Has Bush committed High Crimes and Misdeamenors?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

I guess my point is rather obvious.

[Dora]

1. I have no doubt that he has.

Let the investigations begin, let them be swift and thorough.

[Hosnon]

2. Yes...is it provable beyond a reasonable doubt? Probably not. nt

[ixion]

3. High Crimes, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity

yep, all three, IMO.

[Janice325]

4. Too bad you didn't list a "hell yes!:

:thumbsdown:

[Lerkfish]

7. i'm down for "hell yes"!

[Stand and Fight]

5. Yes... But impeachment is not the answer at this point. n/t

[kestrel91316]

6. Kinda sorta...............

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. IMO, that should be current tense

He's still doing it.

[populistdriven]

9. I don't think he is guilty of any misdemeanors though. Just Genocide and Treason.

[The Magistrate]

10. Doubtless He Has, Sir

It is important to remember this term has no true and fixed meaning: the only practical definition of it is that an act is a high crime and misdemeanor if a majority of the House says it is. There is little doubt, however, that the men using the term in the late eighteenth century envisioned it as indicating wrongs done with the power of office, as opposed to mere violations of statute, though of course these can be treated as coming under the term. The abuse of office represented by deliberately misleading Congress in going to war, or defying Congress and the Constitution by refusing to acknowledge the binding elements of law passed by Congress, are certainly things the men who wrote the Constitution would have considered high crimes and misdemeanors.