It all depends on the strength of the evidence. If it’s overwhelming, something’s going to give. The pols will be reluctant, but there comes a point at which even they must act.
If the evidence is compelling but not overwhelming, then of course they will ignore it.
Ahh but see then we enter into a connundrum.
How does one remove a President that is effectively NOT the President.
We have rules for impeaching and convicting a President and removing him from office BUT can you use those rules on someone who is not really President in the first place.
Further IF you do use those rules then in effect are you legally ruling that he was Indeed president and therefore all of his official actions remain intact?
If so you have set a dangerous precedent. One I am sure no one wants. Because then it could be that radical elements could work to sneak another Manchurian Candidate into office and cause all manner of grief and by the ruling on Barry Hussein precedent has been set that any such legal functions by the New Manchurian Candidate would remain legal.
Its not as cut and dried as it sounds. For instance if it is decided to unravel the mess AFTER impeachment and conviction and removal from office then who does it fall to to unravel the mess. Logically it would be the Supreme Court but there you have a Catch 22. How can the Supreme Court rule on the matter if they have members that were nominated by someone who wasn't legally able to do so? BTW whether to recuse themselves from ruling on a case or not is up to the individual Supreme Court Justices. So if Obama's Justices don't offer to do so they can legally rule on such a case. And that could cause all sorts of monkeyshine.
Its just not going to be a cut a dried matter because the Constitution has no defined recourse for such an issue. It will be one big huge mess.
The last thing the pols are worried about is Barack Hussein Obama and his documentation. Most Congress creatures are attorneys. They long ago realized the man had problems when he was forced to permanently resign the Bar of the State of Illinois.
They are worried about surviving '14 if up for re-election, and beyond that the election of '16. That is precisely why Arpaio had better start naming names. It is the only way to get them "out of the closet" on this issue: aggressive confrontation. It will force them to get tough with the media, of which they are very afraid. If enough of them are challenged, the media will have to at least pretend to look into the matter.
Those of us who are not on Team Obama must make sure that we get the best possible representation in both of those elections.