Indeed. Second in line is Speaker of the House. Since the House is the body that impeaches the president, it’s hard to imagine the Speaker would be so out of tune with his own party. And at some point, we get President Roslyn. 
Actually, how far down does it go before it’s not defined anymore? VP -> Speaker -> SecState -> ?
I guess if the Speaker resigns, the House elects a new one…?
While it’s obviously never been tested, some Constitutional scholars believe the language of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 includes whatever assistant secretaries acting as cabinet secretaries at the time of sucession (since assistant secretaries also were confirmed and not just hired). Also, the House and Senate would have to elect a new Speaker/President Pro Tempore, who would immediately be in the line of succession.
If you get to the point where there’s no Vice President, no cabinet officers and both the House and Senate can’t even elect their presiding officers, we’re gonna be in a lot more trouble than worrying about an impeachment.
I believe it goes all the way through the cabinet, in the order the positions were created, but I think I heard that on Scandal.
Yes, so the last one on the list is the Secretary of Homeland Security. If you get to him, the Union is definitely in trouble, but he should know what to do about it, unlike say the Secretary of Agriculture, who doesn’t know beans about security.
The order of succession is:
Vice President
Speaker of the House
President pro tempore of the Senate
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Agriculture
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Secretary of Homeland Security
But whereas a motion of non-confidence in a parliament is pretty much routine (and almost routinely defeated), impeachment is seen as a weapon of last resort for heinous crimes (and misdemeanours). Presumably the constitution was written vaguely to not restrict this option when necessary. But, since Johnson’s removal failed, it has not been seen as a simple political tool to attempt to change leaders. Since it’s possible, IIRC, to initiate proceedings with a simple majority in the house, it’s not impossible to tie up an executive with futile time-consuming trials as a threat or political lever. It’s just “not done”.
Yet I continuously hear - on the Dope and elsewhere - about impeaching the President. Of whichever hue. Jeebus but you guys really need to sort yourselves out. 
No. The “high” in High Crimes and Misdemeanors does not mean “heinous”.
Just to be clear, an impeachment is an act in and of itself, not the initiation of something. And yes, we’ve already covered the fact that it only takes a majority in the House to impeach.
Someone who comes from a country with Question Time in Parliament doesn’t understand the power of political theater?
Obviously they never read about the 1840 Presidential election campaign.
I don’t think you can really categorize Clinton’s impeachment as an attempted coup. I’m not saying it wasn’t a political move by the GOP House members, but it’s not like the Republicans would have gotten to take over if he had been convicted. In that case, Al Gore would have become president, and his politics were arguably further from those of the GOP than Clinton’s. For many people, there really was a moral issue involved. It shocks nobody today to think of Clinton getting oral sex from an intern in the Oval Office (though one can imagine the outrage of the media and the left if GW Bush had been caught doing that), but back then, such conduct on the part of a president was unthinkable.
Maybe I missed something, but didn’t my comment essentially say the senate portion was the trial? Yes, High Crimes and Misdemeanors could mean anything relating to the office - but nobody tries to impeach (or have a trial) over, say, an assertion of executive privilege or similar executive-legislative face-off, even if the majority congresscritters think the president is blatantly in the wrong. Non-confidence motions are routine political theatre.
Let’s clarify again. Clinton was accused of perjury, a fairly serious crime. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Nobody cares (except maybe Hillary) that Monica gave him a flute solo. The key offense is that he disregarded one of the fundamental rules of law. Of course, depending on your interpretation and weasel wording and thanks to an interrogation with imprecise vocabulary, he also may not have lied. So he was impeached but not convicted.
Mainly, I just wanted to point out that “high” does mean “heinous”. It’s a term of art, relating to the status of the office or officeholder, not the degree of offense. A “heinous” crime would be something like rape or murder, not perjury. One has to be careful when reading The US Constitution because words in it don’t necessarily mean the same as they do in the modern, colloquial language.
For instance, if the prez decided: Fuck it. I’m going to take 3 weeks and go hike in the Andes and not tell anyone. That would be an impeachable offense, although that would hardly be a heinous crime.
I don’t know, ‘hike in the Andes’ might be a euphemism for something heinous. You could do your hiking on any mountain range, but you gotta wonder about someone making references to lamas.
Lamas are Himalayan. Llamas are Andean. Lllamas are Welllsh.
“The one-l lama, he’s a priest.
The two-l llama, he’s a beast.
But I will bet a silk pajama
There isn’t any three-l lllama.”
–Somebody like Ogden Nash. Maybe even Ogden Nash.
Of course, as was pointed out by someone like Willard Espy, maybe even Willard Espy, there is a type of fire known in some circles as a three-l lllama…
Any Bostonian will tell you, a three-l lama is a wicked big fiah.
PM’s Questions - Question Time is a TV program - is different every week. Talk about impeachment seems incessant.
Cable and talk radio and the internet are every minute.
Talk about impeachment is hardly “incessant” unless you spend all your time listening to the same fringe elements that think (on the right) income tax is unconstitutional or (on the left) that police are carrying out an organized conspiracy to kill minorities.