wilkes

The difference here, lefty is that politics is a big factor. The house impeached and politics was certainly a part of the equation. The Senate did indeed acquit, but politics was a factor there too. The Senate acquittal was akin to the OJ verdict. OJ may not be legally a murderer, but he did kill his ex and her boy toy.

SW I posted for you - he faced impeachment charges but was acquitted. It's like facing murder charges to being found not guilty, guess what you are not classified as a murderer.

More DARK days for Hillary.

Thanks lefty. Umpire has trouble with his definitions. He has more trouble admitting it.

Technically, only two presidents were ever actually impeached, though it was the one who wasn't who ended up more in disgrace than the other two.

After President Andrew Johnson dismissed Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton and replaced him with Lorenzo Thomas, without Senate approval, Radical Republican senators called for his impeachment on charges centering around violating the Tenure of Office Act. Impeachment proceedings began on March 5, 1868, but three Senate votes in a row fell one short of the 2/3 majority necessary for a conviction.

On December 19, 1998, President Bill Clinton faced impeachment charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with his sexual dalliances (abuse of power having been dropped), but was acquitted on February 12, 1999, the Senate having fallen 17 votes short of conviction.

Richard M. Nixon also seemed likely to weather out the accusations surrounding the Watergate break-in until August 5, 1974, when one of the tape recordings he had grudgingly surrendered revealed that he had known about the attempted burglary all along�the so-called "smoking gun." Advised of the likelihood of both impeachment and conviction, Nixon avoided both by resigning on August 9. On September 8 the new president, Gerald R. Ford, issued him a "full, free and absolute pardon." Ironically, though he was never actually impeached, the fact that Nixon was "pardoned," as opposed to "acquitted," implied guilt for crimes for which he was neither tried nor convicted�thus arguably leaving his reputation in worse shape than those of the two presidents who were impeached.

I concede the date mistake. A minor error at best.

CHIMPS: THIS WAS A HISTORICAL THREAD. LEARN TO READ.

T&T: WORLDNETDAILY IS NOT A SOURCE FOR ANYTHING. IT'S THE MAIN SITE FOR THE BIRTHER MOVEMENT.

SPARKING: IT HAPPENED IN 1974, NOT 1973.

DON'T YOU DUMB ***ES KNOW ANYTHING?

And Darker days for Hillary.

Must see TV.

2/3's is what it was going to take and it didn't happen, get over it.

I removed several posts that were off topic and/or trolling.

LISTEN YOU LITTLE ***, I KNOW VERY WELL WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

Umpire. You can't argue your point by stating definitions. It is obvious that you didn't know the difference between impeachment and conviction or whose role each belongs to till I pointed it out to you. You then hurried off to Wikipedia and checked out and came back after several.minutes to claim that you know something.

I'm glad to school you.

Dark day for repubicans = bright day for America

IMPEACHMENT IS THE SAME AS AN INDICTMENT.

AS THE OLD SAYING GOES, "YOU CAN INDICT A HAM SANDWICH."

CONVICTION IS ANOTHER THING AND THE SENATE FOUND NO PROBABLY CAUSE TO CONVICT.

NOW.

YOU LOOK LIKE THE STUPID ***.

Impeachment and conviction are separate issues.

To answer your question, you look like a ****.

THE SENATE CONVICTS IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES.

NOW WHO LOOKS LIKE A STUPID ***.

Well, idiot , the Senate doesn't impeach. That's the role of the house. Are you always so stupid??

Now, now, dumpire. You know that I have a fondness for Walker and Kasich. I also like Senator Paul. That being said, I am really warming up to Trump. He takes no prisoners. I'd give up a month's pay to see Trump debate Hillary.

THE SENATE DIDN'T THINK SO.

NEITHER DID THE INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR.