Why does the RW want Hastert out? Presidential "insurance policy"!

Everyone's asking why the right wing media (Moonie Times, etc.) and right wing organizations are the loudest in chanting for Hastert's resignation and the Democrats and others are relatively silent. This isn't about "doing the right thing folks"! There's something else under the covers.

Consider the following items:
1) Neither Bush, Cheney, nor Hastert are squeaky clean enough to be unimpeachable as president even putting aside this incident.
2) It's looking more like a Democratic House and more likely Democratic Senate every day now in 2007.
3) Dennis Hastert is CURRENTLY third in line behind Bush and Cheney for the presidency.
4) After January 2007, it is likely that Nancy Pelosi will be third in line behind Bush and Cheney.
5) There's a month and a half window between the elections and when 2007 congress takes office.
6) The Republican's nightmare scenario is losing the presidency to Pelosi and the Democrats. That means no pardons for them if they get nailed on criminal prosecutions and there's a complete overhaul of the executive branch then not to mention likely a Democratic congress.
7) Impeachment investigations will likely snare more congress people, judges, and other members of the administration as the investigations play out.

Then consider the following scenario:
1) Hastert is outed NOW, and the House puts in a "bullet proof" Speaker of the House to replace him.
2) Bush and Cheney by the end of the year are so tainted with new evidence of criminal wrong doing, people just know it's a matter of time before they either both have to resign or are impeached in 2007.
3) Democrats win control of both sides of congress in November elections.
4) Bush and Cheney resign before 2007 shortly after the election.
5) The new "bullet proof" speaker (ala Gerald Ford) takes over as president before the new congress takes charge.
6) New "bullet proof" speaker then pardons Bush and Cheney, and selectively overhauls administration to fire those he thinks are tainted before any investigation happens.
7) If Democrats then proceed with investigations, then the GOP will label them as "vindictive", since they already have the troublemakers out of office then. This will then be their effort to stall or stop any further investigations and prosecutions of others and stop things right there in their tracks.

You might say that they could do the same thing by having Cheney resign instead of both Bush and Cheney resigning, and bringing another "bullet proof" person in to serve as VP (like Gerald Ford was brought in to replace Agnew while Nixon was still in charge). However this strategy has two potential fatal flaws that the above strategy doesn't:
1) If Bush at that point has enough evidence against him to push him out, it might be hard for them to have just Cheney resign and Bush stay in at that point. The pressure may be too great for Bush to leave at that point.
2) For Bush to appoint a replacement VP, they'd have to go through a selection process and give approval in the Senate, since there wouldn't be the same "chain of succession" for the VP that there is for the President. This might open them up for a fillibuster until the new congress take charge, and make it more difficult for them to get in who they want. Especially if Bush is charged with impeachment in early 2007, which would take away his ability to appoint anyone after 2007 congress takes charge.
3) If both resign, then the constitution already annoints Speaker of the House (Hastert, or his replacement) as the next in line. Might be harder for Dems to fillibuster in that case.

If Hastert, rather than someone else gets presidency, then he might be ripe for impeachment too, with the campaign bribery scandal, this scandal, amongst other things.

If the GOP is going to play out this strategy, they need to have Hastert go down NOW, so that the new Speaker can be in place for this other strategy to work. If they know that stuff is coming out on Bush and Cheney shortly, time's ticking away on them.

This is likely also why Hastert was nervous both about Porter Goss stepping down and also the searches of congressional offices. He perhaps knew that they were just as likely going after him then as they were any Dems.

This all of course presupposes that the lame duck congress would still have the power to oversee a transition of power to the Speaker of the House if both the President and the VP leave office before the end of the year.

will come to pass but I've got my popcorn ready just in case. :popcorn:

A whole lot of stars have to align for any one of these scenarios fall out, but damn, that is interesting.

But if they are thinking that way it is because they know more shit is coming to light that they will have a hard time explaining.

I have heard rumors that an indictment against Duncan Hunter is being held up until after the election so that he doesn't "surrender" his seat like Foley likely will have to. I wonder how many other congress critters are in this category. I think there are many "cans of worms" that the GOP don't want opened up soon, and many feel that they are likely going to be soon. They want "pardon power" in 2007! I think they're worried more about holding on to power to protect their own asses at this point than necessarily holding on to power for power's sake.

There is no bullet-proof GOP. The species is extinct. Anyone who tries to pull a pardon out of his ass will lose said ass.

They can't even order lunch in a month and a half, let alone organize such a coup.

Nope. I think they are just about out of options here. It's Kenny Lay time.

Those at the top are likely as tainted as well, with folks like Boehner also looking suspicious too.

But given that this is a severe "ethics issue", perhaps that will offer them excuse to go down the seniority list to find someone "clean" (or at least clean enough where it would be hard for someone to impeach them). Then they can also "pat themselves on the bat" for having taken leadership to start "cleaning up their party", but all the while prevent more serious investigations that can get a boatload more of them in trouble in 2007.

I have to believe they know of a at least a few folks in the House that don't have any "impeachable" offenses hanging over them. Much as we all would like to believe that they ALL are impeachable, even if they all are, there are some that will likely be harder to find evidence to go after even if they are guilty of stuff than say Hastert is.

You scenarios presuppose that the Democrats will actually impeach the crooked bastards.

I'm not trying to be a naysayer, I just don't see 'em having the resolve to say "you're fired". If such resolve exists, where has it been the last freaking 6 hellish years?

I know there have been individual acts of courage, and I know that we haven't had a majority in either house for most of this time. Fair enough. But even given those facts, it seems like our party is too "we're all Americans" "we all love our country".

Bullshit! These bastards love power, and power alone. They would smile in your face while putting a knife right in your heart. I don't see the same willingness to eviscerate from our side, and that's what it would take.

God, I'd love to be wrong...

they have to remove them and that IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN and I wish people would stop equating impeaching with leaving office. Bill Clinton was impeached (indicted) - it is possible that if we take back the House that the devil in chief and the vice devil in chief might be impeachd. But conviction which leads to their removal from office would take 67 votes in the Senate and unless there is some massive change in the attitude of the repunks in the Senate - this is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.....

what the House can do by starting impeachment proceedings which I whole heartedly believe they should do will investigate these freaking criminals and slow their asses down so they can do as little harm as possible in their last two years....

... for reelection. If very damning evidence is found with investigations, and Dems DO have control over that if they win back majority control, then it might be hard for those Republicans up for re-election in 2008 to not vote for impeachment if they don't want to feel the wrath of voters in that instance. They can stem the tide of bad information coming out now with control over the House and Senate. They won't have that luxury later. The Dems didn't have a stranglehold over the congress when Nixon was being threatened with impeachment too. He knew that the Watergate tapes would be too hard for congress critters to explain and not impeach him. We could have such damning evidence in 2007 too.

Don't forget that a majority of the American public supported Clinton during his impeachment. A majority of the public does NOT support Bush now. Those voting against impeachment will be aware of that if it comes to a vote then.

You know that the Republicans will try hard to not even allow this sort of scenario to get close to happening. I will agree with that. But if the cards fall correctly for the Dems, the GOP's devil's scenario could play out. This is about an insurance policy, not protecting against the "inevitable", which you all are right that this future isn't inevitable just yet.

there is a chance for that may repunks to vote to remove them - and secondly I don't think there is a chance in hell that either one of them will resign before Jan 3,2007 which is when Nancy Pelosi will become speaker of the House. They think they are above the law, NEVER admit mistakes and I just don't see it happening.

I think the reason they want Hastert to resign is so they can say when our guys do bad things they resign (hmmm has Ney resigned yet) but Gerry Studs didn't resign, Barney Frank didn't resign and Bill Clinton didn't resign - I think they are hoping if Hastert were to resign quickly they can make this crap go away before the election and perhaps maintain control of the Congress.

instead of giving them some sound bites they can use

that keep them in power permanently before they try the ones that get them pardons.

Your approach assumes a level of civility I don't think they have. It's flaw is that it requires their working within the law. They don't.

there will NOT be an impeachment..

To do that would set a scary precedent (even though no president deserved impeachment more)..

Sending a message to the world that two presidents in a row were impeached, would be a bad thing..

The best course for a dem take ove this fall is to set in motion a way to win a decisive victory in 08, hobble *² for the rest of his term, and to start down the road of repairing the damage he's done..

We will need investigations for the stuff the shoved under the rug, and I would prefer subpoenas AFTER they have left office (no pardons that way) and criminal prosecution..

It's time to put money where the mouth is and prove to ourselves, our children, and the rest of the world that

WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS, NOT MEN

and those laws must be as just as they can be, and administered justly!

Any investigation would take time and with the way they stonewall, it would take even longer..

A better example would be to tackle the stuff they CAN, and to reserve prosecution for after the idiots leave office.. They can do quite a bit when they control the agenda, adn you know they will put people under oath..

Let's prosecute these freaks after they have no way to pardon themselves :)

Could this be as scary as what we've been through for 6 years? Setting a precedent --that extremist factions can't easily hijack the US govt--wouldn't that be a good thing?

Message to the world -"would be "a bad thing"-and how would impeachment be worse than the message we are sending now...ie. that we put up with a corrupt government and have no means of effectively dealing with it?

this thread about his appearance on larry king reminded me about him.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=150x13465

trying to remember what it was he did exactly during the impeachment, but i recall that he was "mr clean hands".

to do the switcharoo. Consider:

1) It becomes apparent that bush/darth are about to be impeached/convicted.
2) Darth resigns/"dies" a la kenny-boy
3) Bush appoints McCain as veep, congress approves cuz he such a "moderate"
4) Bush resigns before he can be impeached
5) McCain becomes pres
6) He runs as an incumbent in '08.

The neocon/PNACers won't be happy, but it's how the RW will hold onto power.

With the Internet's power to reveal now on display for all to see, McCain has no cover that won't be ripped off his body in one news cycle or less. And neither has anyone else.

It could be repug, say, Lieberman, for example.

Kinda the same. I think this time around though, if Cheney were to resign, he'd probably do it right after the elections if the elections were to go against them. Unlike Nixon's time, I think Bush would have a harder time to get congress to approve a replacement of THEIR choosing before a new congress would take office. Would probably get fillibustered. After 2007 hits, they'd still face the same sort of selection, but any selection would likely only be approved if a Democratic leadership were confident in receiving a public commitment from those in charge that there wouldn't be any pardons issued.

This way, the Republicans get their own choice of who they have as a replacement, and then have that person "automatically" selected for them by chain of succession, if Bush himself were to leave, since it's already written in the constitution/ammendments who is next in line if the president and VP were to leave office. The Dems then couldn't say to "give us another choice". It would have already been made for them at that time.

in line of succession ?

Lookie here

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0101032.html

""The Vice President Richard Cheney
Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne
Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns
Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez2
Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao3
Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson
Secretary of Transportation Vacant
Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson
Secretary of Homeland Security4 Michael Chertoff""

...and if indicted and impeached with a Democratic House...who, praytell becomes Speaker of the House ? Nancy Pelosi, potentially the next female President of the United States of America.

""Ain't this a great country, or what ?-- Yakov Schmirnoff""

Not quite as they'd planned, huh ?

BTW, check this related DU post
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2308693

My head is swimming !