Impeachment = President Colin Powell, not President Pelosi

[HamdenRice]

Or perhaps President John McCain. This post is neither pro nor anti-impeachment. There are plenty of those around already.

All I want to get across is what are the legal, constitutional, and political consequences of impeachment. It is not President Pelosi. Let's at least get our facts straight.

There are too many posts that simply don't understand the "order of succession" to the presidency. In the event of impeachment of both the president and vice president, serially, it is overwhelmingly likely that Bush and Congress will use the same procedure that was used when both Nixon and Agnew were forced out of office. I find it inconceivable that a nation addicted to a false sense of "stability" would impeach both Bush and Cheney simultaneously. Even if Congress wanted to do so, the time demands of hearings and votes would make it impossible.

Most of you are confusing the Presidential Succession Act and the 25th Amendment of the Constitution. Here is the relevant text of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 as amended:

<quote>

Sec. 19. Vacancy in offices of both President and Vice President; officers eligible to act

(a) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President, then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

<unquote>

Notice that for the presidential succession act to apply, both the presidency and vice presidency must be vacant simultaneously. The Twenty Fifth Amendment, however, ensures that this is almost impossible. That Amendment states:

<quote>

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

<unquote>

Therefore, if Bush is impeached and removed or resigns, then Cheney becomes president. Cheney will then appoint a new vice president with the consent of Congress. That appointed vice president is certain to be a republican, albeit one acceptable to the Democratic majority.

If Cheney is removed first, Bush will appoint a new vice president. Again, that appointee will be a Republican who is acceptable to the Democratic majority in Congress.

This is what happened as a result of Watergate and the revelation of vice president Agnew's participation in corruption in Maryland. Findlaw succinctly summarizes those events events:

<quote>

First, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned on October 10, 1973, and President Nixon nominated Gerald R. Ford of Michigan to succeed him, following the procedures of Sec. 2 of the Amendment for the first time. Hearings were held upon the nomination by the Senate Rules Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, both Houses thereafter confirmed the nomination, and the new Vice President took the oath of office December 6, 1973. Second, President Richard M. Nixon resigned his office August 9, 1974, and Vice President Ford immediately succeeded to the office and took the presidential oath of office at noon of the same day. Third, again following Sec. 2 of the Amendment, President Ford nominated Nelson A. Rockefeller of New York to be Vice President; on August 20, 1974, hearings were held in both Houses, confirmation voted and Mr. Rockefeller took the oath of office December 19, 1974.

<unquote>

The political question is: who is the Republican who will be acceptable to the Democratic Congress?

Given the fact that there is a war and Congress and the public will demand an extremely experienced, competent and popular figure, and that almost the entire Republican leadership is tainted with scandal and corruption, the only conceivable choices are Colin Powell and John McCain.

This is not to say I favor either of these two figures. I just talking about what the likely reality is.

Also, keep in mind that President Powell or President McCain would be free to run in 2008 as an incumbent. That doesn't mean they will win or that we shouldn't impeach. After all, Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976 without having ever completed a full term.

[NashVegas]

1. Oh, Yah, I Forgot About Powell

And agree 100% with your assessment.

I thought of Frist for a back-up to McCain, but only if it happens before the next congress convenes.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. I heard Rummy will be available!

It's tough to tell who Bush would put up. It probably is going to depend more on that particular D.C. moment in time rather who would be the most competent and best for the country though. That's hard to make a call on. Who would've guessed Gates for Rummy's job?

[havocmom]

3. That reality thing gets too often ignored

even here at DU

Happy to give you the first R on this little chunk of reality ;)

edited after coffee for typo

[xultar]

11. No shit.

[Phredicles]

4. While Powell is hardly spotless in the current mess,

he would be an enormous improvement over The Decider and Dick Vader. Plus, one reservation about an impeachment proceding that made Pelosi president is that it would be easy to spin as a Democratic power grab. One that elevated Powell would be much less so.

[HamdenRice]

10. That's the key point ...

A Democratic Congress would not want it to appear that the White House changed party hands as a result of impeachment. The replacement is definitely going to be a Republican.

The only way I could see a Democratic replacement president would be if there were a massively deligitimizing event for the Republicans -- maybe a revelation about complicity in 9/11 or absolute proof that the federal response to Katrina was deliberate ethnic/demographic/political cleansing. Unfortunately, with this administration, it's actually a possibility.

[Phredicles]

True, although it says something about how far the bar has been lowered

that what is already generally known about the administration and Sept. 11, Katrina, and Iraq aren't sufficiently delegitimizing in themselves.

[garthranzz]

33. Or revelation that Bush actually stole Ohio and other states in '04

(not to mention FL in '00) and therefore is not the legitimate president anyway.

[Toucano]

19. Bullshit. Powell is an amoral war criminal who lied to the UN.

Without his cooperation, we wouldn't be in this mess. His "good little soldier" bit is bullshit. As Secretary of State, his duty was to the American people, not to the President. He did not faithfully execute his office and should be indicted.

Yes, his hands aren't spotless. They're covered in blood.

[Phredicles]

21. No argument there. It's a mark of how awful

the current officeholders are that Powell can be considered an improvement. But there it is all the same.

[HamdenRice]

23. It's not what you and I think ...

It's what the political elite and mainstream media believe. A Iran-contra criminal was just confirmed as Secretary of Defense. The Powell myth is strong enough to get him confirmed.

Even if it's not Powell, it will be McCain or some other republican, who will be an incumbent in 2008.

[Toucano]

37. Besides the fact that Powell would never accept the appointment

the situation in Iraq is current and ongoing. Confirmation hearings can quickly refresh the memory as long as Democrats (like us) acknowledge that the myth of Powell is a myth and have the courage to attack the sacred general.

Iran/Contra, while extremely important, is largely forgotten by people. I never heard it mentioned in the MSM during the Gates confirmation. Clinton should have pursued it more vigorously in 1993. Gates, Casey, North and Poindexter wouldn't be around to influence policy now.

I was only taking issue, though, with the notion that Powell's hands were merely not "spotless". That's an understatement at best and belies the true depth of his crime.

[HamdenRice]

42. Mrs. Powell

I remember reading somewhere that Mrs. Powell is terrified that if Powell became president, he would be assassinated. So whether he would accept is a big issue.

But the point of the OP is that it will be Powell or some other republican by appointment and not Pelosi by succession.

[blogslut]

87. I don't think Powell would take the job

He was a reluctant cabinet appointee to begin with. People had been trying to put Colin in civilian office since forever. G.W. got him and his administration exploited Powell's credibility. He did his bit for Bushco and he was burned badly. He left on bad terms and he's been progressively critical of his former boss ever since.

McCain would do it in a heartbeat.

[martymar64]

84. Not to mention, he helped to try to coverup My Lai

When he dies, he'll be saying "Hello Satan!"

[NinetySix]

5. I see nothing in either the Act or the Amendment that states

that both cannot be impeached simultaneously. Granted, there can only be one vote at a time, but if the two top figures in the Executive Branch are facing imminent votes on impeachment, it seems unlikely that there would be much support for an appointment to the office of Vice-President made by either one.

I imagine that the implication of the first section you quote:

(a) (1) If, by reason of death, resignation, removal from office, inability, or failure to qualify, there is neither a President nor Vice President to discharge the powers and duties of the office of President....

indicates that the possibility that both could be removed by impeachment is a real one, thus the consequent of the hypothetical follows:

then the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall, upon his resignation as Speaker and as Representative in Congress, act as President.

It seems hard to believe that these articles would have been written indicating the succession to the Speaker as a potential, but never an actual, possibility. It also seems to be common sense that the succession could not be indefinitely delayed by appointments made by those about to be removed from office. Evidently, all that must be done for the Speaker to become President is to resign the Speakership and House seat, and undertake to execute the responsibilities of the Executive.

[HamdenRice]

12. The succession act was written for a different purpose

It was written to deal with a common disaster -- like both the president and vice president dying in a plane crash or assassination. That's why the president and vice president are rarely in the same place at the same time.

It's possible that both could be impeached simultaneously, but Congress would not do so for reasons of stability and continuity.

[NinetySix]

18. But it explicitly cites "removal from office" as one condition.

Perhaps the Act itself is primarily intended as a provisional plan in case of disaster, but it appears also to have been fashioned to be effective in any situation, not only one of cataclysm. I don't see any inconsistency between the two, nor any prohibition against the civil, political removal of both executives.

[HamdenRice]

20. It's the political point

Sure, they can be both removed simultaneously and the Act would apply. The point is that Congress would not, and logistically probably could not, do both that quickly.

[NinetySix]

24. But whether the act is Constitutional or consistent with statute

And whether it is politically viable are two separate matters.

But likely you're right about its political viability, given the lack of political backbone in this day and age. If only the Democrats had the will to damn the torpedoes the way the Republicans did in 1998, I think this impeachment would be a lot better received by the public (if not the Punditocracy).

