Impeachment has to be carried by someone other than Pelosi

[Turn CO Blue]

Pelosi CANNOT be the banner carrier on the impeachment issue!

Why not?

Because she is THIRD in line. Conflict of interest here. She has a very real ethical conflict of interest if she is the one pushing for impeachment. If she were the main voice calling for impeachment of BOTH Bush and Cheney, it would look like a power grab for the Presidency. It would seem like a staged coup d'etat - successful or not. The only way she could do it would be to step down as Speaker of the House -- and THEN be the leading voice calling for impeachment, so that she doesn't have this conflict of interest. But then she wouldn't have the gavel being Speaker. Do you see the problem? Besides, as has been stated ad nauseum, we don't have the votes.

Others will have to do it for her. She HAS to keep saying that it's "off the table" until the rising tide of political will of the citizenry OR her fellow Congressional Dems seem to force her hand.

The Repubs didn't have this issue when they went after Clinton - VP Gore was not involved and not a part of the alleged "crimes" committed by President Clinton (lying to a GJ about an affair). The Speaker was never gonna get the office so there was no conflict of interest.

But there is no way to impeach Bush for certain crimes without also pointing the finger at Cheney for the same crimes. They're in it together.

So then, you may say, she should just go after the President so that she does not have the temptation of becoming President herself -- she should just impeach Bush then, you say! Are you kidding? And let VP Cheney be President during or after the impeachment process? Nobody wants Cheney in the Oval Office, interim or permanent! A nightmare of historic and epic proportions.

Perhaps it is an option to only impeach Cheney? This is my preference.

But I predict that most DU'ers would be absolutely livid if she went for Cheney instead of Bush.

[ronnykmarshall]

1. Very good point

I'd like to see Cheney get the ax. Bush would just have to flub around for the rest of his term by himself.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Impeaching Cheney would not move the Speaker up in line.

Bush would select a new VP, who has to be confirmed by...both houses, is that right? There would be no problem with her leading the charge against Cheney.

[Turn CO Blue]

4. That is the point I was trying to make, but you said it clearer

What I'm saying is that Pelosi can't go after both (which is what most people want) and if she goes after Bush - it will be hard to not also impeach Cheney because he is MORE guilty than Bush for the same crimes. So our only option is to only go after Cheney. She has no conflict there.

Anyway, most people want her to impeach both, and I just don't see how she can be the flag waiver for that because she would benefit.

[More Than A Feeling]

5. It would be hilarious watching Bush trying to get

a VP through the House and Senate. Lincoln Chaffee might be confirmable. Other than that... *shrug*

[MrCoffee]

13. Can the VP be a recess appointment to avoid confirmation?

I honestly have no idea.

[Turn CO Blue]

15. Maybe some historian or expert will post to that...

I have no idea. Wouldn't seem quite right, but doesn't mean BushCo wouldn't do it. Perhaps Bush would just appoint Cheney again - what does a puppet do without his puppetmaster?

[Hippo_Tron]

20. No, here is why

Here's what the constitution has to say about recess appointments.

"The President shall have power to fill up all vacacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

The key here is "Recess of the Senate". A Vice Presidential nominee must be confirmed by both the House and the Senate and there is no mention of the House in that clause.

Also, the 25th amendment which gives the President the power to fill a VP vacancy was written almost 200 years after the constitution was written, which includes the clause about recess appointments, so it was certainly not intended to be used to fill a Vice Presidential vacancy.

[AndyA]

3. This is a very good observation, and one that I hadn't really thought of.

The bottom line is: impeachment is the right thing to do. I don't really care who initiates it, but SOMEONE is going to have to.

Nothing worthwhile will pass until Congress goes to the source of the problem: and that's Bush and Cheney. They both have to go. Seems like John Conyers is the guy who is in the best position to do it. And I know he can do it if he wants to, we just need to move him in that direction.

Although, I think after this week's adventures in the hearing room, he's closer to impeachment than he's ever been before. He really seems like he's getting fed up with all the bull. And I don't blame him. I am too.

Note to OP: Thanks for posting, this is a facet of the issue I hadn't considered. We know the RW will make a stink no matter how it plays out, but this would just give them more fuel for the fire.

[Turn CO Blue]

11. I do feel Conyers wants to bring impeachment but he has this

little side project of investigating the US attorney firings and politicalization -- and in bringing Contempt charges against Bush's aides -- which may very well be (in Conyer's mind) a BETTER case for impeachment than the deception to the Iraq war. I think it'll lead straight to Cheney (all corruption leads to Cheney - it's like that Kevin Bacon game).

edit: type US attorney not UT attorney

[Schema Thing]

6. I had this epiphany myself just this morning

must be something in the air today.


Cindy, if you're going to play politics, play politics.


I can just hear the sneering right (and far too much of the middle) mouth-breathing "why that conniving, power-hungry bitch, abusing her power to steal the presidency...".

[Turn CO Blue]

14. great minds and all that...

Just kidding. I'm sure your mind is great...I wouldn't dare to be so immodest about my mind.

[MGKrebs]

7. One small nitpick:

Has she continued to say it's off the table? She originally said it last October, but I am not aware that she has continued to use that language.

[Turn CO Blue]

10. You know, I really don't know..

something lately makes me think that the leaders are actually considering going for it...but it's probably just hopefulness on my part. I do not think she has stated anything either way emphatically in the last few months...

[Cameron27]

8. Yep, they'll try to destroy her with assaults of "ambition"

and conflict of interest. Very well stated.

K&R

[Turn CO Blue]

17. You've totally had my back today. Thanks!

[Cameron27]

18. My pleasure. It's easy to be backup when you're doing all the work lol.

:toast:

[Turn CO Blue]

28. [blushes]

Cheers!
:toast: :hi:

[damntexdem]

9. Cheney must be first.

Were he to be impeached and removed, Nancy could let someone else take the lead on Dubya.

Both need to be impeached, although neither likely will be.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Sure.

But is Pelosi going to stand in the way of impeachment? Isn't that what she's saying by it "being off the table?"

[phildo]

16. The top Dems would rather let the country be fued till 2009

Than risk a competent Republican replacing Cheney before then impeaching or forcing Bush to resign.

Right now, the top Democrats believe if they let Bush finish his term, whoever follows Bush as a Republican candidate is doomed. However if another Republican finished Bush's term, and got US out of Iraq, and started cleaning the mess up, America would be so grateful that the replacement would then be elected, instead of a Democrat.

Almost happened with Ford. If Ford had not gave Nixon a pass, Ford would have been elected President rather than Carter.

Rather than risk that it is easier to do nothing and let Iraq and US continue to be screwed.

At least that is what I am suspecting the thinking is.

[zulchzulu]

19. I've been saying this for a while now...

She would be an easy target if she was the torch carrier for impeachment. The fact that she would be president if both Bush and Cheney got justice thrown at their treasonous bones should be stealth in my view.

[Ian David]

21. Told Pelosi's office to say, "Impeachment is off the table until we get more names from Larry Flynt"

[Turn CO Blue]

24. I read somewhere that one name might be Cheney's

just a rumor of course, and it would have been when he was at Halliburton.

[PBass]

22. I agree with the entire premise here. Symbolically, Pelosi cannot be the "front person"

leading the way on impeachment. It risks making impeachment look like a power grab, to the average person.

(And it's not a power grab, it's about going on the record against illegal activity. I don't expect anyone to be removed from power, just spanked really really hard, for the benefit of the historical record).

[Turn CO Blue]

23. We know it would not be a power grab

We know it. But as you write, the average person might not get that.

If Pelosi wanted to be President, she would be running for the office.

But the fact remains that if Bush/Cheney were removed, she would indeed be President with all the powers therein.

[PBass]

25. You have to trust the American people, that once the evidence is brought forth,

that they will "get it".

The right wingers already say crap like "Democrats hope we'll lose in Iraq, because they hate Bush". Most people do not believe it. We can't cater to the small percentage of looneys who will attack Democrats no matter what we do.

[Ian David]

26. I thrice presented Pelosi the Presidential seal, which she did thrice refuse: was this ambition? n/t

[Turn CO Blue]

27. Somebody else has to front this, and s/he has to be

from the House (not the Senate). Although it'd be something if Reid were to be heard publicly pressuring her to go for it.