New York Mag: Yes, Bush v. Gore Did Steal the Election

[sabrina 1]

22. Vincent Bugliosi makes the case that what they did 'defiled the law' and was 'treason'

although 'not technically so'. The reason he used 'not technically so' is because, as he explained, to break a law there has to be one. But Congress never wrote a law that declared the SC stealing an election to be a crime. Because it never occurred to anyone that it could or would actually ever happen.

http://www.thenation.com/article/none-dare-call-it-treason?page=0,5
None Dare Call It Treason

If, indeed, the Court, as the critics say, made a politically motivated ruling (which it unquestionably did), this is tantamount to saying, and can only mean, that the Court did not base its ruling on the law. And if this is so (which again, it unquestionably is), this means that these five Justices deliberately and knowingly decided to nullify the votes of the 50 million Americans who voted for Al Gore and to steal the election for Bush. Of course, nothing could possibly be more serious in its enormous ramifications. The stark reality, and I say this with every fiber of my being, is that the institution Americans trust the most to protect its freedoms and principles committed one of the biggest and most serious crimes this nation has ever seen--pure and simple, the theft of the presidency. And by definition, the perpetrators of this crime have to be denominated criminals.

He writes that they negated the right to vote of 50 million Americans by stopping the counting of the votes in Florida, leaving the country to forever wonder who actually would have won that election had all the votes been counted.

As Linda Greenhouse wrote in the New York Times, when Rehnquist administers the presidential oath of office to Bush on January 20, for the first time in our nation's history the Chief Justice will not just be a prop in the majestic ceremony but a player. Rehnquist will be swearing in someone he made sure would be President. Obscenity has its place in a free and open society, but it's in the seedy, neon-light part of town, not on the steps of the nation's Capitol being viewed by millions of Americans on television screens throughout the land.

That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occurred in this country. Until this act--which is treasonous, though again not technically, in its sweeping implications--is somehow rectified (and I do not know how this can be done), can we be serene about continuing to place the adjective "great" before the name of this country?

The whole article is worth reading. He demonstrates every violation of the Constitution they engaged along the way to doing what they set out to do, install the man they wanted in the WH.