Thanks for the info.
In #77, I corrected your assertion below where you stated that >>>...he [clinton] was never formally impeached...<<<
>>>Clinton is the only president in recent years to be recommended for impeachment (which the House does) but he was never formally impeached because the Dems ran the Senate and refused.<<<
I answered:
“Not true. Clinton WAS impeached by the House but NOT convicted by the spineless Senate.”
Apparently, you mixed up between impeachment and removal of through conviction after a trial in the Senate.
In your #88:
>>>Clinton was not tried by the senate on the basis of politial partisanship. The senate in the 1990s, was undder the majority control of the Democrats, the same as today. As a result, they denied to “try” Clinton on structlt political grounds.<<<
You concur that he wasn’t “convicted” because he wasn’t tried by the senate.
Your statement >>>The senate in the 1990s, was undder the majority control of the Democrats, the same as today.<<<
Incorrect. From 1995 to 1999, a period in which Clinton was impeached, the Senate was under Republican control.
As you can see below, at the time that Clinton was impeached, the Senate was under the control of spineless Republicans, many of whom voted not to try Clinton. Even if they all voted to try him, conviction was impossible because of the 2/3 vote required to convict.
104th Congress (1995-1997)
Majority Party: Republican (52 seats)
Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)
Other Parties: 0
Total Seats: 100
Note: Party ratio changed to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats after Richard Shelby of Alabama switched from the Democratic to Republican party on November 9, 1994. It changed again, to 54 Republicans and 46 Democrats, when Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado switched from the Democratic to Republican party on March 3, 1995. When Robert Packwood (R-OR) resigned on October 1, 1995, the Senate divided between 53 Republicans and 46 Democrats with one vacancy. Ron Wyden (D) returned the ratio to 53 Republicans and 47 Democrats when he was elected to fill the vacant Oregon seat.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm
Regards.
No, I understand the difference as I pointed out in my reply. Essentially, what the House did was indict Clinton but, without the senate taking any action, he was "technically" not impeached.
The confusion in terms comes mostly from the DBM which hasn't got a clue what the hell they are talking about 97.4% of the time and frequently report incorrect or incomplete news stories. Therein lies the confusion.
I'll concede the senate makeup since I have slept since then and was probably thinking of the 2001 - 2004 or 2005 senate when the Republicans had a slim majority and agreed (in one of their dumber moves) to share power with the Dems who promptly ran right over them.
So, essentially, it's a draw. We were both right about some parts of the story and we were both wrong about other parts. All-in-all, I consider it a win-win because we had a nice, civil discussion and, between the two of us, managed to get the story correct!!
Thanks for helping to keep me honest!