Talk:Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump

Bias

Most of the text under "Trump and the White House", in the "Responses" section of this article, seems to be strongly biased against President Donald J. Trump, and should be rewritten with a more neutral point of view (or at least tagged as needing such a rewrite). I would like to particularly highlight the language used when referring to his responses, as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.178.19 (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What specific text are you claiming is biased? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I usually stay out of Wikipedia edits and I don't want to directly edit this page, but under the section for RESPONSES, the first section titled "Trump and the White House", 2nd Paragraph, 3rd sentence: "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged, but largely baseless involvement with Ukraine." I have italicized the part of the sentence that is opinion without any supporting evidence, considering Joe Biden actually bragged about what he did on Television. Because it is an opinion, I would suggest it be removed and the sentence left at: "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged involvement with Ukraine." This statement is factually correct, more neutral, and allows for interpretation by the reader instead of trying to convince them of one side or the other. This is why I put it here under "Bias." Please discuss. - Subzerox (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added a failed verification tag to the sentence. The sentence is awkwardly worded, but the gist of it is verifiable in numerous sources. The Bidens have been involved with Ukraine, but the conspiracy theory about the nature of their involvement is baseless (based on what is currently publicly known).- MrX 🖋 19:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The allegation of involvement isn't baseless, so we shouldn't say it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The nature of the involvement is what's baseless. In fact, it's a conspiracy theory.[1]

"Trump urged Ukraine to investigate Biden over baseless allegations regarding the former vice president's role in seeing a prosecutor ousted and Hunter serving on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings. There's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden.
— [2]

- MrX 🖋 20:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

- By that logic, the accusations against President Trump would also be baseless, as there's no "evidence" of wrongdoing on the part of President Trump either, yet we're having a massive discussion about it and even threatening an impeachment. So, how about we leave out the opinions that haven't been proven either way and just let the statement that the accusation is what the Republicans and the White House are saying stand? - Subzerox (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There's the fact that Trump has literally said he did it. I'd say that's pretty strong evidence.Vision Insider (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Subzerox: - let me make this clear: reliable sources say there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. See below. Also, Hunter Biden was never under investigation by Ukraine, so how can his father have interfered to protect him? I’d like to see your sources on there being no evidence of wrongdoing by the president. I think a particular memorandum would count as evidence. starship.paint (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources

John Solomon includes his documentation in his articles https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story You can view it for yourself. I believe your statement in not accurate until there is a through review of this evidence.RBWilson1000 (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC) BBC There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens AFP: there has been no evidence of illegal conduct or wrongdoing in Ukraine by the Bidens Reuters: There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden. Associated Press: there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son NBC News: But despite Trump's continued claims, there's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden

- Even if you are so adamant on only accepting left-wing biased media as "reliable", it's still not a valid excuse for keeping an article section that's written in a tone that makes it sound like some kind of good vs. evil fairytale struggle. Sentences like "Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit impeachment." are simply unencyclopedic. Why call something a campaign to discredit when it could be a defense against false allegations? 87.116.178.19 (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

87, we are not adamant about only accepting left-wing media as reliable. We are adamant that only reliable sources will be accepted. I see that Following the initiation of the impeachment inquiry, Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit impeachment. seems to be unsourced. I have added a failed verification tag. Could someone add a citation, or rephrase it, or remove it? starship.paint (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Even though there is a reference, the sentence "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged, but baseless<reference> involvement with Ukraine" is poor. It is inaccurate. It is not "baseless" that they each had an "involvement", a connection of sorts, with Ukraine. What is baseless is the allegation that the connection involved misconduct of some kind. Can we find a better way to word this? How about "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son over alleged but unproven misconduct involving Ukraine." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact I'm going to put that version of the sentence into the article. Can be discussed here if someone objects. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias in lead

If you assume that 35% of Americans are "Trump's base" and that therefore (say) 20% of all voters believe in some form of a deep state and/or conspiracy theories against Trump then the lead lacks any attempt to portray that 20%. This seems to be a question of WP:WEIGHT.

WP:NPOV states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Yes, the article's title is "Impeachment inquiry..." and so one might expect the vast majority of opinions (by realiable sources) to be based on that that inquiry. But just because most of the arguments against impeachment inquiry are (in my opinion) debunked conspiracy theories doesn't mean we should ignore them in the lead if, say, 10% of reliable sources (like Fox News?) believe in those theories.

To be fair, we should include a short paragraph about the responses from the White House and the Republicans, in addition to the "Two close associates of Trump..." at the start of the last paragraph in the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Upon reconsideration, I now believe that all of the text inside the lead expresses facts, or possible facts, not opinions or responses to the facts. --RoyGoldsmith (talk)

Alternative facts ? 107.217.84.95 (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Just because (in your e.g.) 20% of the population are completely delusional and grasping at straws doesn't mean they should be treated as fact in the article. Neutrality doesn't mean "have an equal amount of content from both sides of the extreme", it means "state facts and don't be partisan".  Nixinova  T  C  07:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Of course there is bias in the lede. This is Wikipedia where bias is an accepted practice. My complaint. Why no mention anywhere in this story of Ukraine’s Zelensky denial of any blackmail or quid pro quo? The latest was a well documented denial by Zelensky in Kyiv where 140 news correspondents were present. After all Zelensky was on the other end of that call, he should know. I have tried inputting this information, but have gotten reverted. So, red flag, bias. 10stone5 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

10stone5, when a hostage talks about how well his or her captors are treating him or her, do we accept that at face value? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Not here to give an opinion, but either scenario is definitely possible. Maybe Zelensky genuinely believes that the call was not coercion, or maybe he was lying to stay out of trouble, but only he knows that. I despise Trump, but I know that is never an excuse to harass him (or anyone else, really). Zelensky's denial does serve as weak evidence for Trump, but again, only Zelensky knows what he meant. Let's wait and see how the evidence leading to either scenario (actual impeachment or simply a Mueller probe all over again) unfolds. After all, the corruption accusation against Trump is a serious charge. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 19:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Stupid shit like this is why I can’t wait for them to get on with the vote and for it to all be over. Trillfendi (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It is astonishing how we as a whole interpret the facts these days, and it is also scary how a few of us take those facts and raise them from a civil issue to a legal issue. Let me admit this: I cannot trust the media to report this scandal accurately, but I also cannot trust conservative media to not put a spin on it. The events are either dramatized or downplayed or even incorrectly debunked. How can anyone not find Trump's concerns about the Bidens' alleged wrongdoing without presenting evidence to be potentially harassment? On the other hand, I find Muboshgu's above comment to be dramatic, but then again, no one is saying that they are wrong, yet. One thing we all can agree on is that it is frustrating to try to get the facts right without naïvely messing them up. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 18:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nixinova, 10stone5, Muboshgu, and Gamingforfun365: Nixinova, in my opinion neutrality does mean "have a proportional amount of content from all sides based on reliable sources." I object to talk like "Of course there is bias in the lede. This is Wikipedia where bias is an accepted practice." Just because there is some bias doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it.

Other than that diatribe, 10stone5, your point about Zelenskyy's denial is well founded. I will try to add the denial again, based on sources that everyone should agree are reliable. If this gets reverted without a good reason, I'll start an RfC. 10stone5, do you know the date and time you added your content (that later got reverted), just so I can look up what you said? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith, readding contentious material is not a good idea. Yes, Zelensky denied being pressured by Trump, in the presence of Trump. Reliable sources talk uniformly about the pressure campaign put on the Ukraine by the Trump administration. That's what we should be focusing on. Zelensky's denial belongs in the body, but not in the lead per WP:WEIGHT. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I think that 10stone5 was referring to a later press "marathon" (12 hours) that Zelensky had in Kyiv on October 10 (see here and here), not the meeting he had several weeks earlier in New York with Trump. In it Zelensky said that there was "no blackmail" in the phone call with Trump. I intend to put that information in the article's body, not in the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

RoyGoldsmith, Even then, common sense suggests that he knows Trump is going to pay attention to what he says, and he doesn't want to be involved in the situation anymore than he already is. Putting it in the body is fine. Putting it in the lead is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Also in Trump–Ukraine scandal. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that all the sources are from those media outlets which have from day 1 been opposed to the Trump government is bias in itself. The entire article reads like a cnn opinion article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.161.157 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The article provides sources from over 30 outlets, including Fox News, the White House, and Trump. Please feel free to suggest other reliable sources that would improve the article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"incendiary rhetoric" is completely un-encyclopedic language Akeosnhaoe (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The entire tone of this article implies that Trump is already guilty and the impeachment inquiry is just finding the results of a forgone conclusion. Looking at just this specific sentence, it determines Trump is guilty when no such logic exists. "The inquiry revolves around a phone call between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky implying that U.S. military aid to Ukraine was to be withheld until Zelensky gave in to the aforementioned demands." In the transcript, as provided to the public, there is no such implication. Trump asked Zelensky several times to investigate corruption. Having Ukraine corruption investigating is Zelensky's duty, as president of Ukraine. Trump is also duty bound to have US involved corruption investigated, since he happens to be the President of the United States. He mentions that AG Barr will be in touch. Not only is that AG Barr's sworn duty, it's his actual job. There is no mention of the aid being tied to such an investigation. The aid was held up some time earlier exactly because of corruption concerns. This is not criminal behavior, it is international politics. "We'll, give you money. You make sure we are not wasting it." This is how international politics is done. The over use of the term "quid pro quo", as if it is some sort of crime, would be more like "give me a truck load of Cuban cigars or you're not getting your millions of US tax dollars." This behavior has legal terms, blackmail, bribery, and extortion, depending on the circumstance. "Quid pro pro" should be dropped from this article except as a reference to the original accusations. And as we now know from the public, the inquires top "witnesses" are speaking entirely from hearsay. This entire episode has been spun by anti-Trump politicians and media to look like a crime. Those same media outlets are heavily used as citations in this article. If this is a crime, then the Biden's most definitely should also be investigated, because on the surface, they look a whole lot more guilty that Trump. That an article this long and heavily bias has made it onto Wikipedia reaffirms my decision not to donate any more until the editors learn to stop injecting so much opinion into political topics. I have raised this bias issue before and at the time I swore I wouldn't get involved again, and yet here I am ... again. You'd think I would learn. WAR-Ink (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Claiming the aid was held up earlier because of corruption concerns is bogus: US military aid is not provided as cash payment to a foreign country. The money is used to buy US military equipment which is then sent to the foreign country military. US defense contractors are paid directly by the US Treasury. The foreign country only receives military equipment, but no cash,so curruption is not a real issue in this case.

1. Multiple witnesses within who work for and on behalf of The President and the US Government disagree. They have both first hand experience of what you claim, and disagree with your assertions and those of the Republican base. The Whistleblower complaint may be framed as 'hearsay' (as they were not directly privy to the issues, but witness to the complaints) but every other witness is materially involved and directly involved in multiple stages of the negotiations. That no single person is directly involved with every stage, or that it requires overlapping statements to gain a full picture is an element common to most criminal law cases. The absence of several key witnesses instructed not to respond, or refusing to respond for unknown reasons (John Bolton) meanwhile does not tally with your claims that this is being spun by anti-Trump people. If these people could clear themselves, and Trump, then they surely would?

2. Aid is aid. Doesn't matter if it was cash or missiles. The way the aid is used or functions is not functionally important to the idea of it being "corrupt". It is the intent to extort another country through the use of withholding aid (be that money or missiles) is the crux of the issue. As agreed and attested to by every witness called. Koncorde (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The point of my comment was not about Trump's guilt or innocence. It was about the tone of the article being that of he is without question guilty of a crime and should be impeached. That has been significantly, and thankfully, toned down since. I have spent as much time on this as I am willing. So, good luck on the rest.

On Trump's guilt or innocence, two things of note; first, this case would most likely not stand up in a criminal court. The entire public hearing has been hearsay, conjecture, leading questions, etc. I watched the actual hearings, not the various media outlet's driveling on about everything being a "bomb shell" for one side or the other or both. My impression was that I not believe the US government was wasting time on this, rather than running the country. Second, you don't need a crime to impeach, you only need enough votes. This guy says it, for those that only accept journalists as the unerring fountain of truth.

"Does all this amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump is guilty of illegally extorting Zelenskiy (or, alternatively, soliciting a bribe from him in exchange for an official act)? No, but that standard of proof does not apply to impeachment, which in any case does not require a criminal act."

And, yes, you can quote him on that.

WAR-Ink (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I've read these articles up and down and been doing proofreading edits now and then, and I have seen no real bias. For the most part editors have used necessary qualifiers such as, "allegedly" and "according to," among others. Listing the facts as presented is not bias, neither is repeating testimony given under oath, (testimony wherein those testifying felt the phone call was improper and the actions of Giuliani were wrong). As far as Quid Pro Quo is concerned, it has been admitted to by several people involved in the scheme to withhold aid, including Mulvaney and Giuliani, among others. Repeating their statements is not biased, providing they are pulled from reliable sources. Impeachment is predicated on "High crimes and misdemeanors" btw. Persistent Corvid (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Top photo

• 
  Official portrait from October 2017, Option A
• 
  Photo from September 2019, Option B

I think we should settle this once and for all. Which photo should we use? !vote Option A / Option B. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Option A is my preferred, as it looks a lot more professionally done with all the skin tones looking natural. The other, Option B, makes his eyes look sallow, and his skin looks a bit sickly. — Maile (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This may be in part because the first is obviously slightly colour-corrected (that is, softened); the latter is probably closer to what Trump looks like in “real life”, at least when you’re photographing him in high definition. But this difference isn’t uncommon in modern professional photographs, and his official portrait certainly looks more “agreeable”. Agreed that the unmodified photo looks a bit “much”. While this isn’t a beauty contest between photographs, I’ll note that the official portrait usually ends up being the default for these type of articles, and for good reason. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• B as most recent image.  Nixinova  T / C   18:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

B as well. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I know this isn't policy related, but Option A makes him look like he's saying, "Ha! You can't touch me! i'm invicnicible!" I'm not going to bother to correct my typos because neither does he.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Option A. Same as in his biography article, where we virtually always use the official White House photo for presidents. If we are going to open up the floodgates to the hundreds of pictures of him that must be out there, we will be debating it constantly. There is something nice and final about "just use the official photograph." -- MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A for now is fine, per M & M (Maile66 & MelanieN). However, if a more relevant photo emerges, that should be used. For example, a photo taken off the House floor when they vote on articles of impeachment; a photo taken during the public deposition of a prominent witness; or a photo of Trump testifying at the Senate hearing. A portrait of Trump is by far not the best lead image, but it's what we have now. - MrX 🖋 11:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A - per MrX. The portrait used is largely irrelevant, but it is used on his main article etc and no obvious reason to switch until such point as a new portrait is more significant or relevant. Koncorde (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option B 2600:1702:2340:9470:95E2:ECE0:428:16D6 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option B because the face is a larger portion of the image. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: If we get any good screencaps of the public inquiry in the upcoming weeks we should replace it with that.  Nixinova  T / C   01:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  Note that screenshots of the C-SPAN footage in committee hearings are not PD. We will not get a PD photo until the whole House votes. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Option B – Because it is more recent, contemporaneous to the subject being discussed. It is also visually better to have a different photo in the infobox than the topic template right below it. Having the same photo twice seems just wrong to me. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A: per M, M, and M (MrX, Maile66, and MelanieN). While I do hear the arguments about using a more recent portrait, we should use the first, absent more relevant photographs. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I only added option B to the article as it's most recent and contemporary to these shenanigans, so I felt it appropriate. He looks less like a bottle of Fanta in A though. Trillfendi (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A It isn't important that we have the absolutely latest image of him the in the article. Others above have pointed out that the official image tends to get used for these things. I also tend to believe there is no reason not to use the nicest looking photo we have of people. Zell Faze (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
• Option A is the official portrait, and it's got my vote. Also it's less likely to startle me when I pop in to see what the most recent changes are. NekoKatsun (nyaa) 01:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Video of Joe Biden

Video of Joe Biden's 2018 speech where he bragged about with-holding Ukrainian aid should be added as it was discussed during the impeachment hearings and are the comments President Trump is referring to in the Ukrainian call transcript The video is all over the web and on YouTube. There is a link to one below. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY Here's a story from the Federalist about it. https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/24/watch-joe-biden-brag-about-bribing-ukraine-to-fire-the-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/ RBWilson1000 (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Umm.....no. This article is not about Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

And the article you cite has it backwards. That's what you get when you rely on The Federalist for factual information. Biden urged that the prosecutor, Shokin, be fired because the prosecutor was NOT investigating corruption at Burisma and other companies. Western nations everywhere were urging that Shokin be fired because he was part of the problem; he was squelching investigations into oligarchs and other corrupt actors. When Biden urged that the prosecutor be fired, he was following Obama administration policy intended to counter corruption in Ukraine - and incidentally making it MORE likely that Burisma would be investigated. Please read the real story: [3] Or see our article on Viktor Shokin. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

We also do not violate copyright or link to YouTube channels and websites that violate copyrights, as OP has done on this talk page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I read the article on Shokin. Are you sure it is correct? It appears that there may be evidence that the investigation was open at the time of the firing. John Solomon posted the evidence in his article that he says proves the case was open. RBWilson1000 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC) https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

I recommend you read up on recent revelations about the credibility of Solomon's reporting: "non-truths and non sequiturs," "his grammar might have been right," "false narrative," "entirely made up in full cloth." soibangla (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I heard retorts from Solomon and his comment was that generalized claims like this are made but the criticisms lack specificity and don't attack the detailed documentation that he attaches inside his articles (scribd documents [ex. sworn affidavits], video, story links, ect.). I noticed those quotes were opinions of people but there were more specific criticisms in this article. Ironically, the NYT story confirms from Mr. Lutsenko there was a do-not prosecute list - I guess the debate is why those individuals were on the list. We may learn more when Marie Yovanovitch testifies Friday. RBWilson1000 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

RBWilson1000 — the detailed documentation that he attaches inside his articles is often misleading, much in the same way Judicial Watch provides documents then misrepresents what they say. The Shokin "affifavit," in particular, is dubious, due to the evident motives he and Firtash have. soibangla (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll keep by guard up regarding Shokin. However, from what I've seen the past couple of years John Solomon was onto the lack of substantiation for allegations of conspiracy between the 2016 Trump Campaign and Russian government long before other news outlets. Outlets that pushed single-anonymous sourced story after story shown untrue by the Mueller investigation. It really makes it hard to know what to believe anymore. RBWilson1000 (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

story after story shown untrue by the Mueller investigation Actually, see Mueller Report#Press coverage of the investigation. But anyway, this is a digression from the article. Solomon exists in the Hannity bubble and his work should be considered accordingly. soibangla (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Solomon exists in the Hannity bubble and his work should be considered accordingly There is a reason Fox News ratings went up after the Mueller report while CNN and MSNBC's fell as widely reported but this is a digression. Unfortunately, the skepticism of the latter sources from a conservative I know has drifted to Wikipedia now too. RBWilson1000 (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason Fox News ratings went up: many find cartoonish sensationalism entertaining. Let's stop this now. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

There is a reason Fox News ratings went up: Yes there is. Reality-based news went onto more mundane things, but the right-wing media bubble went into full-on hype mode to defend their tribe. Anyone who read the Mueller report knows that Donald Trump and his campaign welcomed assistance from Russia and did not report inappropriate advances to the FBI, that multiple Trump advisers including his campaign manager are crooks, often with ties to the Russian mob, and that Trump met the three elements of obstruction of justice on at least fur separate counts. The right wing media expended a vast amount of effort to establish a counter-narrative, and worked hard to keep its viewers watching while it did so.

We also know from analysis in publications like Network Propaganda that there is an asymmetric mechanism of bias in the US media. Mainstream and left-leaning media suffer a penalty if they publish false stories, hyper-partisan right media suffers if it publishes true stories that run counter to the preferred narrative. Fox lost social shares, clicks and ad revenue during 2015 and early 2016 as it published facts about Trump's shady past. When they got wholeheartedly on the Trump Train, they moved back up to the #1 slot in media shared by conservatives. And it's not as surprise. Ailes was a Nixon media adviser, he thought the real villains of Watergate were the press. All this is well documented. Fox was specifically created to counter the mainstream media. Guy (help!) 11:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct. Shokin was essentially just sitting on the case to give the appearance of an investigation, and it was narrowly and solely focused on details from before Hunter Biden joined the company (in other words, it had nothing to do with him or his actions). I would think the Federalist title implying Biden “bribed” Ukrainians should have given you pause to consider it wasn’t exactly a reliable or impartial source of information. Essentially, people pushing the theory you were citing are either twisting the story, or misinformed. Impeccably reliable investigative journalists have already sorted this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I grabbed the Federalist story because it had the video in it. I probably should have been more careful. Didn't read it or care what the title was. Solomon has links to documents and a story from Ukraine in 2017 (see link) that seems to say the case wasn't closed until January 2017 in the opening paragraph - the prosecutor was fired March 2016. It just seems that the president's intent is important here. Did the president mention Biden six months before the first primary because he feared Biden politically, or because based on things like the video (which he may have misunderstood) he thought something corrupt happened? In this context it seems important but I am not a lawyer. https://www.kyivpost.com/business-wire/john-buretta-us-important-close-casesagainst-burisma-nikolayzlochevskyiin-legally-sound-manner.html RBWilson1000 (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Regardless of what you’ve said, that would be definitely be engaging in original research. We can evaluate sources and contributions, but this is more than a bit outside our wheelhouse. As far as I’m aware though, the firing of the prosecutor and the closing of the case is not necessarily causative, even if it is correlated. The gears of any government move slowly. We can’t draw any conclusions from a lack of evidence, regardless. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

User:RBWilson1000, you are correct that the investigations were still open when Shokin was fired, and otherwise much is recent spin. Factually, it seems Burisma (large, rich, connected) investigations were stalled before Shokin, during Shokin, and after Shokin and the next guy closed them. There’s also not much push from the U.S. at the time for investigations before or after. The Hill reported on once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Bidens story, and it’s possible the anecdote as told by Biden may be a bit embellished, plus Burisma memos may have been spinning they had influence on him that they didn’t really have. It also seems both Shokin and recently removed Prosecutor General Lutsenko have said things causing suspicion of Biden, and mentions of miscellaneous mentions of Ukrainian interference in the US 2016 elections have some WEIGHT. But there is not much plausible in those. It’s clear Hunter got money and the appropriateness of that was a concern for conflict of interest. It seems not very plausible Joe Biden was unaware, but also not very plausible that he did provable extortion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason why this article should be complicit in a partisan effort to deploy yet another conspiracy theory to divert attention from the pertinent facts emerging from these vital proceedings. soibangla (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm a registered Independent and did not vote for the president in 2016. I thought this was a historical account of the impeachment inquiry. The Biden comment was cited numerous times during the inquiry and by the president in the phone call for which the impeachment proceedings are about. The president clearly interpreted it as a potentially corrupt act and brought it up as such. How is it not appropriate for it to be included whether he is correct or not? RBWilson1000 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your political affiliation isn’t pertinent. While there are definite POV problems in the AP2 area, it’s largely down to worldview and how this jives with reliable sources. Not political parties. Coincidentally, I likewise am a non-partisan Independent (and libertarian), but that should have no bearing on our editing. Political leanings should always take a backseat to our core policies, especially verifiability, reliable sourcing, and the weight of those sources according to coverage and reputation for fact-checking. I suggest you read MelanieN’s comment again. Biden isn’t talking what you think he’s talking about. That selective interpretation is part of counter-narrative based on a conspiracy theory. Reliable sources have thoroughly debunked it. That some Republicans in the hearings are attempting to use this as a misguided preemptive “defense” for the President during the hearings is not our problem. We’re certainly not going to repeat what unreliable sources and pundits say, or politicians looking to spin the pertinent facts as a subjective “truth”, especially in wiki-voice. If anything, it’s going to show up here attributed, but put into the context of falsity that reliable sources are sure to demonstrate. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Since the genuineness of a rationale used in Trump's defense is a key part of the dispute that's leading to impeachment, it would be definitely non-neutral to assume the "president clearly interpreted it as a potentially corrupt act[.]" President Trump has a poor track record for truth. He has said many objectively false things over the past 3 years, that people cannot in good faith claim are true. We should not uncritically depict his claimed motives for acts as his confirmed true motive without robust corroboration. We should write that he "claimed" or "said" or "alleged" rather than "believed." Since we're not mind readers, that also a general good rule of thumb, even regarding people that have a normal track record regarding honesty. JamesAM (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A couple of things.

• First, Biden was agitating to have Shokin fired. Shokin was corrupt and was not prosecuting large numbers of people, specifically including Zlochevsky and Burisma.
• Second, after Shokin was fired (in April 2016, Biden's visit was the previous December) Lutsenko was appointed. That required a change in the law in Ukraine to allow appointment of a non-lawyer to that post. There was no evidence then that he would be corrupt as well (in fact he is less corrupt than Shokin, but only in the sense that Michael Avenatti is a better lawyer than Larry Klayman), and no way at all that Biden or anyone else could have known he, specifically, would be appointed. The clear expectation was that Shokin would be replaced by someoen less corrupt and more serious about prosecuting Zlochevsky, who was, in turn, always a bigger target than Burisma.
• Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were clearly appointed with a view to currying favour in the US, but firing Shokin put Burisma at more risk, not less, and Yovanovich was a serious anti-corruption advocate as well.
• The claim of a "do not prosecute" list including Hunter Biden has been debunked: it originates with John Solomon and has been called "an outright fabrication" by the State Department.
• Finally, if corruption is that important, how come Trump allowed Perry to broker 50-year mineral extraction deals for his donors, at well below the high bidder? That is a clear and flagrant conflict of interest. Trump mentions Biden three times on the July call, and does not mention corruption or even Burisma.

