At least you attempt to suppoort your view with facts and logic, rather than just calling your opponents idiots, so good for you. I now understand the problem: we are working with different definitions of Impeachment:
1) Impeachment: a way to remove government officers from office.

2) Impeachment in the United States is the process by which the House of Representatives brings charges against either the President, the Vice President, or any federal officer for misconduct alleged to have been committed.

In every other country than the USA, Impeachment only takes place when the elected officer is removed from office. Apparently in the USA, the attempt to impeach counts as an impeachment, even where it is not successful. From outside the States this definition borders on idiocy, but I accept now that it is the locally accepted usage in America.

I learnt something new: American usage of Impeachment is different to that of the rest of the English-speaking world. I’m guessing this definition was adopted so you could accuse people of being impeached when they were never removed form office.

Accusation is not the same as conviction in any court in Australia.