Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

bush impeached. cheney impeached. who becomes prez? (secret repuke plan?)

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:08 PM
Original message
bush impeached. cheney impeached. who becomes prez? (secret repuke plan?)
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 07:15 PM by Skip Intro
I just assumed Pelosi, and wondered how it would look to America if she led two impeachments that resulted in her becoming president, but wanted to Google it first. Found this -

----------------
Secret Republican Plan to Impeach Bush?
Letter to the Editor

Have you heard that there is a secret Republican plan to impeach Bush? If the Democrats win both houses it just might happen. Here's the reason. If the Dems win then they might impeach Bush and Cheney making Nancy Pelosi president as she would be Speaking of the House and next in line. However, if the Republicans impeach Bush before the Dems take power in January then Dennis Hassert becomes president instead of Pelosi. But they would have just over 60 days to do it so they have to have it all planned out in advance.

It does seem extreme for Republicans to impeach Bush, but as we know if Nancy Pelosi is president she will probably pick Hillary Clinton as VP and the Republicans can't let that happen. So the rumor might just be true. When you think about it it all starts to make sense.

Posted by marc at August 24, 2006 08:25 PM
----------------

There's a reply that says bush/cheney would just resign, but these are people who can't even admit a mistake.

Anyway, does anyone know if Pelosi would actually become president if, after we win, bush and cheney are impeached?

on edit: not vouching for that site in any way, haven't checked it out yet, just came up in a google search...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Rude Horner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. It is true that
the Speaker of the House is next in line, after the Prez and V.P.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wow that's a good question. If Bush and Cheney are both impeached
before the 109th Congress ends, Hastert becomes president.

Not sure, but I believe he would serve as president even if he loses his House seat on Nov. 7th.

And that he would not serve if he won his House seat but was removed by colleagues as Speaker.

In that instance I think the newly-chosen Speaker, presumably a Republican, would serve as Speaker and therefore become president.

I don't see impeachment proceedings taking place this fall under any circumstances, though.

If the Democrats win a House majority and Bush and Cheney were to be impeached sometime next year, the Speaker of the House would still serve as President, and in those circumstances, that would likely be Nancy Pelosi.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Gauger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. The Speaker will only become President
if both Bush and Cheney are impeached during the same trial. If Bush is impeached first, Cheney picks a VP who then becomes Pres after Cheney's impeachment. If Cheney is impeached first, Bush's new VP will become President after Bush impeachment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. yeah, I guess that's how it might unfold, if it happens at all
here's to impeaching them both at the same time, but most important - that accountability is served hard to those who've escaped it so far, and that justice is done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Nicely put, John! Thanks for condensing the possibilities into 3 sentences.
:-) MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #3
21. Good work. By this synopsis, it would be best to
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 09:57 PM by Texas Explorer
take out Cheney first. Besides, what better way to build a case against the shrub.

We can stretch that all the way until shrub's new VP wouldn't have a chance to screw anything up, as if he/she would even have the inclination after just witnessing the takedown of his benefactors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
3waygeek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #3
29. Not quite -- remember that
any VP pick has to be confirmed by the Senate. If the Senate refuses to confirm, then the Speaker of the House would become President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. How hard would it be to Impeach Hassert? Plus these birds yearn for another day,
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 07:19 PM by orpupilofnature57
Day When people were easily steered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Countdown_3_2_1 Donating Member (778 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. Wouldn't it be simpler just to pick a new Veep?
1) Cheney retires for health reasons.
2) * appoints a new Veep.
3) * either retires or is impeached.
4) New Veep (no crimes to impeach him) becomes president.
5) New President PARDONS entire * cabinet.
6) * and friends walk away laughing.

No impeachment votes required for this plan. Just one guy.
Nixon. Been done before.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. hell of a first post
and that plan sounds just like them...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BleedingHeartPatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Only difference is Cheney will leave fingernail marks on the floors as he is escorted
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 07:33 PM by BleedingHeartPatriot
from the building.

And, that man knows skeletons.

I wonder what he and Rove have on each other. :evilgrin:

MKJ
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Maybe Cheney's not planning on leaving.
How many bunkers has he built, anyways?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orpupilofnature57 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Scum like him are more effective behind the scenes ,how many times in 6 yrs..
..have we not seen him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Brad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. He's surfaced a few times
He crawls out for the following:

a) to be photographed sleeping through meetings
b) to make short speeches to friendly audiences
c) to shoot friends in the face
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. You must have been reading my mind.
The Nixon/Ford/Agnew scenario.

1.) Late October, Abramoff, Ney, Cunningham, Noe, etc. all sing and 25 Republicans are indicted (Hastert, Pombo, Sweeney, Cantor, Burns, Hunter, Harris, Goode, etc.).

2.) Hadley is indicted by Fitzgerald and Feith is indicted in the AIPAC investigation.

3.) One of the Federal Courts decides to hear Sibel Edmonds' whistleblower case.

4.) November, Dems win back the House and Senate.

5.) December, Gonzales is indicted by Fitzgerald and Rove is indicted in the Abramoff investigation.

6.) January, Libby is convicted and implicates Cheney. Cheney is indicted and resigns.

7.) Congress forces Bush to appoint McCain as VP.

8.) Conyers sets up an investigative committee to investigate everything. Hearings begin and subpoenas are issued.

9.) Franklin, Rosen and Weissman implicate Rumsfeld in the AIPAC case and Rumsfeld is indicted and resigns.

11.) Congress forces Bush to appoint Lieberman as Defense Secretary.

12.) Impeachment hearings begin.

13.) The GOP forces Bush to resign.

14.) Bush resigns to avoid impeachment and get a pardon.

15.) McCain is sworn in as President and he appoints George Pataki as his VP. McCain-Pataki-Lieberman are the caretakers until January 2009.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #14
26. #13.)The GOP forces Bush to resign.
How do they do that? Has the GOP ever forced Bush to do anything? I still don't understand where the 15-17 Republican Senators are going to come from who will vote to convict Bush. Any speculation on who might do that? The Watergate hearings started in February of 1973, one year into Nixon's second term, which would have been February of 2005 in Bush's second term. A perfect storm has seemed to gather now to defeat the Republicans in 2006. Democrats cannot always depend upon a perfect storm for them to win the day against the Republicans. Your 15 steps is a nice read, but I think there are too many ways that it can go wrong and the entire thing falls apart. If Pelosi says that impeachment is off the table is she being honest or is she being coy? Pelosi may be very pragmatic in realizing that much of the American public, other than liberal Democrats, are wildly enthused about spending much of the next 2 years tearing Bush apart to the exclusion of many important issues that need to be addressed. With Pelosi saying that impeachment is off the table, if it happens the Republicans will paint it as a flip flop and that will ring true to many Americans.

Having said all of that I will be the first to admit that anything can happen. At the time of the Watergate hearings I was in college and worked at the college NPR station and was on the board during what I thought were very boring hearings and I didn't think that anything would come of it. I was certainly wrong then. As happened during the Watergate hearings, we would need somebody like Republican Senator Baker of Tennessee who asked, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" If it comes to conviction of Bush, we will need a good number of Republican senators to vote for conviction. The same senators who have been belittled, ridiculed, and called names here at DU. Not a great way to build bridges or to win allies when you need them. I hope that if and when the Democrats take control that they remember as the Republicans seem to have forgot that they will not be in power forever and should not act with impunity like they will be. Otherwise, the next time the Republicans take control it will make the recent years look like a picnic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Gauger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Damn. I had forgotten about that possibility
I hope that's not how it happens. Of course, being pardoned in the American judicial system does not pardon you in the Internation Criminal Court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
27. Hi Countdown_3_2_1!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
30. It might be better if BOTH Bush and Cheney resigned at the same time!
Then there won't be any argument in congress on who to choose in the lame duck session to replace Cheney (which would likely get fillibustered until the Dems took power in 2007). If both resigned, they would necessarily need to put in place Hastert (or whoever took over for Hastert if he were to resign), since the constitutional ammendments dictate that he's been already "preselected" as their successor. That I think they would feel might be doable in terms of swearing that person in during the lame duck session without fillibustering. Any other kind of action (impeachment, VP resigning, etc.) would likely be fillibustered if the Dems felt it would disadvantage them to act quickly.