[pat_k]

70. Newsweek Polls demonstrates "impeachment would be a lot better received by the public. . "

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/8

The DC Dems have long been addicted to tactical analysis that focuses almost exclusively on the "certain" negative consequences of action. For example, in the current crisis, "opinion makers" and party insiders alternate between assurances that the nation wants Democrats to work with Bush and his toadies in Congress and warnings that the public will blast them if they impeach. The benefits of impeachment, the enormous risks of failing to impeach, and the recent polls (e.g., http://january6th.org/oct2006-newsweek-poll-impeach.html">Newsweek's) that find a majority of Americans want impeachment to be a priority in the new Congress are conspicuously absent (i.e., willfully ignored).

[HamdenRice]

75. Interesting journal entry

I don't know why the Democrats are so focused on how they might be perceived negatively rather than on going forward positively. I guess decades of republicans demonization will do that.

[pat_k]

77. All closed social systems create their own reality to some degree.

Over the decades, the beltway has become more closed and has developed more dysfunctional patterns of thought than most.

Just posted something on this topic yesterday. . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2866228&mesg_id=2872370

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. Plus, there's one more thing

The American public would never allow one party to take over the White House under such circumstances. That's tantamount to a coup d'etat, so far as I'm concerned.

[Webster Green]

7. I didn't realize that impeachment was used to select the president

I thought it was to hold the current president accountable for crimes committed in office.

It isn't something you choose to do. If there is evidence of wrongdoing, it must be done.

[HamdenRice]

15. That's not the point of the OP

Sure, impeachment is to hold the president and vice president accountable. That doesn't mean that they have to be impeached simultaneously.

[IndyOp]

8. I think the likely scenario will be that Cheney will resign due to health

reasons soon. This will happen whether or not there are impeachment hearings because the Republicans need a VP who could run for office in 2008 -- and that isn't Cheney. Bush will appoint a VP that is a "moderate Republican" of some kind. IF impeachment hearings come anywhere close to Bush, Bush will resign. Then we have a "moderate Republican" incumbent as Pres at the time of the 2008 elections. Incumbents have power and the Rep election call will be "stay the course - give the new incumbent a chance."

We need to end the Iraq War NOW. I think a lot of people have impeachment and end of Iraq War tangled up together - they are not the same issue, they are separate issues. End the Iraq War NOW.

And, in my opinion, do not impeach. Keep the much-hated Bush in office with his hands tied so tight behind his back he won't be able to wipe his own ass.

Have investigations throughout the next two years and DESTROY the Republican after Republican after Republican.

After the 2008 elections when a Dem is installed as President and Bush is out -- press criminal charges against Bush.

We can count on Bush to take the cowards way out in all cases: If impeachment comes near him while he is in office, he will resign because he doesn't want his and his family's sins brought to light. If impeachment does not come near him then he will stay in office because he is safe from criminal prosecution.

As painful as it is for me to recommend that we NOT make sure the laws of the land are followed, I am against impeachment.

[Gregorian]

56. I like this. A lot.

I think this should be a separate post. This is worth discussing.

I wonder if this is what Pelosi is thinking when she says impeachment is off the table.




This thread has me very nervous. I see the administration as the republican jettison. Just get rid of those two. It's all their fault. Now everything will be ok.



Edit- There is a flaw with this argument. When investigations start, it's going to be hard not to impeach. And another thing, if Cheney resigns, for any reason, we're caught in the cold without having punished the crimes. I have to go sit and ponder. I have some salmon in my creek that I should go try and find. That is how my mind works. Silence and beauty.

[whistle]

9. The racist slant of the GOP would not allow the party to appoint Powell

...a black man as president and in all likelihood he would not be appointed Vice President either. I do agree though that it becomes a sticky matter as to the sequence of impeachment. Agnew claimed no contest and resigned which allowed Nixon time to appoint Ford as the new VP. Then Nixon resigned before congress could actually impeach him and VP Gerald Ford on becoming the new president immediately pardoned Nixon.

Here, if neither Bush nor Cheney resigns first and are both impeached simultaneously when the new congress begins in January 2007, would they both not be immediately deprived of exercising their official authorities and power? Without authority, neither could appoint their successors, correct?

[xultar]

13. I don't know. They love power more than they hate black folk.

[HamdenRice]

17. A Powell presidency scares me

because the republicans have been scheming for years how to break the solid Democratic lock on the African American vote. They don't need 50% of African Americans to vote Republicans, but if they get like 20%, then the Democrats are in trouble -- permanent structural trouble.

Powell is perfectly acceptable to the vast majority of Republicans and I'm afraid would swing lots of Black people to vote for him, at least on a one off basis, to elect the "first Black president."

[FyurFly]

48. A Pelosi presidency scares me n/t

[Swamp Rat]

73. Why does a Pelosi presidency "scare" you? What do you have against Nancy Pelosi?

The only people I know of who feel that way are ultra right wing neo-nazis.

I heard Rash Limpballs say the same exact thing just the other day.

[xultar]

14. K&R

[H2O Man]

16. I disagree.

I don't think that your position is realistic at all.

[Ganja Ninja]

22. Not necessarily

If the Congress or the Senate decides that a president who is about to be impeached does not deserve the right to name his successor and refuses to approve one, then succession will fall to the next person in line. Technically the majority party can do what ever they want and impeachment can be done simultaneously or nearly so if they want it to.

[HamdenRice]

25. A Democratic Congress allowed Nixon to choose his successor

That's a pretty powerful precedent.

[Ganja Ninja]

30. These are unprecedented times.

The man in office has proven to be a disgrace and a danger to the republic and his Vice President is equally so. Also Nixon wasn't facing imminent impeachment at the time Agnew resigned.

[HamdenRice]

34. Those were unprecedented times, as well

History, or the media, have whitewashed Nixon. Those were scary times, and Nixon was considered to be dangerous and demented. The country was virtually in a state of revolution. Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King had recently been assassinated, and George Wallace had been shot. There were riots and demonstrations every day and the troops in Vietnam were mutinying.

Those times were as unprecedented or more than these times.

[Ganja Ninja]

41. The point is that when Agnew resigned before Nixon faced ...

impeachment. There was time for him to appoint a new Vice President.

If Bush/Cheney are impeached without an approved successor the succession will follow the constitutional line. Congress could also pretty much dictate a successor if they want too. Remember they approve the successor, Bush can only nominate one. They can always hold out for whoever they want. If they refuse to accept his nomination they could come back and tell him who they will approve, perhaps someone like Bill Clinton. And that's if they give him time to nominate one at all.

[cascadiance]

60. One thing that might be different this time is the allowing of pardons...

Perhaps they don't go for outright "double impeachment" to get Pelosi in as president, but I would think that this time around, a Democratic congress might be putting a foot on the brakes allowing a lot of pardons of these people. I think this time around, for those watching what's going on in this administration, we're seeing more recycled *crooks* going back into positions of power (Gates, Elliot Abrahams, Negroponte, etc.). Had we nailed these people earlier or not allowed them to be pardoned, we might have less problems now with these crooks in prison or restricted from being in public office/governmental positions.

Perhaps a deal could be cut so that the Democrats, in the interest of not being seen to be power grabbers, but not allowing corruption/criminal acts to fester and be reborn again, have some legislation, ammendment, or the latter that restricts a sitting president from pardoning previous administration entities (and even include those that have resigned like Rumsfeld), so that if need be we can actually prosecute these people when they leave office. We need to have a big stick being used to prevent this sort of wrongdoing from happening again. Being done that way, it still allows the will of the people to be upheld in which party occupies the executive branch office, but it would help the public know that wrongdoing is being punished appropriately and not being let off the hook to come back again when those that are questing for power don't see any significant punishment for wrongdoing standing in their way.

[tritsofme]

83. The power of the POTUS to pardon is absolute

Non-reviewable by Congress or the courts.

The only way to change that is through amending the constitution.

A gentleman's agreement with a successor perhaps, but nothing binding.

[cascadiance]

86. Maybe that's the deal that could be cut with the Republicans...

In exchange for not going for a "double impeachment" and putting Nancy Pelosi in charge along with the Democrats, have the Republians agree to pass such an ammendment to the constitution. I'm not sure but are ammendment votes vetoable by the president? Given that you have a 2/3rds majority already to get an ammendment passed, it would seem you would have the amount of votes there to override a veto.

Perhaps you might convince enough Republicans that this is in their interests to vote yes on such an ammendment, as it would preserve control over the White House, but it would tell voters that some of them are interested in working in a bipartisan fashion to do their duty for accountability, which could help them in 2008 fend off criticism that they haven't been doing so. I think the public would be encouraged by such a move that both parties of their government would be working to make the system better and weed out the criminals in it.

Of course the devil would be in the details on how you would craft such limitations that aren't too complicated or ones that could be worked around, and yet also provide still for the ability for the president to pardon most others that he should be able to have. Just have some way of preventing incestuous manipulative pardoning that keeps putting criminals back in government when we don't weed them out.

[roamer65]

51. To a certain extent yes, but Ford was a very moderate Rethug

with a established record in Congress. They gave Nixon a member of his party, that's about all they gave him with Jerry Ford. I still like Betty Ford. I thought she was a very good first lady. She was pro-choice and very honest.

[amandabeech]

76. IMHO, there was a lot of behind-the-scenes negotiating.

I doubt that Nixon had a free hand in selecting a candidate.

