Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave House Democrats the greenlight to officially begin an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump over a phone call he had with Ukrainian President Zelensky back in July.
Pelosi just can’t stay away from controversy — it follows her wherever she goes. Now, the media has published a replacement alert that has everyone talking.
In what will undoubtedly shock many people, a liberal New York Times editorial board member published a piece arguing Pelosi leading the impeachment charge against Trump is “a whopping conflict of interest” because she could replace Trump as president.
Assuming that both Trump and Vice President Mike Pence are removed from office — which would never happen — Pelosi would become the president because the House speaker is third in line to the presidency.
The author even reportedly argued that the law should be changed to remove this conflict of interest. Of course, there’s no way Pelosi is going to spearhead such an effort; she has too much to gain.
But the NYT author does call for Pelosi to be “replaced” as the House Democrat leading the impeachment probe into Trump because of this conflict.
“Don’t the American people choose presidents largely because of their parties?” asked the author. “Yes, they do, which is why the prospect of Ms. Pelosi … sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the middle of a Republican administration” is problematic.
“In short, it’s a whopping conflict of interest for a lawmaker to be leading an impeachment inquiry that could result in her own ascension to the presidency,” the editorial said.
It’s incredibly significant that arguably the most liberal paper in America allowed an editorial board member to publish a piece detailing why the law should be changed so that Pelosi — who is leading the impeachment probe — could never become president.
The editorial is informative as to how the House Speaker became second in line, how the law was changed to place cabinet members in line to replace the president and then changed back again:
The original succession law, passed in 1792, designated only two people after the vice president: the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House. In case either took over, a special election would be held to choose a new president. Why those two officials, and not someone from the executive branch — say, a member of the president’s cabinet? Because of raw politics: The secretary of state at the time was Thomas Jefferson, a prominent critic of the Washington administration, and the Federalists in charge of Congress weren’t about to hand him a potential pass to the White House.
Consider what happened in 1868, when a Republican-led House of Representatives impeached President Andrew Johnson. In the Senate trial, one of Johnson’s most outspoken critics was Ben Wade, a Republican who also happened to be the president pro tempore. Wade voted to convict, along with 34 of his colleagues, one vote shy of the two-thirds majority necessary to remove Johnson from office. The vice presidency was vacant at the time, which meant Wade was effectively voting to make himself the president.
The editorial lays out another reason there should never be a President Pelosi:
Don’t the American people choose presidents largely because of their parties? Yes, they do, which is why the prospect of Ms. Pelosi, the veteran San Francisco Democrat, sitting behind the Resolute Desk in the middle of a Republican administration should trouble anyone who values stability and democratic legitimacy.
“Donald Trump won his office with about 63 million votes nationwide; Nancy Pelosi won hers with fewer than 300,000,” the editorial said.
Democrats are trying to remove Trump from office over a phone call he had with Zelensky over the summer.
Since announcing they opened an impeachment inquiry, things have gone from bad to worse for Democrats.
The Republican National Committee and Trump campaign raised a combined $15 million just days after Pelosi’s impeachment announcement.
We learned that Eric Ciaramella is the “whistleblower” who filed a complaint over Trump’s Ukraine phone call.
Ciaramella is: (1) a registered Democrat; (2) worked for Obama and Joe Biden when they were in the White House; (3) is a vocal critic of Trump; (4) helped initiate the Russia “collusion” hoax; and (5) was fired from the National Security Council in 2017 for leaks, and returned to the CIA.
The Office of Intelligence Community Inspector General found that the “whistleblower” had a “political bias” in favor of one of Trump’s rivals in the 2020 presidential election.
The political landscape continues to shift, as well.
One Republican has already publicly announced they support congressional Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against Trump.
Another conservative claims 30 Republican senators would vote to impeach Trump if it were put to a vote.
And Rush Limbaugh went public and revealed what Utah GOP Sen. Mitt Romney told Pelosi in secret about Trump.