Talk:First impeachment of Donald Trump/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

tweak to lede ?

diff --> 'According to the Senate's impeachment rules adopted in 1986,https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/SMAN-113/pdf/SMAN-113-pg223.pdf the articles' submission to the Senate initiates the trial – which is expected to begin as early as the second week of January 2020.'

Rationale: Per noah feldman, pertinent angloamerican precedents &tc indicate that should congress 'never sends its articles of impeachment to the Senate there can be no trial'[1]; this likewise agrees with current wording[2] within the concluding sentence of our article's lede, where it says that they 'must be submitted to the Senate to initiate the trial.' That said, this US Constitutional interpretation is not universal & some believe there is not Constitutional imperative for the senate being required to await the house's sending it over the former's impeachment articles. E/g

  1. josh blackman, a constitutional law prof at south texas coll of law houston (in reason mag)[3]: '..there is no constitutional requirement that the Senate allow House managers to present the articles. The Senate could handle the proceedings however it chooses'
  2. kimberly strassel op-ed (in the wsj)[4]: '..Republicans should schedule a trial immediately. Mr. McConnell has a majority to set the rules, and he has history, the Constitution and fairness on his side'
  3. realclearpolitics[5]: '..McConnell can actually conduct an impeachment trial even if Pelosi never sends the articles, should he choose, many people in the Capitol and legal community believe' [..e/g per eli honig] 'The Constitution stipulates other instances when things must be "transmitted" to the Senate -- such as the ratified results of the electoral college vote. It never says anything like that when it comes to impeachment. So, McConnell can hold a trial without the articles'
    &tc.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
also this diff--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
No, because you have not actually proposed a change, this article is not called "Impeachment trial of Donald Trump", and the horse is dead. WMSR (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
don't understand user:WMSR's proposal. S/he advocates removing article's section labeled Trial?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Not at all. I am simply opposed to your proposal to change the lede, because you are beating a dead horse. WMSR (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
McConnell (quoted in Slate piece)[6]: "We can’t hold a trial without the articles. The Senate’s own rules don’t provide for that " -Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
WaExaminer[7]: '..McConnell so far lacks the votes to change Senate impeachment rules (should he decide that is what he wants to do) and allow the trial of President Trump to begin without formal transmission of the articles'--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
(the premise that what 'many people in the Capitol and legal community' assert in this regard is horse meat hereabouts (the essay WMSR linked begins 'there comes a point in every debate where the debate itself has come to a natural end') is a stretch. Its having been coupled with the pair of fellow non sequiturs w which it was presented leads one to wonder is WMSR's understanding of issue involved likewise slipshod?)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
jonathan turley op-ed (in theHill)[8]: '.. Waiting for the House to submit a list of managers was always a courtesy extended by Senate rules and not a requirement of the Constitution'--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The big show begins tomorrow morning

As I just read, the consensus from a little less than a month ago, was that we temporarily merge the trial article into this one until the trial actually started. Well, Pelosi announced that the articles will be ceremoniously transferred to the Senate tomorrow morning, right after a ten minute vote appointing the managers. There has been edit warring over large amounts of text in the past few days, and it looks like this article was going to be just as big and unweildly as the "inquiry" article was. So what we do is, we have a couple of paragraphs on the impass of the last few weeks, a listing of the vote on the managers, and the march of the articles in their wooden box to the Senate.

Then we will have two or three short paragraphs on the trial itself. The gory details will be in the final part of the "trilogy." For all of you out there who are saying, but none of the other impeachment trials have had their own articles? That was because they predated Wikipedia. To reiterate from an archived comment I made. Go to the pieces on the 1956 and 2004 Republican conventions. The former is little more than a stub, while the latter is chock full of detail and is a hundred times longer. The reason was that nobody was editing anything yet in 1956. No one was editing yet in 1999. Had Wikipedia existed then we'd have gotten even more detail then now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

New information regarding Nancy Pelosi's gambit

Significantly, a piece in Time Magazine just revealed that Nancy got the idea to sit on the impeachment articles from watching CNN:[9]. I didn't see a good place to put this, but there should probably be a separate section outlining the timeline of the impeachment, including Nancy's decision to hold the articles hostage until the Senate agrees to her demands. Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Architeuthidæ, please mind WP:NPOV, including in article talk pages. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm confused, I thought talk pages are exactly the place where you're supposed to express your point of view on the article's content? Architeuthidæ (talk) 18:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Architeuthidæ, we can advocate for including or not including things, but language like "gambit" and "hostage" generally does not lead to constructive debate. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't mean anything by it, but I'll try to be more mindful of NPOV. On a related note, on the Donald Trump talk page, somebody just called all Republicans racist, called Stephen Miller racist, and said that the "MAGA base is attached to a drifting ship" in a thread about using poll data. His name is "Guy" in case you need to know. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Stephen Miller is a racist.[1] Better? In all seriousness, whataboutism isn't the way forward here. This is an encyclopedia, not a debate platform. If you want to bring up that editor's behavior at WP:ANI, you are free to do so, but it does not contribute to the discussion on this page. --WMSR (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Stephen Miller And White Nationalism". NPR.org.
No, I don't listen to NPR and nowhere in that article did anybody say he's a racist. You can go make that argument on a blog comments section or maybe on a social media platform somewhere, but I think it's better to keep the discussion on this talk page focused on the page itself, rather than using it to attack and lie about public figures who you don't like. I mentioned it here because someone else linked me to a page about points of view, and I wanted to clarify this rule because someone went into a rage against conservatives and lavished praise on liberals. I'll take your advice about that report board but it's over now. Someone hid the person's screed anyway. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Architeuthidae, you’re very new, with less than 50 edits under your belt. I highly recommend that you read WP:RS before continuing to edit in this subject area, and on Wikipedia in general. Despite what some people say about it (in order to try to marginalize it), NPR is consistently regarded as one of the most reliable sources available, both on Wikipedia, and within the journalistic community. You’re not going to get much traction here if you can’t identify reliable sources. Also, please, tone down the rhetoric and the implication of other editors as ideological “opponents”... We all know who Guy is, and while he likely shouldn’t have been that opinionated in his comments, please realize that this is a frustrating subject area to edit, with countless single purpose accounts and “edit warriors” derailing conversation on a regular basis. Talk pages aren’t a forum to express opinions, and article talk pages are specifically for article improvement. I realize that’s what you were trying to do, but the incendiary rhetoric has got to go. As far as Stephen Miller, his views are relatively well-documented, including his promotion of the white genocide conspiracy theory. I wouldn’t personally call him a racist, but the fact that he holds views that most people regard as indicative of ethnocentrism and “race reality” isn’t really in dispute anymore, especially with the recent leaks of his private communications. How one interprets or feels about that is another issue, and really beside the point. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
All I said was I don't listen to NPR. As far as I know I'm not required to listen to NPR or view NPR as a reliable source of news to edit Wikipedia. I saw that page about reliable sources, and I acknowledge that a lot of people love NPR and make sure that it stays on their radio for their entire commute. That's not me. This article has nothing to do with Stephen Miller or any conspiracy theories about his conspiracy theories that he may or may not have. It's about the "Impeachment of Donald Trump." Did Guy get a formal reprimand as I just did, and is there a link to that reprimand? His tirade against conservatives was much, much worse than what I said about Nancy holding the articles "hostage." Architeuthidæ (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Architeuthidæ, what "reprimand"? This section? Who is "Guy"? NPR is a reliable source, whether you listen to / read them or not. Back to your initial question, I don't think it's important to say why Nancy "held" the articles. She didn't hold them long. I don't see this as much of a "gambit" at all, despite what some pundits (non-RS) say. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The reprimand that Symmachus just gave me, saying that my "rhetoric has got to go." Guy is the person who started attacking Republicans, Stephen Miller, and Trump supporters on the Donald Trump talk page. I brought him up after you said that points of view aren't allowed on talk pages. When you say "NPR is reliable," who determines if NPR is reliable? I'm speaking for myself, not for anyone else. Anyway I think it's very important to note Nancy's actions in the article, considering it was unprecedented and nobody really knew why she was doing it. Numerous sources, which slant just as heavily to the left as NPR does, and some even moreso, called her actions a "gambit." Far-left CNN and far-left Slate both ran pieces calling Pelosi's actions a "gambit":[10][11] Since "gambit" is defined as "a device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage," I don't think even Nancy would dispute this label. Her whole reasoning was that she wanted to sit on them until the Senate did what she wanted them to do. Architeuthidæ (talk) 19:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
What the passage actually says is
"...since she heard former Nixon White House counsel John Dean float the idea on CNN on Dec. 5."
If this information was deemed suitable for the article it would be phrased to reflect what the citation actually states, that is that the idea to delay delivering the articles to the Senate came from a comment by John Dean. That Dean was on CNN is irrelevant. Trying to frame this as "Pelosi gets her ideas from watching cable news", the stunt the OP is trying to pull here, is not at all appropriate or truthful. Zaathras (talk) 23:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
We shouldn't say that Nancy "gets her ideas from watching cable news." We should say that she got her idea for sitting on the articles from watching CNN, which she did. It's offensive and honestly pretty gross to accuse me of pulling a "stunt," given that this has been widely reported.[12][13][14][15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architeuthidæ (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
You titled this section "gambit", so my take that you are doing this as a stunt is spot-on. As for your sources, the headlines of one biased leftist site and 2 (apparently you failed to notice that siouxcountyradio.com was just a pointer to the Fox article) biased right-wing sites. Zaathras (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
If using the English language correctly is a "stunt," then guilty as charged! You don't have to jump to Nancy's defense here. Nobody's saying she did anything wrong or that she's a bad person. She can watch CNN all day for all I care. I'm just going by what the sources say. As you admit, both leftist and conservative-leaning sources use the word "gambit" and they all have reported that she got her idea from watching a segment on CNN. But we're really getting off-topic now. We should be productive and start drawing up a timeline of the impeachment, starting from the calls for impeachment pre-inauguration to where we are now, which is Nancy relenting and giving the articles to the Senate. Architeuthidæ (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
The fact that you think far-left + far-right = fair & balanced coverage really says it all. Zaathras (talk) 21:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
No, what says it all is you repeatedly coming up with straw men and trying to argue semantics instead of helping us write this article. Water under the bridge. No hard feelings, but we should really get back to the impeachment timeline. Architeuthidæ (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

add majority of Americans want Bolton to testify?

X1\ (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

  • EXCLUDE. Kind of off topic fluff — not an actual part of impeachment, not a factor to events, and just not big WEIGHT from what some clickbait pocket poll says. Another poll shows President Trump is the most admired person in the US. Stick instead to focusing on events in the impeachment and not the peanut gallery. If (when) the Senate makes the actual determination on witnesses next week *that* will be what to say about witnesses. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Include There is absolutely no fluff in this all...the pro trump editors are citing every poll that's ever been surveyed in order to make him out to have 50% or more popularity which is laughable...I believe all polls are bullshit and should be excluded..if you are going to keep them in the trump article then keep them here..then again he got in with less than the popular vote among those who took the trouble to vote so keep slanting the article to the right to add to the façade...Bolton is trumps Achilleas heal..it is obvious why his testimony is being suppressed 2600:1702:2340:9470:14B3:A536:533A:AD06 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

And that discussion is already closed. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Large-scale deletion

