Suppose it becomes generally accepted that Ohio was stolen in 2004...

I'm thinking about RFK's new "Rolling Stone" essay. Just suppose, for the sake of argument, that over the next year, say, enough circumstantial evidence comes along--maybe even a confession, who knows?--to make it clear to anyone except maybe FOX "News" that Kerry carried Ohio in the 2004 election. Question--would anybody care? Would the general MSM line be, "hey, it's ancient history, get over it"? Would we be hearing about Bush's supposed three million popular vote majority, and even people saying that it's just as well that Blackwell & Co helped permit the will of the people to prevail? Will they bring up the 1960 election, and say that it's the Dems turn now? Will they laugh at anyone who points out the hypocrisy of talking about letting the popular vote prevail, as opposed to 2000, by saying that well, that was Al Gore, and we don't like him, and besides, three million is more than half-a-million? My own naive belief is that if fraud should be proven in Ohio, it would automatically counteract any moral advantage Bush might have for his popular vote victory. (Whether he really won the popular vote is another question, interesting, but not germane to this argument.) Am I being Pollyannish, in thinking that at least *some* people in the MSM would find such a fact--if proved--to be worthy of some comment, and even some moral censure?

the truth about how their votes are stolen by these machines and the GOPs who control them.

I think that will unleash even a bigger backlash against Bush and the Republican party for a generation. But, I expect media to stay at their posts protecting Bush every bit they can. They've been desperately trying to rehab him since Katrina, and so far, it looks like most of the public stopped listening.

I dunno, I don't buy the whole 'lets be calm... wait and see... rational adults... crapola.
The TV news traitors are whores who would tell you anything to advance their agenda and collect obscene paychecks. Filthy lucre.

mostly reporters these days fear for their jobs, to pay their mortgages and to have healthcare and food............this is the sad reality of capitalism which enslaves through fear.....

"then why didn't Kerry fight?" - end of discussion. What can we say? He was afraid of being called a sore loser? No - this dog won't hunt. Kerry chopped off it's legs two years ago.

I can't wait for the theft to come to light.

In my heart of hearts I believe Karl Rove and Ken Blackwell know a thing or two about that election, and Katherine Harris of Florida in 2000, while we're at it, that would be REAL interesting to know.

There were many reasons to doubt the outcome of the Ohio election in 2004, and somebody someplace knows what happened. It would be terrific if that somebody came forth with hard evidence.

For whatever it's worth, BerryBush, I hope you feel completely absolved & that those of us who believe there was felony election fraud in Ohio in 2004 blame Republican operatives and not Democratic voters.

presented to the general public & it gets the flippin airtime it should've gotten in the first place, it's time for each and every flippin state to call for the whole damned admin's resignation or impeach the bums, as a whole regardless of what the dems. will or won't do. I've had enough & I'm ready to march in the streets. Let's get this thing started!

to impeach this president.

He has earned zero respect from progressives. On just about every issue.

But as much appeal as removing him by tomorrow noon has, Bernie Saunders, the U.S. House's lone socialist, believes that "impeachment isn't going to happen," until the votes are there, John Conyers is installed as Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and the Democratic Party has had a chance to frame the argument in persuasive terms to the more conservative voters out there.

Note that he by no means ruled it out.

He just indicated that timing has to be an imperative.

No evidence of intentional fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud; not enough votes to overturn the election in any event. If there were, the EXISTING court cases would be making a lot more news.

There are blond girls missing afterall!!! :sarcasm:

court. Too bad you didn't put energy into reviewing the evidence instead of quickly dismissing it.

There isn't one single name connected directly to a proven hacked machine. There isn't one single name connected to a state-wide conspiracy to ration voting machines. The switched votes, the stickers on ballots, the precinct errors, only amounts to a handful of votes per incident. Every single time somebody comes up with something new, I check it out thoroughly. There's no evidence of a conspiracy, and there's no evidence that enough votes were switched or tossed to turn the election. That's why I hope Bobby takes a fresh approach to it, because what we've got so far is like a great big haystack that people say is election fraud, but no needle anywhere. If there hard evidence of fraud, it would be in court. You think with all the scandals in Ohio they'd ignore out and out election fraud???

It seems you have done the most thurough investigaion to date. Perhaps YOU are the one to give a statment about voter fraud.

Please Oh Socrates, tell us all of the sources you have isearched out & sourced in you spare time as an investigative journalist.

Detroit Free Press, Voters Unite database, I Want My Vote Observer Reports, reading articles on my own. Every time somebody posts something new, I go see what it's about. Votes switched in a precinct? Checked it out, 20 votes here, 40 votes there. Stickers on ballots? Common practice when there are stray marks. Humidity problems with cards? 4 vote discrepancy. I even made my own spreadsheet to keep track of numbers of voter errors in various counties. Sometimes voting errors were blown out of proportion, other times there were serious errors, crimes actually, that only involved a small number of votes. People were taken to court over those crimes too.

I hope RFK has more information than I do, I really do. I am just telling you that, to date, there isn't any evidence of a fraud conspiracy, and that's the least it would take to really convince the people the election was stolen. I'm not saying it wasn't stolen, I'm saying there isn't sufficient evidence to win a court case with. I think people forget that we recounted parts of New Hampshire AND Ohio, nothing significant enough to turn the election was found. We need to clean up our elections for sure, but until we can tie some of these tactics directly to the RNC or Bush, we've got what we've got and we better figure out how to deal with it.

but the Columbus Free Press <freepress.org>. Funny, we could convince so many attorneys, professors, statisticians and people like Robert Kennedy Jr. , Lou Harris, but not you. Hmmh...

I clearly said there's no evidence to prove a conspiracy in a court, or that the little bit that has been proven in court was enough to overturn the election. I also said I hope RFK brings a different perspective to the data so that a case can be proven. That is the answer, by more people than me, to the question of why Kerry supposedly didn't fight. He didn't have the evidence then, they didn't find the evidence in any of their court cases, and nobody else has come forward with evidence that proves enough fraud took place to overturn the election. The Republicans had an election fraud scheme going on in my state too, but it didn't affect the outcome of the election and it wasn't connected directly to the Bush campaign, so there's nothing for the Kerry campaign to really get involved in. Our Secy of State handled it. That's the way the system works. It doesn't matter how many people believe the election was stolen, what matters is that there's evidence of a crime that can be proven to a jury; and if that existed, people would be prosecuted. And they'd pay fines or go to jail, elections generally aren't overturned due to the actions of one or two local people.

And yes you're right about the Free Press, I don't live in the midwest.

had a fair court, the evidence is there! Missed your post at this link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1328708&mesg_id=1328708

(I hope you will read the article)

I'm disappointed in the article, I had hoped he would weed out some of the stuff that is either distorted or only involved a couple of ballots. He didn't. So that's that. I stand alone on it and that's fine with me, but I don't think this is going to have the kind of impact that everybody thinks it will. We need to focus on real fraud, like Kenyon College, and dispense with the silliness like the stickers and exit polls. It looks to me like we've still got the haystack with no needle. Just the way I see it and again, I'm really disappointed. And that's the last thing I'll say on that article specifically, because I'm not about to get in the way of other people making hay with it if they're able to.

for exposure of election fraud. No political will in most states to take cases to court. The ones that have occurred, have been herculean uphill battles. Everything conspires to keep our election system in the Dark Ages. I have seen this first hand. The judicial system is not functional in this area.

the machines need securing BEFORE the vote. The DNC and Terry MacAuliffe didn't believe in machine fraud. There was no recourse for Kerry after the vote. He is involved in two cases still going on in Ohio.

What you wanted was the impossible - you wanted Kerry to do his job and the job of the DNC and the job of the Dems on state election boards and the job of the Dem spokespeople and the job of the left media.

And it is funny that you blame the one guy who won all his matchups with Bush and WON all 3 debates decisively. He did his job so well that BushInc HAD to get protection from the media, HAD to release a Bin Laden tape, and HAD to rig machines all over the country.

it back in 2004 and to do so would have put our country in turmoil and possible danger.We could not have gone all this time without a clear Presidential choice. It just would not of happened. Bush would have taken it to the courts and would have won his case easily. Kerry did what was right for the country-not himself.

What was presented to Kerry in the 24 hours following the election that would've made him hang up the gloves?

Killed a few of his wives and created a church to hide his criminal behaviour.

Unless you catch them, they get away with it. Bush has gotten away with it.
He can murder whomever he wants, invade whomever he wants, and nobody can
stop him, not a one of us because we all have our excuses and he doesn't need
any. He just fucks us and we bend over and take it.

I'm wondering if they can pre-bury him in Arlington, so we can come and visit
his grave before he's dead, so he can drink the piss.

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

But Gore'll win New York anyways, all my vote does is increase his mandate, and i'm
more than happy to.

cycles in the Empire State.

Spitzer is red-hot, in particular, for 06.

At least the ones I've talked to. Hard core Republican, Freeper types seem to just shrug and start talking about Kennedy/Chicago/Daley/1960. They seem to like the idea that at least they were the cheaters who won this time. The Freeper types I know seem to think all politicians are corrupt - so at least they'd like to have the ones that like lower taxes and hate gay marriage. Republicans really are different. I think Democrats have a little faith in the possibility of a government that represents/protects the greater good. Republicans seem to have no faith in government. Republicans do have faith in corporations though - while I think corporations want to make money and we need government to keep them in line. It is almost impossible to talk to them, they're so different.

When I mentioned the stolen election of 2000, I had one Freeper say (which sounded like a Rush Limbaugh talking-point), "Oh, every election since Washington had something wrong with it," to which I replied, "Then every election since Washington needs to be investigated, so let's start with this one!" (referring to 2000). That shut her up!

there are millions of legitimate issues and talking points to use for the upcoming elections that can effect real change. This kind of conspiracy theory nonsense undermines democrats' credibility and gives people like drudge, o'reilly, hannity, etc. ammunition to make liberals look like tin foil hat kooks and deflect the national debate from what we should be talking about, war, domestic spying, and the culture of corruption.

I don't know if there were irregularities or not, but when John Kerry conceded, they all became irrelevent. Stay alert, keep the eyes on the prize, and if it happens again, don't roll over and take it without a fight.

Do it IMMEDIATELY. You need to wise up to what really happened. And it will happen again and again if we put our head in the sand.

That's what they said right after the election: "This kind of conspiracy theory nonsense undermines democrats' credibility and gives people like drudge, o'reilly, hannity, etc. ammunition to make liberals look like tin foil hat kooks..."

Yeah, MAYBE right after the election the media and the right-wing talking heads could get away with dismissing us as "tinfoil hat kooks," although even the earliest studies indicated that a Bush win was a mathematical impossibility. But not any more.

The PUBLISHED documentation of election fraud is out there now for anyone who cares to look at it. I just started reading Mark Crispin Miller's "Fooled Again," which someone else mentioned in response to your post. Have YOU read it? If so, what do you think of it? Do you find his evidence credible? If not, why not?

I just don't understand what those of you who expected him to fight, expected him to fight with. Some poll observers statements? A hunch? Old data indicating that the voting machines could possibly be tampered with? Come on, investigations like this take time. The American public and the media would not have allowed a waiting period so that Kerry could substantiate his claims of fraud and a stolen election- not after the drawn out election of 2000. Then, there were the war issues and the possibility that a disputed election could create enough of a diversion that we would not be prepared for another attack from the terrorist here in America. If another attack would have occurred or if the situation in Iraq had deteriorated at that point in time, who do you think would have gotten the blame?

I think more people out there believe the election was stolen, or at least corrupted, than just a few tin foil hatters on DU. I know a few people that have almost no interest in politics mention it to me out of the blue... and, this was without knowing that I have any sort of interest in politics. So, it's not like "oh, I'm going to make fun of that looney leftist Jeff..."

"Hey, it's ancient history. Get over it! You can't do anything about it anyway."

......So what you gonna about it, sucker?:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

The question for us is......What ARE we going to do about it?

I hope all of this coming out exposes things like discarding of provisional ballots, GOP operatives challenging voters, precincts breaking down, precincts not providing enough booths, workers not helping "certain voters", voter registrations being lost, late absentee ballots, etc etc etc.

I hope that Howard Dean is on top of this sort of thing and is readying for 2006.

A large portion of the 2004 theft was not just diebold machines.

They had an operational command baker-jeb that kept the computer fraud
on deniable agencies... and they weren't even caught, heck, blackthorn the ohio house slave,
looks like he could even get a free promotion in the king's empire.

I might have 'is name wrong, it might be blackfuck, or scumfucker, or just lowlife asswipe,
but needless to say, that toilet paper stain in ohio is a blemish.

And he controls the vote for that race.

:puke:

your scenario played out in one form or another and the evidence was hard and inarguable, it might expose the same path that led to the election theft in Florida in 2000.

