Impeach

Impeach (pronounced im-peech)

(1) To accuse (a public official) before an appropriate tribunal of misconduct in office.

(2) In law, as “to impeach a witness”; to demonstrate in court that a testimony under oath contradicts another testimony from the same person, usually one taken during deposition.

(3) To bring an accusation against; to call in question; cast an imputation upon:

(4) In British criminal law, to accuse of a crime, especially of treason or some other offence against the state

(5) In the US and some other jurisdictions, to charge (a public official) with an offence committed in office.

(6) To hinder, impede, or prevent (archaic).

(7) To call to account (now rare).

1350–1400: From the Middle English empechen & enpeshen, from the Anglo-French empecher (to hinder) from the Old French empeechier from the Late Latin impedicāre (to fetter, trap, entangle or catch), the construct being im- + pedic(a) (a fetter (derivative of pēs (foot))) + -ā- (a thematic vowel) + -re (the Latin infinitive suffix) and cognate with French empêcher (to prevent); The most usual Latin forms were impedicō & impedicāre.  Impeach is a verb, impeachment & impeachability &  are nouns, impeaching & impeached are verbs and impeachable & impeachmentworthy are adjectives (although not all authorities acknowledge the latter as a standard form); the noun plural is impeachments.

An English import the Americans made their own 

Although most associated with the US where the constitution permits the House of Representatives to impeach government officials (most notably the president) and send them for trial in the Senate, the concept of impeachment is a borrowing from the procedures of the UK Parliament.  Always a rare mechanism, impeachment was first used in England in 1376 with the last UK case in 1806 and while technically extant, is probably obsolete although it’s not unknown for relics of the UK’s long legal past occasionally to be resuscitated.  What is more likely is that matters once dealt with by impeachment would now be brought before a court although most historians and constitutional lawyers seem to believe it remains part of UK constitutional law and abolition would demand legislation.  That was exactly what select committees recommended in 1967 and again ten years later but nothing was done and despite the New Labour government (1997-2010) imposing some quite radical structural changes on the legal system, the mechanism of impeachment remained untouched.  In September 2019, it was reported that opposition politicians in the House of Commons were considering impeachment proceedings against Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) "on charges of gross misconduct in relation to the unlawful prorogation of parliament", as well as his threat to break the law by failing to comply with the European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019 (which required the prime-minister in certain circumstances to seek an extension to the Brexit withdrawal date of 31 October 2019).  Mr Johnson survived that one though it proved a temporary reprieve for his premiership.

Although the Sturm und Drang of Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) unprecedented two impeachments was entertaining for political junkies, as a spectacle the two trials were muted affairs because the verdicts were both predictable.  Under the US Constitution, the House of Representatives has the “sole Power of Impeachment” (essentially a form of indictment in other proceedings) while the Senate is vested with “the sole Power to try all Impeachments”.  An act of impeachment requires only a majority vote on the floor of a House but conviction in the Senate demand “the concurrence of two thirds of the members present”.  Given the numbers and the state of partisan which these days characterizes the two-party system, nobody in Washington DC believed there was even a vague prospect of Mr Trump being convicted.  Still, the dreary, confected, set-piece speeches on both sides were like slabs of raw meat thrown to the attack dogs watching Fox News and NBC so in that sense it was a kind of substitute for what the Founding Fathers might have hoped would have been the standard of debate in the Congress, 250-odd years on.  In an ominous sign, the Republicans have since made attempts to stage a retaliatory impeachment trial of Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) despite knowing there is no prospect of a conviction.  Political scientists have expressed concern this may be a harbinger of something like the situation is some countries (such as Pakistan & Bangladesh (the old West & East Pakistan)) where it is almost a form of ritualized revenge to pursue one's predecessor through the courts, jailing them if possible.  The hope is that such a culture might be peculiar to the Trump era and something less confrontation might emerge when he leaves the stage although, what he has threatened in a second term does sound like he has vengeance on his mind.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011. 

The best impeachment in the US was the one which never was, the one Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) avoided by resigning the presidency on 9 August 1974.  That an impeachment became inevitable was Nixon’s own fault.  The evidence of those acts of Nixon which met the standard of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” existed only on the tapes which came to the knowledge of those investigating the White House’s involvement in the Watergate affair only through a chance remark by an aide; prior to that the existence of the president’s recording mechanism had been restricted to a small circle around Nixon.  There was a wealth of other material which hinted or suggested there may have been unlawful acts by Nixon but what was lacking was what came to be called the “smoking gun”, the undeniable proof.  That proof was on the tapes and as soon as knowledge of them became public, Nixon should have destroyed them and the ways and means existed close to home.  Even in oppressively hot Washington summers, Nixon would have the air-conditioning turned high to provide a wintery ambiance and have a log fire burning in the fireplace, close to which he would sit while writing his noted on yellow legal pads; it was a lifelong habit.

