I would enjoy a Trump impeachment and removal. I’d be giddy to replace Trump with a Democrat. But that’s a problem with the current succession list that makes removal unlikely, and worse: ethically wrong.  The New York Times usually annoys me, but this time their chief editorial infuriated me by being right.  I hate that.

First, some history.  In early 2017, I was writing about Trump and the open Republican corruption:

• Russia clear influenced the 2016 American election.
• Trump wasn’t indifferent to Russian interference; he willingly accepted Russian political aid.  Worse, Trump openly sought out that foreign help, publicly rejoicing when he got it.
• Trump’s campaign organization repeatedly opened clandestine communication channels with dubious Russia sources.  After the election, Trump’s administration continued to create backchannels and contact different representatives of the Russian oligarchy.
• Trump was raking in money from Russia and her allies.
• Trump embraced every Russian proposal, openly kowtowing to Putin over the conclusions of American intelligence agencies.
• We questioned the FBI’s odd deference to every serious Republican crime, contrasted with their grossly public, hypercritical response to any hint of Democrat error.
•  Trump lied endlessly about every aspect of his actions.  (You’d think he’d get better at it with practice, wouldn’t you?  For a guy who spews lies like most of us breathe, Trump really sucks at it.)
• The Republican party not only allowed Trump to cross all boundaries of decency – and even legality – they encouraged him.  His Republican proctologists (remember Devin Nunes?) shamelessly gasped in feigned awe at every Trumpian belch and fart.

So, nothing much has changed, has it?  Anyway, I went through that American Presidential line of succession in my head a few months ago, now that Democrats hold the House.  Interesting changes.

Recap: the Presidential succession is the ordered list of the official who takes over if the current President is removed or unable to continue in office.  The 2017 list went like this:

• Vice President Pence (R)
• Speaker of the House: Paul Ryan (R)
• President pro tempore of the Senate: Orrin Hatch (R)
• Secretary of State: Rex Tillerson (R)
• Secretary of the Treasury: Steven Mnuchin (R)
• Secretary of Defense: James Mattis (R)
• Attorney General: Jeff Sessions (R)
• Secretary of the Interior: Kevin Haugrud (D), an Obama holdover (soon replaced by Ryan Zinke (R).

Ah, the good old days: criminals and lunatics.  My point back then was that, even if Trump and half his cabinet were impeached, Republicans would still be in charge.  We talked; we lamented.  There might have been some sniveling.

Now, skip forward to today’s Trump.  The same crimes repeated ad nauseum, but somehow Trump has made himself even more guilty.  Worse (better?), the orange Don spewed his corruption over Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of Energy Rick Perry, and most of his cabinet.  It’s just what he does.

So, imagine the scenario where Trump is impeached for his crimes, and the Senate removes him.  (Don’t cheer.)  The normal succession to the Vice President fails because Trump’s openly implicated Pence in the same scandal.  (Again, no cheering.)  From there, the succession falls to the Speaker of the House.

President Nancy Pelosi.  Yes, in that unlikely set of circumstances, we’d have a Democrat as the President.  My heart briefly fluttered.

Now, here’s the problem.  It would be wrong.  Jesus, I hate saying that, but it’s true.  Todays’ Times sole editorial was, “Nancy Pelosi Should Not Be President.”  And I agree with them.  (You can imagine my expression as I typed that.)  As much as I hate everything that the modern Republican party has become (un-American, corrupt, criminal bastards!), they won the last Presidential election.  I can’t begin to say, “Fair and square,” but they won.  And yes, that matters.

So, as the Times points out, Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t be managing an Impeachment inquiry of the current President if she could benefit from it.  That’s a conflict of interest, and it opens the door to horrible abuses in the future.  We can’t win back a moral American that way.

The Times also argues that this conflict of interest would ensure the Senate doesn’t convict, but I’m less convinced by that.  Who really believes that makes any difference for the cowards?  Trump could randomly shoot reporters on the White House lawn, and most Republicans would still vote for him and anything Trump asked.  I’m sure they’d complain about it privately and anonymously, just like now, and I don’t care.

So, yeah, big sigh.  That’s a problem we need to close before this goes too much further.  No President Pelosi – or any Democrat – in the line of succession.