@Haraldson big difference between the Clinton Impeachment (which Clinton was indeed convicted but allowed to remain in office) and Trump Impeachment. The difference is Clinton actually did commit a crime or crimes. Trump has committed no crime.

@Haraldson no I am not talking about connotation. I am saying the Clinton impeachment was a valid and legal proceeding that ended in conviction. The Trump impeachment is/was invalid. In the first place there was no crime. What the Dems brought to the Senate as articles of impeachment in reality had no weight or prosecutorial basis. The Dems tried to play a cute little trick. In order to freeze Repubs out of the process in the House of Representatives they (the Dems) intentionally failed to bring in witnesses and any supporting evidence. If they had done so then they would have had to allow the Republicans to challenge those witnesses. The Dems were hoping that the Senate would call for bringing in witnesses which would have dragged the whole think out well past November. As it was, the Senate majority simply told the House managers that they should have brought in witnesses before ever presenting the "articles of imp;eachment" to the Senate and without discovery and witnesses their (the House managers) impeachment lacked validity and integrity.
In short, Trump was never truly impeached. . Dems house managers called it an "impeachment" but it never reached that level of protocol that would make it a legal and valid case. You can put lipstick on a pig and in the end it's still a pig no matter what you try to say it is....it's just a pig.

@iThink
Not so. The House brought two articles of impeachment against Clinton. Unlike In Trump’s case, these were for documented crimes; lying under oath and obstruction of justice. No one questioned the crimes.

But he was acquitted in the Senate. That’s why he stayed in office. He was later disbarred for the perjury. But impeachment is not a criminal proceeding; it’s political. The mood in the country was that a blowjob didn’t warrant removal from office, even though that’s not why he was impeached.

@Haraldson "the precise meaning of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined anywhere in the Constitution itself. the house has taken a liberty here to some degree"
By this analysis a POTUS (or a Judge or any other official really) could be impeached because a majority in the House dislikes the way he ties his shoes. Does he tie his shoes left hand over right or right hand over left - or does he wear loafers...
Seriously what the Dem House majority did was to put out a protracted explanation of examples about why they dislike Trump and with great and phony solemnity called it a sad but unavoidable cause for creating "articles of impeachment" against POTUS.

To say the "house here has taken a liberty here to some degree" is a gross understatement. If such baseless and obviously hostile treatment were to be given the full weight of a genuinely and legally correct standing then clearly the office of POTUS would merely be a titular position serving at the whim and pleasure of the Legislature. We would be a Parlimentary republic - like Great Britain if that were allowed to stand.
It has NOT been allowed to stand. I would say that in fact it was an attempt to fundamentally change our form of Gov't (having 3 co-equal branches of gov't) into a parlimentary form and it was summarily swatted down by the loyal opposition - in this case the Republican majority in the Senate.
Calling it an impeachment does not make it so.

@Edgework ok thanks - nevertheless the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton were indeed "crimes" - the first being lying to a grand jury and the second was obstruction of justice.
In the case of Trump "impeachment" the Dems chose to accuse him of "obstruction of congress" which is laughable. There is no such "crime". In fact one could argue that it is the Executive branches job and duty to argue with and to challenge the legislature and vice versa.

@Haraldson The reason the Senate did not simply dismiss the house managers case is that they are required by law to give it a hearing before they (the Senate) can formulate a decision on it. So the house failed to bring a valid case and the Senate wisely refused to make the case for them. It dies in the Senate and since there was never any mention of much less evidence of crimes there is no way the thing can be seen as a valid and legal document. It isn't worth the paper it is printed on much less the money the idiotic dems spent on those ridiculous pens they used to sign it. LOL...thanks mate - fun chattin w/you about it. Be seeing you around the site!

The old adage says the squeaky wheel gets the oil first. I say just replace it.

And in japan @Edgework they say the nail that sticks out gets hammered down