No. What I'm saying is that "the Senate will not impeach" (issued as if the Senate could impeach, but politically won't), the original phrase I highlighted as erroneous, IS erroneous, because impeaching the president is not the Senate's prerogative. It's what The House does. The Senate holds a trial. You can call it an impeachment trial if you want, but it doesn't make any less true that the Senate does not impeach. The Senate potentially CONVICTS and removes from office a previously impeached president. The Senate trial, whatever you call it, is not to impeach, since if it is held, it means that the president has already been impeached.
The analogy with other court criminal proceedings is crystal clear. You don't hold a trial to indict a criminal. You hold a trial to either find the indicted criminal guilty or not guilty of the crime he was indicted for. That trial doesn't intend to indict the criminal who has already been indicted, thus the trial. You simply call it a trial. You don't call a trial of an indicted criminal, an "indictment trial."
The poster should have said "The Senate will not convict even if the House impeaches" and that would have been correct.
An error was highlighted, and now you're jumping through loops to try to hide it. Sorry, it won't work.
Maybe you can even find in the press or even in documents, someone talking about the impeachment trial of President Clinton. I don't know if there are such examples, but I'll tell you this: if there are, whoever issued that statement is also wrong. It's as simple as that.
The House impeaches (equivalent to an indictment). The Senate holds a trial of the already impeached (indicted) president. Period, full stop. Crystal clear, no semantic ambiguity.
