One Reason for Bush to Get Impeached Now (w/ a Repub House): Pres. Hastert

[jsamuel]

One Reason for Bush to Get Impeached Now (with a Republican House): President Hastert

Much speculation has arisen recently about the possibility of Bush and Cheney both being impeached for the same crimes. One reason why Democrats have been calling this a dream is the simple fact that a Republican controlled congress would need to impeach a Republican President. They say this is not likely to happen.

Order of Succession
However, what options do the Republican Congress have if both Bush and Cheney are proven guilty of a crime?

- Don't impeach now. Let the opposition be able to point out that the Republican Congress is not impeaching for partisan reasons. Let the public turn against the Republican party, then let the Democrats win in 2006 (as is looking increasingly likely). This will cause a Democrat to be the Speaker of the House. This means not only would the Democrats win back the House, but also after impeaching Bush and Cheney, they would get the Presidency by default.

- Imeach as soon as possible to both increase the likelihood of keeping the House and keeping the Presidency. As an added bonus for Hastert, he gets to play President.

http://truthdigger.blogspot.com
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/10/131822/58

[NVMojo]

1. if a repuke congress doesn't impeach, they will have dirt/blood on

their hands forever!!!

[mattclearing]

2. They'll have that no matter what they do. n/t

[cassiepriam]

3. Only to save their own skins.

[jsamuel]

7. or for Hastert, to get more power: he started the whole Able Danger

thing for Weldon. Now the Bush admin is blocking it like the plague.

[cassiepriam]

11. I always said the only real danger to bushco is from their own party,

[dogfacedboy]

4. The Republican Party will NEVER recover from this. n/t

[aquart]

5. Amazing what people can recover from.

How many of Nixon's people went to jail? How many of Reagan's treasonous pals? How many white-washed and back in George's administration?

The Republican Party is the party of treason. But the Democratic party has been the party of betrayed values and wishy washy representation. We LET those bastards demonize the word "liberal." We were idiots. Are we smarter yet?

[Joe Chi Minh]

9. Ths is going to be a "root and branch" purging of

corporate hegemony - at the expense of the 90% - from the American body politic, by the look of it.

Watergate was a learning exercise, and Americans are quick learners, as well as pit-bulls for bloody-minded tenacity, on my reading of them. And the Republican politicians can see the writing on the wall very clearly, judging from today's Washington Post, if some posters here can't.

[cassiepriam]

12. Don't underestimate the propaganda machine and gullibility of the public

[helderheid]

16. they control the media and the voting machines. They'll recover...

...unless we change that

[Joe Chi Minh]

6. This article in today's the Washington Post,

is not going to help them (a kind of Democratic legislative synergy is being created, which the operatives have been trying to occlude). It concerns the reluctance of potential Republican Senators to stand for office:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/09/AR2005100901332.html?referrer=email

[longship]

8. Some flies in your logic there. ;-)

Or, flaws in your soup. (whichever you prefer)

First, if Chimp/Crashcart are impeached before the midterms and Hastert ascends to president, can you imagine the love Repugs nationwide will shower on him? After all, he was the Speaker of the House in the Congress that impeached a necon Repug! Hastert would be totally defanged, unpopular with both the Repugs and the Dems.

Second, there is no reason to believe that impeachment would give the House to the Repugs in 2007. If they did impeach it would throw the Repug party into total disarray with two clear factions and plenty of infighting. There'd be the traditional Republicans who voted for impeachment and there'd be the neocon Repugs who held for Chimpy/Crashcart. Let the blame games begin--the traditionalists blaming the Repugs for foisting such an incompetent on the nation, the neocons blaming the traditionalists for supporting impeachment. It would be a beautiful sight to behold.

Either way, the Dems sit back and reap the benefits...
:popcorn:
eating popcorn.

[jsamuel]

13. I see what your saying, but

I was tring to get inside the Repug head just then... at least as much as I can...

They will do anything to stay in power, even if it means looking like shit while doing it. That is why the first point was thrown out.

They simply don't think that they can lose the House if they don't go down with Bush. That is why the second point was thrown out.

Good points though.

[longship]

14. My scenerio is hypothetical

And I realize so is yours. We'll have to see what happens. But it's fun to speculate.

Do you have your popcorn ready?
:popcorn:

[mod mom]

10. I wish I had your faith in the election system.

[cascadiance]

15. Question, who would be VP under Hastert?

Anyone?... Would this be a case where Hastert would "appoint" a replacement VP? Or they would vote on someone? If they did have the ability to appoint someone, they'd make sure and get someone who's squeaky clean here from a legal standpoint. Because if they don't have a VP, even though Hastert might get elevated to the presidency, there might be a impeachment against him once the Dems take the House in 2006 over the Turkish bribery issues. A Dem congress would definitely investigate this! Then Nancy Pelosi would take over if Hastert were subsequently impeached. On the other hand, if a VP is appointed under Hastert, whoever is appointed (Manchurian Candidate anyone?) would become president.

[BrotherBuzz]

17. President nominates the VP

Just like Gerald Ford nominated Nelson Rockefeller for vice president.

[cascadiance]

19. Ah... And Nixon nominated Ford too...

after Agnew was "punted".

I was trying to remember who served as VP under Ford...

I guess that still prompts one more question. If a president is under impeachment hearings, is he allowed to nominate a VP then? In the case of both Nixon and Ford, at the time, neither was formally charged with anything (certainly not Ford, and Nixon resigned later).

If we timed allegations against Hastert before he could nominate a VP (if both Bush and Cheney were impeached), could we hold him back from nominating a VP? Could we hold up that approval process so that that individual would keep from becoming VP?

I'm just trying to see a way that we still could wind up with a Dem president taking over even if we do the impeachments now before 2006 elections. If there are such rules, then timing for when indictments and impeachment hearings happen is critical, so that we can make sure that no "un-impeachable" Republican can take over Pres. or VP slot before the 2006 elections are over. That way, we have Nancy Pelosi ready to take over, no matter what happens and when then. I really think we need to get a major executive branch house-cleaning going after 2006 elections to fix the extensive damage that's happened now. That will only happen if Pelosi takes over then.

If we impeach Hastert too soon as well, we get the next in line to take over (President Pro-Tem in the Senate I think). Having established impeachment-level wrongdoing hanging over the Rethugs heads in 2006 elections without an actual impeachment happening then will also be that much more help in helping to take over the House and the Senate as well!

[BrotherBuzz]

21. Good question, and one that John Roberts may choose to sort out

I'm just saying...;)

[librechik]

18. Hastert took Turkish bribes

How can I justify another criminal holding office?

They must all go or we are all sunk.

[cascadiance]

20. I agree they must all go...

But we have to time it somehow so that we can get Pelosi taking over after the 2006 elections. That really would be what's needed to fix things.

[tinrobot]

22. President Pelosi?

I like the sound of that.