Duh, as numerous posts have explained before, the impeachment of President Clinton failed, as the required 2/3 vote for guilty was not reached in the Senate.<quoted text>
Oh, there you are! You left so abruptly the other day without ever telling us was Clinton's impeachment a success or a failure?
You've said it was a failure. But then you say he was impeached. Which is it?
Anxiously awaiting your simple one word answer, thank you in advance!
Here is a complete description of the Impeachment process for you. Why don't you read it and educate yourself. This way you won't look like an ignorant fool, at least on this subject,
"A process that is used to charge, try, and remove public officials for misconduct while in office.
Impeachment is a fundamental constitutional power belonging to Congress. This safeguard against corruption can be initiated against federal officeholders from the lowest cabinet member, all the way up to the president and the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Besides providing the authority for impeachment, the U.S. Constitution details the methods to be used. The two-stage process begins in the House of Representatives with a public inquiry into allegations. It culminates, if necessary, with a trial in the Senate. State constitutions model impeachment processes for state officials on this approach. At both the federal and state levels, impeachment is rare: From the passage of the Constitution to the mid-1990s, only 50 impeachment proceedings were initiated, and only a third of these went as far as a trial in the Senate. The reluctance of lawmakers to use this power is a measure of its gravity; it is generally only invoked by evidence of criminality or substantial abuse of power."