Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> He was impeached years ago…

"was impeached" means different things in context.

Sometimes it means "articles of impeachment were brought against an official". (1) i.e. that the process starts.

Sometimes it means a later stage in the process, such as those article not being voted down, and a trial proceeding.

In the strictest sense, it means that the process completes - "the official is found guilty, removed from office, and may never hold office again".

Parent comment seems to be using the strictest sense, due to "and would have never managed to get a second chance". You're not helping by using a confusing different meaning.

https://www.usa.gov/impeachment





If you're going to be nitpicky about definitions it helps to be correct. In this case, the person you're replying to is absolutely correct.

The government site you linked says the same thing:

> If the House adopts the articles by a simple majority vote, the official has been impeached.

Trump has been impeached twice. I think the confusion comes in when people misuse these terms, often when they want to say things like "Trump was never impeached!". He definitely was by the only definition that actually matters, which is that the House passed articles of impeachment. He was not found guilty.

Call me old fashioned, but I think these confusions are intentional and should be met with correcting the definitions - not making up new meanings of words - especially in this case where it's formally defined in the law.


OK, though I refer you to the sibling comment about the use of "and" in sentences.

I was just nitpicking the nitpicking, especially the implication that using a word correctly is confusing the issue. The sentiment in the original sentence is straightforward to understand, even if the sentence is a bit ambiguous.

impeached and acquitted at trial



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: