re: #216 HappyWarrior

Okay fair enough. Apologies for misinterpreting you. We don’t need the Republicans to impeach him. Removal would be nice but impeachment would be a start.

as you imply, i wonder if its time to start being clear when using the word “impeachment”

- the house (or senate but not in this case) does hearings and other investigations
- the house votes
- the trial is held in the senate and they vote as a jury

everyone seems to mean the third part and only then if he’s convicted and booted out

im not trying to split hairs or mince words

it seems to me there’s an awful lot that can be accomplished with a long drawn out investigation phase. make it crystal clear what happened and what they all tried to do. that can have great effect.

after that, the house can consider taking up the vote. it’s a whole separate calculus with it’s own list of moving parts.

i’d like to get away from saying ‘since the senate wont convict’ we should stop talking ‘impeachment’. but what do i know?