Nothing? Trump is playing freeway chicken with Powell, he's driving a Pontiac Fiero and Powell is driving a bulldozer. The Supreme Court has already signaled that they're not on board fucking with the Fed. This will potentially cost Trump his next Fed nomination for awhile, because GOP Senators are putting a hold on his nominations until the legal stuff resolves.
It's nothing. In a sane country Trump would have been impeached many months (or even years) ago and would have never managed to get a second chance at this.
If the continuation of the USA hinges on Powell the man should be given a spot on mt. Rushmore, but I don't think that it is going to happen. Congress and the senate are for the most part filled with people that are too afraid to act. And in the meantime a lot of other crazy stuff will happen (just look at the last 30 days) to push this out of the public eye.
"was impeached" means different things in context.
Sometimes it means "articles of impeachment were brought against an official". (1) i.e. that the process starts.
Sometimes it means a later stage in the process, such as those article not being voted down, and a trial proceeding.
In the strictest sense, it means that the process completes - "the official is found guilty, removed from office, and may never hold office again".
Parent comment seems to be using the strictest sense, due to "and would have never managed to get a second chance". You're not helping by using a confusing different meaning.
If you're going to be nitpicky about definitions it helps to be correct. In this case, the person you're replying to is absolutely correct.
The government site you linked says the same thing:
> If the House adopts the articles by a simple majority vote, the official has been impeached.
Trump has been impeached twice. I think the confusion comes in when people misuse these terms, often when they want to say things like "Trump was never impeached!". He definitely was by the only definition that actually matters, which is that the House passed articles of impeachment. He was not found guilty.
Call me old fashioned, but I think these confusions are intentional and should be met with correcting the definitions - not making up new meanings of words - especially in this case where it's formally defined in the law.
I was just nitpicking the nitpicking, especially the implication that using a word correctly is confusing the issue. The sentiment in the original sentence is straightforward to understand, even if the sentence is a bit ambiguous.