You could also argue that Ford had a little more electoral legitimacy then some candidates would have. He was the elected leader of the Pubbies in the House. Ford's elevation kept the party whose candidate had been elected in power, and took the person elected by a sort of mini-electoral college consisting of Pubbie reps.

I would much have preferred a dem, but, at the time, Ford looked pretty good in comparison go Nixon.

But then, after Watergate and the war issues, just about any one would have.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. Too theoretical. As a practical matter, it won't happen.

The Senate will allow the president to appoint his vice president.

[earthside]

26. The Objective of Impeachment is Justice

For the future of democracy and freedom, impeachment of Bush and Cheney is a necessity.

Let the chips fall where they may as far as the presidential succession ... if criminals like Bush and Cheney are not brought to justice and accountability exacted, then our future as a republic is highly in doubt.

[HamdenRice]

27. No argument with your general point

Impeachment may be necessary for justice. Simultaneous impeachment is not, and may not even be logistically possible.

[Senator]

61. Not exactly -- It is a First Line of Defense...

...against ongoing and/or imminent damage to the nation by an intolerable chief (and vice-chief) magistrate.

It simply disarms the perpetrator(s). You don't come by justice so easily.

The rest of your post is spot on. The chips should fall where they may and true justice and accountability are required for our future. But this will have to come in the form of war crime prosecutions and reversal of all illegitimate acts and appointments.

Impeachment is in fact "the easy part."

--

[FredStembottom]

28. Thanks for setting me straight.

Some very basic stuff that needed to be seen.

[ThomWV]

29. You're Wrong. All They Have To Do Is Not Approve Cheney's VP Nomination

Both houses would have to vote in a new VP, and if that vote is scheduled AFTER the second impeachment both offices would be vacant at the same time - and Pelosi walks into the Oval Office.


So, it works like this:

Impeach Bush ->Cheney Becomes President -> Cheney nominates a new VP -> Congress Schedules vote for late date within the current session -> Congress impeaches Cheney before the vote for confirmation of his VP.

[HamdenRice]

31. They could, but they won't

If they wanted to impeach both simultaneously, they could. It's the political point that's important. The Democrats (1) don't want to be seen as creating instability -- ie having the presidency or vice presidency unnecessarily vacant, and (2) don't want to be seen as forcing a change in party control of the White House, and (3) don't want to be seen as disobeying the Nixon-Agnew precedent.

[Ganja Ninja]

32. Or impeach Cheney in the AM & ignore Bush's nomination ...

while you take the vote on his impeachment.

[goclark]

36. What has to happen to make that happen

Every day I look at TV and wonder, what are they setting him up for?

It seems to me, the MSM keeps putting in " Bush is stubborn, he won't want to do what the Study tells him to do."

So, when does the CORPORATE RUN STUDY pull the plug on Dick and Chimp?

I think it's in the works, they know the Chimp is too dangerous to remain in office.

Bush can not carry their plan.

[Heywood J]

64. You are technically correct.

>You're Wrong. All They Have To Do Is Not Approve Cheney's VP Nomination

But we're talking about people (the vast majority of whom will still be there) who just confirmed Mr. Iran-Contra. Forty-two Dems just voted for him.

You're right in that they have the option - but it's not that likely. Caving is easier for them.

[warrens]

35. Never Powell. The Bushies HATE him

McCain either. I'd look at loyalists, like DeWine or whatever.

[Toucano]

39. The Bushies wouldn't be influencing the decision by then.

If it came to impeachment, the power of the Bushies would be about nill.

The other wing of the Republican party (like you say, the DeWines or the Spectors) would have the most influence.

I also think Powell would not be the choice, but the Bushies' opinion of him isn't the reason. In my assessment, of course.

[warrens]

71. The Bushies will never go away

They're concentrated in think tanks, corporate boards, and other positions of power. They call the shots.

[charlie]

38. Non-impeachment scenario

It's fanciful, but after 6 years of Bushian high weirdness, not... entirely... not entirely... implausible. There's been signs of a rift between Bush and Cheney. So, being the mean vindictive little shit that he is, Dubya decides one day to pull a Webb on Cheney and cracks wise about his daughter's turkey baster baby. Cheney shoots him in the face. Hello President Pelosi.

[HamdenRice]

40. LOL!! The once scenario I did not take in account-- Bush and Cheney go hunting!

That would take care of Bush, but even as an accused presidential murderer he might be allowed the formality of naming his successor.

[RevolutionStartsNow]

44. LOL!

That's my favorite one of all!

[passy]

43. This is all rather irrelevant.

There is nothing that says that the candidate to replace either dicky or * has to be a republican. By the time they will resign, no one but the most hardent republican will be pushing to have a republican in the WH.
I likely suspect that neither dicky or * are likely to let themselves get demoted that easily. These are ruthless men who have taken the country into two wars based on lies, let a city drown and did almost nothing to prevent 9/11. They have also perverted the constitution to such an extent that they could declare martial law tommorow and throw half the country in internment camps.
I suspect that impeachment will the least of our worries and that nothing less than a popular revolution will allow us to get rid of the trash in the WH.
I think it more likely that * will end up like Louis XVI, Nicholas II or Ceauşescu and not like Nixon.

[HamdenRice]

45. Scary but interesting nt

[passy]

54. I think if somebody had suggested to you 6 years ago that something like 9/11 would happen

and that it would lead the country into two wars and destroy the constitution, lead the president to be seen by the rest of the world as the greatest threat to world peace and lead the country to the edge of bankruptcy; would you not have found the whole proposition terrifying?
If we want to have an idea of what is to come maybe we should objectively look at the past and realize all that has been done by this administration.
Only with historical hindsight can we understand to what extent this administration actions have so far destroyed the country in a little over 5 years.
Even with dems running congress I doubt that they will stop, these people move slowly but surely under the cover of the MSM who distract us with frivolous stories whilst failing to investigate any of the administration's misdeeds.
When all is said and done these bastards in the WH have only gotten where they are now with the help of the corporate MSM. Goebbels has simply been replaced by Murdoch.
As long as corporations own the media, the media will always favor the most capitalist of the two parties.
Already we hear the MSM hinting at the repubs talking points which have to do with putting the blame for the war on the dems. The repubs as an opposition party are even more ruthless thanks to their allies in the MSM.
The only way to even have a fighting chance is to frighten the shit out of these bastards, forget * and dicky, start investigating media ownership, retaliate for that shameful propaganda ABC shat out by revoking their license to broadcast, that should send a clear warning to the rest.
Destroying the MSM is the only practical way for one day reverting this country to the great nation it once was.

[NewJeffCT]

46. If something like this happens, it won't be McCain

That would allow the Democratic governor of Arizona to appoint a Democrat to fill out the remainder of McCain's term in the Senate, and I don't think Republics would go for that.

In the unlikely event both of them are impeached, I think it would be Rudy Giuliani. He was one of the keynote speakers at the RNC in 2004, along with McCain, & Arnold. Arnold is not eligible to be president. Rudy also campaigned vigorously for Bush throughout 2004, and has earned some loyalty within the ranks of Republics.

[HamdenRice]

47. Brain freeze.... cannot think .....that thought ..... ugghhhhh

The idea of Adolph Mousolini Giuliani as president is terrifying. As a New Yorker who lived through the Giuliani era, I can tell you he is the dangerous man in American politics.

We really would have internment camps for "dissidents" if he became president.

[roamer65]

49. ...and if I have read the amendments correctly...

I think the new president would be eligible for 2 elected terms in office. I could tolerate Powell (emphasis on tolerate), but McCain...yuk....ewwwww....NO. Would I vote for either one in the next general election...NO WAY.

[ktlyon]

50. I am still waiting for Cheney to resign so they can have

their next nominee for Pres in the White House. I have thought this all along. It would happen in '07 or '08 was my prediction. Heart problem brewing?

[madinmaryland]

53. "shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress."

This is the key...

Assuming that one resigns and lets the other one pick the successor, will congress approve any successor if they are both being impeached? I find it unlikely there would be an successor that would be approved by a "DEMOCRATICLY" controlled congress. Even if there were several days between them being impeached and convicted, congress would not approve a successor named by either Bush or Cheney.

Hence, I think it would be likely there could be a President Pelosi.

[roamer65]

55. Here's the biggest reason why Powell would get the nomination...

the Powell Doctrine. Bush violated it and confirmation hearings would question Powell on re-establishing it. Powell would re-affirm his dedication to it and get through confirmation.

[IA_Seth]

57. And, in all reality, impeachment will probably not happen.

We may think we've turned the tide her at DU, but it will take a LOT more work getting 'regular' citizens behind any sort of impeachment effort. It ain't pretty, but it's the reality of the situation.

[omega minimo]

58. Investigations will include Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and POWELL

for defrauding the public and the Congress in selling the war on Iraq.


"Given the fact that there is a war... and that almost the entire Republican leadership is tainted with scandal and corruption, the only conceivable choices are Colin Powell...."


How do you leave that out of your equation of Powell as one who is *not* "tainted with scandal"?




"I find it inconceivable that a nation addicted to a false sense of "stability" would impeach both Bush and Cheney simultaneously."

The nation may have to go cold turkey from its addiction to "a false sense of "stability"."

[HamdenRice]

59. Here's why I think Powell can prove he was out of the loop

Powell has skillfully spun his way out of the category of war criminal and into the category of victim.

Almost as soon as he gave his infamous presentation at the UN, he had his allies begin leaking the story that he was trying to prevent misinformation from getting in and was forced to be the good soldier.

There is also the fact, reported in England, but not in the US, that Powell was the victim of the NSA wiretapping scandal. British papers reported the remarkable fact that Bolton used illegal NSA wiretaps of Powell's office to disrupt Powell's attempts at diplomacy. Finally, there is Powell right hand Richard Armitage's bizarre performance to Pakistani intelligence chief Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad in the wake of 9/11.

In other words, I agree that Powell is as guilty as the others. But I also think Powell has created or simply been subjected to lots and lots of spinable alibis.

[omega minimo]

62. "he was trying to prevent misinformation from getting in" by presenting misinformation?

:crazy:

"But I also think Powell has created or simply been subjected to lots and lots of spinable alibis."

Spinnable alibis will not survive scrutiny in open Congressional hearings.



"Finally, there is Powell right hand Richard Armitage's bizarre performance...."

When is any appearance by Richard Armitage NOT a "bizarre performance"? :silly:

[Heywood J]

63. Powell's just a really

bad choice. I mean, he's complicit in selling this war and in covering up for Vietnam. He may be the best of the administration, but that's just another way of saying "the best-smelling turd in the bowl".

Too bad somebody like Chafee wouldn't be around to confirm, if it had to be a Republican. He may be a Republican, but at least the worst that can really be said about him is that he was a member of this congress. At least he's not so far out on the fringe like most Rs, and his hands aren't directly covered in blood (only indirectly).

[amandabeech]

78. Maybe my reading skills have left me, but I don't think that the

new Pres or V.P. has to be a sitting member of Congress.

I'd go for Chafee in a heartbeat.

[Jack Rabbit]

65. And if Bush and Cheney are impeached and removed simultaneously

as they should be, then neither will get to appoint his successor. Neither should afforded that courtesy.

[reformed_military]

66. The key to the 25th is that both houses of congress...

needs to vote for the "new" VP. If the other one is in the spotlight, I am sure Pelosi can keep the gang in line to keep from approving the nominee.

The $3.50 question is, will Hillary use her power to keep the second one from being actually voted out of office? I think Hillary might have an issue with someone else becoming the first female Pres.

[pat_k]

67. Don't need to impeach "serially" -- getting serious about impeachment of both. . .

. . ., in and of itself, could motivate them to take the resignation "exit strategy" -- i.e., resign serially.

If the Democratic leadership doesn't get on the stick, the Republican minority could beat them to the impeachment punch, and reap the benefits of taking the moral high ground and providing an outlet for national outrage at the Bush "package":

Curtis Gans, Director, Center for the Study of the American Electorate
Politically Direct with David Bender
http://podcast.rbn.com/airam/airam/download/archive/2006/11/aapd111006.mp3">MP3 -- Interview start time approx 18:30

. . a gestalt around George Bush -- it's being a pariah to other countries; it's people dying in what they increasing find is a vain fight; it's massive budgetary imbalances; it's a lack of compassionate conservatism; it's insecurity in jobs; it's the feeling that people have not been leveled with.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/12"> Turning accusations of "partisan coup" against them is simple. . .

[HamdenRice]

68. The main point of my OP was to get the facts right

There are any number of scenarios that might play out, and your suggestion that the best way for this to end is for them to resign is a good one.

But even in your journal entry, you stated the common misconception:

<quote>

Of course, if Bush and Cheney choose to be forcibly removed through impeachment, then the succession We the People have established in the 25th amendment will govern, and the Democratic Speaker will take the office of the Presidency.

<unquote>

The 25th Amendment does not provide for the Speaker to take the office of the presidency. That is provided in the Presidential Succession Act, and only occurs if there is a simultaneous vacancy of the offices of president and vice president.

[pat_k]

72. My bad.

Since my post assumes a simultaneous impeachment, the "forcible" outcome assumes simultaneous conviction. So, although the basis is in error, at least the outcome of that particular scenario (President Pelosi) is valid.

[Ganja Ninja]

69. 'the Republican minority could beat them to impeachment'

My thoughts exactly. We need to make sure that when the impeachment train leaves the station everybody's on board. We can't afford to look like we don't have the will to act when public opinion is overwhelmingly in favor of throwing these bums out. But I think we need to wait just long enough for the GOP to develop a sense of panic that they are going to be tossed out to the man. When they start calling for impeachment we'll know it's time to act and that'll be the best time as well.

[pat_k]

74. Unfortunately, time is not on our side.

". . .need to wait just long enough. . ."

