In article <cwsEh.1117$KE2.927@trnddc06>,
"Paul M. Cook" > wrote:

> <sf> wrote in message ...
> > On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:19:11 -0600, Andy <q> wrote:
> >
> >>You're OK with an impeached president back in the white house (as 1st
> >>"Gentleman")?
> >
> > Nixon was impeached, not Clinton.
> >
> > Bush is lucky he had a majority in the house and senate or there would
> > have been an impeachment movement against him (it's coming). As it is
> > the Dems won't actually impeach Bush because look who takes his place!
> > Better to have Dumbo in office. He might be stupid, but at least he's
> > not evil.
>
> Nixon was not impeached. He surely would have been and the votes were there
> in the senate to convict. So he was talked into resigning. Clinton was
> impeached. He was never convicted in fact the senate exonerated him of the
> charges. An impeachment is the equivalent of a criminal indictment.


Thanks for the correction. The idea of impeaching a president for
having consensual sex with an adult is strange.

If there was a problem, it was between Hillary and Bill. I have no
idea, but maybe they had an agreement.