Started By
Message
locked post

Philology: Fully-Acquited, Acquitted vs Not Removed

Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:37 am
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:37 am
This is probably pedantic, but I have never liked the use of the term “acquit” in the context of impeachment, I did not like it in 1999, and I still do not like it today. I just do not see it as being an accurate description of the process.

I predict that 90% of responses will include some variant of “melt” or “lib” or “sky scream” or the ever-popular “got him” or “her turn.” Nonetheless, I hope a few people will provide their substantive thoughts.

The Constitution does not use the term “acquittal” in the impeachment context. A person is either removed from office, or he is not.

Use of the term probably arose from the use of “convicted” to describe a 2/3 vote by the Senate in favor of an Article of Impeachment. “Acquittal” means the same as “not convicted” in the criminal context, right?

Not really.

An impeachment proceeding that reaches a final vote by the Senate has two possible outcomes ... removal or non-removal.

A criminal proceeding that reaches a final vote by the jury has (at least) three possible outcomes.

A criminal jury can (1) produce a “conviction,” in which the jury makes a unanimous (usually) affirmative finding that the prosecution met its burden of proof.

A criminal jury can (2) produce an “acquittal” (verdict of “not guilty”), in which the jury makes a unanimous (usually) affirmative finding that the prosecution FAILED to meet its burden of proof. (“ACQUIT: to free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty.”)

Or a criminal jury can (3) be a “hung jury,” in which situation the jury is not able to provide a unanimous finding, one way or the other.

In contrast to a criminal proceeding, an impeachment proceeding mathematically cannot result in a “hung jury,” and it does not produce an affirmative finding of innocence.

Ergo, the criminal analogy falls apart, and the term “acquittal” is inaccurate.

President Trump was not removed from office, and I do not believe that he SHOULD have been removed from office. But he was not “acquitted,” either. (Neither was Billy Jeff or Andy Johnson).
This post was edited on 2/7/20 at 7:50 am
Posted by NIH
Member since Aug 2008
112553 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:38 am to
quote:

Probably pedantic


Yes
Posted by thebigmuffaletta
Member since Aug 2017
12827 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:39 am to
LiberalHank
Posted by Rebel
Graceland
Member since Jan 2005
131249 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:45 am to
I know it’s been a difficult week. If playing word salad makes you feel better, by all means.
Posted by Bard
Definitely NOT an admin
Member since Oct 2008
51475 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:45 am to
I think this might be a flaw in the Impeachment process.

Someone Impeached by the House is termed as "Impeached". Someone whose Impeachment charges fail in the Senate though, there is really no term for them provided in the Constitution.

This means we have to fall back on the nearest terminology. "Acquitted" is the closest thing we have. When the GOP takes back the House in November they may well repeal the Impeachment (which is going to be almost as seismic a political boom as was the completely biased Impeachment itself was).
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134843 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:45 am to
You're the Oweo of the PT board
Posted by Diamondawg
Mississippi
Member since Oct 2006
32204 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:46 am to
You really enjoy mental masturbation don't you?
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:47 am to
quote:

I know it’s been a difficult week.
Why? The impeachment process produced exactly the correct result and exactly the result that I predicted many months ago.

Thus far, the responses are exactly the type that I expected ... from exactly the posters that I expected — a collection of folks who see themselves as being quite witty, but who never make any substantive contribution whatsoever to any discussion.
This post was edited on 2/7/20 at 7:54 am
Posted by La Place Mike
West Florida Republic
Member since Jan 2004
28790 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:53 am to
Not only are you being pedantic, you are also hung up on semantics.
Posted by TigerWoodlands
The Woodlands
Member since Dec 2008
847 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:53 am to
quote:

This means we have to fall back on the nearest terminology. "Acquitted" is the closest thing we have.

This.

Sometimes it's best not to become too obsessed with the loose thread on your sock.
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
16538 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:53 am to
Amazing, too stupid to realize that you're comparing apples and oranges. He's acquitted, now go put your JD back in the Crackerjack box you found it in.
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
67656 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:53 am to
quote:

he criminal analogy falls apart, and the term “acquittal” is inaccurate.


I made a post a few weeks back pointing out that the sharing of several terms common in ordinary criminal law is causing the public to confuse impeachment with a criminal trial.

There are a few similar looking features, but really they are not the same.

Impeachment is more akin to a vote of no confidence than a criminal trial.
Posted by Jack Bauers HnK
Baton Rouge
Member since Jul 2008
5702 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:54 am to
So your thought is that because a partisan House says he did something, that he has been found, as a matter of fact, to have done what the House says he did and the Senate just didn’t want to remove him? What about the scenario where the House just makes up random accusations and the Senate has to be the adult in the room and find the president did nothing wrong? We still have to call that a “non-removal”? Is this a roundabout way of saying “forever impeached”?
Posted by TigerFanInSouthland
Louisiana
Member since Aug 2012
28065 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:54 am to
All those words just to get made fun of.
Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
42517 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:55 am to
Cannot argue with any of your points - I merely say = 'so what?'

you are describing legal terms.

People talk in terms of colloquialism - few people know the exact legal basis any legal definition.

hence - some people say = "OJ is INNOCENT" - and you would be a fool to try convincing them otherwise. Nobody with any legal (or common) sense would try to argue the point, unless for entertainment. The same "OJ is INNOCENT" people will laugh at the notion = "Zimmerman is innocent"

Fools gonna be fools and some wise man said it is foolish trying to argue with fools.

Now for a real argument - "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin??'

Posted by shrevetigertom
Shreveport
Member since Sep 2005
4012 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:55 am to
The problem with applying your theory is that any house majority can use this process to stain the legacy of a sitting president with whom they disagree as well as affect a future election, which is what is happening here. Do you not see the danger in that?
Posted by viceman
Huntsville, AL
Member since Aug 2016
30688 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:55 am to
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:56 am to
quote:

Impeachment is more akin to a vote of no confidence than a criminal trial.
Agreed.

I think the use of the term “convicted” in the Constitution gives rise to the confusion, and that such usage is thus unfortunate.
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:58 am to
quote:

So your thought is that because a partisan House says he did something, that he has been found, as a matter of fact, to have done what the House says he did and the Senate just didn’t want to remove him?
Of course not.

You are falling into EXACTLY the trap that I described.

The lack of an AFFIRMATIVE finding in the defendant’s favor is NOT REMOTELY the same as a finding against him.
Posted by AllemanWC
Bayou Corne
Member since Jan 2015
945 posts
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:58 am to
I remember watching the vote on Wednesday and hearing the Chief Justice tell senators to make their vote of Guilty or Not Guilty. I remember watching each senator stand and cast their vote of Guilty or Not Guilty.

So by your definition of Acquit, POTUS was found Not Guilty by majority vote, which means he’s ACQUITTED.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 5Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram