Does a local District Attorney have standing to bring charges of Treason against "President" Bush?
461347
I'm no lawyer, and I know very little about the American justice system, but I doubt a DA can bring charges of Treason against our old friend* George W. Bush.\n\n\n*By friend, I mean scum-sucking peon.
281778
He is an elected official.  District attorneys are attorneys in the state and are elected by the voters.
812781
everyone above told you the summary, here is the actual charges that were filed in the district court...\n\nhttp://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1017061snipes1.html
952188
If you voted for a Bush once, real bad mistake\nTwice, your mentally defective\nthree times, your right to vote legally removed\n4 times!!!!!!\nYou can actually be charged with treason
290028
No, he should be tried for treason, war crimes and crimes against humanity as should the congressmen who voted for the authorization to use force and hence launch the war in Iraq. Both the President, his cabinet and the Congress are in violation of 10CFR20, the code of federal regulations that explicitly dictactes when and how force can be used.
1030143
If we are a nation of laws, we need to follow the laws. That means that anyone accused of a crime must be given access to an attorney and a fair trial. These are Constitutional rights that do not apply just to citizens but to anyone accused and in US custody.\n\nAlso according to the Constitution, any arrest requires Probable Cause to believe a crime has been committed, and review by a Grand Jury for any indictment (under federal laws). So, if the government has any evidence that someone is a crime, they should follow the procedures, get an indictment, and then give them a trial.\n\nThe Commander-in-Sheik (and Sunburn) seems to think the rule should be "guilty until proven innocent". The government wants to be able to hold people indefinitely, without accusation, without access to the courts, without any Constitutional guarantees. Some people say this is fine, because after all, we're only talking about terrorists. NO WE'RE NOT.\n\nWe're talking about people the government has CLAIMED are terrorists. Often without any proof or even probable cause. Certainly not after a formal indictment. Not even formally being accused, because the accusation triggers 6th Amendment rights. So the government can simply arbitrarily claim someone is a terrorist, and hold them indefinitely, without trial and without any rights? \n\nIsn't this what we attacked Saddam for doing?
928671
CONTACT ATTORNEY AND DA.
926719
I think a better question would be why do politicians lie. Every administration deceives the public to some degree, some are more insidious than others. However, it is impossible to answer such an open ended question without more detail. The Bush administration covers a lot of potential people and you do not list any specific proposed lie. Provide a verifiable fact which has been lied about and the person who committed the act. Then we can discuss the basis and factual weight of your indictment properly. Anything else is just pundit bias.\n\nkehkohjones: Get off your high horse. I made a legitimate request for the questioner to be specific. I have not discussed any details of what I know, or do not know. Further some of your contentions are erroneous and false, your sources are so liberally biased it is just laughable, so kindly take your own advice.\n\nkehkohjones: You're right, adults discuss and debate. They do not go on endless tirades and sling epithets like idiot and blind fanatical sheep. Is this what passes for intelligent debate in your world. Additionally, I am familiar with the links you posted as well as Prescott Bush' connections with Germany. Would you like a list of other prominent Americans who had dealings with Nazi Germany because it is long and presitigious. I can respect the fact that you do not like the administration, but you are incapable of extending the same respect in reverse as is evidenced by your posts. I don't waste my time debating issues with people who consider attempted character assassinations legitimate debate tactics. You see you have no knowledge of what my opinion of the administration is as I have not stated it one way or the other, but already you have assigned a position to me. This tells me without question that it makes no difference what I post you are not going to give it weight or due consideration unless I fall into the same lockstep mentality you follow. So get over yourself and have a nice day.\n\nYour are too amusing. I might be offended if you hadn't kept me laughing so hard this whole exchange. Your convoluted view of your own self worth is remarkable, all the while claiming superior adult attitudes while childishly denigrating others. Yes I for one am definitely impressed. Since it is obvious that the questioner is not going to expand the details of his question I am through with this post. Again have a nice day.
522358
Impeachment on what charge exactly?
461707
First the president would have to committ a crime, as he can only be tried by the senate (the house draws the articles).  There's no precedent for a coup without fault.  As many people would like to think, Bush has broken no laws.  Lying isn't against the law, unless it's under oath, and he never was.  Deal with it.  If he breaks the law, then we'll talk
906707
I asked the same question.  Show me the international or domestic laws that George Bush has broken and I will support his impeachment as much as anyone else.  No one answered with a good answer.  Simply stated, George Bush has not broken any laws, whether or not one agrees with him.  The burden of proof lies upon the prosecution
781387
It means that the district attorney has bypassed the magistrate and directly persued charges on him.  Functionally, it doesn;t mean anything different from a normal warrant/charge.  In my experience though, direct indictments tend to be a little more sound.
1095869
I would suggest that the prosecutor could not find sufficient evidence to get an indictment.  I would further suggest that Karl Rove may be innocent and that would cetainly make finding evidence difficult.  Finally, I would suggest that the liberal-leaning media had more to gain if Karl Rove were indicted so they will not like today's announcement.
538860
this man has no shame, he's acted as though he was above the law for years now, and now he's getting his just dues.  He must have lied under oath and for that he committed an act of treason to out Valerie Plame.  If Bush does not cut him off, then he too should be jailed as a conspirator and an obstructor of justice.  Cheney's done too.
591577
You seriously need the advice of local counsel specializing in such cases and who is familiar with the courts in your district.\n\nGood luck.
510183
A district attorney can add counts if he or she so chooses.
748971
Contact the district attorney in Pulaski County.