- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Philology: Fully-Acquited, Acquitted vs Not Removed
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:37 am
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).
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 on 2/7/20 at 7:38 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Probably pedantic
Yes
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:45 am to AggieHank86
I know it’s been a difficult week. If playing word salad makes you feel better, by all means.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:45 am to AggieHank86
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).
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 on 2/7/20 at 7:45 am to AggieHank86
You're the Oweo of the PT board
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:46 am to AggieHank86
You really enjoy mental masturbation don't you?
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:47 am to Rebel
quote:Why? The impeachment process produced exactly the correct result and exactly the result that I predicted many months ago.
I know it’s been a difficult week.
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 on 2/7/20 at 7:53 am to AggieHank86
Not only are you being pedantic, you are also hung up on semantics.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:53 am to Bard
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 on 2/7/20 at 7:53 am to AggieHank86
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 on 2/7/20 at 7:53 am to AggieHank86
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 on 2/7/20 at 7:54 am to AggieHank86
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 on 2/7/20 at 7:54 am to AggieHank86
All those words just to get made fun of.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:55 am to AggieHank86
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??'
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 on 2/7/20 at 7:55 am to AggieHank86
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 on 2/7/20 at 7:56 am to TrueTiger
quote:Agreed.
Impeachment is more akin to a vote of no confidence than a criminal trial.
I think the use of the term “convicted” in the Constitution gives rise to the confusion, and that such usage is thus unfortunate.
Posted on 2/7/20 at 7:58 am to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:Of course not.
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?
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 on 2/7/20 at 7:58 am to AggieHank86
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.
So by your definition of Acquit, POTUS was found Not Guilty by majority vote, which means he’s ACQUITTED.
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News