Jump to content

Talk:First impeachment of Donald Trump: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 674: Line 674:
:::So prosecutor saying they are going to prosecute someone, but never files the paperwork the court counts as being prosecuted to you? A lot prosecutors will say they have charger pending or prosecution is pending in that case. Although the only problem I see is the date of impeachment of this with the article. --[[Special:Contributions/50.37.216.119|50.37.216.119]] ([[User talk:50.37.216.119|talk]]) 03:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)i
:::So prosecutor saying they are going to prosecute someone, but never files the paperwork the court counts as being prosecuted to you? A lot prosecutors will say they have charger pending or prosecution is pending in that case. Although the only problem I see is the date of impeachment of this with the article. --[[Special:Contributions/50.37.216.119|50.37.216.119]] ([[User talk:50.37.216.119|talk]]) 03:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)i
They are not prosecutors until the terms of the trial are agreed to, and are technically referred to in that instance as "case managers". Besides, a trial for which several of the designated jurors have already indicated they are not impartial (which is clearly the stance of McConnell and several of his Republican colleagues) would be the actual sham part of this process. I get tired of having to repeat this. Here's a suggestion: before bringing up invalid arguments under any subject on this talk page or any others, why don't you make the effort to ensure your arguments have not already been addressed elsewhere? The purpose and intent of further discussion here is to dialogue about information which is new to the discussion, and if that is not the case, bringing up something repeatedly under several different discussions is essentially pointless. Also, if anyone involved in the discussion bothered to actually do the research before bringing up matters for discussion, it would cut out a lot of the need to repeatedly make the same points under multiple topics. Of course, that's nothing more and nothing less than my own opinion, based on my understanding of the way such discussions should work here on Wikipedia, which is only based on experience of around a dozen years of participating in such discussions as an editor here, so you can take or leave anything I or anyone else says as you prefer to do so. And it is also the right of anyone who cares to do so to waste time by bringing up the same arguments across multiple discussions on any talk page here on which they choose to do so. But if their concerns are addressed elsewhere on such pages, or similar pages here, there is always a point where such discussions become pointlessly rehashed ad nauseum, which is not, IMHO, a good usage of time. --[[User:Jgstokes|Jgstokes]] ([[User talk:Jgstokes|talk]]) 04:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
They are not prosecutors until the terms of the trial are agreed to, and are technically referred to in that instance as "case managers". Besides, a trial for which several of the designated jurors have already indicated they are not impartial (which is clearly the stance of McConnell and several of his Republican colleagues) would be the actual sham part of this process. I get tired of having to repeat this. Here's a suggestion: before bringing up invalid arguments under any subject on this talk page or any others, why don't you make the effort to ensure your arguments have not already been addressed elsewhere? The purpose and intent of further discussion here is to dialogue about information which is new to the discussion, and if that is not the case, bringing up something repeatedly under several different discussions is essentially pointless. Also, if anyone involved in the discussion bothered to actually do the research before bringing up matters for discussion, it would cut out a lot of the need to repeatedly make the same points under multiple topics. Of course, that's nothing more and nothing less than my own opinion, based on my understanding of the way such discussions should work here on Wikipedia, which is only based on experience of around a dozen years of participating in such discussions as an editor here, so you can take or leave anything I or anyone else says as you prefer to do so. And it is also the right of anyone who cares to do so to waste time by bringing up the same arguments across multiple discussions on any talk page here on which they choose to do so. But if their concerns are addressed elsewhere on such pages, or similar pages here, there is always a point where such discussions become pointlessly rehashed ad nauseum, which is not, IMHO, a good usage of time. --[[User:Jgstokes|Jgstokes]] ([[User talk:Jgstokes|talk]]) 04:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
:I meant prosecutor as kinda of analogy. Although you could say the house functions like a grand jury. --[[Special:Contributions/50.37.216.119|50.37.216.119]] ([[User talk:50.37.216.119|talk]]) 06:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


== Democrats Vow To Impeach Trump Again Even If He Wins 2020 Election ==
== Democrats Vow To Impeach Trump Again Even If He Wins 2020 Election ==

Revision as of 06:22, 25 December 2019

Third or Fourth President to be Impeached

I think there is also some disagreement about whether or not he has been impeached yet. Or whether the house has voted to impeach him but has not yet done so, and will only have done so when they bring the articles to the senate.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philomouse (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I am not sure this belongs under 3rd or 4th maybe it's own section in talk? Although, it is significant that it was Noah Feldman who wrote the article you link to. However, A Law Professor’s Provocative Argument seems to point to disagreement between legal scholars. However, there is no court precedent regarding this. Moreover, the longer the articles are with-held the question does become more important. Although, it seems factual to say the impeachment is still pending or in progress. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says, "...making Trump the third president in U.S history to be impeached...." There's actually some legal disagreement over whether or not Richard Nixon was technically impeached as he resigned during the process. Should this be mentioned? Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article of impeachment were never voted on for Nixon, so he was never impeached. A footnote would probably be useful though (and I had one in the original revision) to avoid confusion.  Nixinova  T C   02:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a footnote would be helpful, thanks! Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the footnote I had in the original page revision: Trump will thereby be impeached, making Trump the third president to be impeached, after [[Impeachment of Andrew Johnson|Andrew Johnson in 1868]] and [[Impeachment of Bill Clinton|Bill Clinton in 1999]].<ref group=note>[[Richard Nixon]] resigned from the presidency during his impeachment process, therefore he was never actually impeached.</ref>  Nixinova  T C   02:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, yours is better than mine, Nixinova. (I mean, come on, I even misused "proffered" here: "Although Richard Nixon had articles proffered against him by the House Judiciary Committee, he resigned before the full House voted on articles of impeachment. See Impeachment process against Richard Nixon.") Still, the fact that the footnotes keep getting removed: are we sure they're necessary? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nixon was not impeached. I don't see how there could be disagreement about that.- MrX 🖋 02:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mandela Effect, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
Maybe minor edits to that - change “will be” to “has been” impeached; and change the Nixon resigned ‘therefore he was never actually impeached’ to ‘before the vote for impeachment.’ to avoid saying ‘therefore’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some folks tend to get the 1974 Judiciary committee vote confused with the full House, which never voted on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Reintegrate

See also: Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump § Split without agreeing to split?

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, the current main article, was ripe to be moved to this name and the saga continued. However it seems different users have taken it upon themselves to create a separate article for this as well as the senate trial. This goes against all current convention for impeachment articles and is wholly unnecessary. I propose merging this and the senate trial page back into the main page content at this name. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 03:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merging this page into the inquiry page, neutral on merging the trial into here. This article already has a substantial amount of information that would make it too long to comfortably fit into the already-long inquiry page (which is 330kB+). Other U.S. impeachment processes were from before Wikipedia & the internet's popularity so there was less coverage of the processes. This page is already 63kB+ on day 1 of this happening and will only get larger, so there is enough content to warrant its own page.  Nixinova  T C   03:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. There's more information about Trump's impeachment available.  Nixinova  T C   04:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could've at least waited for the Inquiry article RM to be completed. Not even the House Democrats moved that fast. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that went against consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of my primary concerns. The main subject of that RM should have been modified to be based on whether to move the inquiry article to the primary impeachment title or to split, but instead, with it still active and some people still debating whether to move the article, the unilateral split occurred. I think that will likely remain the case since many will see it as the new "status quo," especially with it on the Main Page now. Master of Time (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sudden splits will also confuse folks who took part in the RM, when they return. GoodDay (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmhermen: There's simply too much content for one article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Quinn:, it is a trial known as the Senate trial, testimony is given with managers presenting their case over several days. Senate then begins deliberations either publicly or privately. The verdict is then given on a vote. Valoem talk contrib 05:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I misunderstood what that article was supposed to be about (it's a bit premature). Changed to Oppose merge for both. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The creeper2007: I think you mean to oppose. Support means you want one article on both the inquiry and impeachment process. Oppose means you want two. Valoem talk contrib 13:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - The Impeachment inquiry (House investigation) and Impeachment trial (Senate trial) are both related, but they are also two distinct procedures. Not to mention the inquiry page is incredibly lengthy; the trial page will no doubt become just as lengthy. Both can be briefly summarised in the main page, but for the sake of WP:LENGTH both should remain separate. Yes, other presidents' impeachment pages are not separated, but both are significantly shorter pages. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 06:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – I remain convinced that my BOLD action to split the first two articles was warranted and saved us a lot of work and time. We can now focus on improving these articles instead of being bogged down by process. (You need only look at how good this article has become to see I was right.) I am not sure we should have started the Senate trial article yet. That could have waited for the new year. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All you did was create confusion & frustration. The Inquiry article would've been moved, but you didn't give it a chance. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support — The inquiry will be frankly 80% of what stays in the merged article anyway. The sum of the length of the two articles may seem long but by its nature there is a lot of overlapping information. Alex 06:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Opera fera: There will be much less overlap when a good amount of content from Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, such as the near-entirety of the "Background" section, is appropriately migrated to Impeachment of Donald Trump. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PhilipTerryGraham, I think that should be removed or moved to Trump–Ukraine scandal. The inquiry article has too much background. We don't want to make the same mistake with this article. The summary of the background in this article should be kept very concise. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Still, the "Background" section for this article should have a satisfactory summary of both the Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Trump–Ukraine scandal articles; hopefully much more concise than the current "Background" section on the Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose merging the impeachment inquiry article into this article. That article’s large enough that it might require splitting. It certainly shouldn’t be merged into this article. I’m neutral when it comes to merging the trial article into this article. We should probably wait & see how that article develops before making a decision. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why would it require splitting? There are plenty of articles, such as Trump–Ukraine scandal, that are substantially larger than that one. Even by that argument, the way this article (Impeachment of Donald Trump) was created goes against the spirit of WP:HASTE because it was not imperative that the inquiry article be broken up without an official move/split discussion. Master of Time (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support There is substantial overlap between the Impeachment inquiry article and the Impeachment article. Not very smart to have separate pages for those two at least. Reywas92Talk 08:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – The impeachment inquiry is a self-contained chapter of this saga, and the actual impeachment is better handled in a new article, including a brief summary of the Ukraine scandal background and of the inquiry. The impeachment inquiry against Trump is equivalent to the Starr Report on Clinton; both have enough material and separate temporality to deserve their own articles. I would support merging the trial page into this one, because it won't start until January. We can decide later whether it deserves a split. — JFG talk 08:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge of inquiry / impeachment article. The significant majority of what happened is encompassed by the inquiry article. The impeachment vote itself can be boiled down to the drafting of the articles + the debate/vote on December 18. I might be down with a separate Senate trial article since that is a different phase / process and will have different goings on leading up to it, but will wait and see. Master of Time (talk) 09:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I belive that this page is large enough already and both of these articles will likely just grow and grow.★Trekker (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above opposes. I think this is viable and more than enough material for there to be a whole separate article. Quahog (talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support due to simplicity of both articles being on the same topic and having the same meaning Charlesmartin1987 (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Impeachment of Donald Trump. Oppose per MrX reasoning of course. Teammm talk
    email     11:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are separate processes, which will be followed by the Senate trial (another separate process). Too large for the whole of this to be in one article. Please consider the average reader, who may be accessing this on a small, portable device. How much scrolling should readers have to do before they get to the process they want? Especially if we're talking about students who are accessing this in a classroom. — Maile (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mobile view already breaks down articles in such a way as to limit scrolling, so that really doesn't seem like it should be a significant issue. Plus, looking at just what the page history says gives a misleading picture in terms of article size, e.g. much of the seemingly massive 70 KB in this article is just table coding, references, and the like. And that's not accounting for any redundancies between this article and the inquiry article. Master of Time (talk) 11:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Un huh. Well, speaking for myself ... if I have to read down through too much, I lose interest and look for something more interesting to read. How much is the average attention span on reading through all of this, even without the merging? What purpose are we serving by having it in one big glut? Given Wikipedia's easy linking from one page to the next, I see no purpose in merging everything. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. UpdateNerd went ahead and merged the impeachment trial article into this one. How do we move forward? David O. Johnson (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd say trim Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump to the absolute essentials and merge it here too. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment trial of Donald Trump

