No you lost your point long long ago, an impeachment goes through both houses of congress, and the impeachment of Clinton failed on Feb 12 1999 when he was acquitted.<quoted text>
I'm making my point well it seems. Arguing semantics is silly and tedious and serves no purpose except narcissistic supply. Everything I've said about Clinton's impeachment since Mona Lott started in on me is correct except I said "the House found him guilty" and brought it to the Senate. I should have said "the House found evidence of guilt" and brought it to the Senate.
I admitted that mistake much to your and certainly Mona's narcissistic delight. Now admit yours, the impeachment on Dec 19, 1998 was not a failure. If it had been, it wouldn't have been brought to the Senate where he was acquitted and thus not removed from office. The acquittal does not negate the impeachment. Bill Clinton was impeached.
This isnít an opinion, this is a fact
The impeachment failed, which is why he was not removed from office, If the impeachment had been successful he would have been removed from office.
Having the house vote for an impeachment is no big deal, you donít need any evidence whatsoever, all you need is a vote. They did, it failed in the senate, and the impeachment dropped dead right there, and Clinton continued in office.