And who exactly appointed you semantician in chief? Ever look in a dictionary, Christopher? What gives you the right to determine the one correct definition of that phrase in this matter? I don't claim to be a lexicographer. I have no desire to come up with a definition, or more likely, a set of definitions as a real dictionary type would do, faced with such a question.
Yes, it is hairsplitting. Yes, it is legalistic to dispute such things. But in an allegedly legal matter, legalistic arguments would seem appropriate. Or are you this new and unique breed of lawyer who never quibbles over technicalities?
And as far as how "the majority of Americans define the term", however you could determine such a thing, how, exactly, is that more relevant than what the majority of Americans think about the impeachment process? And what they think about Clinton, versus what they think about his prosecutors in this matter? Do you restrict your use of words in the legal context to how "the majority of Americans define the term"? If so, I imagine that would put you well down the list of SC candidates. |
