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.<quoted text>
I have noticed your wording is changing, yes the house voted along partisan lines to impeach him, but that is not the end of an impeachment, as it involves both houses, and the impeachment failed in the senate which also voted along partisan lines,( the entire thing was partisan from the beginning ).
I have never argued that the house didnít vote to impeach, heck they could vote to Impeach Obama tomorrow for anything they want to dream up even with no evidence whatsoever... but voting to impeach is not the end, the end of it is in the senate where impeachment is tried.
It is in the senate where an impeachment succeeds or fails.
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.