A first step to impeachment

Wrong.  It is NOT over.  Not by a long shot.  Ninety-five is a pretty big number.  This was only the first vote.

Mueller testifies on the 24th, just to mention one thing.

Does he really believe it's over?  Or is he just saying what he wants to be true?

The House of Representatives killed an attempt to impeach Donald Trump on Wednesday, with 137 Democrats joining Republicans to table a vote on articles of impeachment brought by the congressman Al Green of Texas.

Ninety-five Democrats voted to advance the impeachment resolution, which blasted Trump for bringing “disgrace” on the presidency by issuing racist tweets last Sunday aimed at four congresswomen of color.

[...]

Many Democrats said they agreed with the sentiment, but the caucus followed the lead of the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who said on Wednesday morning that multiple investigations into the president, his associates and their activities should play out before impeachment could be considered.

  The Guardian

Which could take a very long time, and every minute that bigot is in office, the whole world suffers.

Green, who represents the southern Houston suburbs, has made two prior attempts to get impeachment rolling on the House floor.

“In my opinion, it didn’t fail,” Green said. “In my opinion, we got 95 votes this time, 66 the last time. So that’s a plus. But whether we get 95 or five, the point is we have to make a statement.”

Precisely. And you just keep making it, Al.

The resolution drafted by Green charged that Trump “has, by his statements, brought the high office of the President of the United States in contempt, ridicule, disgrace, and disrepute, has sown seeds of discord among the people of the United States, has demonstrated that he is unfit to be President, and has betrayed his trust as President of the United States to the manifest injury of the people of the United States, and has committed a high misdemeanor in office”.

At least.

In a reversal of his previous votes on the question of impeachment, Representative Jerrold Nadler, the chairman of the judiciary committee, voted against killing the resolution. Nadler said that the initiative should be referred to his committee, which would traditionally originate articles of impeachment.

Separately on Wednesday afternoon, the House voted in a largely symbolic move to hold the attorney general, William Barr, and the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, in contempt of congress for their failure to reply to requests for documents and testimony pertaining to the Trump administration’s efforts to include a citizenship question on the 2020 US census.

The White House replied to the vote with a statement calling it “another lawless attempt to harass the President and his Administration”.

What, in the name of Sam Hill, is "lawless" about a vote to hold someone in contempt of Congress?