Login Here
I've been getting the question a lot lately in the comments. And I've answered it...a lot...although apparently not well enough, because it keeps getting asked. But yesterday, a little conversation ensued between two of our regulars that pinned down the essence of both the question and the answer. So, here it is, from reader Bargain Countertenor, responding to reader rwcole:
rwcole at 168:
Impeachin the bad news bears?
Well there are two issues..
One- should some dems attempt a doomed and token effort to raise the issue of impeachment knowing full well that it’s goin no where?
Two-should dems begin investigations into areas that could very well lead to the discovery of improprieties that even goopers would have to regard as impeachable.
No. And Yes. In that order.
Impeachment is first and foremost a political act, and the available evidence (Nixon and Clinton) shows that the electorate views it so. Starting in office saying they’re going to impeach the Two Stooges is repeating the Gingrich mistake.
If, on the other hand, carefully conducted oversight hearing bring forward compelling evidence of high crimes and misdemeanors on the part of BushCo, then impeachment grows organically from the findings. The analogy then becomes Nixon rather than Clinton. And BushCo will be gone.
And there you have it. A distillation of the most asked question and the answer to it, in a few short sentences, by two of our FDL readers. This is why our comments section makes my day pretty much every day. It's a gold star kind of morning.
Share This 
Spotlight
FITZ!
Morning, twolf1! How’s tricks? Getting ready to pour some coffee here this morning.
Doing well here. Finally recovered from the holiday! How about yourself?
twolf1 at 3 — am having a bit of an issue with my joints this week, which is making getting the Christmas tree up more of a challenge than it ought to be — so we’re putting it off for a bit. But, other than that, things are good here. The Peanut is growing like a weed, and a Grinch devotee these days, so we’re having much fun at our house. :)
Impeachment at this stage would be bad politics in general. Impeachment is indictment by the House, after there is a trial in the Senate that requires a two-thirds majority for conviction. After that fails, which it inevitably does, everybody moves on to other news.
An investigation however is like the death of a thousand cuts. A new detail revealed each day. Constantly in the news. Sam Ervin understood. Nixon cut and ran without being impeached.
Christie, for the joints, try Naproxin which you can get at Sam’s Club.
Hey, Christy! Peanut find her presents yet?
karen at 6 — thanks, but I have to be careful what I take since my rheumatologist has me on a specific regimine. I’ll bring that up with her next appointment, though.
MayDaze at 7 — no — I’ve managed to hide them away in lots of places that are pretty much impossible for her to get into. (At least, I hope so anyway. lol)
Mornin’ twolf1 & Christy -
Gonna have to rename the good wolf “Who’s on first?” ;-) Gray & overcast in western NC; still waiting & hoping for good results on the Kissell race.
Wigwam at 5 — I think that is exactly right and, in the case of the Bush Administration, investigations can take so many different forms because so little oversight has been done the last few years. The stupidity of providing no oversight, no check or balance, from the rubber stamp Republican Congress is about to come home to roost.
Kudos to BC and rwcole– very well done!
I can’t wait for January…
Good Morning, Christy and all!
Thanks for bringing this up again. I’ve been looking for an opportunity to chime in with a thought.
Is it possible that, given the Republicans’ current difficulties, impeachment was taken off the table so quickly and publicly because the Dems are purposely putting the ball in the court of the Republicans to call for impeachment? It makes sense to me on a number of levels that they might do that (eventually–as more evidence becomes public) in order to gain public approval.
Thoughts?
Wigwam at #5, you’re missing Christy’s point. You don’t START with impeachment. Impeachment, if it happens at all, is the inevitable outcome of a multitude of wrongdoings brought to light.
CHS - sorry to hear about your joint woes. I hope they improve quickly.
Besides the imperchment of the chimp, what do you think Germany’s chances are of successfully prosecuting Rummy? Especially now that Gen. Janis Karpinski said she would testify that she saw documents signed by Rummy that authorized torture.
That was an excellent exchange between rwcole and Bargain Countertenor, a distillation of the entire question before us. I don’t know how many diaries I’ve seen on the subject at DailyKos, how many arguments in comments in unrelated diaries there as well on the same topic.
And here it is, in its own highly portable handy carrying case. Good to go.
g’ morning, all!
coffee is almost ready…. and please! NO MORE TURKEY!
Audrey at 13 — that’s possible, although I think the more likely thought process is that the public support for this simply is not there and that a step like this — which is a drastic one, frankly, when you consider the long-term implications politically for everyone involved — should not be taken without public backing for it. It is, after all, a political undertaking as much as anything else, and it ought not be done lightly or out of a spirit of revenge or disgust, but via some upswelling of need for it to be done from a number of sides. As much as I may think the Bush Administration just flat out sucks, impeachment requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate for passage and the Democrats do not have those numbers on their own, nor will they get them from trying to railroad something through precipitously, without first building a firm foundation for it. It would require that some Republicans support it and that simply will not happen without public pressure. And that will come only via revelations brought out in oversight hearings — or it won’t — but it ought not be forced through if it cannot be sustained. That would be both bad politics and bad ethics, I think.
christy, it’s sort of like saying “if we find out water is wet, we will know it’s wet
hearings WILL present to us the evidence that this president deliberately lied us into war
and we need to start the marketing strategy too.
I posted this on the previous thread, liked it so much I made it one of my blog posts
http://atruepatriot.blogspot.com/;
With a two-thirds majority required for conviction in the Senate, conviction will only happen if the investigations find some activities so egregious that the Republicans have no choice but to agree. To impeach before that happens would play into the Republican charge of “pure partisan politics” (which is, ironically, their specialty).
Carol (from basement of last thread) — in reply to your question: I don’t think that Cheney would be deliberately sent anywhere to “stay busy”. He has a nasty habit of attracting or creating trouble, can’t even go hunting on down time without generating a stir. If it were me, I’d keep him on a very, very tight leash inside the country — especially if he was going to be the fall guy.
Rayne at 16 — I thought so, too — it really pulled everything together in one tidy package, and I thought it would be helpful for everyone else in case they missed it in the comments yesterday. :)
did we ever figure out the purpose of Shooter’s Saudi visit?
“impeachment is first and foremost a political act”
WRONG.
republicans may have given the perception of impeachment being politcal both in impeaching Clinton and NOT impeaching bush, but that does not make it an iherently political activity. It is in the constitution. It is part of Congress’ duty to protect the people against a criminal executive. To not inquire into impeachable offenses when there is clear evidence of the likelihood of impeachable offenses is for Congress to not uphold a Constritutional duty.
That said, it would seem that any true investigations by Congress will make avoiding impeachment proceedings impossible due to the extensive criminal activities of the bush regime.
.
OldCoastie @ 23
Did he take his shotgun?
You are on the mark as usual Christy, as delicious as Impeachment seems, it would be a self-indulging happy meal at this point. Retribution (and Justice) is a dish best served cold. Look at Fitz.
A careful course of eviscerating investigations over a slow, steady simmer is the recipe of gourmet thinking folks everywhere. However, in such a “target rich environment”, it’s like a really tempting buffet, don’t load up on the stuff at the beginning, there is SO Much more to explore.
Think Progress has a lineup of people it would be interesting to see on the C-Span investigation docket:
http://thinkprogress.org/the-a.....-they-now/
semi OT - Bush: Iraq violence is al-Qaida plot
Christy……..I say leave it up the the late nite comedians…..they seem to be batting 100%! Could they flesh impeachment out? Have a look see:
He Who Laughs Last, Votes Best: Comedy and the Midterm Elections
http://scoop.epluribusmedia.or...../142148/12
excerpt:
“Forget “Soccer moms,” “NASCAR dads,” and “value voters,” the operative bloc in the midterms were the “comedic constituents.” Stephen Colbert was right to proudly proclaim that every Congressional candidate who appeared on his show “Democrat or Republican, incumbent or challenger” had been elected. The power of the laugh should not be misunderestimated.
Apathy and Irony
Richard Nixon’s appearance on Rowan and Martin’s Laugh In was the first time major televised comedy was used for political PR and was ultimately as important to his career as the Checkers speech. But the world changed with the Ray-Banned Bill Clinton on Arsenio. The image created the new notion of President as Celebrity-in-Chief. “
Any update on Emptywheel’s book… estimated
date of publication?
Did they ever settle on a Title?
Jack
twolf1 @ 28
As I said in the prior thread– he’s a delusional nutbag who pulls out the boogeyman yet again ’cause he knows nothing else.
Thanks for the response, Christy. I absolutely agree with you. My thought is that it would be great for America and the Dems too if it were up to the Republicans to call for impeachment (when and if).
What got me curious about it was the wording. “Impeachment is off the table” rather than, “we’ll see where the chips fall” or some other qualifier. There actually is more public support than anyone lets on, but that’s neither here nor there, yet.
Just IMO.
Agree with the post totally.
Nancy had to take it off the table because she was about to be 3rd in line for the throne behind the idiot king and Deadeye. That’s not what she wanted the media to be obsessing about for the foreseeable future.
That said, once oversight hearings begin it may well lead to issues that cannot be overlooked and have no other remedy. If the dems do it right, the repigs will be begging for the impeachment to begin in order to get it over with so they can regroup. If not, their greed and larceny will be an open sore for all to see for a long long time. You think the last election was tilted in our favor? There will be place for them to hide.
No matter what, the truth needs to come out and the scoundrels need to be outed. If it takes down the imperial presidency, so be it.
I nominate Fitz to be the lead prosecutor on our side.
Bay State at 30 — I’m going to let Jane do an update on most of that, but I will say that things are going very well with the book and I think you guys will be very pleased. :)
Maybe the real issue in this “target-rich environment” is what to investigate first.
I doubt w. will be impeached. But, I am sure he is destined to be condemned by history as our most incompetent two term President. Of course, he is still very much in the running for being the most incompetent President in our history. He is closing fast on Pierce.
Complete investigation, hopefully will lead to his resignation, if not then go for the impeachment.
I still wonder if Colin Powell will ever come forward with any information.
BC and RW, could you please visit Hardball, MTP, Volfie, et. al., and explain this concept?
The so-called punditry can’t seem to get it. Oh, and be sure to talk slowly.
I think if we just leave Fitz and Henry Waxman alone impeachment of the Idiotchild will just fall into our laps.. a natural political developement.
dk2 @ 37
I can’t ever count on Colin Powell - he blew it a long, long time ago…
Christy Hardin Smith @ 34
Thanks,
Jack
The countertenor has it right, as does Wigwam at #5. If and when it comes to impeachment there are a couple of issues:
1. Since both Bush and Cheney are complicit in whatever the admin has done that is impeachable, the order becomes important. It should be near simultaneoous, but Cheney should be first in line, as I see it. I believe he’s the more likely of the two to attempt a coup. Given his stated views on presidential power, I don’t think the country can afford to take the risk that he respects the system enough to go quietly.
2. Given Pelosi’s “Impeachment off the table” statement last May, her next-in-line position in the event of a double impeachment will be dangerously divisive. If it comes to this, perhaps she should consider stepping down as speaker until the drama has played out in favor of someone acceptable to the handful of centrist Republicans still in the House. Perhaps even one of them. (Unfortunately my preferred choice in this event, Jim Leach of Iowa, lost his bid for reelection.) There would be an agreement that Pelosi would be reelected to the speakership if the replacement became president, and also that that “replacement president” would not run on his or her own in 2008.
I realize this suggestion will be viewed as heretical by many here, but a double impeachment has the potential to seriously tear the country apart. We have to first and foremost be concerned with the cohesion of the country.
I agree with the insight here, that there is very little danger in Pelosi and the dems taking a wait and let the evidence speak for itself attitude. If the evidence continues to accrue (and there are many titillating facts that suggest it will) the will of the people will force the dems and republicans to take a stand. (which is what democracy is all about). Then it will all unravel.
What is the risk of pushing for facts first? Nothing, other than some of us are a bit impatient because we have seen what this administration has been doing for years. As long as the dems react to the will of the people, there will be no repercussions for foot dragging on the issue of “impeachment”. As long as the dems ask the questions and demand the answers, the dems will look disciplined and logical instead of emotional and impulsive. (as I personally would like to impeach and send to syria for extradition).
Fear causes us to want to “control” and that will come out looking partisan. Instead, and what Pelosi made pretty clear, is that we will have oversight and investigations and the facts will lead us where they need to go. The hard part is waiting for the facts to catch up to “our theories” which, without facts to back them up, will look and feel “partisan”. And they would be. We must push forward for the truth about the start of the war.
In my opinion this issue is the single most important issue to be investigated. Did the president lie to get us into a war, and did he and his cohorts then profit personally from the war. Treason. But we have to be able to prove it.
There needs to be investigations to reveal all of Bush & Co.s un-American acts. It will take years to uncover all of the insanity of the past 6 years, and the only way we can fix the problems is to know where the problems exist. I’d rather stop the problem and head down the road towards recovery for the next two years than begin a process that probably would not end in two years and may actually slow the discovery process.
I also think that since there is international interest in prosecuting Bush & co, what better way to return America to international respect than to turn over our former leaders for judgement.
Maybe he could be bannished to his 1/2B dollar prison… er, library… locked away with a million cubic feet of classified documents.
Ken M
Hi Ken! Thanks so much for your inspiring work.
Great comment; I agree.
I am also under the opinion that we have to start the healing process…international vile for this country caused by Bush and his actions can only be reversed if we demonstarte we will not tolerate criminal behavior from our presidents
however, obviously we can’t just initiate impeachment hearings, we have to conduct the investigation before we mount the charges.
this shouldn’t bee a kangaroo court and we aren’t the Bush administration, it needs to be conducted with the legitimacy of our constitution
Old Coastie, the best guesses I heard were that DeadEye was trying to leverage the Saudi Monarchy (Sunni’s) to pressure the Iraqi Sunnis to quit car bombing so many Shia. My guess is that the Saudi Royal family is scared to death about a revolt by their Shia population, as well as attempts to overthrow the monarchy, as well as Iran’s increased regional influence.
pluege @ 24
I’d like to see thorough investigations so revealing that Bush resigns faster than you say ‘impeach’.
The dream scenario would be Cheney going down in the CIA leak investigation followed by a Bush resignation.
Minnesotachuck @ 42
You’re right in that last paragraph, it’s definitely heretical. The whole concept is a complete non-starter, politically and logically. The public has voted for the Democrats, giving them much more of a mandate than Bush ever had, and you want to refute that vote by putting a Republican in charge?
pluege @ 24
I think you’re confusing political and partisan — Republicans made impeachment into a purely partisan act, but at its core it is political, as are many things defined in the Constitution (voting, for example, or oversight.) It has judical trappings, but it is not a judicial process, which is why “high crimes and misdemeanors” are nowhere defined in the Constitution. The determination that the official is unfit to hold office is a political decision.
Think of the Dem House and Senate as “No Fly Zones” and the Bushco WH is Saddam/Iraq.
Should we invade?
Anyone else think that the White House will simply refuse to comply with subpoenas, initiating a long court battle to string out the investigations as long as possible?
Christy: in case you didn’t see this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00730.html
Might be a new help on the horizon for aching joints.
Hmmm . . . which committee will get first dibs on General Karpinski and her recollection of that memo? “Mr. Gates, could you please (ahem) send someone to look through your files, to find the memo to which she refers?” I’d sure like to know who else had a hand in drafting it. Addington? Yoo? Gonzales? CIA-types? If the memo made it to Iraq, you also have to wonder who else was on the receiving end of it.
And wigwam @5, I’d disagree with one little thing. Nixon didn’t cut and run - he saw the writing on the wall, and did what he knew would happen anyway. His choice was becoming the first president removed via impeachment or the first president to resign (semi-)voluntarily.
cheviteau at 6:31 am, you are the first commenter, I have read say that impeachment is not a political act. I think what various commenters mean is that the usual laws and ammendments inherent in our criminal justice system, due process, rules of evidence,… do not apply to impeachment.
Yes, that is good analysis and works for me.
But, but but, the dems sound like they won’t impeach no matter what. I hope they are being smart but….
Also, the fact is, nobody wants Cheney in office where he can run for re-election.
And rumors persist that Cheney will step down after some “heart trouble” and Condi will be the new Veepster and she can run for re-election.
Nixon was taken aside by some of the stanup Republicans of the time (Goldwater I think) and told to do the honorable thing. Bush will NEVER do the right thing.
OT ~ “An Inconvenient Truth” is posted in 10 parts on YouTube…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....&eurl=
*but for how long?
Even if (when) they find plenty of impeachable offenses it still might be good politics not to impeach. It’s really good for the Democrats to have Bush and Cheney twisting in the wind.
CNN - chimpy, live on CNN reaffirms he is an idiot: “I won’t pull troops until mission is complete”
MayDaze @
20
Best use of FDL handle in a post today methinks. The day is young.
Chimpy on CNN - Iraq not in civil war. extremists are usin terra to stop the spread of freedom
Chimpy on CNN - armed w/ nookulur weapons, they (extremists) could blackmail the free world.
shorter chimp - history will absolve us
Stuart Eugene Thiel @ 58
I think the real problem is having to impeach them both, virtually at the same time. Not only a logistical but a political quagmire.
karen allen @
6
Christy, over-the-counter Naproxin has a lot of sodium. Your doc can prescribe the same active ingredient with much less sodium. I have joint-rot and use the prescription stuff. It works really well for me. The only thing to be sure of when you take it is to drink plenty of water so that the stuff doesn’t damage your kidneys. Water is good for you :)
Chimpy on CNN - i know some in my country are pessimistic about the prospects of peace in the middle east. some doubt they are ready for freedom… I understand these doubts, but i do not share them.
I am impressed by those fighting for freedom.
thanks, John Casper @ 46 - still seems odd to me Shooter would fly all that way for a 2 hour meeting… musta been a hell of an arm twisting session…
John Casper @ 46
DeadEye went on to say that there would be no repercussions if Sunnis got drunk and shot the Shia in their faces.
/snerk
he just doesn’t understand that they are fighting the invaders and occupiers–
US.
Chimpy on CNN - now making comparisons to WW2… again.
twolf1 at 69 — see, this is why I have acoustic Christmas music playing at my house. Much better than the same old drivel from He Who Must Not Be Shamed.
Chimpy on CNN - “we refuse to give in to the pessimism”
(is he launching the GWOP? Global War on Pessimism?)
CNN cut him off
twolf1 @ 69
He needs some new material.
MSNBC cut chimpy off too, only on Fox now… what a surprise.
I agree. However, in reality the decision to impeach will not be left entirely to the house and senate. There will have to be a lot of public support as well. This is where good, solid investigations will inform the public, thereby making an impeachment effort a voice of the people. Personally, I think impeachment is on the horizon if investigations give a true picture of the tenure of this President.
Chimpy’s speech (if u can call it that) is now over
Twisted Martini @
56
Bullseye, Twisted. Goldwater, Howard Baker, and some others, “it’s time Mr. President.”
It sounds like you have the balance about right here.
If the House reluctantly and solemnly comes to the realization that its investigations have documented impeachable offenses, it can bring the rest of the country along. Pelosi is right to set the stage: impeachment is not a term for the Speaker to be tossing around. Let the rest of us do it.
This is also how the House can show the nation that it takes itself seriously. In fact, it takes the president’s job more seriously than he does himself.
And, by the way, we need the profiteers’ profits. All of it. Damage done, bills to pay, …
OldCoastie @
66
Not for arm-twisting: pasties. G-string. Lapdance.
MarcLord @ 78
Hell, he could have gone to Atlanta for that.
Has anyone offered a constitutional amendment to allow for federal recall elections?
John Casper @ 76
It was George HW Bush, head of the RNC at the time, who wrote Nixon the letter asking him to resign for the good of the party.
Juan Cole — best analysis I’ve seen on why Iraq is a “muddle” — because our policy of establishing a large US base there and keep sucking the oil is not sustainable.
http://www.juancole.com/
This process sounds so muddled because Washington is flailing around without the slightest idea of what could be done, practically speaking, in Iraq, according to Time: “Several officials who are in touch with commission members said that with violence appearing to spiral out of control in Iraq, the group has been flummoxed about finding a solution. “There’s complete bewilderment as to what to do,” one official said. “They’re very frustrated. They can’t come up with anything. For the last couple months, they’ve been thrashing around, calling people, trying to find ideas.”
The real reason for the muddle is, as I said yesterday, that the Bush administration has not defined a realistic and achievable set of military goals in Iraq. Its original political goal of establishing a unified Iraq with a pro-US government that would let oil contracts on a favorable basis for Houston, would ally with Israel, and would form a springboard for further US pressure on Iran and Syria, is completely unrealistic. Cheney’s inability to let go of those objectives is the biggest problem we have in Iraq. Move on.
twolf1 @ 75
heh.
While he was pon-tif-i-cat-ing about the millions of voters in bushco destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan, and Lebanon, I was just thinking about the millions who voted here this last election.
We told him what we think about his brand of “democracy”.
It’s a gold star kind of morning.
Yes in that there will be more Gold Star Mothers today.
Modern readers might not know this refers to a mother of a dead soldier or sailor. I think it started in WWI and carried on in WWII.
Gold Star Mother — the Wiki
Couldn’t edit my original comment, had to close and reopen another window.
OT: I posted a comment last night about hearing this on the radio, but there are news links up now. Joe Lieberman’s pal Lanny Davis is stabbing us all in the back again. Apparently we shouldn’t be worried that the NSA is illegally spying on Americans with no warrants or judicial oversight because they say they have really good privacy protections.
God save us from these fuckin’ Clintonistas.
Gold Star Mother — the Wiki
Can’t edit my original comment…?
Came to this new window. Did edit. Then it disappeared upon refresh.
?
Wigwam @
5
Well said. Long, slow, relentless, never-ending, - once this juggernaut starts moving, it will roll on of it’s own volition with very little help needed from the sidelines.
Redshift @ 84
From the link:
The board members are prohibited from discussing any specific protections or tactics because the NSA program remains classified.
So they’re appointed by Chimpy and we’re supposed to, like, take thier word for it?
This administration’s behavior/actions need to be closely looked at by congress which is charged with the responsibility for oversight.
If it turns out that the previous rubber stamp congress is also complicit in what has gone done by the administration as they FUNDED it all.
It is NEVER too late for the truth the be revealed… and if it means that there was criminal or impeachable offenses committed…I think there was.. then the congress should vote the articles of impeachment and the trial should follow.
If this administration does not cooperate, as they well might not, then this will only strengthen the demands for their removal along with the rubberstamp congress which enabled them.
Seems like the tide has turned for these crooks… and the last election seemed to indicate that the people are finally waking up from their drug induced.. I mean media induced coma where they could not see what was being done.
Having congress take these matters up is their responsibility to the people… those who have commited wrong doing need to be held accountable. We need to begin to set some examples about ACCOUNTABILITY. We simply cannot shy away from this because it MAY look political.
We need a government of, for and by the people. The sooner the better.
I think you have the kind of arthritis I don’t have, which means you ought to be able to treat it with B12 (or whatever they call it now). It really does work - I have friends who couldn’t walk until they started taking it.
I don’t get the argument about impeachment. Of course you have investigations, just like with any other crime. But since you have evidence of crime, you have to have investigations. If the investigations prove there is sufficient evidence for indictment (not hard when they’ve pretty much confessed in front of the whole world), then you indict (impeach), and then you have a trial (in this case, in the Senate).
The public largely agreed that Nixon should have been investigated and tried. They didn’t hold it against Democrats that Nixon was being investigated. The public didn’t agree that Clinton should have been impeached (or even that his relationship with Lewinsky bore investigation), so naturally they were disgusted with what was obviously a purely political attack on Clinton.
But the public is clamoring for investigations right now; it’s not a question. And as the evidence piles up, and if the news media decides that this warrants coverage, I think you’ll not only be seeing more overt demands from the public for impeachment, but the remaining Republicans may even begin to think that the best way to distance themselves from Bush-Cheney’s crmiinality is to support impeachment.
But you don’t start off saying, “We’re going to impeach Bush,” anymore than you start off saying you are going to convict any ordinary suspect before an investigation of the alleged crime has taken place.
(Personally, given the aid and comfort Bush-Cheney have given to Al Qaeda, I’d much prefer to declare them enemy combatants.)
karnak12 @ 87
It would make for high drama though…
MayDaze @ 88
And just as important — he has the gall to call himself a civil libertarian, but say that he wishes he could tell us about the great privacy protections so we’d be more “comfortable” with the violation of our civil liberties. Textbook definition of selling out principles in return for being let into the insiders’ club.
MayDaze @ 63
I think the real problem is having to impeach them both, virtually at the same time. Not only a logistical but a political quagmire.
Should this come about, I believe the Democrats would agree that the order of impeachment must be with Cheney first.
Per Wikipedia:
By blocking any accession of a replacement Repug Vice-President, and then impeaching Junya, the Democrats would take over the reins of the Excecutive Branch with a Pelosi Presidency, as Speaker of the House is the next in line of succession.
The logistical progression of this is really quite simple. The political progression, not so simple.
One would have to take for granted that the Repugs would wail quite vociferously that the Democrats had executed the 1st coup d’tat in US history.
As if you needed any more proof that the rethugs hate our republic, here’s that “do as I say not as I do” pond scum newt gingrich spewing his crap at a dinner honoring the 1st Amendment. Weep for the nation that these people control our national dialogue.
MayDaze @ 49
I think bush can avoid impeachment if he throws cheney under the bus
that would suit me fine
Morning everyone!
Christy. I’m so sorry for your rheum. trubbles. I struggled with similar for many years, so sympathize bigtime. Be careful with those anti-inflamatory drugs. They have potential to ruin your G.I. tract. Good thots to you, hon. Try to take it easy till the symptoms ease. You just must. Momma Adie says so. ;->
THANK YOU for this post, per your thots at #22. We were gone all yesterday, and I definitely would have missed that gold star exchange, since we’re kinda rushing to catch up with ourselves here.
Try again:
As if you needed more proof that the rethugs hate our republic here is “do as i say not as I do” pond scum newt gingrich spewing his crap at a dinner honoring the First Amendment. These are the people who have control of our national dialogue