Is the President a Criminal?
78605
I think that everyone who enters into politics has some sort of criminal behavior associated with them!!*
46758
Yes, of course he has broken the law.  Regardless of his representations to the contrary, there is no such authorization in the Constitution, in case law, or in the statutes or regulations.  His behavior is impermissible and he should most definitely be impeached for illegal wiretapping and, if found guilty, be removed from his office in disgrace.
891975
Impeachment and conviction in the senate are a matter of actual criminal activity, and not just because someone has a difference of opinion in how things should have been handled.  Get a grip!\n\nSue
298595
It only takes one Congressman (or Congresswoman) to bring criminal charges.  Impeachment is not necessary if a crime has been committed.  Special Counsel is appointed and the matter is investigated.\n\nIt hasn't happened for one of two reasons:\n\n(1)  The entire congress (including Shrillary Clinton) is secretly in cahoots with George Bush in  plot to take over the World)\n\nor\n\n(2) The screams of agony from the liberals in congress are just that.  Screams.  No Substance, no crime.  The intent is to destroy the president, not to accuse him.  He hasn't accomodated them by committing a crime so they accuse him and when it is disproven they invent another.\n\nRemember that if you ever vote.  Voters need the integrity to know what's going on.
438958
being a misdemeanor, no. if he's committing a crime, yes, but not for residing illegaly in this country.\nIf residing illegally were a felony, then the answer would probably be yes.
552612
the political science term is "protofascist." and yes, it has.\n-------------\nThe article mirror\nProponents of the impeachment, (Specifically, several different legal efforts, and a very large internet community) of current President of the United States, George W. Bush, assert that one or more of President Bush's actions qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors" under which the president can constitutionally be impeached.[1][2]\n\nThis article presents a list of suggested rationales to impeach Bush, which have been offered by commentators, legal analysts, Democrat politicians and others. The points raised in this article are not to be viewed as a monolithic list, but as an assembly of discrete rationales which favour impeaching Bush that have been gathered from multiple sources. (This article is simply and only a report of those rationales to impeach generated by those who favor impeachment, and, in order to conform to Wikipedias NPOV standards, a rebutal by those who are opposed to impeachment.)For example, The Center for Constitutional Rights, a civil rights legal advocacy non-profit organization based in New York,[3] discusses some arguments in Articles of Impeachment Against George W. Bush.[4]\n\n[edit]\n\nSuggested reasons to impeach\nSeveral individuals and organisations have alleged that President Bush has been guilty of transgressions that amount to "high crimes and misdemeanors." Some voices in the media and legal analysts have made a case for impeachment based on multiple allegedly impeachable offenses. The following discussion explains in more detail the arguments that are used.\n\n[edit]\n\nNSA warrantless surveillance controversy\nMain article: NSA warrantless surveillance controversy \nIn the context of the "war on terror", President Bush ordered wiretapping of certain international calls to and from U.S. without a warrant. Whether this is legal is currently debated, since the program appears to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which was adopted to remedy supposedly similar actions in the past (i.e. Operation Shamrock, Operation Minaret, Church Committee). Additionally, it allegedly violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits unlawful searches and seizures - this includes electronic surveillance. These allegations have been advanced by articles published in The Christian Science Monitor and The Nation.[5] In its defense, the administration has asserted that FISA does not apply as the President was authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) and the presidential powers as Commander-in-Chief inherent in the Constitution (unitary executive theory), to bypass FISA.[6] (See also: Separation of powers and rule of law.)\n\nIn January 2006, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service released two legal analyses concluding that "...no court has held squarely that the Constitution disables the Congress from endeavoring to set limits on that power. To the contrary, the Supreme Court has stated that Congress does indeed have power to regulate domestic surveillance... the NSA surveillance program... would appear to be inconsistent with the law."[7] On February 13, 2006, the American Bar Association issued a statement denouncing the warrantless domestic surveillance program, accusing the President of exceeding his powers under the Constitution. Their analysis observes that the key arguments advanced by the Bush administration are not compatible with the law.[8] Also five former FISA judges voiced their doubts as to the legallity of the program. [9]\n\nSome commentators, responding to the Bush administration's justification of the program, say that its interpretation of presidential power overthrows the Constitutional system of checks and balances and ignores other provisions of the Constitution mandating that the President "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" and v
385566
serial killer  that is the president of the usa
50895
No, but the president that follows him (the vice-president) can!\n\nThis happened with Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon. Gerald Ford pardoned him as soon as he was sworn in.
1112323
Illegal immigration is not a crime.\n\nHe would serve the same sentence as a citizen. Upon completion, he would be deported.\n\nResponse to comment following this one:\n\nIllegal immigration is a minor offense and is not considered a "crime." It is equivalent to a traffic ticket.
403614
He probably is guilty as charged. I would hate to be in scooters shoes. Bush will be out to get him now. But the truth is cleansing.
314787
Maybe your not seeing the light babe! Bush is a criminal, and so is most of his staff. His Secretary of Homeland Security was caught with his molesting hands on a 14 year old girl. These are the people that are in charge of the Patriot Act. Tom Delay is another, Jack Abramoff is another, Cheney shooting his lawyer is another. It's on, and on.
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
680905
absolutely......haiti,iraq, palestine, occupation is a crime\n\ncosaxteacher: you need to pull your head out of your ass
619761
I think Bush is a criminal, probably the worst terrorist in the world at this time. The armed services are not. They are doing what they are told, and not given enough information about the reality of their missions.
1162726
He's a man that allowed the power of the presidency go over his head. He is guilty of:\n\n1.) Lying to the American people over the reasons for the Iraqi War.\n\n2.) Has allowed Dick Cheny to give out choice contracts for Iraqi Reconstruction to choice companies instead of putting them up for bidding.\n\n3.) He is guilty of violating wire tapping laws and has placed himself above the law by hiding behind the excuse," its to fight terrorism" (R.Nixon was impeached because he violated wire tapping laws.)\n\n4.) Hes a douche bag, plain and simple.
711628
A president that has broken the law most certainly should stand before a judge and be pronounced guilty.  If this question is aimed at George W Bush, however, I would challenge anyone to provide the domestic or international law he is guilty of breaking
842601
True, Bush has not committed any crimes. Libs are steaming mad that they have been out of power so long. They're also mad that Bush accomplished what they wanted to do but did not: topple Saddam.