Washington Post 7 August 1974.

The tapes should have been tossed into that fire and that would have solved the problem, a smoking tape no smoking gun.  It would of course have created other problems but they were political and could be handled in a way legal difficulties could not.  However, as soon as the tapes were subpoenaed they became evidence and their destruction would have been an obstruction of justice or worse.  Nixon had a narrow window of opportunity and didn’t take it, apparently convinced the doctrine of executive privilege would operate to ensure he wasn’t required to surrender the tapes to the investigators although in some of his subsequent writings he also maintained he genuinely believed they contained nothing which could cause him problems.  Given he genuinely would have had no knowledge of what exactly was on the tapes, that is at least plausible but all the material since published suggests his opinion of the protection executive privilege affords a president was the critical factor.  As it was the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) limited the application of the doctrine and compelled Nixon to hand over the tapes.

New York Times, 9 August 1974.

With the release of the “smoking gun tape” which contained recordings proving Nixon was implicated in the cover-up of the involvement in the Watergate break-in by staff connected to the White House, his support in the Congress collapsed and those Republican representatives who previously had refused to vote for impeachment switched sides and the same day, after sounding out the numbers in the Senate, a delegation of senior Republican senators told the president he would be convicted and by a decisive margin.  What was revealed on the tapes was enough to seal his fate but the verdict of history might have been worse still because To this day, mystery surrounds one tape in particular, a recording of a discussion between Nixon and HR Haldeman (1926–1993; White House chief of staff 1969-1973) on 20 June 1972, three days after the Watergate break-in.  Of obviously great interest, when reviewed, there was found to be a gap of 18½ minutes, the explanations offered of how, why or by whom the erasure was effected ranging from the humorously accidental to the darkly conspiratorial but half a century on, it remains a mystery.  Taking advantage of new data-recovery technology, the US government did in subsequent decades make several attempts to “un-delete” the gap but without success and it may be, given the nature of magnetic tape, that there is literally nothing left to find.  However, the tape is stored in a secure, climate-controlled facility in case technical means emerge and while it’s unlikely the contents would reveal anything not already known or assumed, it would be of great interest to historians.  What would be even more interesting is the identity of who it was that erased the famous 18½ minutes but that will likely never be known; after fifty years, it’s thought that were there to be any death-bed confessions, they should by now have been heard.  Some have their lists of names of those who might have "pressed the erase button" and while mostly sub-sets of Watergate's "usual suspects", one who tends not to appear is Nixon himself, the usual consensus being he was technically too inept to operate a tape machine though it's not impossible he ordered someone to do the deed.  However it happened, the suspects most often mentioned as having had their "finger on the button" (which may have been a foot-pedal) are Nixon's secretary and his chief of staff. 

On 8 August 1974, Nixon resigned his office, effective the next day, saying in conclusion during his nationally televised speech:

To leave office before my term is completed is abhorrent to every instinct in my body. But as President, I must put the interest of America first. America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad. To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home. Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow. Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office.

Herblock's (Herbert Block; 1909–2001) Watergate affair-era take on Richard Nixon's then novel position on the presidency and the US Constitution, Washington Post, 13 March 1974.  The cartoon has been noted by some in the light of Donald Trump's comments about the extent of presidential immunity.

Wraith

Wraith (pronounced reyth)

(1) The apparition of a person living (or thought to be alive), said to appear as a portent of impending death.

(2) A visible spirit; a ghost or any apparition.

(3) In art or graphic design, a a deliberately insubstantial (sometimes even translucent) copy or representation of something.

(4) Something pale, thin and lacking in substance (a column of smoke; swirling mist etc).

1510s: A word of uncertain etymology.  Some trace it back to an Old English from the Old Norse reith or reidh (twisted or angry) and in Old English it evolved into wrethe (used generally to refer to “anger, fury or vengeance”).  As Middle English emerged it shifted to wraith which came to be associated with “a ghost or spirit, especially one thought to be the spirit of one dead or about to die”.  The link between the earlier meanings of anger and the later association with spirits may reflect the origins of the modern idea of “a restless or vengeful spirit”.  Most however prefer a connection with early sixteenth century Middle Scots, some suggesting it was from a translation of the Aeneid (29-19 BC), the epic poem written by the Roman poet Virgil (Publius Vergilius Maro (70–19 BC)) which recounts the legend of Aeneas, a Trojan who fled the fall of Troy to travelled to Italy, where he became the ancestor of the Romans.  That view has limited support although many etymologist do seem to agree it was in Middle Scots the form was first popularized, probably as warth, word meaning something like or related to “ghost”, the word perhaps from the Old Norse vorðr (“watcher or guardian” (in the sense of “guardian angel”), source of the Icelandic vörður (guard) and which may also have been an influence on the Gaelic & Irish arrach (specter, apparition)."  Wraith & wrathfulness are nouns, wraithlike, wraithesque, wraithful & wraithish are adjectives and wrathfully is an adverb; the noun plural is wraiths.

