Talk:Second impeachment of Donald Trump

Shouldn't there be a section (or at least a mention) of the fact that the accusers doctored evidence?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Tinfoil conspiracy nonsense. Zaathras (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Trump's Attorney van der Veen claimed that the accusers, quote, "doctored evidence" because "the prosecutors hadn't prepared" for the trial. He did that in an interview on CBSN, and the anchor confirmed it. Shouldn't the doctoring of evidence, if confirmed, be relevant enough to be at least mentioned on Wikipedia? How come there is a mention that the Senate laughed at Trump's lawyer, but no mention of the doctored evidence? If it's true that a bunch of unprepared prosecutors doctored evidence in a trial of impeachment of the (former) president, then that pretty much means that the trial was almost entirely motivated by politics. (Whether the trial were legitimate or not, the trial can still be entirely motivated by politics, as evidenced by the fact that the accusers can still be unprepared and doctor evidence in an otherwise possibly legitimate case, maybe simply because they may not care about justice, even when justice may be on their side, as much as they care about political victories.) And shouldn't the fact that this was a political trial be mentioned here? 178.138.34.201 (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC) His claim isn't included because it's nonsense.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Additionally, doctoring evidence is a crime, so if there were any substance to it, somebody would be indicted. And no-one is. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC) But, dude, the fact that the doctoring had no bearing on the case doesn't mean that it didn't happen or that it doesn't matter (or whatever you mean by "it's nonsense"). Even the Vox article you cited states at the end that "To be clear, the discrepancies on the tweets are legitimate errors, but they had absolutely no bearing on the actual content of the posts in question or the substance of the House managers’ case." with the key word here being "legitimate". So, yeah, they did make grave mistakes. And don't give me that "nobody has been indicted", because that is, no offense intended, a trash argument. Wikipedia presents facts; Wikipedia cites experts even when the official government story differs. Maybe nobody has been indicted because the prosecutors in charge of indicting are, let's say for example, corrupt. Who cares, I'm not asking you to claim that anybody has been indicted, just that they doctored evidence. Maybe doctoring evidence is "nonsense" in that it's somehow sometimes legal, but not that it didn't happen or that it doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't matter, since Trump was acquitted anyway, but still, isn't the doctoring of evidence relevant? In the Vox article you sent me, they say that prosecutors had to "recreate" tweets and whatnot. First of all, Trump's account was banned, so they had to recreate some of the tweets, but other tweets were still on twitter, so they doctored them for nothing anyway. Second of all, and this is the important part, since when are you allowed to "recreate evidence"? Evidence either exists or not, and you can discover them or not, not recreate them and post them as original. Take me for instance: I don't write Wikipedia articles, even on topics I know of, because I am too afraid I might make some spelling or grammar mistake, so I just don't touch the articles, much less give my own kind of personal opinions and approximations on how things are. Shouldn't at least the standards of Wikipedia apply during a Senate impeachment trial? And if they fail to do so, shouldn't you mention it here? How did you judge that the doctoring of evidence is "nonsense"? I came here after watching that interview to verify what I had heard. I typed "second impeachment trial of Trump" and read through the article. I couldn't find anything helpful about the doctoring of evidence even though what I am specifically asking is relevant for tens of millions of people probably. So, I do have great faith in your ability to state facts, even when "nobody has been indicted". I don't know how to convince you that the law is the law and that the law must be followed or that breaking the law is relevant in a trial even when "nobody has been indicted". This van der Veer guy sounds like a normal lawyer who just wants the law to be followed because the law is, you know, the law, because he's a lawyer and that's what lawyers do. How about you do me a favor and act as if you're already convinced I'm right and just mention the doctoring of evidence in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.138.34.201 (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC) I like how everything is called "nonsense" here. What Trump's lawyer said is considered "nonesense", and when I point out that he was right, you call my claim also "nonsense". Besides, what conspiracy did I allude to? 178.138.34.201 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2022 (UTC) Just gonna copy/paste the last paragraph of the Vox article, which should make 100% clear why we're not engaging further with this: The point, of course, was not to offer a substantive defense of Trump, but to try to discredit Democrats while giving people like van der Veen grist for performative outrage during TV hits. And to that end, mission accomplished. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC) But, I'm not trying to "discredit Democrats" any more than I am defending Trump. Maybe "the Democrats" are right and Trump is guilty of inciting insurrection, and he should have unanimously been convicted by 100 Senate votes. I'm only trying to bring light to the fact that the evidence in the trial was doctored and that that's a big no-no, objectively speaking. Wikipedia articles are not like Vox articles; Wikipedia must be factual and objective and devoid of political agenda of any kind, right? That's why I came here to read about the doctored evidence in the Wikipedia search bar, instead of simply googling or going to the Vox search bar (or the counter-equivalent "right-wing" or "Republican" version of Vox for that matter). I want the facts, not some opinionated agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.138.34.201 (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC) But that's what van der Veen was trying to do. Not engage on the evidence, just trying to shoot the messenger. Do you see other WP:RS covering his accusation of "doctored evidence"? Because I don't. That says it all. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC) But isn't van de Veer right when shooting the messenger? The messenger lied: the prosecutors doctored evidence. I'm not accusing "Democrats" (as Vox might claim), I am not even demanding that anyone be punished. Wikipedia is not for such accusations or demands. I am simply saying we (you) should mention, as a fact, that the evidence was doctored. As a source, you can use the CBS News clip (or some alternative written article if CBSN has it) that is linked in the Vox article (unless you want to use the Vox article itself because it may be biased). That's all I'm asking. The lawyer makes the claim, and the anchor, based on her sources, admits that it's factual. And pardon me if I think doctoring evidence is relevant irrespective of their weight on the trial result. How hard can it be to mention a true claim that is relevant, and source it based on how you found out about it? PS: I don't know how to sign myself but I will try. 178.138.34.201 (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC) I feel so tired. I'm going to bed. This is what talking to very clever unbiased people must feel like: like pounding your fist against the wall and expecting the wall to talk to you. I love Wikipedia and its tendency towards objective information, but just because you like the dish doesn't mean you'll like the cook. 178.138.34.201 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

No inquiry

I want to revisit a suggestion that had been made by another user very early into this article's existence. We should note that this impeachment took place without a preceding impeachment inquiry stage. This is actually quite notable distinction as, according to page 18 of this 2015 report] by the Congressional Research Service, every previous federal impeachment in U.S. history had had an inquiry stage. SecretName101 (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I added it, but if anyone can find improved sourcing to even better support this distinction, please add those as citations. SecretName101 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There needs to be a thorough discussion on the (un)Constitutionality of this.

The question of whether or not this was constitutional needs to be more thoroughly explored, especially since any intelligent person knows it isn't. Aside from the obvious historical past (in 1974 when Nixon resigned there was no move to finish the impeachment process, because in 1974 Democrats actually understood that you can't impeach someone who is no longer in office). But even if there had been no Watergate, there is the plain reading of the Constitution itself.

Go to Article One, Section 3, and read the first 14 words of the last paragraph: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Offices..."(emphasis mine). I should think that for everybody with a 3-digit I.Q., it is perfectly clear that you cannot impeach some one who is no longer in office. Why isn't this really obvious point not thoroughly explained in the article????

__Justin Namen (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"...and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law." Trump was impeached for the second time on January 13, 2021, one week before his term expired. Hence, had he been convicted by the Senate before leaving office, he would be prohibited from holding public office again. soibangla (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)