I converted this third article on the subject to a redirect here. Rmhermen (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Being this is the third impeachment of a US President, this is clearly notable and historic. Sources have already stated its significance and will be massively expanded in the upcoming months. Valoem talk contrib 05:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I was wondering if perhaps the content of this article should be merged back into the inquiry article which would then assume the "Impeachment of Donald Trump" title, with the Senate trial and the lead-up to it then receiving its own page because the Senate trial is a separate process from impeachment, which is a House process. They "try" the impeachment, but the Senate's actions are not part of impeachment. Master of Time (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inquiry article was too damn long. It needed some pruning, which is why we need the two new articlesArglebargle79 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you really need to say damn every time you go on record opposing a merge? I'm allowed to disagree. And if you consider my basic argument, the material specific to the impeachment 'vote' is actually quite limited. Just look at this article as it is right now, disregarding the 70 KB. The actual impeachment section (and if you want, polls section) is actually quite short. My thinking is that this article and the inquiry material should all be together as "Impeachment of Donald Trump," with a separate trial article for the second phase of the process (which is where I would expect most of the growth + added text to occur). Down the line, if necessary, future commentary on Trump's impeachment that doesn't relate to the Senate trial or anything else can have (a) separate fork(s). Master of Time (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't but it's necessary here. The question of limiting the articles to Ukraine was a contentious one and needs to be addressed. The protests and reactions need a place to go as well.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose No. As I have stated ad nauseum, there is a need for an "index page" (this one) and a separate trial page, as there is going to be plenty of information and drama surrounding it now that you-know-who has actually been impeached and the focus of American politics is the Senate trial. As to Andy Johnson and Clinton, their trials took place before the invention of Wikipedia, and Clinton's scandal has at least three or four articles. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article is a product of WP:RECENTISM, as we don't have such an article for Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Andy Johnson article is almost all about the trial. There were two investigations in 1867 that weren't even mentioned, including one that went all the way to the floor and lost. The fact that they impeached first in 1868 and wrote the articles later is barely even mentioned there. Again look at the difference between the 2004 Republican Convention article and the 1956 one. the latter is barely a stub, and the other is rather long and detailed. Why? Wikipedia didn't exist in 1956. It's the same here. Doing a really good job on the AJ impeachment would require tons of original research, or reading lots of really old books. The Clinton impeachment was mostly an afterthought that backfired. No one wanted Clinton impeached by the time he was...Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I oppose merging Impeachment trial of Donald Trump into Impeachment of Donald Trump. There will be enough notable content for at least three articles (Parent article: "Impeachment of Donald Trump" which provides summary-style synopses of these two detail-level articles: "Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump" and "Impeachment trial of Donald Trump"). I disagree with some of Arglebargle79's historical analysis, particularly about the Clinton impeachment. I wouldn't oppose the creation of a well-written article titled "Impeachment inquiry against Bill Clinton" (I would appreciate reading it, and might even be convinced to write it), and I believe the only reason why we don't have one is because Wikipedia didn't exist in 1998. I strongly agree with the core insight Arglebargle79 provides here in the comparison of the 1956 Republican Convention and the 2004 Republican Convention. -- RobLa (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely support This third article was never discussed, should not have been created, and there is no reason for it. The title should be made into a redirect unless and until consensus is reached to have THREE-for-heavens-sake separate articles on the impeachment, against all precedent and against all logic. And folks, please stop claiming that "Clinton's impeachment has multiple articles," that is simply false. Clinton's impeachment has one article about the impeachment, plus supporting articles about the scandal. Trump's article should also have one article about the impeachment, plus supporting articles about the scandal (see Trump-Ukraine scandal). --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now: I think it is justified to have a separate article about the trial, but not until the trial has actually started. 00:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk • contribs)
  • Support for now per Nine hundred ninety-nine. Once the trial is actually going to start, we should change the redirect into an actual article. Seems obvious enough. Kaldari (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Three is just excessive, and quite unnecessary, only further complicating matters for readers who want to be informed on the subject. --MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for now, for reasons explained just above. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:8C07:C8D3:185B:B55C (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References to official House roll call results

Hi Javert2113, can you say more about why you removed the links to clerk.house.gov in this revision? The revision comment says "never been able to get clerk.house.gov to work", but I don't understand what that means; [1] and [2] both load fine for me in Firefox and in Chrome. They seem like useful references, as they show how every member voted on this historic matter. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I get a "HTTP Error 404" every time I try to load a clerk.house.gov vote, so it honestly might just be me. Regardless, I think the Clerk, while certainly a source for information, isn't the best independent source here, given that, well, most every news outlet in the United States was counting every vote. Regardless, you're right, and I'm sorry for removing the links. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever help it may be.... The links work for me in Safari on my mobi. Seem like decent cites to have. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of this article

Putting this to writing to preempt any discussion on the purpose and role of this article – ideally, this article should serve as the main article on the topic of the Impeachment of Donald Trump, with certain sections of this article being written in summary style to serve as adequate summaries, for casual readers, of articles which go into greater depth. Here what the structure of the article should look like in my opinion:

  • Intro
  • Summary of this article
  • Impeachment
  • Details on the House of Representatives' votes on Impeachment
  • Opinion polling
  • Details on opinion polling for impeachment throughout the Trump administration, and not just December 2019

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think polling should start in December 2019 and continue from there. We have at least an month or two of this thing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think also editors are going to want a Response section to handle opinions from the masses of commentators and politicians that are going to add their two-cents. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above, I think that will be the most logical and simple formating.★Trekker (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ★Trekker Teammm talk
email 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout holding off, until the 'merge' discussion has completed? There's no panic here. GoodDay (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The merge discussion is running 53% Opposed. I just finished counting. There's no consensus to merge.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham's structure for the article is fine in my book, although it could use more on the media and protests, not to mention the Trump campaign's massive spending on TV and print ads. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Pelosi Says Articles of Impeachment May Not Be Sent to the Senate

Not certain if we need to add this.. Seems Nancy Pelosi doesn't want President Trump to be acquitted of the impeachment by the senate...

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/12/pelosi-considering-not-sending-articles-of-impeachment-to-senate-until-mcconnell-agrees-to-fair-trial-report/

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/12/18/pelosi-says-articles-impeachment-may-not-sent-senate/ 74.76.202.168 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)— 74.76.202.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It's more nuanced than that. McConnell has not agreed to what Pelosi calls a fair trial; that's the obstacle. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delaying the Senate trial 'til February-March? would certainly hurt the Sanders & Warren campaigns. Anyways, seeing as Pelosi might overly delay in this situation, it should be added to the article given its historical uniqueness. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, Pelosi is not delaying this. McConnell already admitted on-air that he is not an impartial juror, and that he would not overly drag out the trial. By his own admission, he wants the trial and acquital achieved quickly so the nation can get past this, and is unwilling to negotiate on the number of witnesses he wants called for the trial. So including the information in a way that lays blame at Pelosi's door is not only disingenuous, but a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view regulations, which are in place for situations like this. If we, as Wikipedia editors, fail to strike the right tone of neutrality on this, and include all available information that is relevant, then it would be a great disservice to the reader. Regardless of where we, as individual editors, stand on the matter personally, either it all needs to be included, or none of it should be. Again, just my opinion, based on my understanding of the relevant policies. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since neither Pelosi or Schumer can force McConnell's hand. Perhaps it's all a nothing burger. So why bother adding. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because this issue is why there is not going to be a quick Senate trial. If the consensus agrees with you that none of it should be mentioned, I'd be okay with that, but the fact of the delay should be mentioned in an impartial matter if it can reasonably be so. The issue is relevant to the Trump impeachment. We have never seen an impeachment where a senior senator of the same political party as the president in question has boasted on-air about not being impartial and wanting to move quickly to acquit. Failing to mention it would violate this policy, among others, at least from my perception. If the consensus moves to not mention it, then clearly, I am alone in my assessment and may be off-base. But readers, where possible, should have an impartial accounting of the facts, which are laid out in reliable sources. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brief mention of the delayed delivery at the Preparation for Senate is good. If it goes on long or has drama/content so gets more coverage, then it would deserve it’s own subsection as an unprecedented stage of the process. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be stated that this impeachment was very partisan?007longbeach (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment to this section where it is more relevant. As for what you said, as several reliable news outlets have reported, it was only"very partisan" because most of the congressional Republicans prefer to exhibit a blind loyalty to Trump rather than voting in a way that reflects the attitude of those whom they have been elected to represent. Public opinion polls by reliable sources note that a majority of Americans polled feel Trump should face some consequences for his alleged wrongdoing. So mentioning what you said in the way you said it would violate Wikipedia's policies on reflecting information found in reliable sources and maintaining a neutral point of view. If the information you mentioned could be couched in a more neutral tone, it might be eligible for inclusion, but not using the terminology you mentioned. At least, that's my opinion, FWIW. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"blind loyalty to Trump rather than voting in a way that reflects the attitude of those whom they have been elected to represent" something like 90% of republicans think the impeachment is a farce, I'd say the republican reps are likely voting exactly the way the people they were voted in by want them to. I have no horse in this race, I don't edit. 65.27.84.231 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)— 65.27.84.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What you say may be true on a national level, but on a state level, things are more nuanced than that. In my own home state of Utah, polling information shows that more than half of all Utahns support impeachment, and yet, of the four congressional representatives currently serving, only one, the lone Democrat from the delegation, voted in favor of the impeachment. The votes of the other 3 against it did not reflect the current opinions of their constitutants, and I suspect that Utah isn't the only state where that is the case. And overall, the opinion of the entire country is more in favor of impeachment of this president now than ever before, which is information that can be confirmed in the latest available nationwide polls. That is a clear demonstration that there are members of Congress who have more of a blind loyalty to the president of their party than a desire for their votes to reflect what their constituants are feeling. That is to what my previous comment was alluding. Hope that clears up why I said what I said. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to include the delay because it could mean that Trump has not been impeached.

I think it is important that this is included in the article since there is a strong legal argument that Trump has not been impeached until the house sends the articles to the house with their managers and prosecutes the case. [3] Technically speaking Trump has not been impeached according to the legal scholars the house democrats called to testify during the impeachment inquiry. It will also be important to include this information to explain the difference between this impeachment and past impeachments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.12.236 (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — 72.94.12.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's not the case. There's a difference between being impeached and being removed from office. Once the House ratifies articles of impeachment by the sufficient margin, a president is impeached, but it is up to the Senate to ratify the action before the President can be removed from office. Until that time, the ratification of the charges by the House is merely seen as a slap on the wrist. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the Senate does is not ratification, it's a trial, at which the president will be found either guilty or not guilty. According to the Constitution, the Senate "shall have sole power" to conduct the trial. So, can they conduct the trial or not? The only situation in which the Senate may conduct an impeachmeant trial is if the President has been impeached. If he has, they may conduct one. The reverse is also true: if they cannot conduct a trial, then the President has not been impeached. The article needs some mention of the fact that the legal argument exists - and has strong basis in precedent - that the President has not actually been impeached merely because the House passed a resolution to do so. Impeachment is a process that exists beyond the passing of the resolution, even according to the House manual. Sonar1313 (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concede your point about the fact that the Senate holds a trial, but the trial is to determine whether or not the President should be removed from office. A President can be impeached by the House but acquitted through a Senate trial, which is what happened to Bill Clinton. And either way, there is another elment that most people seem to overlook relating to this matter: In a scenario where the Senate holds a trial, once the Chief Justice of the United States is sworn in to preside over that trial, he then swears in the Senate as jurors. And the oath they are required to take at that time includes a promise to impartially examine the facts. And given that Mitch McConnell has point-blank stated he is not going to be an impartial juror, as long as he maintains that attitude, he cannot and will not honor that oath he is constitutionally-mandated to take. And since he is not the only one who has made a statement about not being impartial, until the Senate agrees to a bipartisan attitude of impartiality, and a willingness to examine the facts as they are, not as some members would like them to be, it would be disingenuous and a violation of her responsibility for Pelosi to send the articles to the Senate until that changes. That is the holdup, and that is the material point. See this section of a relevant article on impeachment, for which relevant sources verify these facts. The Senate must be impartial in these trials, so until that impartiality can be assured, it would be a bad idea for the House to send the charges over to the Senate. And this is the kind of attitude to which I was referring in an earlier comment on this very thread: Senate Republicans need to stop being Trump loyalists and see these charges as nothing more and nothing lesside than what they are, and the entire Senate needs to put aside partisan politics and cooperate on a fair and impartial examination of the charges, which deserve serious consideration and treatment. And if they cannot do that mandated responsibility in this matter, turning the case over to them at this point would be an exteremely bad move. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion section

I split the public opinion section of the inquiry page here, keeping only the polls relating to the inquiry itself on the inquiry page, but this edit seems to have been reverted. Is it not better to have polls about the inquiry on that page and polls about impeachment on this one? Currently the page only lists December 2019 as if impeachment polling only started then - there's no reason to only include the polls done since the conclusion of the inquiry.  Nixinova   T   C   19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The polls seemed to be colored with no legend. I would remove the colors. The way they are now looks biased. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's explained in a footnote, though it's not really based on anything.  Nixinova   T   C   20:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those who might miss the footnote: These polls are color-coded relative to the margin of error (×2 for spread). If the poll is within the doubled margin of error, both colors are used. If the margin of error is, for example, 2.5, then the spread would be 5, so a 50% support / 45% oppose would be tied. The colors selected are more like traffic light colors - green shades for Support, and reddish-pinkish shades for Oppose. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is idiotic, if it is in the margin of error, using your logic. They should have no color. Those that exceed the margin of error should be the only one using the colors. Now it doesn't just look biased, it is biased. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this video public domain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGDSG9cj0VE It's from the house floor, should be PD?

