The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Again, you just keep making obviously wrong points. I never claimed there was only one way to use the term "result"
That is your doing. As in you are reading the word "result" in a way that makes the statement have no sense. It clearly makes sense when used in the way I have pointed out and is the way people mean it when they use the phrase.

Once again:
There is nothing wrong with - "The result of this election is that Donald Trump will serve 4 years as President."
Perfectly fine use of the word "result" in ordinary language.
Now, if a process comes a long where the House votes to remove Trump before he can serve 4 years then it seems perfectly reasonable to say, "The House is voting to overturn the result of the election."



Um, I think you should probably check DailyKos or sites like that. Coldseat started the discussion.

Your argument makes no sense because you are defining "overturn" to mean what you want. I addressed this a few pages back.

 

[V Chip]

Tell that to Nadler:

So now you believe Nadler is the one to trust on policy matters? Or is it that someone found a quote you agree with on this singular issue and thus he can be believed on this, but little else?

 

[JimEverett]

So now you believe Nadler is the one to trust on policy matters? Or is it that someone found a quote you agree with on this singular issue and thus he can be believed on this, but little else?

I forget the exact quote, but I used in response to Saintmaniac who was saying some foolishness like only an idiot or right-winger would think it is overturning an election. Hence, Jerry Nadler

 

[V Chip]

I forget the exact quote, but I used in response to Saintmaniac who was saying some foolishness like only an idiot or right-winger would think it is overturning an election. Hence, Jerry Nadler

So you're saying @Saintamaniac's "foolishness" was completely right.

 

[JimEverett]

I do one to make one correction to what I have written.
I don't think people only mean "overturn the results . . ." in the way I framed it. Although that is what I meant earlier and it is what I think some people mean when using it I also think it is meant as shorthand for: From the moment Trump was elected there has been a relatively substantial sized group that wanted to remove him. Virtually from day 1 there was talk of impeachment and wanting to invalidate the election, hence the whole politicization of the Russia election meddling. Many view this impeachment as originating from just that mindset and hence another avenue to overturn the results of the election.

 

[coldseat]

Again, you just keep making obviously wrong points. I never claimed there was only one way to use the term "result"
That is your doing. As in you are reading the word "result" in a way that makes the statement have no sense. It clearly makes sense when used in the way I have pointed out and is the way people mean it when they use the phrase.

Once again:
There is nothing wrong with - "The result of this election is that Donald Trump will serve 4 years as President."
Perfectly fine use of the word "result" in ordinary language.
Now, if a process comes a long where the House votes to remove Trump before he can serve 4 years then it seems perfectly reasonable to say, "The House is voting to overturn the result of the election."

You have to seriously twist the process in order to make your analogy work. It's inaccurate in so many ways (I suspect you already know this).

Fist, the House votes on the articles of Impeachment. Passing the articles of impeachment does not remove the President from office. So it would be completely inaccurate to say the "House is voting to overturn the results of the election", even if I did accept your liberal definition of results or overturning. Which I do not.

The Senate, likewise, votes on the articles of impeachment. The 2/3 votes for impeachment results in the President being removed from office.

That's a far cry from overturning the results of the election.

Um, I think you should probably check DailyKos or sites like that. Coldseat started the discussion.

I've never read DailyKos unless it was because somebody else linked it. Lol. Keep on trying.

 

[JimEverett]

So you're saying @Saintamaniac's "foolishness" was completely right.

In calling it a right-wing talking point? Jerry Nadler????

 

[samiam5211]

I do one to make one correction to what I have written.
I don't think people only mean "overturn the results . . ." in the way I framed it. Although that is what I meant earlier and it is what I think some people mean when using it I also think it is meant as shorthand for: From the moment Trump was elected there has been a relatively substantial sized group that wanted to remove him. Virtually from day 1 there was talk of impeachment and wanting to invalidate the election, hence the whole politicization of the Russia election meddling. Many view this impeachment as originating from just that mindset and hence another avenue to overturn the results of the election.

Count me among those who would have supported impeachment on the first day.

I don’t even need to go as far as Russia or Ukraine.

I don’t understand how the Stormy Daniels campaign finiance violations and the subsequent coverup weren’t impeachable.

There has been plenty to impeach Trump for years. The Democrats waited far too long to get started just to avoid being accused of wanting to impeach him from the start. It is still being used against them. They should have started the first day they took control.

 

[Dadsdream]

Hi. So this thread is now about the various definitions, meanings, shades of meanings, connotations, derivations, semantics and/or etymology of the term "overturn"?

In Jim's defense, not that he needs defending, but to "overturn" something in the manner in which he chooses to use it in this instance does, in fact, carry with it the notion of a reversal of course, a contrivance, a ploy.

OK, back to the topic of the thread. Impeached or not, Trump is out-polling all the potential democratic nominees, I see.

 

[samiam5211]

Hi. So this thread is now about the various definitions, meanings, shades of meanings, connotations, derivations, semantics and/or etymology of the term "overturn"?

In Jim's defense, not that he needs defending, but to "overturn" something in the manner in which he chooses to use it in this instance does, in fact, carry with it the notion of a reversal of course, a contrivance, a ploy.

OK, back to the topic of the thread. Impeached or not, Trump is out-polling all the potential democratic nominees, I see.

The President mentioned overturning the election in the letter he sent to the Speaker today.

I agree that this is petty, but the Trump era has reduced us to petty arguments because his rationalizations are petty and his supporters have to defend them.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Hi. So this thread is now about the various definitions, meanings, shades of meanings, connotations, derivations, semantics and/or etymology of the term "overturn"?

In Jim's defense, not that he needs defending, but to "overturn" something in the manner in which he chooses to use it in this instance does, in fact, carry with it the notion of a reversal of course, a contrivance, a ploy.

OK, back to the topic of the thread. Impeached or not, Trump is out-polling all the potential democratic nominees, I see.

That is 100% incorrect. The term has a very specific meaning, and Jim is using it in a manner that does not conform to any of those meanings.

Also, Trump's polling numbers are not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is impeachment.

 

[JimEverett]

That is 100% incorrect. The term has a very specific meaning, and Jim is using it in a manner that does not conform to any of those meanings.

Also, Trump's polling numbers are not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is impeachment.

Wrong on both counts.

"Overturn" can mean "invalidate," "destroy," or "reverse" and all make sense in the phrase "impeachment will overturn the results of the election" or "Democrats are trying to overturn the results of the election."

And polling numbers are related to impeachment -as has been discussed.

 

[Dadsdream]

That is 100% incorrect. The term has a very specific meaning, and Jim is using it in a manner that does not conform to any of those meanings.

Also, Trump's polling numbers are not the topic at hand. The topic at hand is impeachment.

No, it's 100% accurate. The term has multiple meanings, shades of meanings, connotations, and derivations depending on context, sentence structure and thought process. Jim used the term correctly and clearly knows what it means more-so than he's being credit for. If you choose not to see it, that's on you.

Trump's polling numbers vs Democratic candidates is relevant to the topic of impeachment, with more than one pundit drawing conclusions that the impeachment effort has tilted things in Trump's direction.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Wrong on both counts.

"Overturn" can mean "invalidate," "destroy," or "reverse" and all make sense in the phrase "impeachment will overturn the results of the election" or "Democrats are trying to overturn the results of the election."

And polling numbers are related to impeachment -as has been discussed.

in·val·i·date
verb

1. make (an argument, statement, or theory) unsound or erroneous.

Nothing about impeachment makes the results (vote totals, EC total, or the swearing in of a duly elected president) erroneous. It was the correct outcome based on the Electoral COllege vote distribution. The swearing in ceremony, to my knowledge, was done in accordance with the law, and Trump has been allowed to do his job within the bounds of the law.

de·stroy
verb

1. put an end to the existence of (something) by damaging or attacking it./

This process is not damaging or attacking the results (vote totals, EC distribution, or swearing in of a duly elected president and allowing him to do his job within the bounds of the law). It is a process to discover whether or not the president violated the constitution in a manner worthy of removal from office.

re·verse
verb

1. move backward

Nothing is moving backwards. Impeachment does not mean we move backwards towards the 2016 election. It means we move forward by swearing in the duly elected vice president to assume the duties of president.

If you want to continue twisting and redefining words to suit your purpose when it comes to overturning, that's fine. But it also means you don't get to accuse others of doing the same when it comes to results.

 

[Dadsdream]

Nothing about impeachment makes the results (vote totals, EC total, or the swearing in of a duly elected president) erroneous. It was the correct outcome based on the Electoral COllege vote distribution. The swearing in ceremony, to my knowledge, was done in accordance with the law, and Trump has been allowed to do his job within the bounds of the law.

You do realize that you're quibbling with a lawyer and a journalist about the meaning of a word, right?

Let me help. Etymology is the study of the origins of words. So if we look up the etymology of "overturn" we get:

overturn (v.)
early 13c., of a wheel, "to rotate, roll over," from over- + turn (v.).
Attested from c. 1300 in general transitive sense "to throw over violently;" figurative meaning "to ruin, destroy" is from late 14c.
Of judicial decisions, "to reverse," it is attested from 1826.
Related: Overturned; overturning. Old English had oferweorpan "to overturn, overthrow."

A colorful word with a colorful history and a rainbow of possible meanings and connotations.
Those of us who have studied the language in order to make a living do not see words in black and white, as meaning just one thing, exclusive of anything else. That's why we bring up meanings and shades of meaning.

We could go a step further and study the use of "overturn" as part of jargon, particularly legalese, but without sounding condescending, I would hope the point is made. Citing a single definition here, then excising the words from that definition and providing definitions to those words is pointless.

So, from what I'm reading here at the end of day is there's a very real possibility that the Democrats are experiencing some trepidation that the worst predictions from months ago could come true - Impeaching Trump may have been a huge miscalculation.

 

[Dadsdream]

I agree that this is petty . . .

I concur.

 

[MT15]

As pointed out, saying the democrats wanted to impeach him from day one is attributing to the whole party the words of a few.

If the leadership of the Democratic Party had wanted to impeach him from day one they had opportunities, but they didn’t do it. Pelosi never wanted to impeach him, her hand was forced by Trump’s own actions.
He will do anything to further his own interests. That much is crystal clear. He carried on the birther smear of Obama for years after he knew it was false. He still calls for the execution of the Central Park Five even though DNA testing has exonerated them. This political smear is totally in character for him. Nobody says “this just doesn’t sound like something Trump would do.”

He is a man devoid of ethics, morals or human decency. But the Republicans say he’s crusading to get rid of corruption, bless their hearts. The most corrupt president we’ve ever had and it’s not even close and they believe he’s interested in rooting out corruption.

The man who ran a sham university and had to settle a lawsuit for $25 million. The man who so egregiously self dealt out of his “charity” that a court found he had defrauded veterans out of $2 million. The man who has committed insurance fraud, tax fraud and bank fraud for years. The man who bragged about working with the Mafia. The man who was found to have been racially discriminatory in his housing rentals, twice. The man who has been laundering money for Russian oligarchs.

Yeah, he’s going to root out corruption. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

 

[Beach Friends]

As pointed out, saying the democrats wanted to impeach him from day one is attributing to the whole party the words of a few.

If the leadership of the Democratic Party had wanted to impeach him from day one they had opportunities, but they didn’t do it. Pelosi never wanted to impeach him, her hand was forced by Trump’s own actions.
He will do anything to further his own interests. That much is crystal clear. He carried on the birther smear of Obama for years after he knew it was false. He still calls for the execution of the Central Park Five even though DNA testing has exonerated them. This political smear is totally in character for him. Nobody says “this just doesn’t sound like something Trump would do.”

He is a man devoid of ethics, morals or human decency. But the Republicans say he’s crusading to get rid of corruption, bless their hearts. The most corrupt president we’ve ever had and it’s not even close and they believe he’s interested in rooting out corruption.

The man who ran a sham university and had to settle a lawsuit for $25 million. The man who so egregiously self dealt out of his “charity” that a court found he had defrauded veterans out of $2 million. The man who has committed insurance fraud, tax fraud and bank fraud for years. The man who bragged about working with the Mafia. The man who was found to have been racially discriminatory in his housing rentals, twice. The man who has been laundering money for Russian oligarchs.

Yeah, he’s going to root out corruption. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

So, do you think there is anything I can say for Trump to gain your support in 2020?