Talk:Efforts to impeach Dick Cheney: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:16, 9 July 2007

This article was nominated for deletion on May 4, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Nomination for Deletion

Hello, fellow Wikipedian!

As you can see, this article has been nominated for deletion. It is not in immediate danger of being dropped, and you are free to continue editing while the matter is decided.

If you wish to comment on the matter (and I encourage you to do so), I urge you to direct those comments away from this article's talk page and towards the associated "debate" page set up for the decision-makers. It's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US House Resolution 333. The wikilinks included in the big tag at the top of the article page will direct you to some further information about the process that might be helpful.--OtisTDog 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"not expected to receive consideration" / other POV about likelihood of passage

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this stub! It's already more informative than related descriptions on other pages. I do have to contest the "not expected to receive consideration" line as POV, unless some citations can be found. I will remove it for now. Please respond here on talk page if you want to re-include it. Thanks!--OtisTDog 17:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Resolution, Not a Bill

JasonCNJ pointed out in an edit summary that HR 333 is a resolution, not a bill, as I had previously labeled it. I may be the only one that made this mistake, but for the reference of future editors, I wanted to post the clarification here.--OtisTDog 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proper abbreviation to use is H. Res. ###. HR ### is the abbreviation for a bill. JasonCNJ 05:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Consideration

Hi. I would like to [re-]include [the statement on "not expected to receive further consideration."] I'll work on citations for now, but I think it is incumbent upon the article to accurately state the chances this Resolution has for consideration. And the fact of the matter is that this resolution has no chance either in Committee or on the floor.

Additionally, I think it is only fair to inform you that I am considering an AfD for this article. I have not yet had the time to go through the guidelines so I am not sure that it would qualify...but there are thousands of resolutions introduced in Congress every session and they are hardly notable. This one is a unique issue, I'll admit, but I somewhat question the usefulness of a wikipedia entry on something as insignificant as this resolution introduced by a gadfly Congressman.

JasonCNJ 19:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JasonCNJ -- All I can say is that I appreciate your contributions so far. You're welcome to take what actions you see fit with respect to AfD, but I will definitely contest on notability given the context of the 2008 Democratic nomination process. You're in no better position than I to predict the "facts of the matter" for things that haven't happened yet! :) Maybe when it stops being a current event, I will agree with you.

Please do feel free to cite as many prominent opinions about its chances as you can find; that's definitely good context for the article. I would suggest that you attempt a more NPOV phrasing for the citations, however. Might I offer: "Many prominent political analysts believe that the bill has little chance of success." At least, that's a phrasing I wouldn't contest.

Thanks again for your contributions so far. Happy Wiki-ing!--OtisTDog 19:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Not promoting it"

Hello, again. I see that the statement is supported by Raw Story article, but does anyone have an appropriate link to a CNN source? A direct reference would prevent charges of hearsay reporting. --OtisTDog 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past the "stub" stage?

It still seems a little thin to me, but what does everyone else think?--OtisTDog 20:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likelihood of Success section

JasonCNJ, I reverted out some of the changes you made with formatting and such. I think it's important to leave out anything that could be considered editorializing for or against. On such a touchy political subject as this, neutrality is paramount. I'd rather have a backwards-looking "History" section than a forward-looking "Likelihood of Success" section.

I did add a right-now-looking section, titled "Current Status" to keep the background you provided re: what would be required to move the resolution out of committee, as it seems relevant to the level of impact the article subject has/might have. It would be best if you could find some citations to the relevant procedural rules to use as references for them.--OtisTDog 13:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Helpful Formality

JasonCNJ, it looks like we might disagree frequently over article content. May I respectfully suggest that you post any anticipated non-minor changes here before making them? We've seen that we can find many points of agreement as well, and it will help prevent contentious edit wars.--OtisTDog 14:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Formatting Changes

It appears that many of the formatting changes I have made were reverted. I assume this was in error; many of my edits brought the article into standard wikipedia formatting and were not in any way POV. I will go through those changes again now.

Phrase at the top

Most articles have a quick explanation for what the issue/topic is at the top of the article, and then have the contents/subheadings. This provides for a quick, one-sentence explanation of the issue and allows the reader to decide if he would like to continue.

Incorporated this idea. Thank you for the suggestion!--OtisTDog 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative History & Current Status

I included both the historical process and the current outlook in one section at the end. I am not trying to speculate on the future, but relying only on the actions that have already occurred.

