re: Philology: Fully-Acquited, Acquitted vs Not Removed

quote:

---

Ergo

---

quote:

---

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 get your point, but since the media used the term acquittal for Clinton they damned well better use it for Trump.

quote:

---

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.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Meh. If a criminal jury voting "not guilty" because the prosecution does not meet their burden is an acquittal, then the Senate voting to not remove because the burden to show an impeachable offense has been committed seems pretty much the same to me.

quote:

---

Sometimes it's best not to become too obsessed with the loose thread on your sock.

---

BTW: I am sooooooo stealing that.

quote:

---

Melt you lib sky screamer. You got him now.

---

8/10
Points deducted for failure to mention HRC.
But you did get a 10 from the Russian judge.

That's the longest concern troll ever

quote:

---

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 would have agreed with you if I had not watched Chief Justice Roberts say Donald John Trump was acquitted of both charges as read the vote result out loud...

quote:

---

I often wonder how often I must repeat that the acts alleged by the House were inadequate to support issuance of Articles of Impeachment

---

We know we know

It's your thing

Aggiehank....."I don't really support X.

Now that I've said that, I will set about having all my posts generally supporting the arguments of those who support X or deflecting the arguments of those who don't"

You aren't fooling anyone with that tired overused tactic

TLDR

President Trump is still in charge.

Bottom line. He's The President of the United States. The charges were found to be without merit or validity,and this party is over.

If you are a lawyer (which I have my doubts), I can only envision you routinely getting your arse kicked in court. So you adopted the tried and true method of advising your clients to take a settlement. Because you cannot even seem to grasp the simple definition of words.

quote:

---

acquit - (verb to relieve from a charge of fault or crime

They acquitted him of the crime. The jury acquitted her, but I still think she's guilty.

---

Furthermore, the etymology of the word acquit, doesn't match what your personal view of what that term is . . .

quote:

---

Middle English aquiten, borrowed from Anglo-French aquiter, "free, discharged"

mid-13c., aquiten, from a- "to" (see ad-) + quite "free, clear," from Medieval Latin quitus, quittus, from Latin quietus "free".

From mid-14c. as "relieve (someone) of an obligation, release from a pledge," hence the meanings "set (an accused person) free from charges" The notion in the word is "to release or discharge," from an obligation or from accusation, guilt, censure, or suspicion.

---

So what exactly did the Senate do again? A majority of them "released a charge" that was levied against Trump, or in simple terms, acquitted him