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works of PBS are not in the Public Domain, no. -Thespündragon 01:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Victorgrigas and Thespoondragon: Not exactly. The video was recorded using cameras that belong to the House and therefore are in the Public Domain. Even the on screen graphics identifying who is speaking comes from the Clerk of the House of Representatives. (See [4]) You can't take a work that is in the Public Domain and stamp it with your logo (which itself is in the public domain because of c:COM:TOO US) then claim it is copyrighted. This video is in the public domain.
However, the question becomes more complicated with footage from other networks with more complex on-screen graphics like CNN. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is this whole playlist also PD? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6P0sM21Tpw&list=PLgawtcOBBjr_4n_02kUz8Po5NcZg_a2dS Victor Grigas (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled by the Democratic Party

I object to edits that attempt to insert non-NPOV wording into the lead such as this and this. I invite Jdillonf to obtain consensus here for this edit before adding it back into the article in any form.- MrX 🖋 13:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; the House acted as a body. That it is controlled by Democrats is immaterial to that. Party affiliation can be discussed as part of discussing the vote totals or something. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the 'impeachment' was so blatantly farcial it has to be pointed out continually throughout the article that this exercise is a partisan exercise, and at no time should any of this article infer that Republicans had ANYTHING to do with it. It is imperative that that tone be represented. At this time the article represents the talking points of the office of the Speaker of the House and the DNC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdillonf (talk • contribs)
That Democrats control the House is immaterial to the fact that the House acted as a body. It also was not just Democrats, as independent ex-Republican Justin Amash voted in favor. Several Republican officials not in Congress have supported their actions, including John Kasich and Tom Ridge. There is also general agreement that most of the GOP caucus is simply too afraid of Trump and his supporters to oppose him openly. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Democrats will not consider their control of the House immaterial when they make claims in the future that this was one of their great accomplishments. It would be a factual assertion that the impeachment inquiry and the vote on the articles would never have reached the stage they did without the Democratic Party's multiple committee chairmen. Indeed, they will themselves emphasize the lack of Republican support, just as you do. (That is an understatement, given the impassioned opposition by more than one ranking committee member.) Granted, a lot of conservative media personalities are asserting that it is already one of their great embarrassments. However, I expect them to make those assertions anyway. Whatever the current Democratic leadership thinks they have achieved in the annals of Congress, they are on track to replace classic illustrations of the word "chutzpah".SvensKenR (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NO REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IMPEACHMENT! This is the headline that has to be repeated throughout this article as a counterweight to obvious propaganda that is now spewing across the page. That no Republican voted for the impeachment is paramount in a understanding of this subject. If you want to continue to rant about your own politics, go somewhere else. This page has to instruct (this is Wikipedia, not your blog) why the Democratic Party insisted on trying to impeach President Donald John Trump five times before they succeeded.Jdillonf (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jdillonf, what is "paramount" here is that Trump attempted to unduly influence a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen. That's why he was impeached. That no Republican, save Justin Amash, of course, voted to impeach is an important detail covered in the article already. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hearsay & presumptions don't amount to concrete evidence, however. It's up to the Senate to decide if Trump's guilty or not. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concrete evidence already exists in not only testimony, but documentation, and self-admission by the administration. What isn't being decided isn't the fact of what happened. That's already known, admitted-to, well-corroborated, and established. The only thing the Senate will decide is whether or not the facts of what happened merit disqualification and removal from office. The truth exists outside of verdicts. Wikipedia just has to be careful with WP:BLPCRIME because without public backing of an indictment or conviction, not much can be said without risking legal issues. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: - Trump and the White House: key witnesses, don’t testify, don’t provide documents. Sondland blocked from reviewing calls and notes. Republicans: what a thin case you have! Where’s the evidence? Not guilty! starship.paint (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump#Previous calls for impeachment which discuss attempts prior to this successful impeachment. Also, the vote counts are labeled clearly by party in the tables. To say anything beyond the facts to frame this as a solely political move by a party would be serious NPOV violations and push propaganda. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Jdillonf (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That impeachments are partisan isn't anything new, as it only requires a simple majority vote. Republicans had the majority in the House during the 1867–69 Congress, when they impeached a Democrat (Andrew Johnson) & Republicans had the majority in the House during the 1997–99 Congress, when they impeached a Democrat (Bill Clinton). So, it's nothing unique. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should point out, in the lead and in the text, (the text already makes it clear) that the House vote was along party lines - as it already does for the Judiciary Committee vote. I see that it doesn't and I will add it. There is no need to make more of it than that. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE EXCLAMATION MARKS ARE NECESSARY. EXCUSE THEM FOR NOW. Can we all just be civil here? Why not screw the political infighting and write Facts and Information. We all have our opinions, but this is no place to discuss them. Use social media for that. What is important is that the World is full of information and mis-information on this subject. BOTH THESE things should be discussed in this article, but keep opinions out of it! Give the QUOTED opinions of person (think Mcarthy and Pelosi) that are informed on this situation, not your own. Even in the talk pages, we should remember this is an encyclopedia, not a platform for personal opinion shuffling. Mulstev (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dig it!Jdillonf (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think anybody was being uncivil. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't SHOUT. Anyhow it is not clear what you are shouting about. What specifically do you think needs to be in the article, that isn't there now? The talk page is for discussing what should go in the article. This specific discussion is about how big a point to make out of the fact that the vote was along near-party lines. IMO there is enough in the article now on that subject. --MelanieN alt (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both points, and excuse my rashness. However, talk pages are as visible as the main article, even if they are less viewed. The discussion above is civil, bar my own screeches, but it does contain amounts of opinion, which may exist but are damaging to the fact based ideals of wikipedia. I write mainly to warn, and hopefully to remind, that there are persons always looking for ways to discredit or laugh at sources of information which are user-edited, such as Wikipedia. There is no reason to put anything on or in an article or talk page that may be damaging toward public opinion and trust of Wikipedia. Hopefully this second comment clarifies my above comment. Apologies if they be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really make much sense, talk pages are meant to discuss what people think about the article, so of course it'll have people's opinions in it.  Nixinova   T   C   21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be as objective as possible. It should include the fact that only democrats were in favor of impeachment and there was bipartisann support for Trump. You can simply cite the voting record. Any comment about what individuals outside the house thought about impeachment does nothing to make the article any more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.12.236 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — 72.94.12.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The article already cites the voting record. In detail. MelanieN alt (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, not only Democrats supported impeachment. Amash is independent, he supported impeachment. starship.paint (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Jdillonf is correct, the partisan nature of the vote and the entire proceeding is the most often mentioned aspect of this - it has greater WP:WEIGHT than the counts do. The ‘Democrats in the House’ wording seems OK, or one could explicitly say partisan such as ‘In an almost totally partisan vote, the House’, or something else. But to say ‘House’ alone is giving a false portrayal. Do we need a straw poll or rfc on this ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't shown any sources to support your claim, nor have you shown how you determined that the "the partisan nature of the vote and the entire proceeding is the most often mentioned aspect of this". I just searched "impeachment" and the very first source says "His iron grip was never firmer than over the last two months, during the House inquiry that concluded Wednesday with Mr. Trump’s impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress."[5] Nothing about Trump being impeached by Democrats. As a couple of editors including myself have said, the house acts as one body. - MrX 🖋 15:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment did not actually occur yet

According to articles from Bloomberg and National Review, President Trump is not impeached until the House sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Should consider revising these pages to reflect so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MugwumpSpirit110 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MugwumpSpirit110, those are opinion pieces. I don't believe those opinions are the consensus view of things. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is 1) what reliable sources say and 2) what the House itself says. Every newspaper/media outlet in the US had a variation of "House impeached Trump" as their headline. The House itself gets to determine if they impeached someone as the Constitution gives the House the "sole power of impeachment". The view that it is not valid until actually carried across the Capitol Building to the Senate(which can't be done until the session resumes on January 6th) is the opinion of those who hold that view and is not an official finding. It would be like saying your dinner is not finished until you put your plate in the dishwasher. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy here what I said at Talk:Donald Trump: We should keep, in the lead, the affirmative statement that he has been impeached. All Reliable Sources are treating the House vote as being actual impeachment, and previous impeachments have been dated as of the House vote. But several publications have noted Feldman's opinion, published in a Blooomberg op-ed here, and reportedly the White House is considering making the argument.[6] So we could add a sentence to the House Vote section of the text, attributed to Feldman and identified as opinion. Something like "Legal scholar Noah Feldman has stated in an op-ed that it is not an actual impeachment until the report is forwarded to the Senate, and the White House has echoed the argument." Sorry, I can't add it myself; I am not at my regular computer and would have difficulty citing references. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the US Constitution, Trump was impeached the moment the full House passed the first impeachment article & Pelosi confirmed the result. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean you are opposed to adding a sentence about Feldman's opinion - and the White House's possible use of it? Trying to get opinions here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I found the following sentence at our article Impeachment in the United States: Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". If this becomes a bigger issue than the opinion of one person, it might be worth citing that here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's been impeached, keep it in the leader. Note the name of the article itself. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping it in the lead, unqualified. My suggestion was to add a sentence to the article text. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 made a suggestion at the main Donald Trump article: we change the language to read "the House voted to impeach," and we remove "was impeached"/"third president to be impeached" and anything else like that until legal scholars resolve the controversy. While the debate goes on, I think we should stay with language that all sides agree on. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)— Architeuthidæ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no debate, just some opinions that differ with what most other sources and the House itself says. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I would probably just say, yes, let's just go by what the majority of the reporting is saying, but this isn't an ordinary situation. It's the first time in American history that the House has refused to send articles of impeachment to the Senate after passing them, so we're in uncharted territory. Also the op-ed this morning from the House Democrats' own legal expert stating that Trump hasn't been impeached is pretty stunning, actually. In all likelihood, this will all become moot in relatively short order when Nancy finally forks over those articles...but in the meantime there is some definite ambiguity here. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)— Architeuthidæ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Nothing has yet been withheld, the articles cannot be delivered until the Senate is back in session on January 6th. Pelosi has said she is only waiting until the structure of the trial is agreed to, so she can decide who she wants for managers. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are saying she's holding onto them for now, and she could have delivered them before the recess but chose not to until the Senate does what she wants the Senate to do.[7][8][9] Lots of language like "refusing," "sitting on," "holding up," etc. I don't think it's in contention that she's withholding the articles until her demands are met. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)— Architeuthidæ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm
The legal meaning of “formally charged” is that charges have been filed.
Even though the house has voted to impeach, charges have not been filed. Hence Donald Trump has NOT been impeached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoMoBig (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MoMoBig Every reliable source in the United States disagrees with you, as does the House itself. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it’s about time to overthink Wikipedia’s “reliable sources”, because the word impeachment literally means that charges are filed and it is a fact that charges have NOT been filed.MoMoBig (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So now there are two law professors arguing that impeachment has not occurred. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.html 99.203.17.28 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not care about truth, per se, but the representation of truth in popular thought. Things can be clearly wrong, technically, but be considered "correct," by Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. Wikipedia editing is more of a theological discussion, than a scientific one, so don't start talking about technicalities and truths. Talk about what reliable sources think, and adjust weight accordingly. Hey, it is why your middle school teacher told you not to use Wikipedia as a source. 2601:982:4200:8C80:81BD:612A:6457:BF48 (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— 2601:982:4200:8C80:81BD:612A:6457:BF48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is an interesting question. Sadly, there is no court/legal precedent regarding it. There does seem disagreement among legal scholars so whether or not that's the case seems be hard to say. However, the longer the articles are delayed the fact of this question does become more important. So the most factual statement would be the articles of impeachment have formally been approved, and the rest of the process is in progress or pending. It's not a far fetched idea though like presidents instead of vetoing a bill have waited to sign or veto it leaving it limbo. You also have things like the 27th amendment; it's certainly possible to delay or put things in limbo by not following through processes.--50.37.100.51 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— 50.37.100.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:WINRS "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues." Works as predicted....71.136.189.245 (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite aware of that fact about Wikipedia. I don't see why that's a good reason to not care about facts. I merely was commenting this is an interesting question, and legal scholars are divided on it's answer. There also is the fact this has not happened in past impeachments, and depending on how long they are withheld becomes more important. The most extreme case would be let's say they are withheld indefinitely. That question would certainly need to be answered then. The longer the time frame the more relevant a factual answer becomes. However, I doubt such an extreme would happen so it's merely an interesting question as I have stated earlier. That probably will become moot once sent to the senate. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— 50.37.100.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
It's really splitting hairs to say it's not an official impeachment until the bill is transmitted to the Senate. When Pelosi pounded the gavel, the impeachment was official. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it really is not splitting hairs in the sense of "No ifs, ands, or buts about it," sort of fashion. It is in the sense of public discourse, but not in a technical sense. The house wrote the charges, voted to submit the charges, and... may never actually file the charges. If one never file the charges, how can another be guilty of something never submitted to trial? This isn't even a partisan thing, it is a basic logic of how our laws work thing. If I had the reckon, a supreme court judgement would probably agree with the idea of, legally, technically, impeachment hasn't occurred until charges are filed, and submitted. None of this matters for this article though. They will almost assuredly be submitted in Q1 2020, and in public eye, and public discourse, impeachment has 99.9% already happened. All left now, is a rubber stamp. 2601:982:4200:8C80:81BD:612A:6457:BF48 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— 2601:982:4200:8C80:81BD:612A:6457:BF48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
If the impeachment was official when Pelosi pounded the gavel, then the Senate can proceed immediately, can it not? The question is, can the Senate proceed or not? If it can proceed, then Pelosi is doing nothing at all by "withholding" the articles from the Senate. If it cannot, then impeachment is not official. I submit, however, that in normal trial procedure, the court trying someone without actually having been presented with charges would be a galactical gross abuse of state power, and the prosecution deciding to try a suspect but never actually informing the court would be 1) an equally large abuse of power or 2) absolutely nothing at all, depending on whether or not the suspect is being held pending charges. In either case, you have to actually inform the court you intend to try someone before anything becomes official. So with impeachment. Sonar1313 (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's doubtful that the courts would rule on when impeachment is technically valid. In Nixon v. United States(about Walter Nixon, not Richard), SCOTUS ruled that how the Senate conducts an impeachment trial is a political question that the courts cannot resolve, since the Senate has the "sole power to try impeachments". Since the House has the "sole power of impeachment", the courts would likely also determine that how the House conducts an impeachment is not for them to decide. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like we can only speculate what the courts would say. Again I think this merely an interesting question. The only reason I see this ever getting to a court though is if it's held indefinitely. The courts could easily defer the decision to house rules comittee since the house has the power of impeachment. However, the question still is "does an incomplete process count as impeachment". However, it is highly unlikely the articles get held indefinitely. Nonetheless, the argument of voting to impeach and never formally telling anyone or continuing the process afterwards does appear to have some merit. Broadcast television and such is not a formal statement of the house. Formalities, are important in government. For example the house can't even introduce a bill unless its physically been placed in the hopper in the house. So let's say for some reason the house voted on a bill that was never placed in that hopper. That bill was never formally introduced, and would need to be voted on again. The reason I bring this up is you see a lot these corner cases of formalities have been figured out in the senate and house for routine things like bills. Contrastingly, impeachment is anything but routine. So corner cases/formalities have not been worked out. Henceforth, why I find it interesting. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— 50.37.100.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Well in both those cases the articles where forwarded to the senate. The fact they have been withheld here is unprecedented. This has lead to questions regarding the formalities of impeachment, but there is disagreement among legal scholars. However, unless they are withheld indefinitely or till trump has left office the question is merely about the formal process. It still is an interesting question, but unless something even less likely and unprecedented happens the answer is kinda moot. As it's a pretty much a forgone conclusion they will be sent to the senate and it is just matter of when. So you could say impeached in practice, but whether or formally is under contention. However, it's just conjecture unless either the courts or the house rules committee clarifies the formal requirements. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— 50.37.100.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I agree that Trump (technically) has not yet been impeached. Article I section 2 clause 5 of the U.S. constitution states “ The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” As the articles are still in the hands of the House, and not the senate (yet) technically speaking, Trump may not be impeached (yet). There should be a clause in the article stating the debate as to whether or not he has been impeached such as “some legal scholars currently hold the belief that Trump is not officially impeached until the charges are officially brought to the Senate. This belief is not held by most mainstream media outlets, as the impeachment dates for previous presidents are listed as the day of the vote to impeach so the technicalities of Trump’s impeachment are unclear” Jacket2018 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If it says the House has "sole power", they have sole power. The Senate is not involved in the impeachment charges. Senate is responsible for the trial and potentionally subsequent removal. No where in the Constitution does it state that the House must submit articles to the Senate in order for the official to be "impeached". If you want to argue the "formally charge" argument, the formal charges are in House Resolution 755, under "RESOLUTION". The charges were created, and voted on. This formally charges him. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment has not yet occurred. The order of events necessary for Impeachment is as follows: The House votes on Articles of Impeachment. A simple majority of votes is for Impeachment. The House speaker announces the vote result and adoption of the Articles of Impeachment. The House nominates people to legally represent itself for the Impeachment trial in the Senate. The House sends the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate and informs the Senate who its legal representatives are. The Senate opens the trial by having the House' legal representatives stand up and announce that, "The House impeaches person X for Articles of Impeachment XYZ." Xenagoras (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment has occured. Impeachment is the sole power and responsibility of the House, the Senate does not participate in the impeachment. The Senate participates in the Trial (comes after impeachment), which is the trying of the articles of impeachment to see if the regarded official should be removed. Impeachment is the charge. If you can point me to a reliable source that states that the House must submit articles to the Senate for a proper impeachment, please inform me of them. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Senate does not participate? Maybe you missed where the Constitution says "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." Article I, Section 3, Clause 6.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is trying. The judgement of the impeachment. THe House does impeachment. Senate does trial. They are seperate but related. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very easy to understand with a little common sense. Just compare the impeachment to any other trial at a court of law. Regarding Impeachment, the House of Representatives is equivalent to the body of public prosecutors.[10] It conducts an investigation (the Impeachment hearing) to find facts as basis to decide if there is an offense to be prosecuted and it writes the bill of indictment (the Articles of Impeachment) and it decides whether or not to indict (the House vote on December 18). The House speaker is the equivalent of the attorney general. In agreement with the House members, the speaker nominates a couple of federal prosecutors (Impeachment managers) to represent the body of public prosecutors (the House) during the trial in the court (the Senate). The Impeachment managers deliver the bill of indictment (the Articles of Impeachment) to the court (the Senate). The court (represented by the Senate leader) accepts the bill of indictment and notifies the Impeachment managers at what date and time the trial can begin. The Senate leader also notifies the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the planned date and time of the trial. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as chief judge of the Impeachment trial and the Senators act as jury.[11] The trial begins when the Sergeant at Arms in the Senate proclaims, "All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against ------ ------ "; after which the articles shall be exhibited. The full details of the Impeachment procedure are described in PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE See also [12], [13] and [14] Having now understood the Impeachment as a trial at a court of law and which roles the various actors have to fulfill, we can read how arraignment works: Under the United States Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, " arraignment shall [...] [consist of an] open [...] reading [of] the indictment [...] to the defendant [...] and call[] on him to plead thereto. He/she shall be given a copy of the indictment [...] before he/she is called upon to plead." Xenagoras (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The charges are the impeachment. The trial is the judging to see if the impeachment is enough to remove the official from office. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Impeachment is indeed at the sole power and responsibility of the House, and they fulfill this responsibility by presenting articles of impeachment to the relevant authority for trial. They have not yet presented these articles and therefore impeachment has not yet occurred. It's exactly the same as indictment: an indictment is a document presented by a qualified entity to the relevant authority, which becomes actionable on that presentation. In more general terms, a vote in favor of a course of action does not equate to performance of that action: we can vote on where to have lunch, but we have not yet eaten. The fact that so many "reliable sources" do not or pretend not to understand this perhaps obscure but certainly very simple legal or linguistic point throws into question the very idea of "reliability." 123.193.136.104 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They were presented. They were presented to the House, and the House voted YES; "These charges are valid and do constitute an impeachment. We vote yes, as a body, because this body finds these charges to be correct and thus we have now impeached him", basically. As soon as the House voted Yes on those articles, those articles became the impeachment charges. As impeachment is the sole power of the House, the [sic] "presenting the article of impeachment to the relevant authority for trial" was the House dems presenting the articles to the full House, for a vote. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely wrong, because the arraignment = exhibition of the bill of indictment (Articles of Impeachment) occurs in court (the Senate). Xenagoras (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in the article that states this information. I think the article should at least state that according to the legal opinions of whatever the legal experts are, Trump isn't actually impeached until the articles are delivered to the Senate. In this case the House is like the prosecutor, and the Senate is like a court. Impeachment is the formal charge of a crime. This has to occur in a court or in this case the Senate. While the House has voted to make the charge, they haven't actually made the charge until they give it to the Senate, the court in this case. Some of the press articles mentioned above give some good incite into this view.Sf46 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations supporting that Pelosi resisted impeachment

There's a sentence a couple paragraphs in, in the Background, that Pelosi resisted impeachment, but it didn't include citations. The line is "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi initially resisted calls for impeachment." I'm afraid I'm in a real hurry or I'd try to add these into the article, which seems locked down. I'd like to leave them here, and hope someone can include them to support the claim that Pelosi resisted call: https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/183296-2 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-1336587 174.52.240.90 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biased claims and citations

Pointless rambling about nothing of use  Nixinova   T   C   21:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


The article makes claims, specifically in the section “Trump–Ukraine scandal” solely with citations referring to news websites which are widely-known to be biased to or sided with the Democratic Party of the United States of America. This makes the claims also biased, as they all come from sources biased to the political party that is responsible for the instigation of Donald Trump’s impeachment. Furthermore, the page is also protected against vandalism, therefore users of Wikipedia cannot correct statements or add sources. Bassics (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— Bassics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Bassics: What sources do you claim are "widely-known to be biased to or sided with the Democratic Party" and what are your sources for that claim? - MrX 🖋 14:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Facts seem to have a Dem bias because Dems have a factual bias; Republicans seem to have completely forgone facts.  Nixinova   T   C   19:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nixinova A bit far there. I direct your attention to ‘Hillary is sure to win’ and a couple years of ‘collusion delusion’. And to state their view as fact, or to pretend inconvenient facts don’t exist seems universal. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hillary won more votes and the Russian collusion wasn't a "delusion";.  Nixinova   T   C   21:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A majority of the citations here are biased and I have a source to my claim but this talk page won’t let me reply with a link to a website. Bassics (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— Bassics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If your attempt to post a URL is blocked, that's because the source has reputation for publishing false information. In fact, for it to be blocked, it has to be a really bad source. You may want to have a look at WP:RS and WP:RSP. - MrX 🖋 14:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism.org has a great 10-point scale placement of political ideology and news sources called “Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience” Bassics (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— Bassics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/21/world/asia/north-korea-missile-test-trump-kim.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage Bassics (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— Bassics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maxine-waters-says-trump-will-invite-putin-to-the-white-house-if-the-senate-doesnt-remove-him Bassics (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— Bassics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I guess you’re right about my source for my claim. The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and ABC are conservative news sources. Bassics (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— Bassics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I feel sorry for Wikipedia. Here no longer is unbiased information. Bassics (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— Bassics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's biased.  Nixinova   T   C   19:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I think MrX is you look for any way to discredit someone just to prove your own point. Bassics (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— Bassics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Bassics: Are you okay? You went from discussion to anger really, really fast. Wikipedia has literally so many contributors that for something has to be really bad for it to be blocked. While the article is protected, you can still contribute. The only difference is it's reviewed. Also, please see WP:NPOV Bulhis899 (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you stop spamming this page, Bassics? Give us more than 2 seconds to reply to you, damn.  Nixinova   T   C   18:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except you didn't reply. You whinged about him asking two questions and then preceded to answered neither. Nice work. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Two questions"? Do you not see how long this section is? Bassics is obviously WP:NOTHERE and made no actual points.  Nixinova   T   C   21:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muller report

As a neutral foreigner, i'd suggest adding a short mention of the Muller-report. There's a weird standoff where the report left it up to politicians to draw conclusions and the politicians in the end didn't (dare) draw conclusions because the Muller report didn't. In international press this was mentioned when discussing the charges that did and didn't make it. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 13:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's Mueller. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement/Opposition subsection to public opinion

After noticing the entry about the Christianity Today endorsement of impeachment, should there be added publications that endorse and oppose impeachment. I believe the NY Times endorsed it. This obviously will mostly go down partisan lines but this still could be a worthy inclusion. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's only important because the president mentioned the publication. However, it does not really add much. It's pretty obvious while in the minority there are republican supporters who support impeachment. However, the same is true regarding democrat supporters a small minority oppose. I think the statistics already give enough regarding this, and it's a pretty obvious. So it just makes the article longer without really adding much. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2019