Also, just because it takes a supermajority in the Senate to convict Bush/Cheney in an impeachment trial to force them out of office doesn't mean that there aren't votes for it then. Maybe not now, when we don't have any investigations to show what's been really going on behind closed doors, Republicans can feel they can vote party line to keep Bush and Cheney in office. But if the evidence is damning enough and close enough to something like the Watergate tapes were with Nixon, then I think a lot of the Republican Senators up for re-election in 2008 might think twice of voting to support the president, as a very angry public would likely vote them out of office if they look more like they are protecting their party's members than their country. There wasn't a supermajority of Democrats in the senate when Nixon resigned either. Just many Senators that realized they didn't have much choice at that point if Nixon didn't resign then.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Backlash Cometh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
12. Cheney will step down before it gets that far. Bush will put in someone
"clean" into the Vice-Presidency so that he/she can become president by default.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
13. If both are impeached, but not convicted
they serve out their terms just like Clinton. What is it about impeachment that so many people do not understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. But...
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 08:14 PM by Independent_Liberal
The public wasn't behind the Clinton impeachment. That's because they knew it was stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Impeachment does not mean conviction. It's that simple. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. But once investigations...
...get underway and bring enough incriminating evidence to the surface, it will ultimately be the court of public opinion that impeaches Bush. Opinion polls and public support can be very effective. If the sound becomes deafening the Republicans might be forced to go along with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elocs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Maybe. I doubt you could get the 15-17 Republican Senators needed
to vote for conviction. I don't see it. You cannot even guarantee that all of the Democrat voters would vote for conviction. I still see that so many seem to think that impeachment means that Bush will be out of office. It doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Independent_Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. You want to know what's going to happen?
Read my post above. It's response #14.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
never_get_over_it Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. Thank you for posting this
I can not tell you the number of times I have posted this when someone starts a thread about impeachment.

Come on DUers you're all VERY politically involved and you should understand this...

Impeachment begins in the House and is an indictment - Clinton WAS IMPEACHED

once impeached a Senate trial is held and to REMOVE someone from office it takes 2/3rds vote or 67 Senators which if the senate is tied we need to hold EVERYONE of ours which we won't and 17 or theirs

Bush or Cheney may be impeached but I even doubt that - but they could be - but the chances of them being removed is slim to none.

Only Speaker of the House to become President was the guy on the West Wing....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brooklynite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
19. This discussion is a waste of time
To impeah the President takes only a majority of the members of the House, but to convict and remove him would take 67 Senators; no political mathematics you can come up with for this election will allow that to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. one word
investigations

I'm sure there are some repukes who'd vote for impeachment rather than tie themselves to a beaten, lame duck president.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
28. Why go through impeachment?...
Edited on Tue Oct-24-06 06:37 PM by calipendence
Unless Bush and Cheney are resisting this and they want to do it before the end of the year, they might try. But then again it would be a speed record to get an impeachment to happen in a month and a half's time. And it would only be good for them if it happened before the newer congress went into session. That is why I think it might be more likely that they'd try to talk Bush and Cheney to resigning at the same time, which would in effect do the same thing and have the presidency fall on whomever the Speaker of the House was (Hastert, or someone else if he resigned) in the lame duck session.

In an earlier thread, I thought that part of this whole thing with the Foley mess and subsequent pressure on Hastert to resign was so that they could "pick" their own successor to Bush and Cheney if they were to go this route in November. Then they'd try to find someone that the Dems couldn't get impeached (ala Gerald Ford in the Nixon years) to become Speaker of the House. Now if they follow lines of succession and have Boehner take over if Hastert were to resign, then I don't think this is their plan, as Boehner has as much liabilities to be impeached as Hastert would. But if they skip the lines of succession and try to find someone "clean" so that they could have someone to avoid Hastert's earlier mistakes with pages, then look out. I think this would be a very real possibility. You could tell Bush and Cheney that for them, and for the rest of their administration, and likely many Republicans in congress, and perhaps even court justices, this would be the best for them to resign now, since if they waited until 2007 to get someone "unimipeachable" in one of the top two offices, then if Pelosi took over at some point after those impeachments, they'd be screwed, as Pelosi and her administration wouldn't be issuing any pardons like their own hand-picked successor might agree to in advance.

I don't see an impeachment happening before 2007, but perhaps a couple of resignations by Bush and Cheney after the elections is very possible, if there's some very heavy baggage that's going to make its way into the public right after the election that would call for this to happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 31st 2014, 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC