# How Should Pelosi Conduct the Presidency? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 3, 2019, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194 "2019-10-03T06:07:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2019, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/61 "2019-10-07T19:26:54Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > expose the GOP as pro-crime if they don’t convict. If they aren’t pro-crime, the only outcome is President Pelosi. It would be far greater political suicide for Republican senators, when faced with their red Republican voters, to depose Trump and Pence in a way that leads to President Pelosi, than it would be for them to be perceived as “pro-crime.” Especially since there is a perfectly fair alternative to “Removing Trump and Pence so Pelosi can be POTUS.” That solution is, “Removing Trump and Pence so that a Gerald Ford stand-in like Robert Gates can serve as temporary POTUS.” Why exactly would Nancy Pelosi have to be president in order for Republican senators to have been seen as “not being pro-crime?” ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/62 "2019-10-07T19:30:45Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Well…OK. > > Say that Trump is removed from office. Then Pence is president, no matter what Pelosi might say. There might be no VP, though, due to Pelosi’s stonewalling. Then the Secret Service had better do a \*good \*job of protecting President Pence through January 2021. > > Or let’s say it’s Pence who is impeached and removed, but Trump is not (I can’t fathom how that would work, but let’s roll with it.) So then it is Trump as a veep-less president? Same scenario as above. Yes but WHAT IF?: Pence resigns to avoid impeachment, Trump appoints new VP, congress (the house)\* refuses to approve and then Trump is impeached (say a different reason then Pence) and removed from office. That’s a pretty ham-fisted way for Pelosi to become President. I don’t think Americans are very good at political rioting…but this scenario might get people off their couch. \*Is it a seperate vote? Or House and Senate together? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2019, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/63 "2019-10-07T19:34:09Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > Pence resigns to avoid impeachment, Trump appoints new VP, congress (the house)\* refuses to approve and then Trump is impeached (say a different reason then Pence) and **removed from office.** That’s a pretty ham-fisted way for Pelosi to become President. The underlined part is the problem here. In this scenario, there is a President Trump, there is no vice president, and the next in succession is Speaker Pelosi. For Trump to be removed from office, you have to get at least 20 Republican senators to vote to depose him, and that will never happen if Pelosi is next in line. These GOP senators would know exactly what was at stake and what the Democrats were trying to do. Of course, an assassination or death by natural causes would get Trump out and lead to President Pelosi, so we could expect the Secret Service to have a particularly hairy remaining few months of their job in this scenario until January 2021. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2019, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/64 "2019-10-07T20:26:25Z")
As long as we’re going down this rabbit hole, what should we expect [President Grassley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Grassley) to do when Pelosi is expelled from the House and Trump and Pence are both convicted? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2019, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/65 "2019-10-07T20:42:15Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > \*Is it a seperate vote? Or House and Senate together? I believe it is a separate vote. At least > [@](#): > > The Senate approved the nomination of Nelson Rockefeller on December 10, 1974 by a vote of 90 to 7. The House of Representatives gave its approval on December 19, 287 to 128. [Cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_United_States_vice_presidential_confirmation). So a Democratic-controlled House could block a new VP. I would speculate that such a House would simply not hold a vote, the way the Senate didn’t vote on Garland. Better political cover that way. Reps in districts where voting against any Republican is a political liability can blame Pelosi for not voting, and their constituents are likely to blame her anyway. Reps in districts who want Pelosi as President won’t care. Of course the same could be true of a GOP-controlled Senate - we just do without a VP, a Cabinet, etc. It would be ugly for everybody. Which is why it isn’t a good idea. At some point, if we are to have a functioning government, every one will have to compromise. One way or another, it will depend on the results of the 2020 elections. Maybe we will have a whole new House, or even a new Senate. “You started it!” doesn’t work forever. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/66 "2019-10-08T02:31:47Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I believe it is a separate vote. At least [Cite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_United_States_vice_presidential_confirmation). So a Democratic-controlled House could block a new VP. > > I would speculate that such a House would simply not hold a vote, the way the Senate didn’t vote on Garland. Better political cover that way. Reps in districts where voting against any Republican is a political liability can blame Pelosi for not voting, and their constituents are likely to blame her anyway. Reps in districts who want Pelosi as President won’t care. > > Of course the same could be true of a GOP-controlled Senate - we just do without a VP, a Cabinet, etc. It would be ugly for everybody. > > Which is why it isn’t a good idea. > > At some point, if we are to have a functioning government, every one will have to compromise. One way or another, it will depend on the results of the 2020 elections. Maybe we will have a whole new House, or even a new Senate. “You started it!” doesn’t work forever. > > Regards, > Shodan Christ…someone pass a law compelling them to at least vote. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/67 "2019-10-08T04:43:02Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > The underlined part is the problem here. In this scenario, there is a President Trump, there is no vice president, and the next in succession is Speaker Pelosi. > > For Trump to be removed from office, you have to get at least 20 Republican senators to vote to depose him, and that will never happen if Pelosi is next in line. These GOP senators would know exactly what was at stake and **what the Democrats were trying to do**. bolding mine I don’t think “what the Democrats are trying to do” comes into it. The Dems (mostly) entered into this reluctantly and did so because they felt there was no alternative. Because why? High crimes and misdemeanors, that’s why. Bribery (or extortion if you prefer), pressuring foreign countries to fluff conspiracy theories about his political opponent, these are exactly the kinds of crimes the Founders had in mind when they wrote the impeachment rules. Now, the impeachment rules have never directly driven anyone from office, but while we have had some real ringers as POTUS, none of them were as incompetent or criminal as the current one. (AFAIK, let’s keep it honest lol) Turns out, Pence may have participated in some of the exact same crimes. So, Pence is like Cohen, the fall guy that gets impeached. Only, the law demands that they all get impeached. The law doesn’t stipulate giving consideration to which party is or isn’t in power. The Founders didn’t like parties at all, but were so concerned with preserving liberty that they didn’t ban them. They would never have made everything else subservient to them though. Will the Republicans really do that? Give a pass to such blatant, impeachable behavior because that is what’s best for their party? I mean, Rick Gates?!? Is he the Speaker, or is Pelosi? Maybe the pubbies all swore oaths to the Devil and that’s why they act like such a fact-challenged cult. But we do know they all swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If they vote to acquit, they violate that oath. I think even the Devil would notice you doing that and would respect you less for it, even if it was to his benefit or even his idea. We like to think some of our fellow citizens are pretty dumb; some of us demonize them. But I think they’ll notice something like that, even if it is to _their_ benefit. The impeachments are legit. That makes Pelosi legit. Can no one on the dope grasp these legal basics? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/68 "2019-10-08T04:48:10Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > bolding mine > > I don’t think “what the Democrats are trying to do” comes into it. The Dems (mostly) entered into this reluctantly and did so because they felt there was no alternative. Because why? High crimes and misdemeanors, that’s why. Bribery (or extortion if you prefer), pressuring foreign countries to fluff conspiracy theories about his political opponent, these are exactly the kinds of crimes the Founders had in mind when they wrote the impeachment rules. Now, the impeachment rules have never directly driven anyone from office, but while we have had some real ringers as POTUS, none of them were as incompetent or criminal as the current one. (AFAIK, let’s keep it honest lol) > > Turns out, Pence may have participated in some of the exact same crimes. So, Pence is like Cohen, the fall guy that gets impeached. Only, the law demands that they all get impeached. > > The law doesn’t stipulate giving consideration to which party is or isn’t in power. The Founders didn’t like parties at all, but were so concerned with preserving liberty that they didn’t ban them. They would never have made everything else subservient to them though. > > Will the Republicans really do that? Give a pass to such blatant, impeachable behavior because that is what’s best for their party? I mean, Rick Gates?!? Is he the Speaker, or is Pelosi? > > Maybe the pubbies all swore oaths to the Devil and that’s why they act like such a fact-challenged cult. But we do know they all swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. If they vote to acquit, they violate that oath. I think even the Devil would notice you doing that and would respect you less for it, even if it was to his benefit or even his idea. > > We like to think some of our fellow citizens are pretty dumb; some of us demonize them. But I think they’ll notice something like that, even if it is to _their_ benefit. > > The impeachments are legit. That makes Pelosi legit. Can no one on the dope grasp these legal basics? But Republican senators would reasonably ask why “doing the constitutional and honorable thing” requires having Pelosi, a (D), be president. They would ask why an untainted (R) like Robert Gates, Colin Powell, Jim Mattis or Jon Huntsman couldn’t do as the new VP –\> prez. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/69 "2019-10-08T08:43:31Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > America-Hating FuckSticK. Yeah. Thanks. How 'bout don’t make us guess or ask next time, k? K. You got some problem typing out what you meant? Please. Be nice. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/70 "2019-10-08T14:31:59Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > But Republican senators would reasonably ask why “doing the constitutional and honorable thing” requires having Pelosi, a (D), be president. They would ask why an untainted (R) like Robert Gates, Colin Powell, Jim Mattis or Jon Huntsman couldn’t do as the new VP –\> prez. Simple. #1 and #2 committed impeachable offenses and must be removed. That leaves #3 at bat. Why should the Dems allow the Rs to game the system? No, the obvious path is nobody games the system and Pelosi is installed. Because that is the plain reading of the law. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/71 "2019-10-08T14:40:31Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Simple. #1 and #2 committed impeachable offenses and must be removed. … I’m confident that 2/3 of the Senate does not share your opinion on this matter. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/72 "2019-10-08T14:51:44Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I’m confident that 2/3 of the Senate does not share your opinion on this matter. I’m sure you are correct, and many senators do not think that they should remove a Republican president, just because he committed impeachable offenses. This is because they are partisan assholes, who would shit on the constitution and install a dictator if this would give them more personal power and money. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/73 "2019-10-08T15:26:29Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > No, the obvious path is nobody games the system and Pelosi is installed. Again, good luck persuading 20 Republican senators to see it the same way. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/74 "2019-10-08T15:46:03Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > I’m sure you are correct, and many senators do not think that they should remove a Republican president, just because he committed impeachable offenses. > > This is because they are partisan assholes, who would shit on the constitution and install a dictator if this would give them more personal power and money. An alternate theory is that many senators just don’t think he has committed impeachable offenses, and the dems are the ones chasing after more personal power because they are partisan assholes. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/75 "2019-10-08T16:04:09Z")
The whistleblowers are from within the Trump administration, and their stories check out. Therefore this is not a partisan affair. Let’s keep this honest, please. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/76 "2019-10-08T16:28:15Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > The whistleblowers are from within the Trump administration, and their stories check out. Therefore this is not a partisan affair. Let’s keep this honest, please. “… the ICIG’s preliminary reviewed identified some indicia of bias of an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate…” ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/77 "2019-10-08T18:38:37Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > An alternate theory is that many senators just don’t think he has committed impeachable offenses, and the dems are the ones chasing after more personal power because they are partisan assholes. OR maybe we should look at the charges first because maybe they are not really crimes e.g. Disparaging Congress Dismissing a cabinet member that was not confirmed during the President’s term A president (as opposed to a judge) committing perjury to a grand jury. ---
**Author:** ![Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/try2b_comprehensive/32/65_2.png) [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Try2B_Comprehensive)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/78 "2019-10-08T18:59:09Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > Again, good luck persuading 20 Republican senators to see it the same way. Look, I’ve never claimed to know everything. Are you privy to the GOP legal defense against these accusations? Not only did the phone transcript come from the WH itself and confirm the accusations (in the context of evidence of a coordinated campaign to pressure Ukraine for election interference or no aid for you, a campaign that was conducted largely outside official channels, and some of the evidence concealed improperly in a codeword level server with what might as well have been a big waving flag that says “you can tell we’re guilty because we’re hiding stuff from our own administration”), plus the live freaking video of the POTUS publicly asking Ukraine and now China for dirt on Biden, and now just today Obstruction of Congress by blocking witness testimony. And more! Until someone can explain to me how there isn’t actually a case here, I can’t countenance cries of “partisanship!!” as anything other than a distraction attempt away from the solid merits of this impeachment case. The question is, how many senators are really going to vote to defend conspiring for foreign election interference? America is pretty much toast if we put party ahead of that. No? ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/79 "2019-10-08T19:55:57Z")
> [@Try2B\_Comprehensive](#): > > Look, I’ve never claimed to know everything. Are you privy to the GOP legal defense against these accusations? Not only did the phone transcript come from the WH itself and confirm the accusations (in the context of evidence of a coordinated campaign to pressure Ukraine for election interference or no aid for you, a campaign that was conducted largely outside official channels, and some of the evidence concealed improperly in a codeword level server with what might as well have been a big waving flag that says “you can tell we’re guilty because we’re hiding stuff from our own administration”), plus the live freaking video of the POTUS publicly asking Ukraine and now China for dirt on Biden, and now just today Obstruction of Congress by blocking witness testimony. And more! > > Until someone can explain to me how there isn’t actually a case here, I can’t countenance cries of “partisanship!!” as anything other than a distraction attempt away from the solid merits of this impeachment case. > > The question is, how many senators are really going to vote to defend conspiring for foreign election interference? America is pretty much toast if we put party ahead of that. No? I don’t dispute for one moment that Trump has done plenty of things that are impeach-able. (Not sure about Pence, but I’m sure people can cite stuff for that.) You could probably make a 10-page list of impeach-able offenses by Trump. But as long as Pelosi is next in line, Republican senators would never impeach and depose Trump and Pence simultaneously. Half a century ago, maybe, but not today. We are in a hyper-polarized political society. For 20 Republican senators to vote Pelosi in as the 46th president would be political suicide; they’d be primaried out of office in their very next election in their red states. The only way they’d depose Trump+Pence is if doing so gets them Colin Powell, Nikki Haley or some Republican as the new president. To say “It’s the morally/constitutionally right thing to do” is one thing. To actually get people to do it, when doing so has immensely negative political consequences for their side (having a D-president instead of an R), is another thing entirely. You’re basically saying, “The Constitution requires Republicans to fall on their swords now” and then acting perplexed when Republicans do not, in fact, fall on their swords. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2019, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194/80 "2019-10-08T20:13:27Z")
Pence seems to have been careful to wrap himself in plausible deniability at all turns, though. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-should-pelosi-conduct-the-presidency/841194.md?page=5)