good. His first impeachment was low-grade stuff that hardly deserved the time and effort (neither did Clinton's) but personally I regard summoning mobs into the Capitol as serious.
have still to point out, that in the Land of the Free, impeach means indict
whereas we usually take it as convict ( er make a determination that is)
Warren Hastings 1790 was referred to as his trial altho I note wiki uses impeach as indict or charge
[corruption in India, 1795 got bored and acquitted him in case anyone wonders]
bednobs: What's the problem? There's some interesting news and I thought it worth a mention. I'm sorry if it didn't fit with your rules and meant no offense.
Not my point. My point is that this is not a question. This is Answerbank. If you want to chatter, go on to Chatterbank. If not, post a question. It really is quite simple.
In fact as impeachments go, he now equals the total of the other presidents combined.
It’s not a foregone conclusion by any means he’ll get off: the Senate is a more sedate and less partisan place than the House
have still to point out, that in the Land of the Free, impeach means indict
whereas we usually take it as convict ( er make a determination that is)
Warren Hastings 1790 was referred to as his trial altho I note wiki uses impeach as indict or charge
[corruption in India, 1795 got bored and acquitted him in case anyone wonders]
Sorry mate but this is gibberish.