Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted andquot;guiltyandquot; on article 1, for [1], and andquot;not guiltyandquot; on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience andquot;as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar settingandquot;. andquot;You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances,andquot; [3] said as the trial concluded.The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.a)Uzbekistanb)Spainc)Brazild)UkraineCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Direction:Read the passages given below and a...

Direction: Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.
Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process. Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.
Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted "guilty" on article 1, for [1], and "not guilty" on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience "as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar setting". "You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances," [3] said as the trial concluded.

The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.

a)
Uzbekistan
b)
Spain
c)
Brazil
d)
Ukraine

Correct answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that ...

Donald Trump was impeached for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for Ukraine on the announcement of a pair of investigations: one into his potential rival for the White House in the 2020 election, Joe Biden, and son Hunter; and a second into a conspiracy theory that Ukraine, instead of Russia, was behind foreign tampering in the 2016 US election.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following statements cannot be deduced from the passage above, according to the passage?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.Which of the following is not the appropriate cause-and-effect relationship in the passages context?

View answer

Directions: Read the passage carefully and answer the questions given beside.It has been repeatedly held that the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act) is a sui generis legislation, enacted to tackle money laundering through white-collar crimes. According to Section 3 of the PMLA, the act of projecting or claiming proceeds of crime to be untainted property constitutes the offense of money laundering. Under the Schedule to the PMLA, a number of offenses under the Indian Penal Code and other special statutes have been included, which serve as the basis for the offense of money laundering. In other words, the existence of predicate offense is sine qua non to charge someone with money laundering. It is crucial to note that the investigation and prosecution of the predicate offense are done typically by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or the State Police.Section 50 of the PMLA provides powers of a civil court to the ED authorities for summoning persons suspected of money laundering and recording statements. However, the Supreme Court held that ED authorities are not police officers. It observed in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India (2022) that “the process envisaged by Section 50 of the PMLA is in the nature of an inquiry against the proceeds of crime and is not ‘investigation’ in strict sense of the term for initiating prosecution.” There are other dissimilarities between ED authorities and the police. While the police are required to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense before conducting an investigation, ED authorities begin with search procedures and undertake their investigation for the purpose of gathering materials and tracing the ‘proceeds of crime’ by issuing summons. Any statement made by an accused to the police is inadmissible as evidence in court, whereas a statement made to an ED authority is admissible. A copy of the FIR is accessible to the accused, whereas the Enforcement Case Information Report is seldom available.While the police investigating the predicate offense are empowered to arrest and seek custody of the accused, the ED is meant to focus on recovering the proceeds of crime in order to redistribute the same to victims. It is not clear whether the ED has managed to do this. Per contra, the Proceeds of Crime Act, 2002, the analogous legislation in the U.K., almost entirely concentrates on the confiscation of assets through dedicated civil proceedings. Unfortunately, of late, much of the ED’s powers have been discharged in effecting pretrial arrests, which used to be the prerogative of the police investigating the predicate offence. In the past, the CBI was used to impart fear among political opponents. In the process, the agency received the condemnation of various courts and earned the nickname “caged parrot”. Whether the ED will go down the same path or reorient its approach will entirely depend on the intervention of the country’s constitutional courts.Q.According to the passage, which of the following is NOT a key difference between ED authorities and the police in their approach to investigations?

View answer

Each of the questions below starts with a few statements, followed by four conclusions numbered I, II, III and IV. You have to consider every given statement as true, even if it does not conform to the accepted facts. Read the conclusions carefully and then decide which of the conclusion(s) logically follow(s) from the given statements, disregarding commonly known facts.Q.A rapidly changing technical environment in government is promoting greater reliance on electronic mail (e-mail) systems. As this usage grows, there are increasing chances of conflict between the users’ expectations of privacy and public access rights. In some investigations, access to all e-mail, including those messages stored in archival files and messages outside the scope of the investigation, has been sought and granted. In spite of this, some people send messages through e-mail that would never be said face-to-face or written formally.From the information given above, it cannot be validly concluded

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

CLAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CLAT

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted "guilty" on article 1, for [1], and "not guilty" on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience "as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar setting". "You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances," [3] said as the trial concluded.The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.a)Uzbekistanb)Spainc)Brazild)UkraineCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted "guilty" on article 1, for [1], and "not guilty" on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience "as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar setting". "You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances," [3] said as the trial concluded.The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.a)Uzbekistanb)Spainc)Brazild)UkraineCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted "guilty" on article 1, for [1], and "not guilty" on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience "as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar setting". "You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances," [3] said as the trial concluded.The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.a)Uzbekistanb)Spainc)Brazild)UkraineCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted "guilty" on article 1, for [1], and "not guilty" on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience "as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar setting". "You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances," [3] said as the trial concluded.The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.a)Uzbekistanb)Spainc)Brazild)UkraineCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted "guilty" on article 1, for [1], and "not guilty" on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience "as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar setting". "You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances," [3] said as the trial concluded.The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.a)Uzbekistanb)Spainc)Brazild)UkraineCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted "guilty" on article 1, for [1], and "not guilty" on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience "as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar setting". "You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances," [3] said as the trial concluded.The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.a)Uzbekistanb)Spainc)Brazild)UkraineCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted "guilty" on article 1, for [1], and "not guilty" on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience "as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar setting". "You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances," [3] said as the trial concluded.The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.a)Uzbekistanb)Spainc)Brazild)UkraineCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted "guilty" on article 1, for [1], and "not guilty" on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience "as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar setting". "You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances," [3] said as the trial concluded.The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.a)Uzbekistanb)Spainc)Brazild)UkraineCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted "guilty" on article 1, for [1], and "not guilty" on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience "as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar setting". "You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances," [3] said as the trial concluded.The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.a)Uzbekistanb)Spainc)Brazild)UkraineCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction:Read the passages given below and answer the questions that follow.Donald Trump has been acquitted in his Senate trial on both of the articles of impeachment he faced, ending the threat that he would be removed from office and concluding the impeachment process.Voting largely along party lines, the senators found Trump not guilty of the first article of impeachment for [1], by a 52-48 tally, and not guilty of the second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, by a 53-47 tally. Trump became the [2] president in US history to be impeached by the House of Representatives but acquitted in a Senate trial. A two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required to remove him.Mitt Romney was the only Republican to vote in favor of convicting Trump - and he became the only senator in history to vote to remove a president from his own party in an impeachment trial. Romney voted "guilty" on article 1, for [1], and "not guilty" on article 2, for obstruction of Congress. [3], who presided at the two-week trial, thanked the senators for their patience "as I attempted to carry out ill-defined responsibilities in an unfamiliar setting". "You have been generous hosts, and I look forward to seeing you again under happier circumstances," [3] said as the trial concluded.The U.S. House of Representatives impeached President Donald T rump for conditioning military aid and a White House meeting for _____________ on the announcement of a pair of investigations.a)Uzbekistanb)Spainc)Brazild)UkraineCorrect answer is option 'D'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam