Do we really want impeachment / President Pelosi?

[Rosemary2205]

Don't get me wrong. I want the bastards in jail. But yanking Pelosi away from Speaker and putting her in the White House for just a few months? Is that really what we want?

I'm thinking considering the damage R's have done to themselves it's entirely possible the D's could have a House majority for some time. Pelosi could do so much good in the Speaker position. Do we really want to rob her of that?

Maybe we could wait till the bastids leave office and then throw their petards in jail?????


Well I'm just thinking out loud here........ Flame away if you must.

:)

[blm]

1. YES! Truth matters!

What happens when truth is ignored in favor of secrecy and privilege?

[GOTV]

2. If we can get 67 Senators so impeachment can do some good....

... then yes. I want impeachment to draw some kind of border around out of control presidents.

[Old and In the Way]

31. Regardless if we get a conviction in the Senate, the trial is the right thing to do.

There's no guarantee that an impeachment conviction will be delivered. The juror's are politicians and they will have to answer for their vote to their constituents. If they wish to vote "not guilty" when the evidence proves "guilty", the voters can have the last word on this.

But winning a vote should not determine if an article of impeachment is warranted. If the charges warrant, then the House Committee should vote it out of committee and let Congress hear the case. The public record of the charges and evidence that support it are what's important.

Why?

If the actions of this administration do not rise to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors"....what would?

What message do we send to the world as to our acceptance of this administration's crimes against our Constitution and crimes against another country's sovereignty?

What message and precedent are we sending/setting to future Presidents who might want to take the Decider role a step further into full-blown dictatorship?

Clinton's impeachment, IMHO, was generated to inoculate the next Republican President to absolutely trash and expand on the theory of a unitary executive. The political impeachment trial of Clinton was defeated in the Senate and in the marketplace of public opinion. The American people saw that this was sham abuse of the impeachment process. The American public will support this action against Bush-Cheney, even if a conviction is not won in the Senate.

[DURHAM D]

3. If Bush and Cheney are both impeached that does not

put Pelosi in the White House?????

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. No flames here.

I wouldn't care if she took office for just ONE DAY. It's the principle of the matter. We, as a Nation, cannot begin to restore our standing in the International Community until we deal with the criminal element that has usurped our Government.

We, as a Nation, cannot base our actions on the fear of failure. Impeachment is an IMPERATIVE step towards the right direction. If we ever want our respect and credibility back in the world, we MUST ACT NOW!

[earthside]

5. "President Pelosi"

Just say that over and over for a little while.

Sounds might good, doesn't it?

[BlooInBloo]

6. Um, yah? Duh.

[xchrom]

7. it's about the not only seeking real justice in the present --

it's about letting anyone know who wants to sit in the oval office that their behavior as regards the law matters.

[lonestarnot]

8. It's the Constitution .... stu.... nah. I won't say it.

:evilgrin:

[Rosemary2205]

10. Maybe I'm missing something.

I'm not aware the US Constitution REQUIRES impeachment any time a President steps over the line. The way I read it, impeachment is an option, not a command.

So did I miss something? :shrug:

[lonestarnot]

15. bwwwwwwwwwwwwwaaaaaaa

:rofl:

[Rosemary2205]

17. You know what

I admit it. I never was the brightest bulb on the porch, and since my car wreck it's just gotten worse. I've actually learned a lot from other people here on DU. Maybe you could try to enlighten me instead of laughing at me????

Really.

[lonestarnot]

18. It looks as though others are trying. All you have to do is read

and check out latest breaking news.

[Rosemary2205]

22. Actually

most replying to this thread are saying they think Pelosi is a fair sacrifice for what they consider justice and using impeachment as a possible deterrent to future presidencies. I don't necessarily agree that sacrificing Pelosi now will deter anyone in the future, but I understand that point of view.

You mentioned the Constitution as if there is a requirement in there about impeachment. This is a different point being made and I don't understand where you are coming from. I would LIKE to understand where you are coming from but laughing at me doesn't accomplish that.

[lonestarnot]

43. US Constitution, Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Key word SHALL. SHALL. SHALL

[Rosemary2205]

48. That text does not obligate the house to impeach.

It only obligates the President, the vice president or civil officers of the united states to leave office (be removed) IF they are impeached and convicted of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

There's nothing there that REQUIRES Congress to impeach or convict -- it may be a great idea, but they are not obligated to do so.

[DearAbby]

46. You would sacrifice

the constitution in order to save your party? Its not a matter of party politics, it is the rule of law. The constitution in which this country was based upon.

This administration has violated the very premise this country is founded upon. If the Constitution is not worth fighting for and restoring. What is?

I happened to be an AMERICAN, who is a Democrat. I dont care what effects this has on the future, there may not be a country to worry about in 08, we may have a full blown dictatorship to deal with. It could be the last chance to use our constitution, it could be stripped away from us, with a stroke of a pen.

The blatant rendering of our constitution is not cause for impeachment...then why do we have a constitution?
We have to use or lose it.

[Beaverhausen]

34. If there was ever a president who deserved to be impeached, it's this one

If he isn't, then just what is the point of having the option of impeachment, anyway? He has clearly committed crimes against the constitution over and over and over again.

If we don't do it to him, then shame on us.

[opihimoimoi]

9. If Nancy makes it to the Oval Office...Honor and Dignity will finally make their presence known

Bush has made a cesspool of the place

[bdamomma]

29. extend that cesspool not to only the Oval office but to our country.

again, our country.

[opihimoimoi]

35. BushCo has been COUNTER PRODUCTIVE TO THE POINT OF MAJOR L O S S

He has destroyed our Name, our Respect, and the GOP who enabled him...sort of stabbed them GOP in the Nuts...

[TahitiNut]

11. Impeachment does NOT lead to a "President Pelosi." That's a fictional straw man.

First and foremost, impeachment is a "one-fer" not a "two-fer" - Cheney and/or Smirk would be impeached and tried individually. This isn't a group process. If Cheney is impeached and removed, a new Vice President would be nominated and then approved by the House and Senate. (Refer to Agnew's resignation and Ford's appointment.) If Smirk is impeached and removed, Cheney would become pResident and a new Vice President would be nominated and then approved by the House and Senate. (Refer to Nixon's resignation when Ford became President and Rockefeller became Vice President.)

All the crap about "President Pelosi" is just that: crap. She would become President SOLELY under the circumstances where both Cheney and Bush were killed in a common calamity.

[Rosemary2205]

13. I do believe

the scenario many on DU seem to be hoping for is one can be impeached and the other get impeached before a VP confirm can take place. Personally, I don't see any impeachments happening, let alone two. My post is really wondering if those calling for a double impeachment really do want to take Pelosi out of a her position as Speaker. That just seems so pointless to me.

:)

[helderheid]

19. What if Cheney is impeached first and the VP nominated isn't approved and * is then impeached in the

meantime? Wouldn't THAT mean a President Pelosi?

[DURHAM D]

20. No.

If the VP is impeached he would resign - allowing the President to select his replacement. Bush would probably pick McCain or Romney. Either one would be approved for fear of a complete constitutional meltdown -someone has to be prepared to pickup the "football". This would allow McCain or Romney to run for the top spot from the sweet spot of the vice-presidency during a time of war.

If Bush is impeached then Romney or McCain will become President - allowing them to run as incumbents for the top position in 2008.

Frankly, some party (rethugs) people are hoping for a Cheney impeachment. They see it as the only way to save their party.

[TahitiNut]

33. We could quibble over who'd be the most likely VP to replace Cheney.

Any such nominee would need the approval of both houses of Congress. It's far more likely (imho) that a current or former Congressman would be approved ... and McCain surely fills the bill. I'm quite dubious that Romney would gain such support ... and I believe that there'd be a lot of 'advise' going on as both Democrats and Republicans put pressure on the WHite House. Romney probably wouldn't get a majority of his own party in Congress as a first (or even second) choice. Same with Giuliani.

[TahitiNut]

26. It wouldn't even make a decent plot in a novel.

The Articles of Impeachment for either, let alone both, would consume a great deal of time and attention in the House, first off, and in the Senate, more significantly. (I strongly believe the attention is well-deserved and warranted, but that's another story.) The time and attention would involve both the Speaker AND the Republican minority - and that affords both some degree of control over the timing and scheduling. To believe Pelosi wouldn't be subject to attacks for making such timing "convenient" is to ignore politics - and such attacks would erode the legitimacy of the process. Thus, Pelosi would be loath to do so.

In the Senate, the GOP minority has far greater influence over the timing of the trial and it would be delusional in the extreme to think they'd allow even the slimmest chance that a second impeachment trial would be permitted, let alone a conviction, before the nomination and approval of a replacement VP. To even make such a conjecture is living on a planet not yet imagined, let alone discovered.



Personally, I'm not inclined to let a fear of the outcome of acquittal in the Senate forestall the necessity of impeachment in the House. I would start with Cheney, not because of any specious concern that he'd become President once Smirk were removed, but because Cheney is, imho, the far greater sociopath of the two. As VP, he's able to both wield the power of the PRsidency (due to the manipulation of Smirk's NPD pathoolgy) and escape oversight in "undisclosed locations." Clearly, removal of Smirk would put Cheney in the spotlight - and remove one of his greatest advantages: the ability to operate in secret and under the cover of a puppet Presidency. So, there'd be some improvement in removing Smirk first, but not as much as if Cheney were removed (and tried, convicted, and imprisoned!) first.

There's a great deal of merit to merely passing Articles of Impeachment - if only as a historical record and stance establishing a precedent for future adminstrations. The failure to do so lends far, far too much legitimacy to the behaviors of this regime and this country will suffer a great deal due to the failure to even take the first step.

I'd like to see impeachment be a far more common event. God knows there's more than enough reason to do so ... Scalia, Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, et. al.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Actually, your scenerio is a little unrealistic

Do you really think that 18 Republican Senators will actually vote to convict? If not, Bush is aquitted and gets to high-five Rove and Cheney.

[TahitiNut]

28. Whether or not the Senate votes to remove does NOT preclude impeachment.

Some degree of political justice (and history) is served merely by voting Articles of Impeachment in the House. The trial in the Senate would put each Senator on the record ... and the enormous hypocrisy of each would be laid bare if they thought a deceptive answer about a blow-job were more serious than the 3,400 lives of American troops, the violations of the Constitution, the BILLIONS in costs, and the violations of habeas corpus, not to mention the rest of the abominable abuses of authority. LIES.

The failure to even begin is a cowardly abandonment of the principles of a democracy and a violation of the affirmative duties of each office-holder to "protect and defend" the Constitution. It's complicity ... and (imho) the darkest days in the history of Congress.

[Old and In the Way]

32. Exactly right, TahitiNut!

Not to start the process because we might not get conviction is precisely and absolutely the wrong reason not to initiate the process. Do the actions of this administration meet the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors"? If so, we have an obligation to our Constitution and future generations of Americans to bring forth the articles of impeachment against Bush-Cheney. Do what's right and the American people will respect and support it. Not doing anything makes us unindicted co-conspirators.

[BlooInBloo]

24. So every other DA can indict in parallel EXCEPT the HoR?

[TahitiNut]

27. It's not a matter of "can" - it's a matter of "would".

Neither the House nor the Senate would permit such a sequence. No way. It's not even within the realm of fantasy, imho.

But you know that. :shrug:

[mudesi]

37. Your first post kind of implied "can"

I don't know the legalities. But theoretically, they can impeach them both at the same time, right?

[TahitiNut]

47. I don't know but I doubt it. I know of no case in history where more than one person was impeached.

Everything I read, including the Constitution, seems to focus on the singular. It seems a bit cloud-cuckoo-land to talk of simultaneousl impeachments when the question of even one impeachment is declared "off the table" and we have so many (so-called) 'pragmatists' arguing against it.

[tammywammy]

45. But it's much more fun to ignore the facts

In this hypothetical scenario,

Cheney's impeached and removed, and the House or Senate can hold up confirmation on the new VP while Bush is impeached and removed, putting Pelosi into the presidency, the democrats can say buh-bye to retaining that office in 2008 and probably 2012.

The general American public would see it as a back door way for the democrats to take the White House and it would cause a huge backfire. And that's not considering the hugh Constitutional crisis that's sure to come up.

I'm not saying that they don't need to be removed from office, but the sooner the better on dropping this ridiculous "President Pelosi," scenario.

[TahitiNut]

49. Indeed. I personally think it stinks of blind partisanship, quite frankly.

I'm confident that many people would detect the same aroma hearing "President Pelosi" ... and many would smell a desire for a "coup" and not just GOPhers. Such a fantasy really makes the proponents sound beyond extreme, imho. (And I'm far from being against zeal and what many might regard as "far left" by any stretch of the imagination.) I certainly can't regard it as positive or productive in any way.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Yes

[Loge23]

14. Not about Pelosi, it's about justice

Justice must be served. The democratic process must be salvaged.
Why have an impeachment clause at all if we are going to ignore their crimes?

[snappyturtle]

16. Absolutely! n/t

[watercolors]

21. She would make one damn good president

I.m hopeful it happens!

[blondeatlast]

25. Is this a trick question? HELL YES. nt

[alkaline9]

30. You may have a point, but.....

...Isn't even one less day of BushCo beneficial to the country/world/universe? The way I see it, the longer he stays in power, the more damage has been caused. I don't think anyone on this board would disagree with that statement. Even as a lame duck, he can do so much damage to all aspects of life on our planet.

[Nunyabiz]

36. I don't give a flying F%^& if Charlie Manson

were to take over after Bush ANYBODY would be better. That treasonous POS needs to go to prison ASAP.
Pelosi would be fine for those few months

[goddess40]

38. Purely because it's the right thing to do

They broke the law too many times to count
we might regain some of our standing in the world
and it would serve as notice to the price gougers (fuel industry, health care, health insurance and big pharma) to look out because they are next.

[Bucky]

39. I would have no problem with a President Pelosi. Nor much of one with "Speaker Hoyer"

It won't happen, of course. To impeach is not to remove. Republicans today have too little regard for the rule of law to actually remove a Republican president, no matter what the crimes and misdemeanors. Bush is safe in his job for another 19 months.

I don't flame you, but I will point out that, because you disagree with me, you are evil incarnate.

[Redstone]

40. Yup. It's what I want.

Redstone

[bigwillq]

41. If we have the votes

and if we have the evidence, solid evidence, then I say go for it.

[Jack Rabbit]

42. You bet we really want it.

Because every day Bush and Cheney remain in power is another day we American live with the threat of another unnecessary war justified with a pack of lies.

[ISUGRADIA]

44. Ongoing support of Bush may be politically damaging for some Republican

Senators, but any scenario where Republican Senators would allow Nancy Pelosi to become president would be political SUICIDE

[mmonk]

50. Yes. I support the constitution and my constitutional rights.

I can trust no one that doesn't. They are non negotiable. Maybe if I never had children, I could live in a dictatorship of majority party rule lawless or not and wherever it might take us. But that is not the case. A nation that sweeps its lies under the rug will live those lies again. Freedom becomes just an empty word of politicians and the illusions they weave.

[pat_k]

51. We the People defined the succession.

If. . .

1. the Congressional "leadership" gets serious about impeachment,


2. the threat of impeachment does not prompt bush and cheney to resign in order to keep the WH in Republican hands and to spare Republican Senators from being forced to vote against impeachment (defending torture and the pariah in chief) or voting for it (handing WH to Democrats), and


3. more than 16 Republican Senators, who are already scrambling over each other to "distance themselves," vote to remove the pariah in chief, then. . .

Speaker Pelosi will be carrying out the will of the people when she takes the presidential oath.

Of course, when Congress gets serious about impeaching bush and cheney, they are more likely be forced by their own Party to resign than be removed. If they refuse to resign, and fewer than 16 Republicans vote to remove the pariah in chief (and thus vote to confirm that American is a war criminal nation that illegally spies on its own citizens), then at least the members of Congress who voted for impeachment and removal will be breaking teh bonds of complicity. They will be on the right side of history.

Just as the members of Congress who cite their vote against the Authorization to Use Military Force at every opportunity, those who fight to impeach and remove will be able to point to that act of moral courage as they stand tall and seek the support of Americans who believe in a True America.