Maybe this is why Pelosi says...

[ambitious_wench]

Maybe this is why Pelosi says that impeachment is "off the table": If Bush is impeached, Cheney would get the job. If Cheney is impeached, either at the same time, or later, Pelosi herself would get the job.

I can hear the wingnuts screaming abuse of power, can't you?

Just sayin'.

So, how do we get Pelosi out of the picture? Would she recuse herself from impeachment proceedings? Doesn't she, as speaker of the house, have to initiate the process?

I'll admit to ignorance here, folks. Does it have to be Congress that impeaches? Sure as hell, the justice department can't do it, leaving aside jurisdiction issues; the Bush regime has it sewn up.

Removing an incumbent prez and VeePee at the same time leaves a hell of a vacuum, and how right is it that the folks who implemented impeachment should be the ones to assume power? Is there anything in place to limit the power? Imagine a Republican-held congress, using their power to remove a Democrat president for false reasons; taking partisan control of the entire country.

Very, very weird situation.

Comments

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Cheney gets to preside over his own impeachment hearings, which might affect the outcome some.

It seems to me that there was the chance of a similar situation with Nixon and Agnew. Once Agnew resigned, if Nixon went before a new VP was selected, the new President would have been Carl Albert (D-Oklahoma).

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Indeed. IIRC, Albert declared that if this should happen, he would consider himself an acting president only, and resign from the office as soon as a Republican VP had been confirmed.

[malada.livejournal.com]

I think Pelosi knew Bush would tie the whole proceedings in knots and basically run out the clock. There's too many timid Democrats and way too many loyalist Rethugricans to do a quick and clean job of removing Bush, Cheney, Rove and everyone else tied up in this administration.

We need to investigate, investigate, investigate.

After eight years of this mess we need a complete flushing, scrubbing and cleansing of the corruption of this administration - and that may mean a _truly_ Democratic congress and president.

Turn my red country blue - Bush already has turned made me Blue.

-m

[thrives.livejournal.com]

The solution, obviously, is that I storm the White House and take over!

[redhead-sue.livejournal.com]

Bush could get impeached and still not leave office.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

I posted about this a while back...

Maybe this is why Pelosi says that impeachment is "off the table": If Bush is impeached, Cheney would get the job.

Nitpick: Impeachment corresponds to 'indictment', not 'conviction', so being impeached doesn't in itself remove a president from office. Impeachment takes a simple majority in Congress; conviction requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which is obviously a much higher bar. The only two presidents to have been impeached (Clinton and Andrew Johnson) were both acquitted, and stayed on as president.

If Cheney is impeached, either at the same time, or later, Pelosi herself would get the job.

Not necessarily. Pelosi succeeds to the presidency only if President and VP are both vacant at the same time. If Bush were removed, Cheney would become President and entitled to select a replacement VP; as long as the replacement was confirmed before Cheney was convicted, Pelosi would stay right where she is.

This is more or less what happened during the Nixon years, albeit through resignation rather than actual impeachment. (Congress voted to impeach Nixon, but he resigned before it went ahead.)

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States explains the process.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

i'll admit to a bit of paranoia about the accuarcy of this particular article.

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/17/cia_fbi_computers_us.html

I have added it to a rather long list of reading material on impeachement, though.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

The nature of Wikipedia is that stuff which a lot of people know, and which can easily be verified (in this case, by checking the Constitution) tends to be correct; articles like that have a lot of people watching them, and vandalism tends to be spotted and removed pretty quickly. If in doubt, check the article's edit history and talk page to see whether any of the current material is contested.

It's on issues where the truth isn't widely known, or can't easily be confirmed, that anonymous edits are more of a problem.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Would you mind linking to your post? I don't remember reading it, and would like to add it to my list.

Thanks,
E.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

http://lederhosen.livejournal.com/455238.html - would've linked before, but I didn't have the link handy.

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

Imagine a Republican-held congress, using their power to remove a Democrat president for false reasons

Congress doesn't have the power to remove a President.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

Are you saying this Congress doesn't have the power?

[lederhosen.livejournal.com]

...no, I'm saying I got 'Congress' and 'Representatives' mixed up. Argh.

It takes a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove a President following impeachment. In practice, that means one of two things: either the President really is that bad, or one side controls more than two-thirds of the Senate - you'd probably need around 70-75% to make a frivolous impeachment stick* - and if you have that sort of majority, you probably have the Presidency already.

Which is not to say impeachment can't be used as a harassment tactic, but it's unlikely to remove the President.

*Even members of the opposing party are sometimes reluctant to convict a President without strong evidence. During Clinton's trial, five Republicans voted for acquittal on both charges and another five voted to acquit on one of them.

[ambitious-wench.livejournal.com]

And here I was all set to get pedantic! *grin*