Change "The impeachment of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, occurred on December 18, 2019, when the House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.[1] President Trump's impeachment came after a House impeachment inquiry found that Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid (the Trump–Ukraine scandal), and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony. The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid and an invitation to the White House in order to influence Ukraine into announcing investigations into Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and a discredited claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[3][4][5]:8,208"

to "On December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress against Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States. The articles of impeachment must be transmitted to the Senate in order to complete the impeachment process. The impeachment vote came after a House impeachment inquiry found that Trump solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid (the Trump–Ukraine scandal), and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony. The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid and an invitation to the White House in order to influence Ukraine into announcing investigations into Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and a contested claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.[3][4][5]:8,208"

1. By definition, Trump is not impeached yet, reference constitutional scholars rather than biased media headlines https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

2. The claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election is not discredited, it is contested by certain political opponents. The following article is left biased and it admits there is undisputed evidence (in the ledger) that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. https://www.thenation.com/article/ukraine-elections-2016/ Rotaryenginepete (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources all have reported that Trump is impeached. Please see the above discussion on this topic. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And reliable sources have contested the claims of impeachment, including constitutional law scholars from Harvard. This is documented in the above conversation, yet well ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - Please join the existing discussion and obtain consensus before initiating an edit request.- MrX 🖋 18:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is impeached. That is it. No discussion. Opinion articles don't mean anything here.  Nixinova   T   C   18:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would say impeached in practice, the question here is about formalities. Formalities are important in government. However, the question is mostly moot unless the house for some crazy and highly unlikely reason holds them indefinitely. Anything, by legal scholars will be conjecture unless courts have made a ruling or the house rules committee has stated formal requirements to finish the process. It's just an interesting question. The formalities for the routine such as bills has already been worked out by the house. Impeachment is anything but routine. Therefore there are formalities that may have not been considered. Considering, it is unprecedented the house has withheld the articles it entirely possible formally impeachment is not complete. However, the effect of this question again is moot unless the house holds them indefinitely or after trump is no longer in office. Unless something like that happens the end result is a given or to repeat a forgone conclusion. Nonetheless, it still is an interesting question and probably would be better related to discussion about the process of impeachment. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rotaryenginepete Nothing has been ignored. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. The headline of every newspaper/media outlet in the United States and probably around the world was a variation of "Trump impeached". The opinions of any individual constitutional scholar are just that- their opinions, and have no official standing. There may be some way to work those opinions into this article, but that doesn't change what reliable sources have said, that Trump is impeached- which means that's what we say. Feel free to take that up with every media outlet around the world if you disagree with what they have said. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
as in alternate facts 2600:1702:2340:9470:E534:654A:35F0:C56C (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And thank Mary Magdalene we don't listen to those "facts" here! OP doesn't seem to understand the process of impeachment. I hope they now do. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lol you guys are reaching hard here, headlines don't constitute facts. They've have been wrong before, and they will be wrong again. If the articles of impeachment don't go to the Senate, then the impeachment process will remain incomplete...therefore it isn't an impeachment until that happens. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind WP has caveats to use of those headlines... a Headline should be only used for indicating importance and not as content cite, I forget the policy name, and same-day coverage is suspect per RSBREAKING. (And these scholars are the relevant experts, so if they come to consensus — or dispute — on the date of Impeachment, that is to be regarded as the Facts by BESTSOURCES, and not umpteen headline writers that want to catch the eye and only have space for three words but don’t necessarily know anything on the topic.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MarkRotaryenginepete (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The impeachment happened already. That process has passed when the House voted "YES" on the articles of impeachment (as described in House Resolution 755). What you're talking about is the Senate trial, which has not happened yet. But impeachment remains. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 10:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the LEGAL DICTIONARY, impeachment is a TWO STAGE PROCESS, so no that process hasn't been completed yet. Scholars>headlines. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impeachmentRotaryenginepete (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The impeachment process is called that because it begins with an impeachment. They couldn't name it after the end, because it can end in one of two ways, and "conviction/acquittal process" is a monster. Out of curiosity, what do you call the first step? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:38, December 23, 2019 (UTC)
InedibleHulk According to the legal definition I cited there must be an (step 1) impeachment inquiry AND (step 2) impeachment vote/trial if necessary, regardless of the variable outcomes the last step/stage of the impeachment process isn't completed. Legal dictionary for impeachment states "The two-stage process begins in the House of Representatives with a public inquiry into allegations. It culminates, if necessary, with a trial in the Senate."
The dictionary definition is
im·peach (ĭm-pēch′)
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es
1.
a. To make an accusation against: impeach someone of a crime.
b. To bring formal charges against (a public official) for wrongdoing while in office.
The lower House of Congress voted and approved articles of impeachment, but they have NOT YET BROUGHT those articles to the place of trial/accusal, which is the upper house of the Senate. This is the equivalent of a prosecution drawing up charges but not submitting them to the court. If the allegations remain unsubmitted, then the two stage impeachment process remains incomplete by definition. This is the same reason that Nixon wasn't impeached, because he resigned under threat of impeachment before the process could be completed. Another parallel example would be a bill passed by the House but not submitted to the Senate would not be considered as successfully completed legislation. 331dot Nixinova WhoAteMyButter MrX don't let opinions get in the way of facts, this is an encyclopedia not an op ed. You could say the House impeached Trump, but you cannot say he is impeached until the articles are transmitted/allegations brought against him. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
331dot Nixinova WhoAteMyButter MrX consider what the Constitution and Senate Impeachment rules say over popular opinion. The Senate has the sole and final say on impeachment, they consider it in a preliminary hearing made by the House impeachment managers, and they can (and did in 1797) dismiss an impeachment resolution altogether. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 says "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." So, this is just like any other regular H.R. legislation bill. If the lower House passes a Resolution and it is not transmitted to or approved by the upper house of Senate, then said legislation isn't passed or completed. The official and reliable sources include those Constitutional scholars originally cited, the Constitution and history from https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/17/trial-of-impeachment , and the Senate website https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/1_1868ImpeachmentRules.pdf Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reading the Constitution, it says "The house has the sole power of impeachment".  Nixinova   T   C   00:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meaning exclusive power, not boot power. The Senate has the power to boot. The USFWS controls the sole fish. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, December 24, 2019 (UTC)
You're quoting the Heritage Foundation, and I'm the one letting opinions get in the way of facts? Please don't waste my time with this nonsense and please learn about how Wikipedia works before diving into the deep end. - MrX 🖋 00:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MrX SO you're saying the Senate never dismissed an impeachment resolution from the House in 1797? Because that was the history I cited from the Heritage Foundation, which is also found here on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States and here in the sources cited for that article as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#cite_note-SenateJ1798-16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#cite_note-18 Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nixinova And just like any other House Resolution, the Senate has the sole power to try that impeachment and if necessary dismiss it. So if the articles are withheld indefinitely, then the impeachment remains incomplete. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody can try an impeachment until it already exists. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, December 24, 2019 (UTC)
InedibleHulk Exactly. They can't get this fact through their thick skulls, and so Wikipedia remains an biased un-citeworthy source. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is certainly un-citeworthy, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia presents the sources for people to review for themselves. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So then why is the Wikipedia policy being ignored here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Facts_precede_opinionsRotaryenginepete (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It already exists. The Senate just hasn't tried it. I'm implying you're dense. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, December 24, 2019 (UTC)
InedibleHulk lol but there's the small inconvenient fact that the Senate CANNOT try the impeachment yet, because it does not exist as a resolution that can be tried by the Senate. That won't happen until it has been brought/delivered by the House to the Senate. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, has not been tried. But neither has Nikolas Cruz. Still currently charged, which is like remaining impeached, but harsher. Both the defendant and the impeachment exist for a later trial, where their current status cannot change. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, December 24, 2019 (UTC)
Except an indictment/charges against Nikolas Cruz were issued with and await the action of the court. An indictment is similar to impeachment in that it shares the defining characteristic that the charges must be BROUGHT/ISSUED/DELIVERED/FILED. Indictment: A set of written criminal charges issued against a party, where a grand jury, under the guidance of a prosecutor, has found that sufficient evidence exists to justify trying the party for that crime. See what I am saying here?Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you repeatedly on that point, loud and clear. But you're fundamentally mistaken each time. What the Senate does or can not do with this House impeachment is irrelevant to its continued political effect as an actual untried thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, December 24, 2019 (UTC)
lol so you disagree that the impeachment process, by definition, means to BRING CHARGES AGAINST...and you disagree that the House hasn't BROUGHT CHARGES AGAINST yet. So what fundamental part of the "House hasn't completed the impeachment yet" don't you understand? Rotaryenginepete (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trump watched or heard about the vote in the House, where the charges were brought. That counts as "arraignment", in spirit. Now his completed impeachment is merely awaiting delivery, like in two-step pregnancy. The first result is totally over, regardless of whether "the mother" (Nancy Pelosi) goes to a hospital near the end or "the baby" (his seat) stays or goes at the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, December 24, 2019 (UTC)
So the charges were brought, but awaiting delivery? Who's fundamentally contradicting now? The charges have only been drawn up and voted on, which all we have to look at are the fancy papers...not legally impeached yet. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Brought to the "cellar door" of this institution, awaiting its gentle rapping at the "attic window". Whole other level, dude. Impeachment is words on paper, never more. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, December 24, 2019 (UTC)
Yes, impeachment articles are words on paper. But impeached is a verb, not a noun (as cited above). It's a process. Thinking it is words on paper is fundamentally misunderstanding grammar. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The process is complete. It was completed when the vote occured, as that is the last step. From the drafting of articles, to the presentation, to the vote; that is the process. The process has ended, and it ended with Donald J Trump being impeached. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, cite your source. Where does the Constitution layout your imaginary steps, and say the vote "is the last step" of impeachment? Because Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 says The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. If the impeachment is completed, then the Senate should have been able to start the trial today...but that didn't happen. It didn't happen and it won't happen until the impeachment process is completed, so according to the Constitution, you're wrong.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple sources describe the exact same procedure. History.com has a good one on it. So does CBS. And ABC. NY Times even has a timeline on this. Washington Post too. I could go on and on and list many more sources and news articles, but they all have one essential thing in common. They all say something along the lines of "For the House, passage of impeachment articles would require only a simple majority of the chamber. If even just one article passes, the president has been impeached." If you can link and explain a source that tells me the impeachment has not occured yet and can properly explain why, please do. If (for whatever reason) you want me to list more sources, please open a topic on my talk page; I would love to make a bulleted list. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you miss the original source, Harvard Constitutional scholar and impeachment trial witness Noah Feldman? Here it is again https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats “If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all,” Mr. Feldman wrote for Bloomberg. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is Noah Feldman's opinion, it is not fact. Not to mention that this article is in the OPINION section. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So the articles you dropped aren't the opinions of those media journalists who wrote them, but blatant facts? Rotaryenginepete (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. A timeline with matching times is reliable. If you can point out something that is an opinion (not a fact) in my citations, please let me know. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In your ABC source, direct quote: "If the Senate fails to convict, a president is considered impeached but is not removed, as was the case with both Clinton in 1998 and Andrew Johnson in 1868." Isn't this implying the Senate must actually try the impeachment? That's what I have been saying...Rotaryenginepete (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the sources conflict in the stated number of past presidents who have faced impeachment proceedings. NYT says 3, while CBS says 2. This means there is opinion in play, because they don't agree on the facts/steps of impeachment.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should be calling up every media outlet around the world to tell them that they are all wrong and ask them to issue retractions that say impeachment is not "official" until it is walked across the capitol building. The House has the 'sole power of impeachment' but that doesn't seem to matter to you. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The media is biased, there's no use in referencing them for factual content. But you're still missing what I put down. Look at the historical precedent. The 1868 Senate Impeachment rules and the instance where the Senate dismissed the impeachment in 1797 both hinge on a critical detail. I'm not saying the House doesn't have the sole power to impeach, I'm saying they haven't completed/fulfilled that power yet. The House must have brought the impeachment to the Senate, a.k.a. filed the charges with the court. Until that happens this impeachment resolution is nothing more than symbolic...and does not meet the legal definition of impeachment. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't bring up the "fake news" argument. If you can point out bias in the source, please document it in your arguments instead of saying "nope, biased news.". I can assert to you that your failure to do so helps no one. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great advice for the person who originally accused my cited sources of being biased. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He said your source was unreliable because it was this Wikipedia article that we are discussing. See WP:WINRS. All of the rebuttals I can see to your sources are well-documented and explained as far as I can make sense of. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MrX claimed that tidbit of history from the Constitution article on the Heritage Foundation website, which is reflected in NUMEROUS other historical sources, was wasting his time...maybe not because it has to do with opinions, but because historical facts and precedent easily prove all of you wrong for calling this impeachment a done deal. The entire point of my sources was to illustrate the impeachment process cannot proceed without the articles of impeachment being transmitted to the Senate. This is equivalent to an incomplete process, and furthermore the House has NOT BROUGHT CHARGES YET. Not legally impeached. He is only impeached in your opinions.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to speak for MrX, but please cite the source (other than bloomberg) that says "impeachment process cannot proceed without the articles of impeachment being transmitted to the Senate.", as you said. I cannot find it, and I cannot find proper and reliable instances of you writing it down either. Please put it down here definitively. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the House still has sole power to impeach and set their own procedural rules. But, under current Senate rules, if they do not transmit the articles then the entire impeachment process remains incomplete...and it is legally defined as a process. Now I understand that the Senate Impeachment rules do not trump the Constitution, but the Constitution is silent regarding procedural details of impeachment...so what do we reference to define the steps of the impeachment process? It has to be a combination of House rules and Senate rules. We already know how the House set their rules...but nobody is talking about the Senate rules here, as if they aren't Constitutionally relevant. The ones I cited/provided previously were from 1868...but the new rules are largely unchanged from then. These updated rules contain the procedural details regarding transmitting the articles of impeachment and requirements for proceeding with impeachment... https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-69.pdf Approved articles of impeachment that remain dorment/unpassed to the Senate are going to be symbolic at best, until those charges are actually BROUGHT to the place of impeachment trial. Currently, the situation is no different than a prosecutor drawing up charges and then waving them in front of the courthouse claiming he has charged a defendant...even though he hasn't formally presented those charges to the court. However this is technically a bluff by the Speaker, because the only way around this would be if the Senate changed their impeachment rules to remove the requirement of transmission...exercising their Constitutional sole power to try an impeachment. If that happens, and the Senate rules are changed, then it would be like the judge snatching the charges from that prosecutor...the impeachment process would be allowed to proceed and you could say Trump was impeached.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. But nothing in that PDF says the impeachment is incomplete or unfinished until that happens. Even the House's own website says "three Presidents [...], and Donald J. Trump in 2019], [...] have also been impeached.", under "The Use of Impeachment". The House says he is impeached, 755's resolution is that he is impeached, and since the House has sole power over impeachment, that is how it is. If the house says he is impeached, that is fact, as it is written confidence of sole power. Because of sole power, House overrides Senate here. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The House has also made allegations in the articles of impeachment, but that doesn't make those facts or convictions. The Senate also has sole power, so the only way for the House to interrupt the sole power of the Senate is to play on a technicality of an incomplete impeachment process. Yes, that lawyer is still waiving his papers saying he filed charges, but the judge is still empty handed.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to which charges in the article(s) of impeachment are not fact. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The charge on Abuse of Power, alleges no statutory violation nor offers any factual evidence of a crime...the violation is purely subjective. The charge on Obstruction of Congress is also subjective and alleges no statutory violation, where the House is simply claiming that Trump's defiance of their subpoenas was unlawful...but that is assuming they have the lawful power to do so in the first place. The SCOTUS taking Trump's lawsuit over financial record subpoenas proves that this Congressional subpoena power is limited. While the alleged actions may be factual, none of the alleged violations in these impeachment articles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) 09:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) He abused power by telling Ukraine to announce investigations into Biden through a proven false conspiracy theory. He used his presidential status to try to hurt one of his political opponents. When it didn't work out, he revoked aid to them. 2) How would a subpoena be unlawful? Trump refused to comply with an order by Congress. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, everything you said, 1) and 2) is subjective opinion, assumption, and allegation only. Not a shred of it is documented facts, or you'd be able to cite sources. What President Trump actually said (documented fact https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-phone-call-transcript-text-pdf-1510770) "I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me." A subpoena can be unlawful if enforcement is attempted outside of jurisdiction. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Impeachment is the charge. Trial is the trying of those charges. Impeachment is seperate from Trial. Please direct me to the exact quote that says the Senate has sole power/say/ending/what have you on Impeachment, as you said: "The Senate has the sole and final say on impeachment". This contradicts the Constitution, which says the House has sole power. The Senate TRIES the charges. The charges (impeachment) part is over. We are currently waiting for the transition to Trial. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WhoAteMyButter The articles of impeachment are the charges from the House, but those charges haven't been brought yet. Impeachment, by the legal definition previously cited, is a two stage process which may include a trial, but most importantly it means that the charges have bveen presented/brought to the place of impeachment (the Senate). That has not happened yet. You did not read the cited Senate Impeachment Rules March 2, 1868. Prior to the trial the House impeachment managers must bring the impeachment before the Senate, who must decide whether to hold a trial or not. This is why the President requested a trial, because the Senate can also dismiss an impeachment resolution. Although it is not necessarily required, the trial is most definitely part of the impeachment, as quoted in the Constitution Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 says "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said [sic] "charges have bveen presented/brought to the place of impeachment". The place of impeachment is the House'; as evident in the "House has sole power" part of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution overrides whatever a dictionary says. You also said that "House impeachment managers must bring the impeachment before the Senate, who must decide whether to hold a trial or not". This is correct, but you contradict yourself here. How can the managers bring impeachment to the Senate, if the "impeachment never existed", as you commonly put it? WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I made a typo mistake, it should be "the place of impeachment trial is the Senate", per the Constitution. The act of House managers bringing the impeachment to the Senate is exactly what defines impeachment (bringing the charges). Just because you disagree with the legal dictionary doesn't mean the Constitution "overrides" that definition. You're going to need something better than that strawman argument to prove your point. Show me where the Constitution defines impeachment as only being a House vote. The sole Power of Impeachment clause does not define impeachment, it defines who has the authority to execute impeachment. What I am saying is the House has unfinished business, and until that business is finished it is not a legally defined impeachment. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing the charges means presenting them to the House for a vote. The Consitution overrides a dictionary because a dictionary has to cover all nations, and all cases. Plus, not all dictionaries agree on definitions. Each one is different. The Consitution is one and unified. The bringing of those impeachment charges to the Senate for trial is the beginning of the Trial, which must occur after Impeachment. Additionally, This is further supported by the fact you yourself said "place of impeachment trial", which means it's a trial on the impeachment. The impeachment already happened, the Trial is next. Again, Impeachment and Trial are seperate but related. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, bringing charges is NOT drawing up nor approving charges by a House vote. Once again, the Constitution does not back you up here. In fact it rebuts your statements. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 says The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. If the impeachment was completed, then the Senate could start the trial...but that has not happened. It won't happen until the impeachment process is completed. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Senate has not started Trial yet because Pelosi has not sent over the articles. Whether she sent them or not, he is still impeached. The articles being given is part of Trial. Also, because the Senate isn't even in session yet. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If a lawyer draws up a lawsuit (just as the House drew and approved an impeachment resolution) but never BRINGS/ISSUES/DELIVERS/FILES the suit to a court (the Senate), then can that lawyer say the defendant has been sued (impeached)? This is the exact principal I am trying to convey here. The President cannot be served with impeachment (or declared impeached) because the impeachment process remains incomplete until the charges are brought. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still no. You are incorrect about the definitions. Impeachment is the forming of charges and agreeing that those charges "check out". Yes, the trial takes place in the Senate, but that is the trial. You cannot have a trial if the charge(s) (impeachment) doesn't exist. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, still yes. So finally admitting you disagree with the legal definition of impeachment? The charges aren't brought yet. You also cannot have an impeachment trial if the impeachment charges remain un-filed or un-submitted to the court which with they are supposed to be tried in. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words in my mouth if I did not say them. The definition of impeachment can be boiled down to "to charge with a crime or misdemeanor". You are correct in that the Trial cannot begin if the charges did not pass, or have not been submitted yet, but that is Trial. That is not impeachment. The reason the Trial has not begun yet is because Pelosi has not given them over to the Senate for trial. Impeachment already happened. Pelosi's next step is to submit the impeachment articles to the Senate. Trial is next. The Senate then judges if the impeachment consitutes the removal. If anything comes out of this, I want you to know that I note this about you: you keep confusing impeachment and trial and assuming the trial is part of the impeachment itself. It is not. It comes after. Trial occurs only to judge the impeachment and determine if the impeachment is enough for the removal. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it is difficult to grasp, but the biggest problem is you've repeatedly tried to define impeachment in your own words...without source...to back your argument. Your definitions conflict with the already cited legal definitions and procedures laid out in the Constitution, so I didn't put words in your mouth by saying you admittedly disagree with the legal definition because your words say otherwise. Then you tried to shoot this down with a strawman argument about impeachment vs trial, but that isn't what I am arguing here. I am saying that BECAUSE there cannot be a trial yet, the impeachment process isn't completed. If the Senate has sole power to try an impeachment, but they cannot try it yet, then this cannot be a completed and legally defined impeachment. Once Pelosi has brought the charges to the Senate, then Trump will be impeached. Not a moment before that. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. As you said: "specifically: to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office", I believe the competent tribunal is to be the House. Also, I cannot find any source that says that for impeachment to be fully completed, a trial must take place; please cite that. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I said a trial must take place to complete the process, but a vote to impeach does formally advance the impeachment process and require a trial. From the previously cited https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impeachment "Impeachment is conducted in two stages. Impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives (art. I, sec. 2). This stage satisfies the Framers' belief that impeachment should be a public inquiry into charges against an official, and it involves fact-finding at hearings. After accumulating all the evidence, the House votes on whether or not to impeach. A vote against impeachment ends the process. A vote to impeach formally advances the process to its second stage through what is called adoption of the Articles of Impeachment. Each article is a formal charge with conviction on any one article being sufficient for removal. The case is then sent to the Senate, which organizes the matter for trial (art. I, sec. 3)." The case hasn't been sent yet...Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...but your source doesn't say that it needs to be. Nor does literally any reliable source. Until reliable sources start retracting reportage that impeachment has occurred, please WP:DROPTHESTICK. WMSR (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned in my other response, we have to go off of the House and Senate rules for impeachment. Also, from https://www.legislativeprocedure.com/blog/2019/4/8/a-primer-on-impeachment-procedures-in-the-house "What Happens Next? Upon adoption of articles of impeachment, the House will adopt resolutions appointing managers, authorizing those managers to prepare for and conduct a Senate trial and to notify the Senate of the adoption of the articles of impeachment and the appointment of the managers. During the Senate trial, the House managers present evidence and arguments subject to the procedures adopted by the Senate." This also hasn't happened yet, the House hasn't completed their job on impeachment. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First off, that's a blog, not WP:RS. But let's put that aside. Your source does not explicitly state that "in order to be impeached, the House must transmit articles to the Senate." You are arriving at that conclusion through your own analysis. Meanwhile, myriad reliable sources have directly and succinctly reported that the President has been impeached. It's as simple as that. You can come up with as many theories as you want, but the standard for inclusion is reporting from reliable sources, and your claim does not meet that standard. WMSR (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a blog, but it is based on the Senate and House impeachment rules. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-69.pdf https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/text The Constitution implies there must be a trial, by the sole power clause. How can the Senate have sole Constitutional power to try an impeachment, but that power is being be withheld by the House? It is because the Speaker has taken advantage of both the current House and Senate rules of impeachment, using technicalities to suspend progression...so by not completing the impeachment according to these rules they are in effect not completing the impeachment process. That's why the Senate can't commence the trial yet, because until the articles get transmitted it's an impeachment fake out.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is you talking, not the source. You need reliable sources that explicitly make your claim. WMSR (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I will gather more sources.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
in the meantime, Noah Feldman's newer follow on article provides several more historical sources and precedents (not just opinions) https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-22/trump-impeachment-why-can-t-the-senate-start-a-trial-now Rotaryenginepete (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's still just their opinion and not an official finding- which as already noted, can only be from the House itself. If Trump sues to have the impeachment declared invalid because it has not been walked across the capitol building and placed in Senator McConnell's hand, he can do that. He would lose(and that's if it even got that far, since the Senate is not in session to accept any paperwork and Speaker Pelosi can't do anything yet anyway). 331dot (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do I need to unpack the links to his sources here? Did anyone even read these articles? He backs his opinions with historical documents which detail the basis of his argument, and even a judicial ruling And as Whittington also points out, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held in 1923 that impeachment is official “when articles of impeachment are duly filed with the Senate and duly accepted and filed by the Senate.” https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-jeffersonman.pdf Rotaryenginepete (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if you get Trump to sue and get SCOTUS to hear and resolve this case before January 6th, I wish you luck. Until then, we go with what reliable sources state. You are, of course, free to disagree with just about every media outlet in the world. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't need to sue, nor does he want to since he already asked for a trial, but how is this even relevant? Rotaryenginepete (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In order to establish the opinions of those you are citing as an official finding, there needs to be a lawsuit to do so(which only Trump would have standing to file). Until then, it is just their unsolicited opinion. I think that the horse died long ago. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't dismiss him nor his sources that easily. The Senate and House impeachment rules, historical documents, and lower judicial rulings cited back what he is saying. A majority media consensus of opinions saying he is "impeached" doesn't suddenly make it a fact...although tempting, the media isn't a reliable source for legal definitions.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is not a place to get legal definitions or nitpick over stuff like he's not impeached because a paper was not walked across the Capitol building. What we do here is summarize what independent sources state. If that's not what you are into, I'm sure there are legal websites or journals for what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars I can't find anywhere that says this isn't a place to get legal definitions, especially with reference to such a major historical event. My requested edits are in the spirit of neutrality, not nitpicking the details. They are formed to avoid the appearance of bias to those who do nitpick the details. I agree you are seeking to find consensus, but the consensus of media headlines does not constitute fact nor does it reflect what everyone actually believes. The consensus of other editors on this page User:MugwumpSpirit110, User:MoMoBig, User:Sonar1313, User:50.37.100.51, User:Jacket2018, User:Xenagoras, User:50.37.112.189, User:Partytemple, and User:StanTheMan0131 who have individually disagreed with the content have also been shot down. This is not in the spirit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered".Rotaryenginepete (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is still going on? What a waste of everybody's time. There is consensus in reliable sources that Trump has been impeached. That does not require unanimity of opinion. The articles will be sent at some point(yes, I know about WP:CRYSTAL concerns) making this whole academic exercise pointless. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about consensus in sources, it is about the NEUTRALITY PILLAR and making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. You cannot say if the articles will be sent because you cannot predict the future.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Alleged" Co-ercion?

"The Trump–Ukraine scandal revolves around efforts by U.S. president Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidate Joe Biden as well as information relating to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Trump enlisted surrogates within and outside his official administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, to pressure Ukraine and other foreign governments to cooperate in supporting conspiracy theories concerning American politics"

The above paragraph is very biased. There is no evidence of this coercion so the word "allegedly" should be inserted at the bare minimum. The part of supporting conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theory in itself. Again no proof has been offered. Frankly this reads like it has been written by the DNC. I presume the New York Times is considered equally reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.225.104 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — 80.101.225.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As there has indeed been no trial yet I have inserted the word "alleged" so the paragraph reads "around alleged efforts". Britmax (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per how impeachment literally works, the impeachment process is a trial. As in, the House approving the article means that they have found that the coercion occurred. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least when it comes to the US system. Just being impeached does not mean a crime or offense occurred. That is for the senate to decide. I think alleged is fair. Same applies to normal charges in traditional courts when the prosecution files charges against someone the prosecution is alleging they committed some crime. News articles tend to be careful to use the word alleged in normal trials even when there is overwhelming evidence such as video footage, numerous witnesses, and even DNA evidence. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— 50.37.100.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
The fact that a trial will occur and has not yet occurred, is a very strong argument for alleged. Otherwise, a trial would not be needed. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Nancy Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment for submission to the Senate for trial. Either way, I think "alleged" would be correct here. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it should say "alleged". The trial has not happened. Impeachment is the equivalent of charges being laid. Also, the Ukrainian president has denied being coerced.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fundamentally disagree on the basis of what an impeachment is (or are we saying Clinton "allegedly" lied about having inappropriate relations with Lewinsky?), in the same way I disagree with the ridiculous assertion that it's not a real impeachment until Pelosi has given papers to the Senate, and would remind commenters that the wording was not even under discussion until a single-purpose IP said it was POV. Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stay on point, we are talking about if a crime is alleged until after a trial. We have a precedent here WP:ALLEGED and what we should do is clear. "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial" The rest of your comments are a distraction. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of the two articles of impeachment pertain to crimes per se, but to suggest that there is no evidence of coercion is absurd on its face. - MrX 🖋 21:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely evidence of coercion. That is why he was charged with by the House of Representatives and will be tried in the Senate. You can believe there are no crimes involved, but that is a minority view and not what is portrayed in reliable sources. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "evidence" is purely 100% subjective and not factual, which is why the entire impeachment process has been withheld from completion. The House dems want/need time to find actual evidence. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, Constitution says other "high crimes", which is ambiguous and leaves it up for interpretation to the House. The Senate trial is either to determine if the crimes check out, and optionally if the charge is a crime. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion tag

Why was that tag removed from this article (and Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump article)? The discussion in ongoing over whether to 're-merge' these two articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UpdateNerd merged the article in this edit: [15]. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the consensus was very clear. However, there was an overabundance of tags (concerning not two, but three articles) with substandard links to the "relevant" discussion, so to simplify the confusion on a highly viewed article I just made a bold edit to clean things up until the trial begins. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was no formal close of the discussion, though. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David O. Johnson: Doesn't seem like it had a snowball's chance of going another way. This is a temporary solution until the trial begins, then we can decide what makes the most sense. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of Withholding for This article?

I am seeing a lot of discussion regarding he has not been technically/formally impeached. Colloquially, he for certain has been impeached. When looking at this I am not seeing consistent consensus nor any court rulings. Not surprising since impeachment is pretty rare. Further, the managers and articles have never been withheld before, but there is no evidence they will be held indefinitely. So when it comes to writing a Wikipedia article what is the importance though? Otherwise, what is the point of the discussion surrounding this. I really only see one important thing that may be uncertain from this, and that is the date of impeachment. Is it when the vote happened or when the process in the house is complete. Is there anything this effects I may be overlooking? --50.37.112.189 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are unaware of a date until which the House will submit the articles, isn't it suffice to state that they are being held indefinitely, since we do not have a definitive date and time? I also believe this is important because it sets a precedent for the process of removal of a sitting president. This has never happened before, afaik, so it's something to note or make people aware of. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC
Your using indefinite in a stricter sense than I am. I mean as never going call managers and have the articles submitted, and there still is a definite time frame of early 2020. Although, I do cede that it is important that something like this has never happened before, but don't see how that effects the larger article.--50.37.112.189 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To maintain a neutral point of we are to "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", and the larger argument surrounding makes the date contested. --50.37.112.189 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's important at this point. I don't think the delay should be described as "indefinite".The indications are the trial will be in January. If that isn't true, then this issue will be important. I think we should wait and see.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For future reference, what indictations say that the time frame is in January? WhoAteMyButter (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article gives one a good idea that thing are planned for January. McConnell says Senate trial talks at 'impasse' as Congress leaves town

This is an intelligent question that the average Wikipedia user hasn't thought about, let alone debate. Most of the media described Trump as impeached, but in reality, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party are withholding the articles of impeachment indefinitely. They have only adopted the articles but have not advanced them to the Senate. Constitutional lawyers will debate whether or not this is considered impeachment. —Partytemple (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really accurate to say "withheld", and there is certainly no justification for saying "withheld indefinitely." The actual situation is: he was impeached on December 18. On December 19 Congress went on a several-week-long break. She can't send the articles over during the break, so nothing can happen until January in any case. The accurate description of the situation is that the articles have not yet been sent over to the Senate. We might also mention that the rules for the Senate trial have not yet been established. That also can't happen until the Senate is back in session, since the Senate has to approve them. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, "withheld" is most definitely accurate, even quoted straight from the horse's mouth. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-house-democrats-push-pelosi-to-withhold-impeachment-articles-delaying-senate-trial/2019/12/18/6e25814a-21c5-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html The impeachment resolution has been approved by the House, but the impeachment process by legal definition is not completed...due to an unprecedented withholding of the articles...therefore Trump is not yet impeached. I have referenced/cited scholars, Constitutional and historical sources in depth above in my edit request https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_December_2019 but unfortunately it has fallen on deaf ears.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, encyclopedic content needs to prioritize facts before opinion. Therefore we should prioritize what has happened and be careful citing interpretations or even speculation about personal motives or future events. Fact is, the House has not yet named Impeachment managers and not yet delivered the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is also Pelosi's statement about her conditions for naming managers and delivering the articles. [16] "Withholding" is important because as every other defendant, President Trump has the right for a speedy trial. If the House postpones the begin of the trial or otherwise stretches the Impeachment procedure, it might violate Trump's right to a speedy trial. Additionally, the President has not been formally impeached yet because this occurs when the Impeachment managers exhibit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate at the begin of the trial [17], as impeachment is a synonym for arraignment. Xenagoras (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump has no right to a speedy trial. According to the link you posted, that right applies "in all criminal prosecutions". Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. It isn't even necessary that the impeached party have broken an actual law. As for the argument that Trump hasn't "really" been impeached yet, that interpretation has been put forward by a couple of law professors, but the media at large have not taken it up. We rely on reliable media sources, and reliable sources are still saying that he was impeached. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW please see our article Impeachment in the United States, under "Procedure": Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached”. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
lol even the article Impeachment in the United States is wrong. If the Constitution gives the Senate sole Power to try Impeachments, and this impeachment is supposedly completed, then why can't the Senate exercise that power? Oh yeah, because the President isn't impeached yet. Also, the Bill of Rights is extended to all US citizens, so saying Trump has no right to a speedy trial is also SEVERELY mistaken and WRONG.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rotaryenginepete's argument that since the court (Senate) cannot try the indictment (Articles of Impeachment) before the bill of indictment has been delivered to the court and prosecutors (Impeachment managers) are ready to indict in trial, the defendant/respondent (President Trump) is not impeached. Unfortunately, "House Practice" Article 27, Section 8 states, "The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment", which contradicts US constitution Article I section 3 that says, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Since trial is not possible yet, some part of the legal procedure is missing as of today, but that missing part is not accurate described in "House Practice", although it is described in PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. Xenagoras (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sixth amendment only applies to criminal prosecutions. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial". To constitute a criminal proceeding, there must be a threat of "actual imprisonment", a substantial "deprivation of liberty." This is proven in the cases: Scott v. Illinois, and Rothgery v. Gillespie County. Thus, this is not a criminal prosecution, and so the President is not guaranteed a speedy trial. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you WhoAteMyButter for linking to Scott v. Illinois which found that a speedy trial only applies to prosecution that results in jail penalty. Since Impeachment cannot result in a jail penalty, impeached persons do not have the right to a speedy trial. I therefore withdraw the related comment above. Xenagoras (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what has been said, impeachment is analogous to an indictment in a criminal trial, not a conviction. The House acts as a grand jury and considers evidence about whether to adopt articles, and if they do, that evidence, in addition to witness testimony, is presented to the Senate at the trial. That said, since an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial, constitutional protections for criminal trials do not apply; for example, the jury is not one of the president's peers, rather it is the entire body of the Senate. WMSR (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So a Senate trial charging with high crimes and misdemeanors isn't a criminal proceeding because there's no jail penalty? I see the logic where this doesn't apply to House impeachment inquiry proceedings, but IDK if a petty theft conviction w/o jail time can be compared to a conviction by impeachment trial. Yes there's no threat of the President's personal liberty being revoked, but he is being charged with a crime. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's not being charged with a "crime". This is a constitutional process, not a legal process. He's being charged for commiting impeachable conduct. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I also digress on the civil rights applying here. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of sourced content

StanTheMan0131 has removed sourced info in this edit here:[18]. He previously claimed in another edit here[19]: that "(Prior source violated Wikipedias Reliable Sources rule [20] (checked by https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-magazine/))"

However, Daily Intelligencer is on the list of reliable sources: [21]. This is just unfounded removal of reliably-sourced material. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has reverted that particular edit already. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Removal of Source Content

User:David O. Johnson Per Wikipedia on using sources of nymag: "There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for contentious statements."

Contentious = causing or likely to cause an argument; controversial.

Wikipedia has this page marked as controversial. There WAS an expected trial but not anymore. Wikipedia wants the most accurate, unbiased up to date content possible.

Please read Wikipedias Facts Before Opinions page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Facts_precede_opinions

As of right now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not, and does not currently know if or when she will, send the articles to the Senate for a trial.

The way is was written before my edit was very misinforming. It clearly gives the impression that a trial is going to happen, but we just don't know the exact date yet. No one knows if the trial will happen, if it will be sent to the Senate, etc.

Finally, concealment is intentionally withholding information to make a situation look different then it actually is.

EXAMPLE: Ask yourself - does the Senate (the members of Congress who would hold the trial) expect a trial in January? Do members of the House? Some think no, some think yes, and some think maybe... this is an OPINION.

Now ask yourself - Has there been a delay from the house of representatives to send in the articles? Yes - this is a FACT.

In order to comply with Wikipedias Facts Before Opinions policy we have to make changes. Factual information prevents ignorance, and as contributors to Wikipedia we have to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia - even if you don't like the facts. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)— StanTheMan0131 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is no evidence managers won't be called and the articles won't be sent early 2020. How is the current statement of expected to be sent in 2020 a problem? I can't find sources that point to managers and the articles never being sent. All point to just a delay. If you look at the section "Importance of Withholding for an article?" in this talk page the only thing I could see as possibly being contentious at the moment is the date of impeachment. --50.37.112.189 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:50.37.112.189 Because it is an opinion that is factually not true. In fact the New York Times, which is also a highly verified and reliable source per Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Nation ), is saying in a newer article that a trial is doubtful and even Democratic members who voted to impeach in the House are saying they shouldn't send it over: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/us/politics/impeachment-trump-senate-trial.html

Additionally, the source originally cited for the expected to be sent in January 2020 was also before Nancy Pelosi said she would refuse to send them in.

Again - Keeping Wikipedia up to date (with facts before opinions) is necessary. If you could point us to an recent article, that isn't original research, showing plans to submit the articles in 2020 that would be appreciated. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At no point has she declared a refusal to ever send the articles to the Senate. Anyway, she currently can't because they're in recess. And do you have a reliable source that asserts that the articles will never be sent to the Senate? WMSR (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:WMSR Could you please show me where I said that the articles will never be sent to the Senate? Probably not, as I never made that claim. I will again clarify the situation in question-

The Wikipedia page says 'Trial in the Senate expected to begin in January 2020' which is not based on any kind of fact. Take in the following hypothetical questions...

Is there going to be a trial in January 2020? Noone knows yet Is there going to be a trial at all? Noone knows yet

Based on the information above... noone is sure what is going to happen, therefore the statement 'Trial in the Senate expected to begin in January 2020' is not a fact, but an OPINION.

What we know as FACT:

Have the articles of impeachment been sent in? No. Has Nancy Pelosi said she will hold onto the articles as long as necessary without giving a time frame? Yes.

Please read this article from CNN (a Wikipedia approved reliable source) literally titled 'Nancy Pelosi won't commit to sending articles of impeachment to Senate': https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/nancy-pelosi-sending-impeachment-articles-senate/index.html

Quote from Nadler: 'When asked Thursday morning if the articles should be held forever, Nadler told CNN, "I would doubt that. Beyond that, I don't know.' As per Pelosi: 'Pelosi said Wednesday night that House Democrats will make the decision 'as a group" on when to send the articles to the Senate.'

If you would - please tell me why you think 'Trial in the Senate expected to begin in January 2020' should be on this page at this time? --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stan, please stop bolding parts of your comments. We can hear you just fine in regular type. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MelanieN on usage of bold font. Bold font should be used very sparingly and only to make it easier to find the most important part inside a very long text and if the emphasized part is much more important than the rest. You could use italic font to emphasize important parts of text as I did here. Personally I use italics mainly to separate direct quotes from my own text and rarely to put emphasis on text parts. Xenagoras (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xenagoras Objection overruled. By using the bold text in such a dynamic way I am not only appearing to be more cool, but it keeps the reader engaged as well so they can feel the emotion and continued interest in reading my posts. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:MelanieN Never. It makes me feel cool/more important. Furthermore - bold text is visual, not audible. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:StanTheMan0131Thanks for that, and thanks for the bold it makes easier reading. Unfortunately, the moderators of this article won't budge from their opinion based stances...perhaps we should create and moderate a separate instance based on facts only.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rotartenginepete I apprecaite it as being bold commands authority. And yeah I honest to God think that it makes them look ignorant. Some articles you can get away with throwing in your two cents and there will be people who think it is a fact. However this is such a unique and special case. Unfortunately I could definitely see most people who come across this page thinking "Yeah Wikipedia is leaning left real hard". It's almost like they think that by editing the page to say what they want to be true, that by some magic it will happen (psst it wont). What they don't understand is that by making Wikipedia look super biased they're actually hurting the the political party they are supporting, as readers can see through their ludicrous attempts to misinform them. Furthermore, I'm down to take part in any activity where I could help spread facts. Ah, politics.--StanTheMan0131 (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, is something being proposed here? Otherwise, this is WP:NOTAFORUM and you would be encourage to take your discussion elsewhere. WMSR (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:WMSR Request denied. ☒N The proposal of this section of the talk page is to replace all moderator opinions on the article with facts. Anything being discussed under this proposal can be for thoughts, asking questions, and raising concerns. (see WP:Policy and Guidelines) I'm concerned that if we don't replace all biased opinions with facts, readers who view the article will be deterred by Wikipedia as a whole. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019

Archiving per NOTFORUM. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Legally, Donald Trump has NOT been impeached. Once more they've ignored the constitution. He is not officially impeached until the papers are delivered to the Senate and managers selected. Pelosi has refused to deliver the papers and unless she does, nothing has happened except a vote to impeach.

As for the article in Christianity today, there is no mention that Franklin Graham, son of its founder, Billy Graham, has been opening critical of it and their stating that Billy would agree with the article. They had no authority to use his name and Franklin says that his father would NOT have sided with impeachment. 172.222.22.245 (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done This is not an edit request, which should be made in the format of "change X text to Y text". Please see the above discussions about the status of impeachment; in short, we summarize what independent reliable sources state and they all state he has been impeached, with one or two scholars offering their opinion he has not technically been yet. To draw an analogy, are you finished with dinner when you are done eating or when you put your plate in the dishwasher? Franklin Graham's opinion about the magazine's activities is not relevant to this article(perhaps another one, but not this one). Pelosi has not refused to do anything yet- she can't deliver anything until the Senate is in session. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This topic about the delay keeps being brought up. I don't think we should be so quick to say formally he has been impeached, but we can't quite to say hasn't either. I would consider legal scholars a reliable source, but they do not share a consensus. The more apt analogy would be if a prosecutors writes down their charges but has not yet sent to them to court. The accused has not yet been formally charged. You may even see prosecutors say charges are pending in instances like that. However, the end result is he will be impeached regardless unless something changes. As the end result is a given the only possible effect I see the delay on the larger article is dates. I do agree some magazines operations are not relevant.--50.37.112.189 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

RfC on Situation

In regards to improving accuracy of the current situation - should the 'Situation' section of this page's infobox be changed from "Impeached by the House of Representatives. Trial in the Senate expected to begin in January 2020" to "Impeached by the House of Representatives. Trial date in Senate not set."?

Source for current live edit (last updated December 18, 2019): http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/impeachment-hearing-schedule-how-to-watch-house-testimony.html

See 'Latest on Impeachment' (last updated December 23rd, 2019): https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-12-23-2019/index.html --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump that might be of interest to editors at this page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potential new articles of impeachment, add?

House Judiciary Committee said it could draft and recommend "new articles of impeachment" against Trump if additional evidence is revealed by former White House counsel Don McGahn.

X1\ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but I would say no. There is a lot of "this could happen" "that could happen" talk floating around right now. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delay sending articles

Someone had posted to WP:ERRORS whether it is accurate to say Trump "is impeached" versus the House "voted to impeach". While they cited an editorial, which is generally not considered a reliable source (WP:RSEDITORIAL), this New York Times article talks about the debate. I'll leave it to others whether mention is warranted in this article per WP:DUE or not.—Bagumba (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you read the talk page, Bagumba. Long and short of it: this has been discussed ad nauseum, and is already settled. Thank you for brining this to our attention, though. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Bagumba. Donald Trump has not been impeached, and the editors running the "In the news" section on the home page are making utter fools of themselves and further reinforcing the unreliability of Wikipedia as a source of information. Impeachment is not complete until the articles are transmitted to the United States Senate, and as of the posting of this comment, that has not yet happened, and for all we know, may never happen. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 19:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion above about this topic. We summarize what independent reliable sources state, and they all state he has been impeached. Opinions that it's not "official" until the paper is walked across the capitol building and placed in Mitch McConnell's hand are just that- opinions. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So prosecutor saying they are going to prosecute someone, but never files the paperwork the court counts as being prosecuted to you? A lot prosecutors will say they have charger pending or prosecution is pending in that case. Although the only problem I see is the date of impeachment of this with the article. --50.37.216.119 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)i[reply]

They are not prosecutors until the terms of the trial are agreed to, and are technically referred to in that instance as "case managers". Besides, a trial for which several of the designated jurors have already indicated they are not impartial (which is clearly the stance of McConnell and several of his Republican colleagues) would be the actual sham part of this process. I get tired of having to repeat this. Here's a suggestion: before bringing up invalid arguments under any subject on this talk page or any others, why don't you make the effort to ensure your arguments have not already been addressed elsewhere? The purpose and intent of further discussion here is to dialogue about information which is new to the discussion, and if that is not the case, bringing up something repeatedly under several different discussions is essentially pointless. Also, if anyone involved in the discussion bothered to actually do the research before bringing up matters for discussion, it would cut out a lot of the need to repeatedly make the same points under multiple topics. Of course, that's nothing more and nothing less than my own opinion, based on my understanding of the way such discussions should work here on Wikipedia, which is only based on experience of around a dozen years of participating in such discussions as an editor here, so you can take or leave anything I or anyone else says as you prefer to do so. And it is also the right of anyone who cares to do so to waste time by bringing up the same arguments across multiple discussions on any talk page here on which they choose to do so. But if their concerns are addressed elsewhere on such pages, or similar pages here, there is always a point where such discussions become pointlessly rehashed ad nauseum, which is not, IMHO, a good usage of time. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I meant prosecutor as kinda of analogy. Although you could say the house functions like a grand jury. --50.37.216.119 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Democrats Vow To Impeach Trump Again Even If He Wins 2020 Election

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
WP:NOTOPINION. This article is about the facts as they unfold, not to predict the future, nor to assume motives of anyone, nor to resort to name-calling of one side or the other — Maile (talk) 23:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


This may be pertinent. Seems the haters won't be stopping any time soon.. "Democrats have already made their intention clear to doggedly pursue Trump until they succeed in ousting him from office"

Al Green (D-TX) said that he backs filing new articles of impeachment if Senate doesn't convict

https://www.ibtimes.com/dems-vow-impeach-trump-again-even-if-he-wins-2020-election-they-could-succeed-2883673 74.76.202.168 (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mind your POV. The only thing they "hate" is impeachable conduct. If we need to create Second impeachment of Donald Trump, we'll do it when it's needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Be ready for more of this. There are vitriolic expressions of something towards the President. It is unprecedented. I'd support either expanding this article or a second article. 100-years from now, they will need to know about this vendetta. 174.158.183.81 (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Biased information

There is a targetted source of information that is out of place in the article. "In October 2019, a poll showed that 99% of white evangelical Protestant Republicans opposed Trump's impeachment and removal from office." is an extremely specific article from a biased source, and does not contribute to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealJamesAries (talk • contribs) 04:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The prri seems trustworthy enough to me, and the statement seems relevant. But I guess 99% does seem extreme, maybe another poll can be added as a comparison? Davepeta (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning iconRename And Change The Trial SectionWarning icon

CHANGING THE TITLE OF THE 'TRIAL' SECTION

The "Trial" section should be changed to "Trial in the Senate".

A NEW INTRODUCTION IN THE 'TRIAL' SECTION

This is the current opening for the 'trial' section:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution states that "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."[94] Under this clause, a two-thirds majority of present members is required to convict the president.[105] For this trial, the Senate President pro tempore swears in the chamber's presiding officer, the Chief Justice of the United States, who will then swear in all senators who will act as jurors. Each are required by Rule XXV to take the following oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, President of the United States, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws; [So help me God].

This section is NOT for general information about impeachment trials in the Senate. It is specifically for Donald Trumps (currently non-existing) impeachment trial. The absolute first thing a person should read are the words "Currently, a trial in the Senate has not been set." It is the only fact anyone knows. The current section contents are composed of little off-topic factoids about trials, with a twist of left wing fluff.

Seriously, the current content in this Wikipedia article is THE OPPOSITE of a neutral point of view. (Have you read Wikipedia's Bias Policy?) I'm concerned because it's honestly embarrassing and we will lose peoples faith in Wikipedia because of this article. This painting is tilting hard to the left and we need to re-center it. Just because the actual facts makes an editor angry does not mean they should violate Wikipedia's NPOV requirements.

I shall leave you all with a powerful quote:

"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."
— Harold Geneen , Thought du Jour

--StanTheMan0131 (talk) 06:04, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_impeachment_of_Donald_Trump&oldid=932348031"