It is legitimate to question whether Trump is honest here, and it is also clear that Biden's actions were, if anything, the opposite of what is claimed. It is abundantly clear that the appearance of conflict of interest was known in State at the time of Biden's visit. The most charitable explanation is that Trump - who by all accounts and evidence views the world through the lens of "everything I do is pure and perfect, everything done by any critic or opponent is disgusting and corrupt" - knows he would have advanced the interests of his adult children (as he has done multiple times while in office) and can't see why anyone else would not have done the same. Guy (help!) 23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

JzG|GUY - the Talk Pages are for the use of Reliable Sources to improve the article, not for you to soapbox your personal views of politics/politicians. WP:SOAP

We've just had a couple of weeks of testimony in which serious people with first hand knowledge and access to restricted information have confirmed every word of what I wrote above. Guy (help!) 11:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Remember Meuller and Russia?

There were arguments over the House getting the unredacted grand jury materials from the Meuller probe today, as well as a bunch of other lawsuits over Trump and the DoJ's stonewalling on subpoenas. Where does this fit in in this article?Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Arglebargle79 - not sure that it does fit topically or structurally, and maybe not DUE, but my best guess would be in 2.3 Resolution to begin hearings. It seems getting grand jury materials was a wish, but blocked earlier by there was no actual hearings. I think it’s still in courts as to whether declaration of hearings unblocks this or not. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The article, which is getting a bit on the longish side, is pretty much only on the Ukraine scandal, which is fine as far as it goes. While the Bribery and obstruction of this particular investigation fit perfectly with the article as is, there are other inquiries that aren't getting much coverage, if any, leftovers from Meuller, Stormy Daniels, and Emoluments. Assuming (we can do that here, but not on the main page) that the other committees are compiling evidence on those, we're going to have to shoehorn them in somewhere if other committees submit reports. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2019

CHANGE the 1st sentence in the last paragraph of the introduction - which currently omits a crucial bit of information and, coupled with the ambiguous verbiage, leads to erroneous inferences FROM "Sondland testified on November 20, 2019, that he believed he conducted his actions at the behest of the President and that he perceived the potential invitation to be part of to be contingent on a quid pro quo, but admitted during the testimony that during a call on September 9, 2019, Trump told him "I want no quid pro quo, just tell Zelensky to do the right thing"" TO "Sondland testified on November 20, 2019, that he believed he conducted his actions at the behest of the President and that he perceived the potential invitation to be part of to be contingent on a quid pro quo. However, in response to congressional inquiries, he also testified that Trump told him on the phone "I want no quid pro quo, just tell Zelensky to do the right thing". The referenced phone-call took place on September 7, 2019 and was first disclosed by National Security Council aide Tim Morrison. Before this, on August 26, 2019 Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire had been notified about the whistleblower’s complaint by the inspector general for the intelligence community Michael Atkinson, deemed as an “‘urgent concern’ that ‘appears credible.'" Atkinson also informed Maguire of the 7-day deadline, by when the complaint should be forwarded to the chairmen of the House and Senate intelligence committees. Maguire would end up being subpoenaed by the House Intelligence Committee, on September 13, 2019, for not having forwarded the complaint within the required timeframe. The complaint had been filed on August 12, 2019. " DrRopeman (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The sentence you want changed no longer appears in the article. NiciVampireHeart 07:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References

"A December 2017 resolution ... failed in the then–Republican-led House"

I notice that there is one sentence that may require clarification: "A December 2017 resolution of impeachment failed in the then–Republican-led House by a 58–364 vote margin." While the fact that the House was led by the Republicans is strictly true, it is also potentially misleading in that it could give the impression that Trump might have been impeached much earlier had the Democrats controlled the House. As a matter of fact, if we were to compare the 115th and 116th Congresses of the United States, the Democrats have 39 more seats in the latter Congress, and if we add the numbers up, 58 Democrats plus 39 equals to 97. In the hypothetical case where the current house voted on the resolution in 2017, 338 still clearly outnumbers 97. What the sentence did get right is that it is hard to tell whether the President would have been impeached had the Democrats controlled a supermajority, so I am open on whether we should delete the "Republican-led" and let the second paragraph explain that the Democrats regained the House in 2019. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 01:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Gamingforfun365 agreed, that part in the background section isn’t relevant, so I will trim it. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Vindman Smear Inclusion?

There are multiple sources (The Hill, Vanity Fair, Bloomberg, and Politico) that discuss attacks on Lt. Col. Vindman by Trump and supporters in the media and politicians that allege serious allegations such as espionage onto the Vindman. Should these attacks be included, and, if so, where? Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 01:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. It's mentioned at his biography page. I don't think it belongs here. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You really think it doesn't, MelanieN? I mean this is the only reason it's happening and it's literally because of the inquiry. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:51, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sad to say that Vindman is not an isolated instance. Virtually every witness has come under attack by the president and the right-wing echo chamber - on Twitter, on television, in Congress, and even here at Wikipedia; most of their articles here have had to be semi-protected because of attacks and vandalism. Apparently this is our new normal, welcome to 2019. :-( Maybe something could be said in this article in general under "Responses"; I'll see if I can find a source about this phenomenon and if so I'll add it. But in the meantime, the fact that a witness is being attacked has become almost routine; no need to single out Vindman. Just my opinion; others may disagree. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I did find enough information, and I will add a paragraph to the Trump section under Responses. Thanks for planting the idea. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Are any of these 'U.S. House' videos in the public domain?

