June 13, 2020
[Previously published January 13, 2020.]
Given that the number one topic this week is impeachment, I thought it would be useful to consider what the word means and how it is used in the modern world in less extraordinary circumstances.
The first step for me in understanding the idea conveyed by a word is always to look at the derivation of the word, which usually means its Latin or Greek origins.
In this case the Latin origin is from “impedicare”, to catch or entangle, which is based in turn on, “pedica”, to fetter, which is based in turn on “pes, pedis”, meaning foot.
Unbeknownst to those who are employing impeachment at the moment, this meaning, to trip someone up, reveals what may be their basic agenda.
The thesaurus gives us these synonyms for impeachment: to challenge, question, disparage, criticize, call into question, raise doubts about, cast aspersions on. Thinking about the actions described by those verbs, it is clear that they could be called “pre” (or ‘extra’) legal, insofar as all they require is a naked, or even a false accusation, or a mere innuendo, that may or may not provide sufficient probable cause to take to a grand jury or court to obtain an indictment. That is to say, that impeachment, by linguistic definition alone, does not set any evidentiary or procedural standards, nor insist upon any legal protections for the accused. Which may explain why Trump’s political enemies may have chosen to employ this process and have thus far denied him the protections of our laws, and of our highest law, the Constitution.
Yet far more common than impeachment of a president, or even another such government official, the process of challenging, questioning, disparaging, criticizing, calling into question, raising doubts about, or casting aspersions upon is used thousands of times every day in courts, when advocates attempt to discredit witnesses in order to encourage the trier of fact not to trust their testimony. In these cases, however, there is a referee from the get-go — the judge — to make sure the attempt to impeach the witness is done according to legal rules of fairness.
In another example of the basic, underlying process, politicians make a profession out of impeaching the credibility of an opponent. Again, mere accusation is enough, even innuendo, but there is no criminal sanction that applies to the impeached, only that he or she is not believed or trusted and may lose election. Therefore there are no legal protections to protect the maligned — not even the meager protection of slander or libel sanctions because the victims are public figures.
However, whenever there is a criminal liability that may befall the impeached, he or she must first be convicted in a court of law of the crimes charged, and all of the protections due to a citizen of the United States must be applied to that process.
Until the minute the charges are filed (with the U.S. Senate or with a court of jurisdiction) the accusations are not evidence, and until the triers of fact and law consider all the admissible evidence and arrive at their verdict, the accused is legally presumed to be innocent.
As a tactical matter, it fulfills an acknowledged strategic goal of the Democrat members of congress to, as the Old English definition of “impeachment” has it, to “hinder and prevent” the Administration, by catching, entangling and fettering its feet, tripping it up; breaking its rhythm, breaking its stride. This evening on the news, a video shows Speaker Pelosi responding to the question of what possible benefit or satisfaction was to be gained by bringing Articles of Impeachment to the senate that have disregarded so many rules of evidence and process that they are bound to be dismissed out of hand, perhaps even in a pre-trial motion to dismiss. After fumbling and sputtering, her mouth formed itself into a sanctimonious pout as she uttered the final truth: “Because then he will have been impeached, forever!”
This is true because no matter what happens, whether a summary dismissal or a long trial that completely exonerates President Trump, that will never remove the indelible stain upon his name, that as President, he was impeached. On one American in a hundred understands that an impeachment is only an accusation. Even fewer care. For Trump it will remain a deep wound to his narcissism, never healing. As Speaker Pelosi said, FOREVER.
Once the Articles of Impeachment reach the Senate, the tactic fails, because none of the so-called “evidence” elicited by the House thus far will meet the standard of proof required in a trial. The presiding judge will be the Chief Justice, not as easily bamboozled as the public and the press.
It is not unlikely that upon reading the Articles, the Senate will pass a directed verdict to dismiss, on the basis that the evidence to impeach was inadequate (anonymous sources, hearsay) in the first place. This will, of course, engender an eruption of political theater, a melodramatic calamity in several acts.
What you will see then is the Democrat house immediately returning to impeachment on the basis of “new” innuendo. Because even baseless charges entangle the feet of the accused and distract him or her from the business at hand.
END