> Claim to be judged YES based on adoption of a House Resolution
> constituting articles of impeachment, not conviction thereon by the Senate.
> For comparison, an analogous claim for President Bill Clinton would have
> been judged YES but an analogous claim for President Richard Nixon would
> have been judged NO.
> Yes, exactly.
Is "adoption of a House Resolution constituting articles of impeachment"
more precise than "will be impeached by the House of Representatives?" I
would guess that more people would understand "be impeached," and that's
the way it would be described in the media, in such an eventuality, but I
could be persuaded otherwise.
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Jim Gillogly <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Does it want a clause dealing with any other eventualities, like closing
> early if Trump resigns or chooses not to serve before the due date?
On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 3:33 PM, Michael C. Berch <email@example.com>
> the claim probably should not take effect until after Trump is sworn in,
> since that deals with the nonzero chance that for whatever reason he does
> not take office in the first place.
I don't know that it's necessary -- in both cases it would simply be false
that Trump was impeached. But if that seems ambiguous, we could add more
verbiage. I'd worry, though, that listing other eventualities would cause
people to overthink it, instead of it just being a simple yes/no decision.
> On 2017-1-12 12:33, Michael C. Berch wrote:
>> I’m guessing that’s a capital ‘I’, that is Tru Imp = Trump Impeached.
>> At first I thought it was just a typo “*Trulmp” with a lower-case
> And I saw it as a digit 'one' (for one partial term).
> *\\* Anton Sherwood *\\* www.bendwavy.org