Hi,

I deleted a duplicated section in this edit here: [16] (the Public opinion section, specifically). However, Maile66 undid my edit here: [17], stating in their edit summary: "Take it to the talk page for consensus of large-scale deletion." The reasoning for the deletion was pretty straighforward, I think. The section I removed is an exact duplicate of an already existing section. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
trout Self-trout Well, @David O. Johnson: you were correct. It's been a very long day on my end, and I should have just left your deletion as it was. Apologies. — Maile (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
It happens. Don't worry about it. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Problems with High crimes and misdemeanors page

Alan Dershowitz is saying ([18][19]) that one of the potential defenses for US President Trump in the next week's impeachment trial will be based on his understanding of the term "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". The US Constitution says that, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." ([20]) Dershowitz' argument is that the current two articles of impeachment aren't accusations of treason or bribery, so the only question left is whether or not they are charges of "high crimes and/or misdemeanors". He believes that the articles of impeachment don't reach that threshold.

Based on this clip, I think we can see that the meaning of the term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is going to become something paid more and more attention to in the next few days. However, the Wikipedia article on the subject is currently made up at least in part of a copy-paste from a children's educational website ([21]) with poorly done references flung into it. I have made a simple edit on that page, but I don't know much about this subject and would like to invite people who are working here to help clean up that page so that Wikipedia has meaningful and useful content for people to read next week if this argument is deployed. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The fact is the meaning is very debated.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Cite Joseph Ellis

I just read this excellent commentary [22] on CNN. Among other things, it cites Joseph Ellis who is a prominent US historian (Ellis "devoted his career as a historian to studying the USA's founding generation"). He said:

Trump's chief offense is his own defense. Namely, that as president he cannot be indicted, convicted or investigated, and has no legal obligation to provide documents or witnesses when requested by the House or Senate. That means President Trump is claiming he is an elected monarch who is above the law."

I think this must be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes - Oppose. That doesn’t seem something to include. That cite is an opinion piece, generally something to avoid. Also, I just don’t see a large WEIGHT of coverage or any direct significance of him saying it, as he and this is not part of the impeachment. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree completely with Markbassett. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

  • No, they are separate topics and may have separate conclusions. TALK at an article is supposed to be about edits to that article. This thread is whether the Ellis opinion piece gets a mention here. The other article TALK is about the Senate Trial commentary isn’t part of the Impeachment inquiry at all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ton of videos clips of the impeachment trial here

https://twitter.com/HouseIntel This tool can download them: https://www.savetweetvid.com/ This tool can upload them: https://tools.wmflabs.org/video2commons/

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right article for that. Impeachment trial of Donald Trump would be a better article to post these clips. They would fit in better with that article. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Summary of arguments by each side, questions in Q&A

Can we get an article to summary each side's arguments and to list the Q&A - questions and answers? MaynardClark (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I do see one question that merits inclusion. When the CJ refused to read one question because it apparently named the whistleblower, it appears the Senator whose question was unread then went on national TV, named the whistleblower and then named him again in a Twitter feed. Pbmaise (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I had been thinking of a chart, and ALL the questions can be found at the Congressional Record site, along with the archived on demand video of days 1-11 and the transcription of text; Q&A is distinguished by each of the questions posed during the two days of questioning. https://www.c-span.org/impeachment/ Building an archival article is not impeded by lack of readily-accessible and easy to copy ('cop') resources. MaynardClark (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
User:MaynardClark Thanks, but I’ll propose instead it should state the event of a Q&A and what it generally was, then just point to the Congressional Record. Each question just wasn’t noted that much, ‘answers’ tended to be long, and frankly looked like a number just rehashed topics or were playing to the cameras. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment of Donald Trump

According to Article II Section 4 of the US Constitution, Donald J Trump, the 45th President these United States of America has not yet been impeached. The Constitution, Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. Since as of today, February 3rd, 2020, the Senate has not yet voted to impeach President Donald John Trump he has not yet been impeached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert911M (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Robert911M I suggest you read the part of the Constitution that says the House has the 'sole power of impeachment', not the Senate, which has the power to "try" the impeachment. Trump is impeached, this is unalterable by the Senate. The Senate is deciding whether or not to convict him. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
331dot is correct. It is the House that has the sole power to impeach, the Senate has the power to remove the president from office. Trump was impeached. OnePercent (talk)

day by day

Hello, should the day-by-day summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Day-by-day_trial_summary include day-by-day summary of the defenders' positions through 28 of January, or does that need its own section? Kdevans (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

You gnomes are slacking. For now, Be Bold and put the summaries where you think they should go. Don't make me come work on the missing days. I try to hide in AfD and do spelling and grammar. This article is a minefield like Isreal/Palestine.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
😹! too right! Kdevans (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Senate Paragraph

This content is better suited for trial in the Senate where all senate trial things should dwell.

Suggest shortening to "The articles were submitted to the Senate on January 16, 2020, initiating the trial under which he was acquitted."

The remainder of the content ("The trial saw no witnesses or documents being subpoenaed, as Republican senators rejected attempts to introduce subpoenas on January 21 while arranging for trial procedures, and then on January 31 after a debate. On February 5, 2020, Trump was acquitted by the Senate, with only Republican senators voting to acquit on either charge. Hence, Trump was not removed from office.") would be better suited for trial in the Senate and can be added there. OnePercent (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Poll is too specific and doesn't fit context

This section is regarding the following text/poll in the Public Opinion section:

"In October 2019, a poll showed that 99% of white evangelical Protestant Republicans opposed Trump's impeachment and removal from office."

The scope of this seems way too specific for the context of the section. All of the other polls in this section discuss opinions of overall political groups, such as all republicans and all democrats. None of the other polls have similarly specific data, so there's nothing related for the reader to compare that data point to. It feels really out of place with the other polls, so I believe this line should be removed entirely. FACP2007 (talk) 01:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Agree Although there is some relevance, it's too overly specific and a bit silly. ... white evangelical Protestant Republicans ..., albeit a valid poll [23]. Could be moved to the table if there is opposition. Better place for it anyway (PRRI poll, August 22 to September 15 with Sample size of 2527 according to the referenced link). OnePercent (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Senators vote table

Both Johnson and Clinton have one..come on someone add one for Trump's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.54.238 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

There is already a House vote table, a Senate vote table would be suited for this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump and I believe it is already there. Unlike Clinton and Jackson who each just have one page for impeachment, there's 3 or 4 on Trump. Which is curious due to the shear volumes of data produced and time involved in both the Nixon and Clinton investigations, there's hardly anything on Trump in comparison, yet he has 3 or pages on just the impeachment alone. Doesn't make allot of sense, but that's how it was setup, so now everyone has to bounce ll over the place to read about it.
Interesting facts: Richard Nixon Impeachment (599 days to inquiry), Bill Clinton Impeachment (260 day to inquiry), Donald Trump Impeachment (11 days to inquiry) ... noting Nixon resigned (wasn't impeached). OnePercent (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Individual vote table added. Though, as a question, does anyone know why this article is using the meta colors for the parties? It makes it that much more difficult to make the table work due to creating problems with links, specifically blue on dark blue. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Good question. I'd say go ahead and add them since it's much easier to read that way. I didn't even notice that, good eye. OnePercent (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Opinion polls

Why are the opinion polls from Quinnipiac 1/22-1/27, Gallup 1/16-1/29, IBD/TiPP 1/23-1/30 and NBC News/Wall Street Journal 1/26-1/29 not mentioned? Is it because the majority in those polls are against conviction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmir2 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Outcome in Summary Box: Making it uniform with previous impeachments

Currently the "outcome" section of the Summary box states: 

   Outcome	Impeached by the House of Representatives;[1] trial in the Senate resulted in acquittal, remained in office

This is different from how it's been listed on previous Impeachment summary boxes: From Impeachment of Bill Clinton: 

   Outcome	Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, remained in office

From Impeachment of Andrew Johnson: 

   Outcome	Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, remained in office

I say stating "Impeached by the House of Representatives" is redundant because we're talking about the outcome of impeachment. Impeachment isn't an outcome of impeachment, so I propose editing it to state "Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, remained in office" like previous impeachments. (Can't do it myself because of the semi-protection lock) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.Mark.M (talk • contribs) 17:56, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Concur. I see little reason to include the house in this statement. As mentioned, it's redundant. Buffs (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Partisan breakdown in summary

At the moment, on the conviction vote, the Republican votes are specified whereas the Democratic votes are not. I don't see why to specify one and not the others. I'd suggest changing from: ″On abuse of power, 48 senators voted for conviction, while 52 Republican senators voted for acquittal. On obstruction of Congress, 47 senators voted for conviction, while 53 Republican senators voted to acquit."

To something along the lines of: "On abuse of power, all 47 Democratic senators and one Republican senator voted for conviction, while 52 Republican senators voted for acquittal. On obstruction of Congress, all 47 Democratic senators voted for conviction, while all 53 Republican senators voted to acquit."

If not that, I would suggest removing the reference to party: ″On abuse of power, 48 senators voted for conviction, while 52 senators voted for acquittal. On obstruction of Congress, 47 senators voted for conviction, while 53 senators voted to acquit."

--CMSPhys (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Though I'm not a Trump supporter, I have to remain neutral. So does everybody else. I think that the second one would be better, as I don't see how mention of party is needed. AND, it's neutral as well. Cheers! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Whistleblower

My previous statement on the talk page to ask if the whistleblower should be included in this article was "rolled back" without comment or reason. Am I discussing a "Voldemort" that which must not be spoken of?96.80.151.209 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

It was oversighted(even I as an admin cannot view it) so you apparently did a lot more than 'ask if the whistleblower should be included'. I would suggest you look at prior discussions on this topic before pursuing it further. And also be aware of the biographies of living persons policy and think carefully before posting any information that could put any individual at risk of physical harm. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The only other thing that I can imagine would be mentioning the whistleblower's name. But that clearly does not endanger anyone. The whistleblower's name has been widely shared in international media and non-mainstream US Media as well as on Twitter, google, etc. (Redacted) name is no secret.96.80.151.209 (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
A name of a person who is alleged to be the whistleblower is out there, but not reported on by reliable sources. This whistleblower could be in actual danger, if they're outing is ever confirmed. It absolutely does not belong at this point because it is absolutely unconfirmed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: It is correct that unconfirmed information, to include allegations and accusations such as asserting that Donald Trump fired in retribution Sondland and Vindman should not be included in the article, especially in light of the fact that that detail has no relevance to the impeachment itself. Yet, eliminating the relevant involvement of the whistleblower, despite being unnamed, could only be made by a person who was (Personal attack removed). Stuart M Klimek (talk)

Diagram

Hello ! I want to propose some diagrams for the infobox, to illustrate the results of the votes in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

I made a draft available here : User:Pierronot/sandbox

Pierronot (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I like those diagrams. I believe that they are sufficient. All you need is a reliable source to back them up, then you'll be good to go! Minecrafter0271 (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
No, it adds nothing to the article, and severely elongates and bloats the infobox. Zaathras (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Alleged bias

Why is it when the Clintons were impeached it says they were indited but when the same exact thing happens to a Republican President he is "impeached". Just your typical, usual liberal bias I guess. Since this is locked this partisan wording can't be fixed but I can point it out here. --2600:6C65:747F:CD3F:D801:CBDE:66A9:1672 (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This makes no sense. Neither Clinton has ever been "indicted", and the Impeachment of Bill Clinton page never uses that word. Presidents Clinton and Trump were both impeached and not removed from office. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

There is political bias held by some of the administrators of Wikipedia, to include at least one who identifies himself as a Grandmaster Editor. It would be justified and appropiate to impeach those biased individuals from their position of spreading propaganda and not facts. In addition to the bias permitted in the article, there are fslse facts cited from biased sources. Mitt Romney was not the first senator to have voted to impeach a US president belonging to the same party. In both prior impeachments of US presidents this condition had occurred. The bias extends to the exclusion of the important fact that the submission of the articles of impeachment was delayed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Throughout the article there is bias in how one party is described against that of the other. It is also wrong to include the the irrelevant events regarding the dismissals of Sondham and the Vindman brothers. The dismissals have no direct connection to the impeachment or trial. The inclusion of the alleged event is but evidence of bias. Stuart M Klimek (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Stuart M Klimek: which other presidential impeachment trials had members had members of the president's party vote to convict/remove? Please list them. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 01:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Eyer:Andrew Johnson was a Democrat, but while campaigning for Vice-President until his term as President ended, Johnson was a member of the same party as was Abraham Lincoln. Both Lincoln and Johnson were members of the party known as the National Union party, an alias of the Republican party. It was after the end of Johnson's presidential term that he rejoined the Democratic party. Johnson's party of Republicans (National Unionists) did, indeed, cast votes to impeach him. Mitt Romney, therefore could not be rightfully declared the first, except by an ignorant or biased person -- factoid! (Source: Wikipedia article "Impeachment of Andrew Johnson"). Wikipedia does fail in keeping up-to-date on information. Bernie Sanders is noted as a registered Independent in some articles, though he currently is running as a Democrat. Another Independent, if the information provided by Wikipedia is correct, is Angus King. King is noted to have previously registered as a Democrat, is not since 1993. Though he often votes with the Democrats, he is incorrectly implied to be a Democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart M Klimek (talk • contribs)

Stuart M Klimek, I'll answer that. No Democrat voted to convict Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton. Hence, the Mitt Romney factoid is correct. Mitt Romney didn't vote to impeach because he's not n the House. Just because I reverted your edit does not mean OMG WIKIPEDIA LIBERAL BIAS! Our articles are written by WP:CONSENSUS, especially on such a fraught topic as this one. Comments like "It would be justified and appropiate to impeach those biased individuals from their position of spreading propaganda and not facts" are not conducive to forming consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I am not aware of any formal title of "grandmaster editor". It certainly isn't an official status. 331dot (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
S/he might be talking about Wikipedia:Service awards. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 01:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm an admin, and a Grandmaster Editor! Actually come to think of it, I think I reached the next level and never updated the service badge. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I see(for benefit of the OP) that those titles are self given, and as noted there "service awards do not indicate any level of authority whatsoever". 331dot (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
331dot, hey, I'm actually Grandmaster Editor First Class! And don't you forget it! :P – Muboshgu (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That the article does not say what you would prefer based on your own biases that it say does not make it "biased". In any event, Wikipedia does not claim to be free of bias- which is a common misconception. If there is bias in the reliable sources provided, that will be reflected in Wikipedia. We provide the sources of article content so readers can review them and judge them for themselves. Perhaps Conservapedia or some other project would better fit with the news bubble you prefer to be in. 331dot (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@@Stuart M Klimek:, I have a few questions before I discuss your earlier replies. Namely, you claimed that in both impeachment trials there were Senators belonging to the same party as the President who voted to impeach them, but have only discussed the Johnson impeachment trial. Do you have anything to list regarding the Clinton impeachment trial? Additionally, do you wish to explain with detail why we should include the delay on the articles of impeachment and, separately, why we should remove the dismissals from the article? -- With those question presented, I feel that we can move onto clearing up the confusion regarding the Johnson impeachment trial. Per the National Union Party article, we can see that "The last congressman to represent the National Union Party ended his affiliation with the party in March 1867." Thus, Johnson was part of the National Union Party while the Senate was composed of Democrats and Republicans only, as noted on the 40th United States Congress article. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment isn't an outcome of Impeachment

On February 7th, I brought up an inconsistency and confusion with the Outcome section of the summary box, which is now archived in Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump/Archive 3.

The line currently states: 

Outcome	Impeached by the House of Representatives;[1] trial in the Senate resulted in acquittal, remained in office

Whereas previous impeachments ( examples: Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Impeachment of Bill Clinton) used the phrase: 

Outcome	Acquitted by the U.S. Senate, remained in office

Not only was the new phrasing different from the established phrasing, it made more sense since impeachment isn't an outcome of impeachment.

At the time I couldn't make the edit because of the lock, but after a few days I noticed the restriction had no longer applied. Having gained support from two other members and no opposing argument, I made the edit. It was reverted an hour later by a user providing an explanation that didn't make sense: 

This is the top level article, which discusses both parts of the impeachment process. This might make sense at the trial article, but not here

This edit reason does nothing to explain what justifies the wording. This article only exists in its current state because impeachment occurred. Sure, it describes the events that led up to it, but if it weren't already assuming the outcome of impeachment, it would have been named "Impeachment process against Donald Trump", just like the existing Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. An additional user edited all three presidential impeachment pages to include impeachment as an outcome of impeachment, giving the reason 

 Per the talk page + the last edit to this

The talk page does not yet contain any justification for impeachment to be listed in the outcome, so I would like to see some. I'll notify the user who undid my edit to come provide a more complete justification here as to why they overturned the unanimous opinion of three editors to see if there is any real reason to do it.

Davy (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Additional user as mentioned: Honestly, I was tempted to undo their edit since it could be argued that they violated the agreement on the talk page. However, the other user is technically has reviewer rights (along with rollback rights) and I conceded the issue. Thus, I made an edit to all three articles per the talk page discussion and per their edit summary. I will say that it was a compromised edit and it isn't the first one I have had to made due to how this article is formatted. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Chiming in late, so FWIW, I agree with this. The result of an accusation can't be the accusation itself. Zaathras (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Just in case this comes up again, I agree as well. Impeachment can't be the outcome of impeachment.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

You are cordially invited to edit Draft:Mismanagement of the 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic. Calmecac5 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh great, Wikipedia is a Democrat propaganda organ

Uhh, folks, I realize I'm late to the party here, but who thought it was a good idea for Wikipedia to abandon neutrality and instead harbor page after page after page of manipulative, mendacious, and destructive propaganda?

This article sounds like it was written by an angry and self-righteous liberal who believes that there are good guys and bad guys in the story, that they're correct about which is which (because the party that acquitted Bill Clinton along party lines for something he indisputably did definitely didn't make a mockery of impeachment again), and that it's their job to make sure the reader knows it. I can't stand the lying, constantly-projecting, corrupt, totalitarian Democrats, but I understand what "neutral point of view" means. Here's a hint: it doesn't mean you get to decide that because the other side is wrong, stupid, and evil, your position is "neutral" by default. Cut it out with the loaded language, the editorializing, the double standards for how the parties' claims are presented, all of it. Just the facts, please. And if there's a dispute about what those facts are, JUST STATE EACH CASE AS PLAINLY AND FAIRLY AS POSSIBLE AND LET READERS DECIDE.

That's how all of Wikipedia used to be, and older articles still are: speaking of the impeachment of Bill Clinton, that article is an enjoyable, calmly-stated read. The article makes clear that he did what he was accused of and was acquitted on a party line vote but it doesn't assail anyone's credibility or character: it lets me do that in my own head. This article, on the other hand, raises your blood pressure with loaded language like "discredited conspiracy theory" -- yeesh, how many judgments are embedded in that phrase, anyway?

You're ruining Wikipedia, ruining America, and ruining the world. When the decent people in your audience figure out how much of what they've been told about Trump is just a nasty spiderweb of lies perpetuated by a bunch of corrupt big government, big city Democrat insiders and their media mouthpieces who will do anything to get rid of him, the institutions which went all-in on them are going to have no credibility left. Cut it out.

-- 104.34.137.117 (talk)

If you have specific changes you feel are needed to this article, please offer them. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. It does not(and never has) provide equal time to all points of view or all opinions- it's based on how they are discussed in reliable sources. If you don't like what reliable sources state, you need to take that up with the sources. No one forces you to read any article or content that does not jibe with your political worldview. If you prefer to remain in your conservative bubble and be told only what you want to hear, there are projects for that. 331dot (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
That's roughly the response I expected, but it's not especially incisive.
First of all, the "conservative bubble" claim is ridiculous projection given the obvious bias among Wikipedia editors. Moreover, I was raised liberal and live in Los Angeles. I voted Trump here in 2016 and told people, plenty of whom debated me. I check in on the legacy media from time to time just to see if they're still telling verifiable lies, contradicting themselves, taking quotes out of context, and exhibiting selection bias, and every time it's more obviously slanted. I understand that there's a specific place to debate this and I haven't decided yet if I care enough about this to take up the fight.
With that said, only someone deep in an echo chamber could think that a publication such as, say, The Washington Post (I just happen to be on their homepage right now) is, on the whole, still engaging in what we used to call journalism. Given how hilariously far left the Democrats have moved (though they deny it), I'd say the average Republican reader has a much better chance of recognizing truth than the average Democrat, who by now has traded truth and tradition for Pravda and projection.
Anyway, the issue is even more fundamental, and has to do with how the article is written. It's written like a story with an obvious partisan preference, not an encyclopedia article with a neutral point of view. It's clear who the "good guys" are supposed to be -- I can see the excitement and self-righteousness right there on the page. For example:
After the vote, Pelosi said that while this was "a great day for the Constitution" it was "a sad day for America". She also said, "I could not be prouder or more inspired by the moral courage of the House Democrats. We never asked one of them how they were going to vote. We never whipped this vote."
This writing style is totally inappropriate, and it probably shouldn't even be a quote at all. Something like "After the vote, Pelosi expressed mixed emotions but praised House Democrats and claimed not to have whipped the vote" or better yet "After the vote, Pelosi praised House Democrats and claimed not to have whipped the vote" would be much less emotionally manipulative. Also shorter. Nobody comes to Wikipedia to read fluff quotes, and quoting Congress's premier partisan like that screams bias.
(As an aside, they'd been whipping that vote for *years* -- can you imagine what would have happened to any Democrat who dared to dissent? -- and it's obvious hypocrisy that she decries "putting party over country" but is happy that all her good little Democrats know how to vote without being told, but I digress...)
Seriously, compare this article to the one on Bill Clinton's impeachment. The two articles are clearly not of the same species. I can offer edits (although the prospect of fighting what is obviously a very left-leaning group tooth-and-nail on every edit sounds about as fun as being AG Barr as he was "questioned" by House Democrats) but I'm just one guy with limited time, and it's taken the time and cooperation of many editors to fuck Wikipedia up this badly -- I can't fix it myself. Hence the attempt at a moral appeal. 104.34.137.117 (talk) 03:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
We all have limited time, that's the nature of this project. If you're here to work in good faith and are willing to work with those of differing political views or philosophy, feel free to offer your suggestions when it is convenient for you to do so- as we all do. If quoting the Speaker of the US House of Representatives is not appropriate for a major House action that she, as the leader of the body, had a lot to do with- I'm not sure what would be. 331dot (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
For one, Wikipedia is about subjectivity. One should not compare articles to each other. How one article is written doesn't mean another should be written differently. Secondly, complaining is not solving anything. If you are seriously angry about how subjective Wikipedia is, don't make subjective complaints. The best way is to combat the subjectivity with civil complaints that attempt to be as objective as possible. We can discuss the subjectivity of both sides, and try and reach a consensus.
About the tangible responses you have made: For one, Democrats are not far leftist. Both Democrats and Republicans are objectively capitalists (exceptions would be an economically centrist Warren or very mildly socialist Sanders). We all live in our own echo chambers. On Wikipedia, we all try our best to overcome that. You are clearly in a conservative echo chamber (considering your location, a mental one rather than a physical one). I'm in a liberal echo chamber. Similar to your situation, I lived in Louisiana for 5 years, and North Carolina for the rest, yet I'm much more socialist than Sanders. Regardless of the biases we hold and the echo chambers that affect us, we should overcome our differences to try and create a helpful and objective source of information about the thing we are discussing. I emphasize again that lashing out does not help.
The article gives emotional quips both from Pelosi and Trump. Both people gave quite a lot of emotional remarks about the impeachment, and so there is quite a bit included from both. If you want to argue that it is favoring Pelosi over Trump, then make the case.
Your simplification of the Pelosi quote you give doesn't really make sense. Any subjective speech should be given in the form of a quote. If it is not, then there shouldn't be subjective wording. I believe the quote should be kept. Quotes give the most accurate representation of Pelosi's view, in the same way that there are Trump quotes, including an entire tweet, included in the article.
From the look of your arguments, it does not take an objective stance. You are merely trying to progress your conservative views onto the article (or rather, taking away anything that supports liberal views, while keeping the conservative views). However, it may be possible, looking at the article, that Pelosi's views are a bit overdone. If you want to make your case, I suggest you take a much more objective view. You current argument is clearly emotionally driven. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
It can be hard to be objective about Trump, and in light of all the things he's done in office, it's easy to paint a subjective picture praising the Democrats or demeaning the president. However, attacking the system is not the way to solve anything. If you have any specific problems, bring them up in a civil manner. We are willing to listen. Wikipedia is a place to uphold neutrality, and it is much harder to do that when someone attempts to attack Wikipedians when what should be attacked is one's subjective ideas. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Justin Amash

Um, quick question. Justin Amash is listed as an Independent, when he is a Libertarian. Is there a reason for this incorrect labeling? I'm assuming that 3rd parties may be automatically listed as an independent. If that's so, why? TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@TheGEICOgecko: he wasn't a Libertarian at the time of Impeachment (December 2019). —MelbourneStar☆talk 12:35, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
Gotcha, I didn't take that into account TheGEICOgecko (talk) 22:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

New NYT report, potentially useful for the "Aftermath" section

Benner, Katie (November 11, 2020). "Barr's Decision on Voter Fraud Inflames Existing Tensions With Anticorruption Prosecutors". New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2020. Quoting the beginning:

As the scandal over President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine unfolded in Washington last fall and prompted his impeachment, public corruption prosecutors in the Justice Department were stewing.
They had examined Mr. Trump’s actions and found no campaign finance violations, and were initially given the green light to pursue a potentially explosive inquiry into whether he had broken any other laws.
But Attorney General William P. Barr and other top officials held them back while Congress investigated the same matter during impeachment hearings. After the Senate acquitted the president, Mr. Barr in effect took the case away from the Public Integrity Section, sending all Ukraine-related inquiries to the U.S. attorney’s office in Brooklyn, according to six people familiar with the matter.

XOR'easter (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Fact in third paragraph of lead

Can someone point me to the content in the body which repeats the following information in the third paragraph of the lead: This [...] marked the first fully partisan impeachment where a U.S. president was impeached without support for the impeachment from the President's own party? I'm struggling to find it. — Bilorv (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

2nd Impeachment of Donald Trump

Started a related article here: 2nd Impeachment of Donald TrumpCasprings (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

this article should be renamed First Impeachment of Donald Trump

It has been confirmed that the House will impeach Trump again this Monday, January 11. Therefore, this article should be renamed First Impeachment of Donald Trump.

Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-capitol-riots-us-b1784945.html?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1610224417 Shamaflama (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

They need to vote on it yet. It's a lengthier process than an up-down vote. If we need to make this change, we need to wait until after Trump is impeached again (see WP:CRYSTAL). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Shamaflama, the current situation is the 2nd impeachment info is in the article 2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump. We have a hatnote in this article for that. I suspect that article will eventually get renamed to Second impeachment of Donald Trump. At that time, it would probably be a good time to rename this one to first impeachment, as you suggest. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Per WP:CRYSTAL we should not refer to this as the "first" impeachment unless and until there is a second. — Bilorv (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Should be “2019 Impeachment”. Using the year is more in line with Wikipedia guidelines of events AlienChex (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename to First Impeachment or 2019 Impeachment

Should Trump be impeached a second time, this article will need to be renamed to be able to differentiate. Even if Trump is not fully impeached, I’ve noticed traffic to this page has been increasing over the past few days simply because people are getting confused as the title simply says “Impeachment of DT”, even though this is the first one. The page should be renamed to First Impeachment or 2019 Impeachment of Donald Trump AlienChex (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

AlienChex, this is a repost. Feel free to join the discussion in the section above. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I would prefer the formatting of "First impeachment..." and "Second impeachment...", similar to our article formatting on articles such as First inauguration of Barack Obama and Second inauguration of Barack Obama. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
"First" would be better than identifying it by year. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Second impeachment

House Democrats are beginning the drafting of new articles of impeachment against Trump. Should we start a new article, Second impeachment process against Donald Trump?  Nixinova   T   C   20:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There's already 2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump, which should probably be cut down and merged into Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. I believe Congress went into recess for the next two weeks, so it appears highly unlikely to proceed. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It is happening tomorrow. IbexNu (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Move page as soon as second impeachment occurs

Starting a discussion here to build consensus on whether this page should be moved to First impeachment of Donald Trump so that it can be quickly moved as soon as that name is correct.  Nixinova   T   C   19:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support. This seems fairly obvious to me. Like I said in a similar section on the second impeachment's page, the proceedings already have started, and the House is voting on it this Wednesday. We can go forward with this. Nekomancerjade (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support if and only if the second impeachment occurs, as proposed. — Bilorv (talk) 01:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, but only if the full House passes the article of impeachment. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support upon passage of the articles (presumably tomorrow). I would also consider "2019–2020 Impeachment of Donald Trump". But future Presidents might have multiple impeachments all entirely within the same year, so that would be less general. IbexNu (talk) 04:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SPEEDY move to dab from second impeachment. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


Impeachment of Donald Trump → First impeachment of Donald Trump – As Trump's second impeachment process is beginning, it may help to distinguish that this article is about the first impeachment. Hans van Mol 14:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chsdrummajor07 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Wait - He has not been officially impeached. Once he is, yes. This article should be changed to the "First impeachment of Donald Trump" GyozaDumpling (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

At what moment will he officially be impeached? When the House has voted, or is there some subsequent process that will then take place? - Tournesol (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Tournesol, the House of Representatives is voting now. If they vote yes (which, barring some bizarre turn of events, they will), the president will be impeached. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now, will support if Trump is impeached again. If the house votes to impeach Trump, then I would support this move, but for now, my position is that the move should not take place right now. Interstellarity (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait until the House actually passes the article of impeachment. There's no reason to rush. Doing so arguably violates WP:CRYSTAL. Waiting could arguably be deemed educational for the many people who do not understand how impeachment works who might think he's already been impeached (and he was, but that was a totally separate proceeding). While it seems certain that the House will pass it sometime today, there's no way to know for certain until it actually happens. There's always the chance of something bizarre or unexpected happening to delay the vote. 1995hoo (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment It's not a matter of "if", they do have the votes. A vote is expected between 3-4pm today Eastern time. The brave celery (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Alternative 2019 Impeachment of DT or similar. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    "First impeachment..." is better than using the year. In a few years, most people aren't going to remember what years the first impeachment and second impeachment took place, especially since the actual impeachment trial didn't happen until 2020. If we use dates, we'd have a 2019 impeachment and a 2020 impeachment trial, which is potentially confusing. Better to just do first impeachment and first impeachment trial as the titles. Trying to use the date in the title as a disambiguator just makes everything more complicated. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    OK. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Conditional support per arguments by User:Rreagan007 — if the second impeachment is passed by the House, then this article should be First Impeachment of Donald Trump, and Efforts to impeach... should perhaps be renamed to Second Impeachment of Donald Trump. -Mardus /talk 20:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Wait - As per above -- Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 20:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support once the House's vote is finalized. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – "First" and "second" are natural disambiguators as opposed to "(2019)" and "(2021)". Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support and support "first" and "second. Impeachment is passing now, so no need to wait.Casprings (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support per proposal - this page could be made into a disambig page as such given "first" and "second" naturally disambiguate the articles. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Impeachment of Donald Trump" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Impeachment of Donald Trump. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 13#Impeachment of Donald Trump until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Whistle-blower

In first section, there are two statements that read as though Vindman was the initial whistle-blower in August 2019. Unable to find any reporting or even conspiracy theories that he was. In fact, someone in CIA was thought to be the first whistle-blower; Rand Paul even revealed that person at trial after having been told he could not. Vindman was the second whistle-blower in Sept 2019, corroborating the first. Tagged for citation. Mylittlemu (talk) 04:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Mylittlemu, I wrote that part of the lead when I worked on it a month or two ago. I probably summarized the body incorrectly. Feel free to fix it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

No witnesses vs 17 witnesses?

From the article, "The trial saw no witnesses or documents being subpoenaed, as Republican senators rejected attempts to introduce subpoenas. On February 5, Trump was acquitted on both counts by the Senate, as neither count received 67 votes to convict. On Article I,..."

On the Web, specifically in comment section on youtube of a saturday night live skit, some adverse commenters were claiming there were 17 witnesses. I'm sure the 17 witnesses is either a lie or a sick distortion, but what is the source of this claim? In fact, I think whatever the bs is on those claimed 17 witnesses, the facts behind the lie should be put in this article.Rich (talk) 18:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Richard L. Peterson, witnesses were called in the impeachment hearings held in the House[25], not during the trial in the senate[26]. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
thanks, that helps.Rich (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources

There are a significant number of primary sources on this page which violate WP:PRIMARY. Going to start going through an removing unless someone can explain why they are not in violation.Nweil (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Nweil, given that WP:PRIMARY does say primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia I hope that when you say "remove", you mean "replace with a secondary source". – Muboshgu (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand your comment. Please clarify. Nweil (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Nweil, primary sources are not prohibited. They are not in violation unless they are being used improperly. In what way(s) do you think primary sources in this article are being used in violation of PRIMARY? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
To start, references 23 (text messages between officials) and 29 (readout from phone call) violate WP:PRIMARY. There are also tweets which are referenced, which violate WP:USERG. Nweil (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Ref #23 is NYT. I object to removing it. Tweets getting secondary coverage are also not USERG. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
This edit is not neutral. There is nothing "alleged" about Trump trying to coerce Zelensky, and there are no "foreign origins of politically damaging claims", they came from Trump and his allies. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Muboshgu Then the article was already wrong. It already had alleged, I was simply keeping it consistent. You need to actually read this reference already in the article [27]. The edit is completely supported. Please dont revert again. Nweil (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump/Archive_3&oldid=1189183229"