Again, if what you suggest were to occur -- and I wish to hell it would! -- then it might be that both Al Gore and John Kerry are demonstrated to be rightfully elected presidents, both victims of felony election fraud by the Republican Parties operating in at least two U.S. states. Which of the two would be seated?

That would be a breath-taking revelation.

and I am not trying to let the air out of your balloon. I really wish I could think something like this could happen.

However, Jonathan Turley addressed this very issue in December of 2003. Whispers of fraud were permeating the air and he said in order to prevent Bush* from being the president for the next four years, one must stop him from being inaugurated. Proof of theft of election prior to the inauguration could derail his second term. However, absolute proof of election theft after the inauguration would be meaningless. At that point, the only way to unseat Bush* would be through the Constitutional avenue of impeachment and conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors. Theft of an election, unbelievably, might not meet that threshhold. Oral sex in the oval office, yes; theft of a presidential election, no.

One could only hope that if absolute theft of the election could be proven, the masses could demand resignation.

evidence of felony election fraud in Ohio in 2004 and/or Florida in 2000, I believe even a GOP majority in the House would vote to convict.

Those ifs are the ones the OP put before us, although I'm throwing in the 2000 election because I suspect the same certain presidential advisor, sometimes called "Turdblossom," had a hand in both incidences.

Had the votes been there to convict Clinton for the Lewinsky affair, it would have been the conclusion of an impeachment trial undertaken well after his second Inaugural.

Same with Bush. If -- a big if but a tantalizing if nevertheless -- a GOP operative in Ohio came forth next week with inarguable proof of felony voter fraud without which Kerry-Edwards would have won Ohio and with it the national election, then I think it would be curtains for Mr. Bush.

And properly so.

From what you are saying, you think election fraud would fall within the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. He did not. It broke my heart to hear this and it has always stayed with me because I knew what while many people were working fervently on acquiring absolute proof, I did not think in December 2003 that proof would be found before the inauguration.

I do think many Republicans now would not mind Bush* getting sacked, but I am not sure how many would openly support it in lieu of the upcoming mid-terms. It would hurt their fellow colleagues, so I think they would keep mum.

After the mid-terms, I think absolute proof of a theft of the election could only end a second Bush* run if there were massive protests and a forced resignation. I don't see the impeachment approach panning out. I really am sorry to say this because there is nothing more I would like to see.

Unfortunately, Jonathan Turley is seldom wrong. Perhaps we can hope this is a first for him....

presented, and you may well be right on the Republicans' decision to stick by their guy if they felt their own futures were jeopardized.

I like your take on Turley and I'll endorse it. I am dying to know what happened in Ohio. It was a REAL fishy set of circumstances. But a million lawyers wouldn't have been able to help unless they were in the path of people willing to point them to some hard evidence. The Courts can be real prickly about insisting on evidence.

Even with nothing on Ohio election fraud at all, Dubya faces a dismal couple of years in office. As Bill Maher says, it can't be much fun these days to be George W. Bush. The thrill is gone. No more of the "political capital" he claimed to have is left. And even Republicans are calling him to task these days. Boo-hoo-hoo for Mr. Bush, huh?

If the White House is unable to spin the Haditha story to its satisfaction, and the Democratics manage it well, the first loser may be Rumsfeld. This might be the straw that breaks his camel's back.

I fantasize that Rumsfeld is forced out, Bush appoints Joe Lieberman to Defense, and Ned Lamont is Connecticut's next U.S. Senator.

Turley is NOT the "be all and end all" of Constitutional Correctness.

Under the category of "High Crimes" would fall any felony charge against a President. A good example is Article 1 of Nixon's near-impeachment; Obstruction of Justice, a felony.

IF, and I mean IF, any felony election fraud in Ohio could be linked directly back to Bush (even just knowing about it, and not reporting it, might be enough), then there is a reason for an Article of Impeachment to be voted out of the House.

Remember, Gerry Ford once defined an Impeachable Offense as; "Whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."

If the Dems have the House if and when a solid linkage to Bush is made, it could very well turn out that the American Public would be quite willing to forgive the breaking of any campaign pledge made in this season by Dems (re: Impeachment).

Good discussion, you two. Thanks.

:thumbsup: :hi:

recent article by RFK Jr. will prompt further investigation, heightened attention and maybe, if we're lucky, a revelation or two that could serve as hard evidence.

The circumstantial evidence of voter fraud in Ohio is very strong. Now we need a few GOP operatives to "sing."

You are absolutely correct in your inclusion of the Gerald Ford remark to this discussion. My impression, however, is that these legal scholars climb into the esoteric legal clouds and argue about whether breach of Federal laws (which incorporate criminal felonies) can literally, Constitutionally be considered a high crime or misdemeanor. Some say yes, some say no.

I have always been a strict constructionist (before it became politically correct again lately to use this term) and I do separate felony laws from the Constitution. I sort of side with those who say a felony conviction is not always a high crime or misdemeanor. On a purely people level, of course, most people would say yes, absolutely a felony conviction should be a high crime or misdemeanor. Those esoteric legal scholars say not so fast, this is not necessarily what our forefathers had in mind.

I listened to Turley very carefully, and I thought (much to my chagrin -- because he was not saying what I wanted to hear!!!) that he was probably right. There's a clear distinction and I do not assume a felony conviction would necessarily automatically be considered a high crime or misdemeanor, and obviously, as realists we cannot overlook the simple political factor.

But yes, it's a hell of an interesting debate. But the reality of the situation is at this point -- impeachment takes too long and is simply too painful. Our country is falling apart in leaps and bounds. And while there is no Constitutional or Federal definition for how a general populace can band together and demand a President and a Vice President RESIGN for the good of the Country, I think the day is now here for the precedent to be set.

As far as the campaign pledge made by the Dems you referenced, my feeling of that is outrage. That pledge was made by what I consider to be the self-annointed party elite. The base of the Democratic party strongly objects. That's my impression. I feel no campaign obligation to back off of an impeachment because Pelosi said the Dems would not pursue it. The House would definitely pursue it, Republican and Democratic members alike, if the voting constituencies came down on the reps on both sides of the aisle in the manner in which they deserve to hear from us -- in a cascading crescendo which does not let up until the issue is addressed. It's not Pelosi's House of Representatives. The House of Representatives belongs to the people. That was the intention of the Constitution when this branch of the legislative body was designed ... again, for US, the little people.

And thank you so much for your points of discussion in the conversation OC and I were having.

Sam

I look at it from a two tiered point of view.

First, if the Dems come out and say they are "for impeachment", the Karl and his crew will have a field day with it. With all that is going on (economy, war, etc.) the last thing most Americans want is the massive disruption of a major Constitutional Crisis. Such a pro-impeachment pledge could very well ruin any chance of a Dem take back of the House and Senate. However, by making an anti-impeachment pledge now and then having events (via Congressional investigation) make that pledge null and void, it would not only protect the Dems from charges of flip-flopping, but it would also help bring the American people along and into the favor-ability of such a move.

Second, while you say "impeachment takes too long", in point of fact history shows that this is NOT the case. When sufficiently aroused Congress can act quickly. The Radical Republicans of 1868 impeached and tried Andrew Johnson all within the space of 5 months (from the time he violated the Tenure of Office Act until the final vote in the Senate on May 26, 1868).

And finally, on your view that "a felony conviction is not always a high crime or misdemeanor", I refer you to the debate over the wording of the Constitution back in 1787. Initially, impeachment was to be based upon "malpractice or neglect of duty". The Committee on Detail changed it to "treason, bribery or corruption", which was further changed by the Committee of Eleven to just treason or bribery. George Mason, on the floor of the Convention, wanted to add "maladministration", but James Madison thought this too vague, so Mason changed it to "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" which was accepted and adopted by the Convention. However, throughout the discussion by the Framers was the clear understanding that a felony did constitute a "High Crime".

May I suggest a book for you? Raoul Berger's "Impeachment: The Constitutional Problems", 1973, Harvard University Press.

(I was caught up in that RFK Jr. report last night on MSNBC).

Please see my response to the poster who jumped into our debate. I just think it's a fascinating issue but a little late for true consideration. Impeachment is a lengthy process and our Country is fading fast. I support a call from the people for a Bush* resignation (and Cheney, as well). That's it in a nutshell.

I will not be satisfied with a Rumsfeld resignation. I want the whole ball of wax to go if not tonight ... tomorrow. Can't be fast enough.

I think that's a little detail that some people don't consider. I don't think anything would happen to Bush unless he was proven to be complicit, and even if he were, we'd get a regular impeachment process.

If Blackwell is proven to have tampered with the election, he'll go to jail. It will also tarnish the Republican Party even more, but there's not much more to be done there anyway. Those Republicans who still believe are likely to hang on to the bad apple line and just point out the better Republicans.

The interesting thing about the article will be HOW Bobby makes his case. If it's just another mish-mash of statistics, exit polls, provisionals, and random machine errors; then it won't go anywhere. If he really runs the numbers though, and really matches it all up, precinct by precint, then we might have something. Can't wait to see what he's done, that's for sure.

It's the Holy War mentality, any means are acceptable to secure power. The masses can be distracted by Desperate Housewives and the latest runaway bride, maybe a few pawns would be sacrificed. Bread and circuses, divide and conquer, feeding someone to the mob, hardly new stratergies but tried and effective ones.

The 29%er's wouldn't care. In fact, they'd think it was morally right to steal the election to prevent godless liberals getting into power etc, etc.

In the end, I doubt it would make any difference.

if the election was fair.

As far as "ancient history-get over it" Those of us who witnessed it in Ohio (and elsewhere) have no intention of "forgetting it" until the truth is exposed and the election system is corrected!

HAND COUNTED PAPER BALLOTS (with strict procedures) AND COUNTED PUBLICLY AT THE PRECINCT LEVEL!

unanimously.

That includes Laura who knows what a dumbass Georgew is, and it also includes George who could be counted on to vote for Kerry by mistake.

Unfortunately, my view doesn't carry much statistical weight.

dem, like Edwards or Obama. And reform the next election so they can't rig it again.

IF (for the sake of argument) the 2004 (and/or 2000, 2002) election was stolen, it's not something that can go unpunished . . .

to ignore it would completely undermine the very foundation of our nation -- that ours is a government OF, FOR and BY The People . . .

hold people accountable for election crimes that occurred in the past, but it rarely happens. The way the system operates it's always all about the NEXT election. I have seen serious and provable election crimes in the 90's. There was no political will from either the political parties or the entrenched state governments to deal with it. The hurdle to prove such crimes in a social climate of denial and apathy just isn't considered worth it.

I happen to think Bush's second fraudulent win is already pretty much proven. The exit polls are all the proof you need. Exit polls were the only piece of evidence our own government used in declaring the 2004 Ukrainian election rigged (just weeks after our own election demonstrated the same problem, oddly enough). So even by their reasoning, it was stolen. There's alot more evidence than that, of course.

Most of the people I've discussed this with think it was stolen, too.

But this is an unacceptable subject for corporate media. They simply will not discuss it, no matter what happens. A thousand people could raid the WH and toss the Bush team into the gutter with "you stole the election" written on their foreheads in magic marker, and Katie Couric would say people are rioting for unknown reasons.

corporate media will suppress this topic as hard and as long as they possibly can.

Plus it will help to further energize the push for verifiable elections.

Individuals like Blackwell or anyone else who could be proved to have committed a crime in the process could be prosecuted.

It would help us to kick out the "conspiracy theorist" label as useless.

And the rest of the world that gets a lot of the same news we here in the blogosphere get would grasp that the people did NOT elect Dubya, first time, second time, or ever to be President.

Someone (maybe Fox News?) will start spreading the meme that questioning the true outcome of the election makes us look vulnerable because we're a "nation at war." :puke: They'll say that questioning the outcome will be letting the terrorists win. Terra terra terra. Stand behind your "leader" so they won't think we're weak.

I would really love to think that some real good will come of this. But quite honestly over the past few years there have been *so many* things that Bush has done that I would have expected to lead to censure or impeachment or even major public outrage. Nothing sticks to the guy. Therefore I can't imagine it will be different this time either.

That is a FACT. It would be the final straw. Mark my words. Everybody would know that the Republicans have been cheating. People will NOT let another election be stolen! Not after they saw how the Ukraine did a revote. There will be a bloody, violent outrage like nothing you've ever seen before. A whole SLEW of Republicans will have resigned all over the country. It will be the END of BushCo. It will destroy the GOP beyond recognition. You have my 100% guarantee.

sarcastically?

People would be upset, but not outraged. They would still refuse to believe that it's as bad as it is.

I know it's hard for some of you to believe, but there comes a time when something happens that will just push people over the edge. I feel very strongly about this. So does user Chicago1 aka America's Work Stories (Waiting for the impeachment while those goddamn scandals just keep unfolding. :))