Bush and Cheney are committing their war crimes and conducting their criminal surveillance operation in plain sight. Their attack on the Constitution is far advanced. Americans are torturers NOW. Members of Congress -- Republican and Democratic -- are sworn to defend. Impeachment is the weapon we gave them fulfill their oath when the attack comes from with within the halls of power.

The case for impeachment is clear, compelling, and complete-- it has been for years. Unnecessary delay is dereliction. Each day they face the choice anew: duty or complicity. Their oath is an individual oath, their duty an individual duty. Regardless of how many or how few join them, there is no time like the present for any Member of Congress to break the bonds of complicity by introducing or co-sponsor Articles of Impeachment and making the case.

From http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2749557&mesg_id=2756313">my reply to Time for Change's "Thoughts on Impeachment":

. . .
The price of delay could be unimaginable


Time Is NOT on our side.

The price of delay could be unimaginable.⁽¹⁾ Any day we could see another terrorist attack; Bush could declare war on Iran or Syria or North Korea or Venezuela or even Haiti; or some completely unforeseen event could make it impossible to rescue our national soul for a long time to come.

_______________________________________________________

(1) Even when we move full steam ahead, we can be thwarted by events.

On September 10, 2001, there were many signs that sanity was returning. The number who believed Florida was stolen had passed 50%. Bush's approval was continuing the steady downward slide that started the day he was inaugurated. A coalition led by Democrats.com that included the National Lawyers Guild and Vincent Bugliosi had scheduled a Sept. 11 press conference http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2701395&mesg_id=2707042">to announce their "fall offensive" -- a campaign that that included the effort to see Scalia et al. impeached for Bush v. Gore.

Bush's claims to any semblance of legitimacy were crumbling fast.

Then the sun came up on 9/11/2001. In the weeks that followed, the countless people who were horrified by the stolen election and Bush's incredible abuses were silenced in a nation that had seemingly gone mad.

Sanity is once again returning, but we must recognize how fragile the moment is.

[HamdenRice]

81. I agree delay could be fatal, but

this has to be done carefully with a lot of political calculation, and as you point out, not hand the Republicans a chance to distance themselves from these crimes.

[pat_k]

82. Their current "political calculation" 100% one sided. . .

. . .based on assumptions that are, more often than not, the opposite of reality.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/pat_k/8

[rpgamerd00d]

79. Dems can filibuster/delay the VP confirmation until the 2nd one is impeached.

Easy as pie.

[HamdenRice]

80. The point isn't what they can do, but what they will do

The political point of the OP is that even if the Democrats could force a simultaneous vacancy, because of precedent and potential political fallout, it is highly unlikely they would do so.

[tammywammy]

85. Dems would be risking the 2008 presidency in a move like that

Esp, considering that if the VP spot is open, the administration would chose someone that's more moderate, and not a neo-con. If this scenario does play out, I don't think that the VP nod would go to someone like McCain, but more to a rather unheard of Repub (well, mostly unheard of to the general public, but not to us at DU and the like that really keep up with politics).

If the VP nod is to someone like that, who the majority of the American public can back, if the dems tried to filibuster it would create a huge backlash. It would be a resounding error politically, and could easily cost the Dems the presidency in 2008. It would appear to the general public as the dems trying to get into the White House by the back door.

Even me, if Bush puts up someone that's a moderate Republican and not a neo-con, though I detest the Bush administration I would not like if the Dems filibustered just to have Pelosi put in as President.

[ISUGRADIA]

88. There is no way in hell 16 Republican Senators are

going to vote to convict both Bush and Cheney at the same time and make Pelosi president. If this ever gets to the conviction stage a deal to have someone else name VP acceptable to the Republicans will have been made.

[cascadiance]

89. I think one way to deal with this is to at least cut a deal to not allow pardons..

... of the existing administration ala Gerry Ford. That would be the one thing that I would totally think would be wrong. Letting these guys off the hook. I'm more concerned about those in this administration being able to stay in politics and wreaking havoc on us in the future, and serving as an example to others how they can get away literally with murder if they want to. If they pay a price, by not being pardoned and getting prosecuted, then that will be a warning to those planning a move to fascism in the future. Though I'd also like to see Pelosi take over now and clean house immediately to accomplish this more easily, perhaps pragmatically we can wait to take power with the ballot box until 2008. Though I'm concerned about Supreme Court Justice nominations too in that time frame.

Whehter the Dems are in control of the white house in the coming year or so or not, at least we can start the ball rolling on getting these guys investigated and convicted, if not before 2009, at least then once this administratio nis out of office.

[Hubert Flottz]

90. Powell lied to start a war just like Bush did.

He knew he was lying, when he lied to the UN and to the WORLD!