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.
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.

OP has devolved into name-calling and insults, nothing productive will come of letting this disucssion run further. Zaathras (talk) 01:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) @Soibangla: Thank you for responding, but I'm afraid that what you wrote is pointlessly moot. Unfortunately for you, you made two critical errors which I’ll explain below. For one thing, by including the rest of the clause, and more importantly the conjunction (which you were good enough to put in bold), you hoisted yourself by your own petard. The use of the conjunction “and” means that both sides of it must fully comply with the intention of the sentence. Had the conjunction been “or”, Pelosi would have had the right to choose one or the other. For example, if I say I’m going to the store to buy a hammer and a saw, I’m saying I’m getting both of them. If I say I’m going for a saw or a hammer, both items do not apply, it’s either the first one or the second one, but not both. You made the same mistake Pelosi and company did, they thought they could choose the second option and ignore the first. Which you can’t do. So in order to remain in compliance with the Constitution, you must be able to remove someone from office as a result of the impeachment. Right? So how do you remove someone from office when they are no longer in office? Your other critical error was failing to notice the very first word in the sentence: Judgment. Oh dear. That means the sentence does not just allow you to impeach someone, you must be able to pass a conviction to remove someone who actually is in office in order to remove him from said office. Read the words again: “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Offices..."(emphasis mine).” You also failed to explain why they didn't impeach Nixon. For some reason Mike Mansfield and Sam Ervin had the idea that once a person is out of office you can’t impeach someone. Were they right? Because they can’t be right and Pelosi also right. So which which one was right and which one was wrong? Besides, all of this ignores the fact the word "impeachment" ONLY means to remove someone from office. Here's a quote from my old American Gov. textbook (from several decades ago): "Impeachment: A process by which Congress may remove presidents, judges, and other civil officials accused of malfeasance. The House decides questions of impeachment, the Senate decides whether to remove the accused from office."(emphasis mine). (You know, I wonder if such textbooks hereafter will alter their wording to comply with Pelosi’s new reality). Lastly, you obliquely mention a point that is never discussed anywhere. It's bad enough that Pelosi so egregiously violated the Constitution by this cockamamie impeachment, but she did it knowing it would fail. She must have known that there would be no conviction in the Senate, so why even do it in the first place? Was it all just a giant dog and pony show? Shouldn’t that be discussed in the article? Again thank you for responding as you have helped readers get a better understanding of the facts - the truth - about this event. And if I have somehow gotten this completely wrong, I hope you will return (or someone else) and help me get a clue. Because unlike the other 99% of people on Wikipedia, If I am wrong, I want somebody to help me understand why. Sincerely, __Justin Namen (talk) 21:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC) TLDR. He was impeached while in office. Your point is moot. soibangla (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC) Wow. You know I would be too embarrassed to say that something was too long for me to read. That is just hilarious. But I’ll try to make this as short and simple so as to not tax your limited attention span: It doesn’t make a difference when he was impeached. The only thing that matters is if he can be removed from office. And if he is no longer in office, he can’t be impeached. What part of that do you not understand? Sincerely, __Justin Namen (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

About your unwarranted discussion closure

@Zaathras: About your unwarranted discussion closure

I shouldn't have to say this but I will, so that there will be no misunderstanding on your part. I am NOT a Trump supporter, I didn't vote for him either time. I would have written the very same thing even in a “bizarro” world where a Republican controlled Congress had unconstitutionally impeached an ex-Democratic Pres. It's really sad how no one seems to understand that this wasn't a partisan issue, it was something against ALL Americans, including you (assuming you live in America). So, could you please explain why you summarily closed the discussion? And please supply exact wording to support your action. BTW, you misspelled "discussion". Thanks in advance. Justin Namen (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Justin Namen: Wikipedia is not forum, nor does it exist to right great wrongs. Zaathras appropriately closed the discussion above because it's better suited to a blog, or in a message to a Constitutional expert, or in a university discussion, and so forth. This talk page is about improvements to this article, not for general discussion about the political/legal aspects of the topic covered in this article. If you want to explore or ask questions about a topic that may be confusing to you, Wikipedia has a reference desk (specifically, follow this link for humanities topics and a volunteer there may engage you on your query). But engaging in discussion about editors' political persuasions is really unnecessary and does not benefit this article in any way.

Furthermore, resorting to name-calling, not assuming good faith, and just general passive aggression like announcing someone's misspelling of a word tends to be viewed pretty dimly by administrators who may opt to block to save Wikipedia from disruption. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 09:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@MelbourneStar:, thank you for replying to this problem as it is really appreciated. Unfortunately, you are making the same mistakes the others are doing. I know the rules of Wikipedia. I was NOT using this as a forum – I was trying to explain the errors in the article. That’s the point I was trying to make that the article is flawed as it makes a poor attempt to explain why this action was presumably constitutional. A Wikipedia article that does not explain to the reader how what was done was constitutional is a FAILURE and should be improved, which is what I was trying to do. It was the other editor’s mindset that presumably didn’t allow them to understand this.

