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.

--

--

--

I work in IT, Community volunteer interested in Politics, support Capitalism as the best economic system for lifting people out of poverty, Skeptical scientist.

Love podcasts or audiobooks? Learn on the go with our new app.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Al Black

Al Black

I work in IT, Community volunteer interested in Politics, support Capitalism as the best economic system for lifting people out of poverty, Skeptical scientist.

More from Medium

The History of Upper Management

Raise a glass to freedom

Why We Need the Build Back Better Act

JP Sears Is Not Funny Anymore