Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

(your words, Tim)
you might want to explain how - if W and his bunch actually lied
and this were demonstrable - how it is he has not been impeached.
That is, by far, the stupidest question I have ever seen.
It should thus be trivial to answer, but all we hear from you
is crickets.

Okay then...answer it. Why hasn't W been impeached?


Because there is no/insufficient evidence to bring charges of
impeachment against him.

If there is insufficient evidence it may be because there
is insufficent support in the House of Representatives for
impeachment hearings. Sufficient evidece to support
an impeachment of Richard Nixon did not appear until
after the impeachment hearing had begun.

--

FF