• 1.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?465765-1/us-house-approves-impeachment-inquiry-resolution-232-196

• 2.)

https://www.c-span.org/event/?466378/impeachment-inquiry-impeachment-hearing-amb-gordon-sondland

• 3.)

https://www.c-span.org/event/?466379/impeachment-inquiry-impeachment-hearing-laura-cooper-david-hale

• 4.)

https://www.c-span.org/event/?466376/impeachment-inquiry-impeachment-hearing-lt-col-vindman-vice-president-pence-aide

• 5.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466377-1/impeachment-hearing-kurt-volker-tim-morrison

• 6.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466135-1/impeachment-hearing-ukraine-ambassador-marie-yovanovitch 7.) https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/diplomats-bill-taylor-george-kent-impeachment-inquiry-testimony

• 8.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?465848-1/house-rules-committee-considers-impeachment-inquiry-resolution

• 9.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?464509-1/acting-director-national-intelligence-maguire-testifies-whistleblower-complaint

• 10.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?464147-1/house-judiciary-committee-approves-guidelines-impeachment-investigation

• 11.)

https://www.c-span.org/video/?462553-1/house-judiciary-committee-review-mueller-report

Victor Grigas (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

According to their copyright and license page, C-SPAN's licensure is attribution non-commercial (prohibited from Wikipedia, see WP:NONCOM). However, they state that "Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution." However any other footage besides that is restricted under their policy. They may be cited here via link, like other copyrighted sources, but they may not be uploaded or embedded. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 03:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

References

too much from The NewYork Times here--rewrite

I agree that this article on the Trump Impeachment Inquiry needs a rewrite that is more objective. Julie Basco Jones (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

51 of the current 433 references are citing The New York Times because it is one the most respected sources for factual objectivity and neutrality. It is one of the gold standards of American journalism. You also said you "agree" like someone else said it. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Julie Basco Jones If there are specific changes you want to see, please propose them here. Please understand that Wikipedia reflects what appears in independent reliable sources; we present the sources for review by readers so they can decide for themselves as to the validity of the content. 331dot (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Marc Short rebuttal

Under testimony by Sondland November 20, 2019 I added a few sentences about the rebuttal made by Pence's COS Marc Short regarding whether Sondland discussed investigations with Pence. The follow on analysis that the rebuttal appears to be crafted is based upon a Cuomo Prime Time show and a transcript has not yet been issued for that show. Hence the link to the video on YouTube. That comment was made by Jennifer Rene Psaki. If someone can check back on CNN transcript site in about a day the transcript and exact quote will be available. Pbmaise (talk) 06:31, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The transcript is now out on what Jen Psaki said in reply to the Short memo that was prompted by Sondland testimony. It reads:

PSAKI: No, no, but I -- I have been a part of carefully writing many statements. That was a carefully written statement where he said they didn't have a private meeting, also that he didn't have a discussion, but he didn't say he didn't know, and he certainly didn't say he wasn't told

I see that someone has redacted my balanced addition of Psaki to Sondland's testimony. Now the article only shows Short's rebuttal regarding Sondland's testimony that Pence was informed in Warsaw. BTW this part of Sondland's testimony and that disputed Warsaw meeting isn't even mentioned in the article.

For balance I believe we now must either add back Psaki's rebuttal to Short's rebuttal or remove Short's.

Further I believe that the Warsaw meeting between Pence and Sondland is being intentionally left out of Sondland's testimony for partisan reasons.

I greatly appreciate the dedicated work of Wikipedia editors to establish agreement on how to document this event while following standards required. Pbmaise (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this really just Trump's impeachment inquiry anymore?:Was it ever just Trump's and is title of page in error

Testimony November 20, 2019 marked I believe a turning point where we can no longer ignore the question who's impeachment inquiry is this? One clear error to me is not using the official name of the inquiry.

I looked it up and the official name appears to be "House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes."

For other purposes would include articles of impeachment that might be drafted against other White House officials who were involved.

I don't propose changing the full page name to the official name, however think that full name should be included on the page.

I do however propose a name change at this point to "Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump and others"

To continue to ignore testimony of what Pence did and did not know or his actions and rebuttals is to ignore both the reality of the situation and power of the inquiry to draft articles against multiple individuals. Pbmaise (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Putting "and other purposes" at the end of a resolution or bill title is standard procedure for the US Congress and doesn't necessarily mean others are or will be impeached. The target is clearly Donald Trump. If others are impeached because of this inquiry, that can be spun off into other articles at the time. If Trump is impeached(which even Ken Starr says is likely), this will likely be renamed to "Impeachment of Donald Trump". 331dot (talk) 08:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't support the change either.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't require changing at this moment, but potential to spin off or widen this one's approach in the future if required. Koncorde (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I was unaware "for other purposes" was standard language and now agree with opinions above. I believe this issue may need to be addressed soon especially after reading later analysis about the implications of Sondland's testimony. I suggest deletion of this discussion after a few more hours to allow any further input.Pbmaise (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Pruning the blow-by-blow

As always with developing stories, there's a tendency to add each new detail as it arrives. I'm going to see if I can take out some that has turned out to be less significant, and some that is duplicative of Trump–Ukraine scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in an attempt to make the article more manageable.

What I'd like to do:

• Shorten the lead so it describes the subject directly: the initial trigger, a very short overview of the allegations, the timeline through initial announcement, private depositions, then public hearings. The current lead is four long paragraphs much of which is about the underlying scandal, whereas we should, I think, be reducing redundancy by describing the process here and leaving the scandal to the other article.