A wraith-like Lindsay Lohan, Las Angeles, 2008.  In art or graphic design, a wraith is a deliberately insubstantial (sometimes even translucent) copy or representation of something.  It’s used also of something or someone pale and thin, especially in reaction to sudden or considerable weight-loss.

More speculative is the idea of any link with the Middle English wray or bewray and few are convinced any exist despite the similarity in form (something anyway hardly unusual in English).  Even the origin of wray is contested although the orthodox history contends it was from the Middle English wrayen, wraien & wreien (to show, make known, accuse), from the Old English wrēġan (to urge, incite, stir up, accuse, impeach), from the Proto-Germanic wrōgijaną (to tell; tell on; announce; accuse), from the primitive Indo-European were- or wrē- (to tell; speak; shout).  It was said to be akin to the Dutch wroegen (to blame), the German rügen (to reprove) and the Swedish röja (to betray; reveal; expose).  Beray was from the Middle English bewraien, bewreyen & biwreyen, from the Old English bewrēġan, from the Proto-Germanic biwrōgijaną (to speak about; tell on; inform of), the construct being be- +‎ wray.  It was cognate with the Old Frisian biwrōgja (to disclose, reveal), the Dutch bewroegen (to blame; accuse), the Middle Low German bewrȫgen (to accuse; complain about; punish), the Old High German biruogen (to disclose, reveal) and the Modern German berügen (to defraud).  The attraction of the idea of a relationship between wray or beray and wraith is the use of wraith to mean a “vengeful” spirit.

JRR Tolkien (1892–1973), a philologist (is the study of language in oral and written historical sources) of some note, favored a link with writhe on the basis of the sense of “writhing; bodily distorted” (as in a ghost or apparition).  Writhe was from the Middle English writhen, from the Old English wrīþan, from the Proto-West Germanic wrīþan, from the Proto-Germanic wrīþaną (to weave, twist, turn), from the primitive Indo-European wreyt- (to twist, writhe).  It was cognate with the Middle Dutch writen (to turn, twist), the dialectal German reiden (to turn; twist around), the Danish vride (to twist), the Swedish vrida (to turn, twist, wind) and the French rider (to wrinkle, furrow, ruffle).

Not quite what she meant: Gretchen Wieners (Lacey Chabert (b 1982)) in Mean Girls (2004).

In late eighteenth century English, the noun “fetch” could mean “apparition of a living person, specter, a double”, from fetch-life (a deity, spirit, etc who guides the soul of a dead person to the afterlife (a psychopomp)) the source an English dialect word of unknown origin but which may have been from the Old English fæcce (evil spirit formerly thought to sit on the chest of a sleeping person; a mare) and may have been related to or even from the Old Irish fáith (seer, soothsayer).  The (now archaic) "fetch candle" was a mysterious light, which, when seen at night, was believed to foretell a person's death.  The Irish idea of the fetch and the fetch light describes the apparition associated with impending death (commonly in English now called a wraith).  The fetch or wraith was a doppelganger (double) of the dying who appeared when the time was approaching for them to need their spirit to guide them to the afterworld (ie act as a psychopomp).  The poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822) and the writer Goethe (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, 1749–1832) are among those who described seeing their own wraiths although most are said to have been visible only to those surrounding the dying.

1952 Rolls-Royce Silver Wraith with touring limousine coachwork by Park Ward.

Rolls-Royce has for almost a century used model names which summon imagery of the silently ethereal including Ghost, Phantom, Seraph, Shadow, Spirit, Spectre & Wraith.  The first Wraiths were introduced in 1938 and although World War II (1939-1945) interrupted things, almost 500 chassis left the factory between then and 1946.  The name was revived in 1946 when the company introduced their first post-war model as the Silver Wraith and although stylistically there would be nothing like the imaginative lines of the new US cars, the underpinnings were significantly modernized and the model would remain in the catalogue until 1958 with almost 2000 chassis produced.  Unlike the smaller Silver Dawn (1949-1955), the factory would only ever supply the Wraith rolling chassis to coachbuilders who would fabricate the bodies in accordance with customer preference although, the (slightly) higher-performance Bentley version was available with what came to be known as the “standard steel body”.

1971 Rolls-Royce Silver Shadow long-wheelbase (LWB) saloon with central division (top) and 1979 Rolls-Royce Silver Wraith (bottom).

Within two years of the introduction of the Silver Shadow (1965-1980), a long-wheelbase (“LWB” which gained an additional 4 inches (100 mm) odd of rear-seat leg room) version had been produced and this configuration was introduced as a factory option in most markets between 1969-1971.  Built sometimes with an electrically operated glass division (the associated hardware absorbing most of the gained rear legroom) production continued on a small scale until 1976 when the Silver Shadow II was released at which point the LWB was re-branded as the Sliver Wraith II, incorporating not only the Shadow’s worthwhile mechanical improvements (which was good) but also carrying-over the vinyl roof (which was bad).  Rolls-Royce always used a brand of high-quality vinyl called “Everflex” and never used the word “vinyl”.  The re-naming followed the practice adopted in 1971 when the Silver Shadow two-door saloon (1966-1971) and convertible (1967-1971 and then known as a Drophead Coupé (DHC)) was renamed Corniche which, in convertible form would last until 1995, the saloon retired in 1980.

2015 Rolls-Royce Wraith.  The “Starlight headliner” was fabricated by weaving some 1300 strands of fibre-optic cable into the ceiling’s leather lining.  In the US market the option listed at US$14,700, a cost which reflected the high labor component in the production process and it should be compared with the bespoke audio system option which cost US$8,625 (the bulk of the input costs of the audio system was in mass-produced solid-state components).  Rolls-Royce has confirmed the 2023 Wraiths will be their last V12 coupés, the replacement (electric) Spectre going on sale in 2024. 

When introduced in 2013, it was the first time since 1946 the word “Wraith” had been used by the factory as a stand-alone model name.  Only ever available as a two door hardtop (no central pillar) coupé, the Wraith used the highly regarded 6.6 litre (402 cubic inch), twin-turbocharged BMW V12 used in their flagship 7 Series (G11 2015-2022) in happier times.  As is the modern practice at Rolls-Royce, a number of limited production runs of special models were available in the decade the Wraith was made but the platform also attracted the tuners, some emphasizing addition power, some additional stuff, all with high-price tags.

Mansory’s original version of the Rolls-Royce Wraith (top) was almost restrained, something later abandoned when the “Palm Edition 999” (bottom) was released.

German-based Mansory modifies high-priced cars, boosting both power and bling.  A particular specialty is carbon-fibre fabrication, the standard of their work acknowledged as world class and their approach to engineering is also sound, something not always achieved by those who make already highly tuned engines more powerful still.  The appearance (inside & out) of the machinery they modify doesn’t suit all tastes but their success proves a market exists for such things and their sales in markets like the Middle East and India proves that east of Suez there’s a receptive (and rich) audience.  Things from Rolls-Royce, Ferrari et al are anyway expensive but for Mansory (an others) the target market is not millionaires but billionaires, some of the latter needing accessories to prove they’re not merely one of the former.  Just to make sure the message was getting through however, when Rolls-Royce released their SUV (sports utility vehicle), Mansory badged their take as the Rolls-Royce Cullinan Mansory Billionaire (the project a co-development with the German fashion house Billionaire).  Disappointingly perhaps, it was advertised with a list price well under US$1 million.  In the long-running cartoon show The Simpsons, nuclear power-plant co-owner C Montgomery Burns used the phrase “price taggery” in one sense but it's applied also when discussing Veblen goods produced for the "conspicuous consumption" market; there, the purpose of the product is to advertise one's disposable income and a well-publicized (high) price-tag is essential.  

The electric Rolls-Royce Spectre.  Instead of an internal combustion engine, the Spectre is powered by two electric motors producing a combined net 577 horsepower and 664 pound-feet of torque.  There was a time when Rolls-Royce would never have painted their cars purple but the catchment of those with the resources to buy or lease (rent) such things has expanded to include many whose tastes come from different traditions.  It's not the difference between good and bad taste; it's just a difference.

Rolls-Royce has announced its intention by 2030 to offer a range of vehicles powered exclusively by electric propulsion.  For Rolls-Royce, the engineering and financial challenges aside, the obstacles are few because, unlike an operation like Ferrari which for decades has based part of its mystique on the noise its engines make at full-cry, it has always put a premium of silence and smoothness.  Enzo Ferrari (1898-1988) said it was the howl of the V12 Packard engines (which he dubbed “the song of 12”) he heard on the race tracks which convinced him to make the V12 the signature configuration for the cars which would bear his name but for Charles Rolls (1877–1910), the co-founder of Rolls-Royce, the most influential sound was its absence.  In 1904, he had the opportunity to ride in Columbia Electric car and, knowing what so many of his customers craved, was most impressed, noting: “The electric car is perfectly noiseless and clean. There is no smell or vibration. They should become very useful when fixed charging stations can be arranged.”  So, in 120-odd years not much has changed.  Ferrari are doubtlessly hoping the hydrogen re-fueling infrastructure develops at a similarly helpful rate, the exhaust note from exploding hydrogen able to be as intoxicating as that of burning hydrocarbons.