.S. at all. He is not helping the federal government or the American people. His actions betray the intent, and that is to deliver us into the hands of the enemy of democracy. He's doin a heckuva job, too!

If stealing elections is considered in this larger context, which reasonable people could argue, then yes, it is treason.

So if there is no law against stealing an election what are we to do?

There has to be something written somewhere about it.

Article III. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

bush himself has opened the path for his own prosecution for treason, by declaring that stateless persons or entities other than recognized states can commit acts of war, rather than simple crimes. bush himself has become what he himself defines as an "enemy combatant," an enemy without benefit of state sponsorship or uniform. He has betrayed the constitution he had sworn to uphold and defend against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." The constitution itself allows that an American citizen can be an enemy of the state. He has also allied himself with other persons who have committed what can be defined by his standard as crimes against the state, and tendered them aid and comfort. Treason.

So because he declared an illegal war that is grounds for Treason?

Do y ou recall why Clinton was Impeached???

It wasn't because of the blue room sex.






Bill Clinton was impeached because he LIED about the Blue Room sex!
One single statement got Clinton Impeached!


"I did not have sex with that woman!"


So, has Bush ever lied? I mean, actually, point blank, blatantly lied?
That has yet to be conclusively proven, and that's a part of why we have and need investigations!

What did he know, and when did he know it?

Good point Sky, neo-cons around here like to push that Clinton got impeached because of the sex and I think the MSM should have done a better job in reporting the truth behind that.

There has to be a lie somewhere. I mean it is obvious he is not perfect.

He lied about WMD's in Iraq. Plain and simple.

I tend to agree with you Scorp.
That's easy to do. At the least he's responsible!

However, did he know, or was he used?
Did Bush plan this, or did the WHIG's plan it?

As to WMD's in Iraq,
we don't yet know how culpable he personally is.
Even though I personally believe he knew damned well.

Al Franken's new book outlines the extent of the lies about Iraq much better than I care to do here.

Needless to say, they all knew that they were lying through their teeth... however, proving this is a different matter.

Exactly Scorp, what can we prove?

I have found that one lie and highlighted it in another Thread, think that one is a good enough lie?

That's my point.
In this case it does zero goiod to have circumstantial evidence.
Even a mountain of it.

This, becaus eof the nature of the situation, requires solid hard evidence.

The smoking gun AND silver bullet!


Caught lying, if the lie can be proven beyond ANY doubt,
is enough!



Right now most of the country believes Bush is guilty.
And even that isn't enough!

Damn Sky, where you not just getting on Scorp and I for being down in the dumps and now when we are searching for an answer you come and say its no good?

I am confused.

Was the President under oath when he gave the State of the Union address with the sixteen words about yellow cake from Africa?

Article II Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;

The SOTU address has long been accepted as the manner in which the President fulfills this duty, which is required by the Constitution (bold added for emphasis). To misinform or disinform seems contrary to his oath of office.

Just my opinion.

I think that in this issue, even an eternal optimist like sky has to agree with us .