what's the literal definition of "impeach". you'll be surprised. Answer. it means to "nullify". so let's take a look at this scenario. all [that's a very firm all] Evidence can only [that's a very firm only] be based on Discovery. then in turn, all [this is also a very firm all] Facts can only [that's also a very firm only] be based on said Evidence. so in this illustration you have the "Class" of Evidence, and its subClass extension, the Facts, necessarily connected to their root superClass, the Discovery. now that's a consistent tree of logical suppositions. and when these 3 Classes [the subClass, the Class, the superClass] are identified together, a fourth term is generated. this 4th term is called "Foundation". so that when a Fact is unsubstantiated in either its earlier root of Evidence or Discovery, it is referred to as "Unfounded" [and this said Fact or Facts is stricken], unless it can be "Founded" within some reasonable parameter. and "Reasonableness" never varies. so much so, that if during a felon's testimony, this felon voluntarily admits to committing some parallel crime, he therewithall, has "impeached" all foundation to bearing witness to a later testimony. to wit, not only is this felon's testimony stricken, it is nullified [in other words, impeached]. so, is that what the Carnival of Bench Tribunals is discussing? how some member in the ether [which by default makes that or any similar witness void of "Foundation", and thus "self-impeached"], can show reasons for Impeachment? a "self-impeachment" describing the reasons for impeachment? that [this thing depicted] in itself, is grounds for contempt, just stipulating the rules of order and decorum in assembly and committee. and there is a myriad of recursions thus forthwith from and does 1 thru 100. :( ^^ -das Landstuhler, 2019
//==
 |
| Giovanni_Fattori_-_Episodio_della_campagna_contro_il_brigantggio_1864 |
No comments:
Post a Comment