Discussion Forum—A Way with Words, a fun radio show and podcast about language

Impeach means more than "accuse".  It's pretty close to "indict".

When one impeaches a witness, one presents evidence that the testimony is invalid.  The jury will decide whether to believe him or not.  The prosecutor may decide to bring the witness up on perjury charges.

It's sorta like Trump, Clinton, etc.  They aren't running for the presidency' they are running for the nomination.  Until they get the nomination, they aren't candidates.  So what are thety?  Are they candidates for the candidacy?

The election day is drawing close in Indiana.  One of the women running for Congress says she is wive and mother of seven.  I've never before seen anyone assert before that they were a polygamist, as a credential for high office.

Another candidate, running in a field of four, vote for three, shows rotating bumper stickers for the other three candidates, saying that they've run ten times in the last eight years.  This candidate says he's not a politician, and if you want change, you ought not vote for a politician.  But if you want someone who gets things done, shoud you vote for someone who's never held any public office whatsoever?  It might help it your office holder has an idea what's going on.

But those are slick ads, featuring attractive candidates with big smiles, and the ads are showing in heavy rotation.  I wouldn't bet against either one of them winning.

You real8za that there is a difference between being indicted and beng convicted, right?  If you are indicted, the grand jury has found there is sufficient evidence to mount a trial against you.  Normally indictment is one-sided, with no defense being presented. 

Similarly, someone who is impeached has had significant evidence presented that their performance is unacceptable, whether it is giving testimony, exgaging in high crimes and misdemeanors, etc.  Impeachment and indictment are not in themselves any indication or shameful behavior, only a sign that "things look bad".  It's what happens next, when both sides are considered, that indicates you're a wretched human being.

When I had my newspapers, years ago, family members teased me that my name appeared in every issue, obviously, and nobody's name should appear n the paper except when they marry or die. (In those pre-HIPPA days, we also listed hospital admission and departures and births, but no matter.)  Decades later, I'm inclined to think the primitive people are right, that taking a photograph is stealing a soul - consider Hollywood! - and if your name appears in a newspaper, even as a staff member or the writer of a "leditor", you should hold your head in shame.  Even reading a newspaper and payng too much attention to the news, is a nad habit nor far removed from gossip.

You should be aware that the Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox News.  The Economist isn't particularly literate, either.

The general public hears that a politician has been indicted, and thinks that he has enough :pull" to avoid the graybar hotel, perhaps even enough that he remains in power.  Mr. Trump insists that he;s never been in bankruptcy, and ignores the fact that companies if his have made filings four ties; some quibble that it wasn't "real" bankruptcy (chapter 7) but rather a chapter 13 reorganization, but they are both part of thet bankruptcy code and administered by the bankruptcy courts.

But if you tell a fan that a baseball player hit a home run when he merely got a single, and he;ll treat you like the idiot you are.  If you don'y knkow what indict and impeach mean, you'll be a crippled writer, and nobody will hire you but Rupert Murdoch, and the National Enquirer.  Mad Magazine has gone far downhill since the late 1950s, but even they won't have you.  "Let's eat Grandma" - little things (like commas and meanings) matter.

Wherever you go, the BBC, your local paper, France 24, etc., etc. the context indicates that “impeach” is synonymous with “oust.”

Perhaps where YOU go, that's true. but that's not true around here.  Newspaper editors here all know (as does Google) that Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached, and neither one was ousted from office, while Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon both resigned before they could be impeached.

If we are to start using "impeach" to mean "oust", what word are we going to use for the process deciding there is sufficient evidence to justify a trial to remove someone from office for ,misdeeds?  There are a lot of fools on cable networks that debase our language for venial reasons.  I'd like to bring a class action against such vandalism.

000

You have to successfullyimpeach him before you can start the ouster proceedings.

Guy in a diner points to a sign, tells the waitress he's like to order that.  The waitress reads the sign out loud to make sure she has the order correct, "One egg, fixed the way you like it. 99c."

"So how you yoou like it fixed?"

The customer says, "Grown plucked, and fried."

It takes 21 days to hatch an egg, and a minimum of about 4 months to bring it to frying size.  I wouldn't want to sit on the stool quite that long....  Impeachment if fast and relatively easy, but ousting someone requires that he be allowed to defend himself.  It long and messy - which is why so few are willing to impeach someone.