Impeach

Yeah, I agree.   But I think that confusion has been going on quite a while, not just in the past few years.   I suppose the talking heads of today were, a few decade ago, the children in school who never quite took the lesson.

I also agree. When one "impeaches a witness" all it means is to discredit their testimony. Has nothing to do with being run out of office. When you "impeach a president" (or any elected official) you formally call their suitability for office into question, and that could be a precursor to being run out of office. At least that's the way I understand the meaning.

Just to be unnecessarily picky, I use "discredit" to mean, roughly, "prove unreliable".   "Impeach" means something closer to "impugn", ie to accuse; proof is a separate matter.   So if I impeach a witness, I've accused him of being unreliable; if I discredit the witness, I've convinced others he's unreliable, too.   It's kind of like the distinction between denying charges against me, and refuting them.

Heimhenge said
I also agree. When one "impeaches a witness" all it means is to discredit their testimony. Has nothing to do with being run out of office. When you "impeach a president" (or any elected official) you formally call their suitability for office into question, and that could be a precursor to being run out of office. At least that's the way I understand the meaning.

With the president of Brazil being in the news a lot recently, "impeachment" is also in the news.  Frankly, it appears to used as meaning removing from office based on the context.

Impugning someone's integrity or accusing of wrongdoing is simply not the same thing as ousting from office  -- two very different things.  After all, Pres. Clinton was impeached, but Al Gore did not assume the office of the presidency.