Well, howdy there internet people, Lidsboo again. So today we are going to talk about the

possible expungement of former President Trump's impeachments because that's apparently a thing

that's being considered. It looks like McCarthy is kind of on board with the

idea.

Generally, what it means is that the House is going to vote to, quote,

expunge the former president's impeachments.

There are a lot of legal scholars saying

that this can't be done.

You know, it's not, it's not a criminal thing. It doesn't work the same way. This isn't something that's really really possible. I would like to point out that in 1837, Andrew Jackson had his censure by the Senate reversed.

So it's not like there's not precedent for it in some ways, although those scholars will argue that that was just done by the Senate. It wasn't a two-chamber process so there's a little bit of a

little bit of a difference there and that will certainly be argued. But the key thing that I want to

point out about the Andrew Jackson situation is that I'm telling you about it. It happened in 1837 and I'm telling you

about it. What does that mean? It means that it doesn't actually go away.

If the House was to, quote,

expunge the former President's impeachment

it would still be part of the historical record.

It's not something that's going to disappear regardless of what they do.

This is once again a show for their base to show them that

they're doing something and that something is apparently basically adding a line in a history book later.

It will say, you know, the former President Trump was impeached twice.

Later, a different session of the House decided to expunge those impeachments,

but it's still there. doesn't go away it will just it it will just have an

...