Whether the federal court erred in denying petitioner's constitutional challenge to the impeachment process

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED CROUKD 2. DS Vhe feral Cauryx-v 10 /2fes Apt: Planprenss Const Yefoana / +19 fo a “for. were //9 @ foie biel “1 ef fouing Petiine Po be tnypeached USA fur Gnbofyors, i th feof fhe fact Pte Count had beled 1 feinive before flier fasfleud by pea “y Yue Bic fyens Would $e elleweesl fu Wiypeachron Fr gad ya gb of pte Arof 7de Sele Cold nef Sr ove Ste wo 1999 priser Conbiegens P . Ghouv Oo &. Ord flbcer Fpistle § Sonal fo Cunfaey-aad Consipd with @9 ooraey Vc fefe fOr. Wlawrie2s Conte fore / 19 t4 Gelber (A deren fan aiSence et Coles /oig hire 0a Whe 138ve oft laJoyicafron, 2h fence tie longer aba /atfe P CRovwd) 3. DS Phe Pred Goong abuse 675 iser tn when ff led lt Remban Watved 41's right fe Concof fCAA an oYomey when he refuses fe Sale ao oft Hong / Asig for Volice an “Crreagsonab/e -cheifermina sion ,“tn tight of Ate frei, Pte V4 Maan, fas a Cons Te Hoag/ righ bande 72 he SUSd G2g/ fourteen 74 Ainead t10n 7 s fe fore ~ Chiqog E Counse/ okrving Oez— “ ves Upavien P (an QUESTION(S) PRESENTED OA Fle Hae l Cord dentol an tviterJa/ hearing Const ule 9 Ae fecfhe onde menfetly vader ine The tela btty god Polvness of Ate fOCCEES Abe p—-visleted tar Flanitez "5 Cons Hy Jane / A0G4P~@ “Loy. Heeb 0 2 Sarr Pibone! vb “gar oA She Ac ho T ee hye pes fas