For this article it must show to the reader that what happened was constitutional – you agree with that don’t you? And if it doesn’t do that people should take steps to correct this fault. All they have to do is cite where in the Constitution it allows Congress to impeach and convict someone who is no longer in office. There’s just one problem with that – nowhere is this authorization found. In fact, it clearly states that it cannot be done, which I showed by quoting the appropriate section. Now why you or anyone else would find that objectionable is beyond me.

Why do you want the article to be erroneous and misleading? Why would anyone? This is in fact a violation of of one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. But for some reason other people want the article to be incomplete and erroneous. That’s not my opinion, that’s a statement of fact. And if there is anyone who doesn’t understand why, they should collaborate together to build a better encyclopedia.

And frankly, it seems like I’m the victim of bad faith. I wasn’t trying to engage anybody’s political opinions – I was trying to get them to understand the facts and help improve the article. And I never knew pointing out a spelling error that sticks out like a sore thumb was considered passive aggressive behavior. I apologize.

But don’t worry I understand that people here will not constructively work together to improve the article. If only somebody could point to the words in the Constitution that makes this possible. And as I pointed out in the beginning, why didn’t they finish the impeachment of Richard Nixon? Sincerely, __Justin Namen (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@Justin Namen: I'm sure you can forgive people for thinking you're being passive aggressive with your spelling error comment, given you're resorting to name-calling. That aside, as I've already said: Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. We follow where published reliable sources take us; not where well-meaning editors believe we should go. This article should show what published reliable sources state, not discuss the merits of whether editors believe it is or isn't constitutional. That is not Wikipedia's role or purpose. Please consider reading Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, particularly about Wikipedia not being a publisher of original thought (WP:FORUM), not being soapbox or means of promotion (WP:NOTADVOCACY), and not being a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS). What you're discussing at this talk page and seeking to do is a mixture of all three and is a complete misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is about.

Also, this article already touches on the argument that the impeachment was unconstitutional; for example, here (second paragraph) and numerous instances here. Beyond what's already there, and what I've just said, I'm not sure what else there is to say. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I feel compelled to chime in on here, as I don't understand the point Justin Namen is trying to make. Trump was impeached by the House while he was still in office. That is completely Constitutional, and I don't think anyone can legitimately dispute that. Now, there is a legitimate discussion to be had regarding the Constitutionality of the impeachment trial, but that is a separate article, so it's really unclear why this discussion is taking place here. The Constitutionality of the trial is discussed heavily in that article, and if you have good-faith suggestions for improvement, I suggest a discussion there, if you can assume good faith on the part of others. Finally, the comparison to Nixon is just irrelevant. Nixon resigned before the impeachment articles had reached the full House, and the House chose to not pursue it further, perhaps in part because Nixon had been elected twice and already could not pursue the Presidency again, and nobody was concerned about him seeking another Federal office. The Constitutionality of impeaching Nixon after his resignation would be a worthy discussion, but it never happened and, irregardless, has no relation to Trump, again because Trump was impeached while he was still in office (and Trump can pursue the presidency again). Mdewman6 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I hatted the section above because it was full of bad-faith, insults, name-calling, and conspiracy-mongering. The basic premise of your posts here, that the article is erroneous and misleading has been soundly rejected by several others. That the 2nd impeachment was unconstitutional is a right-wing talking point, not a serious point of debate found in any trustworthy source. Zaathras (talk) 22:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I concur with Zaathras in hatting the thread and with this analysis Andre🚐 22:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Needs copy editing and cleanup

Interestingly, the "opinions" section is still similar to when I first created the article (used to be the whole article instead of a section). I just had to go in and change it to past tense. There's a lot of WP:EXCESSDETAIL in the opinions section. I think it'd be better if it was in a more chronological, cause and effect format. When it was first written, the outcome wasn't known, but it is now. Also could benefit from new revelations such as Pence reading an email regarding the 25th amendment during a CNN interview which wasn't revealed until recently. MarkiPoli (talk) 18:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

The article implies untruths.

The last paragraph of the article implies that special counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump for the exact same things that he was impeached for. This is not true. Trump was not indicted for insurrection as was stipulated in the second impeachment trial. Jack Smith indicted Trump on conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to disenfranchise voters, and conspiring and attempting to obstruct an official proceeding. 2600:1015:B10F:CD2E:52F0:89CB:3F2E:206A (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)