I think a generic "history" section is best at present, combining legislative action and commentary of key players. If it grows too big and becomes unwieldy, I like the idea of a special section concerning legislative history and staus only.--OtisTDog 14:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JasonCNJ, reverting to previous "History" formatting. I just don't think the article's size is so large that it warrants breaking it up into so many sections. As stated before, if it gets too large, I agree your new proposed format would be an improvement. Let's wait and see what happens, OK?--OtisTDog 14:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly that the Sponsors section should be separate. How about you create the "History" section as you so desire and just then add in a subheading within that section discussing the co-sponsors, putting that content within the "history" section but still as its own heading? JasonCNJ 14:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main reason I prefer the current format is that I actually tried to go with your suggestion. I found myself wanting to put a note about the addition of co-sponsors in the legislative history section, but didn't want to add their names again, so I tried adding "(see above)". At that point, it seemed like the flow of the article as a whole was kind of disorganized, so I reverted instead.

Should the history get long enough to make the two stories distinct enough to be of separate interest, I will definitely endorse the plan. At that point, a "(see above)" won't seem silly, since we can assume a reader may have skipped straight to the proposed legislative history section.

Please note that I do think the idea is a good one, just not applicable yet due to the limited size of the article right now.--OtisTDog 15:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the lack of text in this article means the organization should suffer...and I think it does under the current scheme. But I do not intend to engage in a protracted edit fight over this issue. I will let some time go by and solicit other editors to join the article and talk page. I just want the talk page to reflect continued disagreement on this issue. JasonCNJ 15:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JasonCNJ -- I understand, and appreciate your cooperation on this matter. With a little luck, the article will grow big enough to warrant my agreement (as described elsewhere), and this issue will disappear.--OtisTDog 15:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsors & Co-sponsors

It makes no sense to have two paragraphs about the co-sponsors in a "History" section despite having a section which mentions the sponsor of the resolution and his co-sponsors. I have combined these paragraphs into one section.

I do not think any of these formatting changes should be reverted. If you disagree, I would appreciate if we could discuss it here so as not to engage in an edit war.

Sorry, Jason, I saw that you made the changes and had already reverted them by the time you got this talk entry up. I, too, am interested in avoiding edit wars, see "A Helpful Formality" section here.

Re: two paragraphs -- not sure I agree. Each co-sponsorship is legislatively significant, and each is part of the history of the resolution. It seemed prudent to assume Schakowsky will come out with a statement soon, which is why I set up a placeholder paragraph for it. If she doesn't, we can definitely merge with previous paragraph about Clay's co-sponsorship.--OtisTDog 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I question the "legislative significance" of the co-sponsorships but that's beside the point. I think the existence of them merits entry in the article (although I reserve judgment on whether or not the article itself should exist.) I think they should be contained in one section detailing the sponsors and co-sponsors. Surely everything relates to "history" but keeping information on the sponsors & co-sponsors allows a person to see the heading and know exactly what is in that section. To leave comments and co-sponsorships in a generic "history" section means that the heading is less descriptive than it otherwise could be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JasonCNJ (talk • contribs) 14:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I do see your point, but I don't feel the article is big enough to warrant such nuances yet. The history is so short that laying it out in one half-page, uninterrupted, makes the most sense. As stated elsewhere, if it grows too long, I will definitely endorse this change.--OtisTDog 14:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Event Tag

I have removed the current event tag from this article; you seem to have placed it back. I can't tell if that was just because you reverted the entire page or if you meant to place it back.

Assuming you placed it back for a reason, I ask why?

I do not believe this article documents a current event. The resolution is sitting in a committee, where there are no plans to put it on the agenda for a vote or debate. The resolution is not currently in the news and has not received any press other than at its introduction and one mention at a Democratic debate.

If you did not mean to place it on this article, please let me know. If you did, can you explain why you feel the current event tag is proper? JasonCNJ 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did replace it and want to keep it. Significant changes in the resolution's history occurred in just the past few days. More may be forthcoming. There are actually a number of news and opinion pieces online and in print regarding impeachment of both Bush and Cheney.

I would consider it to be a current event until the resolution officially expires -- at the very least for 60 days after the most recent significant change, given the pace of Congress. Admittedly, this would not be typically treatment for a House resolution, but the topic is of tremendous political significance.

Your thoughts?--OtisTDog 14:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no changes to the resolution, let alone "significant" changes since its introduction. Nothing has happened to the resolution after its referral to Committee, which is automatic anyway. If you are referring to the mention in one democratic presidential debate, I think those developments should be reflected on the article involving that debate, not here. Certain press mentions of the resolution in the context of coverage of presidential candidates does not make the resolution itself a "current event."

Your current event definition -- "until the resolution officially expires" -- would leave it as a "current event" until January 3, 2009. I sincerely doubt the "current event" tag was meant to apply to that timeframe. I think the "current event" tag should be limited to actually ongoing events. This Resolution -- which is and for the foreseeable future will be sitting in Committee -- is not undergoing any consideration or debate and is not an actually ongoing event.

If the Committee puts it on the agenda or schedules debate/markup/a vote on it, I would consider restoring the tag since it would become an actual event. But the mere introduction and referral of this resolution - combined with the prospect for no further action - does not a "current event" make. JasonCNJ 14:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JasonCNJ, I've solicited the opinion of another active editor of this article. I'm willing to go with her vote (or that of other editors) on this issue if she agrees, but would appreciate it if you wait until they weigh in before removing it.--OtisTDog 14:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it in place for now; I am eager to hear the opinions of other editors to this question. JasonCNJ 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a current tag, the news is recent and still coming out with new updates (may 1) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thoughts of all editors. But simply asserting there are "new updates" does not make it so. There has been no legislative development since its automatic referral to committee. It has been mentioned once in a Democratic debate. That's it. It is not an ongoing news story.JasonCNJ 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JasonCNJ, it's certainly not on the six o'clock news, I'll give you that, but not everything is, and, as the recent addition of co-sponsors shows, HR 333 is not a static subject. Right now, registered opinion is two-to-one in favor of keeping the tag. All other editors are encouraged to register their thoughts on the matter.--OtisTDog 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, registered opinion is currently 2-1...but wikipedia is not a democracy. Simply asserting it is news does not make it news. And I somewhat question one vote in favor as it was cast by an editor who supports the sponsor's presidential bid. It most certainly is not a "current event" in my opinion, but I am looking forward to other editors' opinions.JasonCNJ 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the current event tagg back on because 4 new congressmen added their support to this bill withen the past week meanoing that it is current. Also a congressman said "With the president's decision to once again subvert the legal process and the will of the American people by commuting the sentence of convicted felon Lewis Scooter' Libby, I call on House Democrats to reconsider impeachment proceedings" and that was only a few days ago

"Official" Summary Wording

This is a minor change, so I'll let it sit for a while while we discuss here, but I disagree. It is from the THOMAS summary page (see supporting reference), and THOMAS is the official public source for legislation, isn't it? If I don't hear back within a reasonable timeframe (12 hours, since you seem to visit frequently?), I'll put it back in.--OtisTDog 15:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THOMAS is a service provided to the public by the Library of Congress. THOMAS has no official relationship to the House of Representatives. Its work is not drafted, read, or approved by Congress. THOMAS provides up-to-date bill status, bill text, and summaries. But a THOMAS summary is not "official." It has no official standing. The only "official" summary of the bill is its title, "Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors."

I love THOMAS; it's a great service that does wonders to open government to the people. But it cannot make an "official" summary of anything.

Well-put! I agree to this change and will leave it out.--OtisTDog 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "impeaches" in intro sentence

JasonCNJ, I notice that you ~~not only~~ reverted the tweak I made, which was based on the language of the US subsection of Impeachment, not the US-specific page that is the one cited. In that article, it states "The articles of impeachment constitute the formal allegations. Upon their passage, the defendant has been 'impeached.'"

I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but do you by any chance have a reference to back up your interpretation of proper usage? I have not found one yet.--OtisTDog 19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: My understanding is that to say "Congress impeached X" means that the articles of impeachment against X have been endorsed by an appropriate vote and referred to the Senate for a decision. Prior to that, an impeachment has not occurred, only articles have been filed. I do realize that the dictionary definition implies it's the accusation itself that impeaches, but I thought the legal sense is more specific to articles that have passed the House. I would welcome being corrected on this by an authoritative outside reference.--OtisTDog 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how I wrote the sentence in the impeachment article you cited, I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. The distinction on this is relatively minor; I doubt I'm going to engage much further in it.

Your understanding is correct: "Congress impeached X" or "X was impeached today" require the House of Representatives to approve, by majority vote, article of impeachment against X. Prior to passage of that resolution, it is improper to say "X has been impeached" or "X is impeached" or "Congress impeached X." But the articles of impeachment that have been filed are not formal allegations until they are passed by the full House.

I do not believe the sentence including the phrase "brings articles of impeachment" is proper. I also find it to be wordy and passive-voice. Additionally, the legal distinction you are attempting to make is a distinction without a difference. "The Resolution brings articles of impeachment against the Vice President" is not different than "The Resolution impeaches the Vice President." JasonCNJ 20:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a particular problem with the wording. In the interests of NPOV, I do want to make sure readers understand that the introduction of HR 333 is not to be considered a successful, legal impeachment of the Vice President at this time. (WP:NOT#CRYSTALBALL) For example, after reading, if a reader were asked: "Has Vice President Cheney been successfully impeached?", the proper legally-oriented answer would be "No." I see a distinction with a difference, but do not consider it critical.

We have disagreed on many things in this article, but I nonetheless think we can be proud of its progress, and I thank you again for your contributions. In the spirit of continued cooperation, I don't want to push this. We can leave it there if you feel strongly about it.--OtisTDog 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have disagreed on many things (and I am eager to hear the debate on the deletion page about this article.) In the spirit of civility and good faith, I reiterate my comments made earlier in this thread that "the distinction on this is relatively minor." I do not feel strongly about it; I prefer to reserve my strong feelings for edits of consequence. As we have seen earlier, I am more than willing to leave the content as-is until more editors arrive and consensus emerges. I trust we'll be able to keep working on this article and discussing on our differences in a healthy and productive wikipedia tradition.JasonCNJ 04:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the mistaken italics. thanks for the edit.

"Significance" of Maxine Waters' Co-Sponsorship

JasonCNJ, nice to see you're still taking an interest in this article. I saw you reverted some edits I'd made concerning the particular relevance of Ms. Waters' co-sponsorship, as a member of the House Judiciary Committee. The reference I'd added for that sentence indicated she has the ability to bring up the resolution for a Judiciary subcommittee hearing, an essential next step if the resolution is to proceed. I don't think that's POV -- that's fact about the nature of the legislative process. Do you dispute this source? If so, on what grounds? In the meantime, I'll just add in a note that Ms. Waters is a member of the House Judiciary Committee.--OtisTDog 14:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned in your comment, "The reference I'd added for that sentence indicated she has the ability to bring up the resolution for a Judiciary subcommittee hearing, an essential next step if the resolution is to proceed."

However, your comment went further than the source actually did. The source reported on an interview with an anonymous person "familiar with House Commitee procedure." This person indicated that Waters, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, had the right to ask that a bill be heard in Subcommittee. But, the source continues, "However, the Subcommittee Chair would have to agree to have it heard." and adds "If the bill is not consistent with the overall agenda of the Full Committee, it is unlikely a bill would get on a Subcommittee agenda due to the collegial relations typically seen among Committee Members..."

So, the source you cited does NOT say that Waters "has the ability to bring up the resolution." Far from it. Trusting the anonymous person familiar with procedure, Waters has the ability to ask the Subcommittee hear the bill -- but the Subcommittee Chair would have to agree to have it be heard and if its inconsistent with the overall agenda of the full Committee, it is unlikely the bill would be heard in Subcommittee.

As a review of the Committee roster makes clear, Rep. Waters is not a Subcommittee Chairman. Waters cannot "bring up the resolution for a Judiciary subcommittee hearing" as you wrote. (Incidentially, Waters is not even a member of the subcommittee to which impeachment would likely be referred.)

Lastly, you asked if I dispute your source. Indeed, I do. The source you quoted was Political Affairs Magazine. According to their "About Us" page, the mission of Political Affairs "is to go beyond simple giving an account of events to providing analysis and investigating what is new and changing in our world -- from a working-class point of view." Furthermore, they announce clearly: "Political Affairs is a publication of the Communist Party, USA." Thus, I believe the source runs afoul of Wikipedia policy which requires "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I submit that Political Affairs Magainze, the publicaiton of the Communist Party, USA, fails these basic tests.

JasonCNJ 16:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I disagree with your implicit logic that anything published by Communists must be a lie, the thrust of your argument re: Judiciary Committee procedures makes sense. If Ms. Waters is not able to move the resolution forward as I had believed, then her membership in the Judiciary Committee is the most significant part of her co-sponsorship. I can live with the current wording.--68.54.18.57 19:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC) / oops -- got logged out but this was me. --OtisTDog 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I write to correct your assertion that I implied "anything published by Communists must be a lie." I implied nothing of the sort. I limited my comments on the source of the article to the tests established in relevant Wikipedia policies. On this very-political of questions, I do not believe the "official publication" of any political party -- Communist, Republican, Democratic, or otherwise - would meet the required Wikipedia standards. My comments have nothing to do with the underlying veracity of the published works of Communists. JasonCNJ 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference for "not on table" quote by Pelosi?

Very sorry to write here - I'm new and did not know where to make this comment: There is a very well know reference regarding this story: Nanci Pelosi saying that impeachment is "off the table". But I have looked everywhere for this quote so I can read it in its entirety, and I cannot find it. Any ideas? -scott

Scott, I put this comment in its own section for you.--OtisTDog 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete old talk topics?

I'm thinking of deleting the following topics, which seem to have been settled and do not seem likely to be useful to newcomers.

Nomination for Deletion
Past the "stub" stage?
Current Event Tag

Are there any objections to just outright deleting them? Is there a preferred archiving method for talk topics?--OtisTDog 16:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We archive discussions, once a talk page gets "too full" - we've probably got a ways to go with this one yet, before we need to start pruning out the resolved discussions - but I'll keep an eye on it, thanks for asking! Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Referral to Subcommittee, Phrasing Suggestion?

(JasonCNJ, your attention is particularly wanted on this topic.) I've noted in a couple of instances of reporting that H Res 333 has had some new legislative activity, specifically referral to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. Bearing in mind the desire to avoid prognostication on the outcome, I would like to make note of this significant activity in the "History" section. Since JasonCNJ is usually the first to come forth with technical information on legislative process, I'd like to ask him to suggest a wording that would pass NPOV muster in his book. Oddly, THOMAS says the subcommittee referral happened in early May, but I don't recall seeing this information on THOMAS in the past, and the first news reports of it are this week.--OtisTDog 05:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid use of the word "significant." Allow the reader to determine the significance of the facts. I would advise an edit that states simply the Resolution has been referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties where it awaits further action. What would you like to say about it? JasonCNJ 16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the initial suggestion, JasonCNJ. The article up until now has made it clear that the referral to committee was automatic and not particularly interesting. The referral to subcommittee is not quite the same thing... it's the first indication that the resolution might ever be voted on. I'd like to convey that significance without blowing it out of proportion, since the resolution clearly has a long way to go before reaching that stage. Maybe a brief description of what further steps would need to happen before consideration at the committee level? The existing note that it would require favorable action no longer seems sufficient.--OtisTDog 05:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that referral to subcommittee is "the first indication that the resolution might ever be voted on." I don't think there's any evidence to support that leap. I suppose, in theory, I wouldn't mind a listing of the further steps for consideration...but the problem is that there is not any defined path. The subcommittee could put it on the agenda for consideration but not vote on it. They could vote on it unfavorably and the full committee could still consider it. They could vote favorably and have it die in full committee. They could not hear it at all and the Committee could take it and consider it. I mean, there's no way to write "further steps" without engaging in speculation that Wikipedia policies forbid. I think we just have to report the facts as they happen; that it was automatically referred to committee and has been referred to a subcommittee. And that's it. JasonCNJ 20:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks in History Section by McDermott and Jackson

Just a heads-up about these remarks. As part of NPOV considerations, the working agreement for this article has been that only the commentary of those immediately involved in whether the resolution moves forward or not will be included in the article. So far, that has meant Kucinich (the author), Pelosi (the Speaker), or the various co-signers, not all of whom have issued statements. I'm leaving the new comments from McDermott and Jackson up for the moment because Congress is on vacation and no official actions are being reflected in THOMAS. However, if these two do NOT end up as co-signers of H Res 333 -- and quickly -- then their comments will most likely be removed from this article. No offense is intended, just trying to avoid edit wars here; if you want to make sure that a non-co-signer's comments are included in Wikipedia, I recommend you work with the article on the person who made the comment.--OtisTDog 16:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 ::::::JasonCNJ, it's certainly not on the six o'clock news, I'll give you that, but not everything is, and, as the recent addition of co-sponsors shows, HR 333 is not a static subject. Right now, registered opinion is two-to-one in favor of keeping the tag. All other editors are encouraged to register their thoughts on the matter.--[[User:OtisTDog|OtisTDog]] 18:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 :::::::Sure, registered opinion is currently 2-1...but wikipedia is not a democracy. Simply asserting it is news does not make it news. And I somewhat question one vote in favor as it was cast by an editor who supports the sponsor's presidential bid. It most certainly is not a "current event" in my opinion, but I am looking forward to other editors' opinions.[[User:JasonCNJ|JasonCNJ]] 18:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
+::::::::I added the current event tagg back on because 4 new congressmen added their support to this bill withen the past week meanoing that it is current. Also a congressman said "With the president's decision to once again subvert the legal process and the will of the American people by commuting the sentence of convicted felon Lewis Scooter' Libby, I call on House Democrats to reconsider impeachment proceedings" and that was only a few days ago
 =="Official" Summary Wording==