• Shorten the sections on Trump-Ukraine scandal, Rudy Giuliani, Ukraine, and merge to Trump–Ukraine scandal.

• Prune some of the detail on the individual public hearings, because in some cases material in these hearings was covered in more detail or closer to the source in a subsequent hearing.

My aim would be to reduce redundancy between this article and Trump–Ukraine scandal. At the same time I would prune quite a bit of the redundant content there about the impeachment hearings, and merge it in here if it's not already covered.

If people think this is a good idea, my plan would be to slap an {{under construction}} tag on, some time tomorrow morning UK time, with the intent of completing it so as to minimise conflicts by 8am Eastern.

What do people think? Guy (help!) 15:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree about pruning and tightening the lead. I am more hesitant about removing material about the Trump-Ukraine scandal; I don't see any problem with having a significant amount of material redundantly in both articles. In fact I disagree with the premise that we should describe the process here and leave the scandal to the other article. I think we need to keep a lot of detail about the scandal here. It is, after all, what the inquiry - and potentially the impeachment - is all about. (Maybe some day the articles will be merged but I doubt it.) I also think we need to retain significant coverage about the witness testimony, although the closed-door testimony sections are kind of bloated and could be trimmed, particularly if the person later testified in public. If there is to be trimming, I do agree that most information about the inquiry could be removed from the scandal article and directed to this one. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

The Ukraine scandal part of the inquiry is over. There will be further hearings, but not with witnesses talking about Ukraine. With the exception of the two actual reports, there's nothing left to write about. As I stated on a rant several sections below, we either dump 70% of the article or we do a part three and start up again with The judiciary's new Meuller/McGahn hearings and the actual votes and trial. This part is cooked.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Unfortunately the time passed without me being able to execute my cunning plan, I have a trapped nerve at C7 and it's a bitch, but I am 100% for the "prune 70%" approach. There is so much redundancy and excessive detail and redundancy. Guy (help!) 11:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Report

The Mueller Report (MR) is instructive. According to it, Paul Manafort, while directing Trump's campaign in Summer 2016, assisted the Ukrainians in interfering in the presidential election of 2016 by providing them, for payment, internal Trump campaign polling data. (p. 132 of skyhorse publishing.com publication as issued by the Department of Justice and sold to Americans in Barnes & Noble, as well as, I presume, other bookstores). "Manafort expected Kilimnik to share that information with others in Ukraine and [with] Deripaska." (1st ¶, top of page 132, Volume I, abovementioned version of Mueller report). Manafort was indicted for tax evasion during the Mueller investigations. Also, he was cut from the Trump Campaign by the end of Summer 2016. By most ethics the selling of internal American polling data to a foreign country is traitorous for an American. In the light of this information revealed by Mueller's Investigation, it is clear that any conscientious American president would want to shine further light on Ukraine's doings, in an effort to enlighten and to develop America's ability to lessen future foreign influence in American elections.

The current article by Wikipedia gives more weight to articles in the New York Times than it does to the Mueller Report. I urge Wikipedia editors to read the entire Mueller Report and to cite it to make this discussion of the impeachment inquiry more balanced. I find the current article grossly inadequate without more Mueller citations.

I would do it myself if I knew all the nuts and bolts of creating WP citations.

Julie Basco Jones (talk) 16:48, November 21, 2019‎ (UTC)

Julie Basco Jones, keep in mind that Manafort was working for the Trump campaign, which invited, cooperated with, and colluded with Russia in the interference because Trump hoped to benefit from it. While "conspiracy"="coordination" was not proven by the Mueller investigation, it found lots of what amounted to collusion/cooperation with the Russians, as well as obstruction of justice to prevent (cover-up) Mueller from discovering all that should be known.

Manafort was killing two birds with one stone by (1) paying off a personal debt to Deripaska and (2) helping the Russians in their interference, as anything given to Deripaska goes straight to Putin, and that polling data could be used by Putin to help Trump win the election. This was all part of how it was intended to be, seen from the Trump side of things. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Julie Basco Jones, if you have any very specific suggestions, please propose them here and we can see if they can be used to improve the article. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

The Supreme Court is going to opine on all this tomorrow. Another judge is to opine on the Don McGahn case on Monday. The Meuller stuff is going to possibly make a comeback in December.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Julie, it's important to keep your narratives straight. Here is the latest from the impeachment inquiry:

"Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country — and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves." -- Fiona Hill

BullRangifer (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• I will suggest that this and any other Ukraine items relevant to the article should go to a new "Ukraine allegations" in the Background section, inserted above the Rudy Giuliani subsection. That would seem to be at least the Burisma/Biden investigation as two Ukrainian officials alleged wrongdoing and the Burisma memos say, and the Crowdstrike item notingh that the FBI took the testimony from them and did not directly investigate the sources led to a conspiracy theory that the Russians were framed by them. I think other mentions about the Ukraine was interfering with the 2016 elections would be OFFTOPIC unless it is somewhere indicated the Biden investigation was look for such for.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• You may find this interesting: https://www.mediamatters.org/trump-impeachment-inquiry/right-wing-media-wrongly-cite-politico-revive-trumps-ukraine-conspiracy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Upon further thought

Some of the data I removed in this edit can be useful to the overall impeachment article after they actually become part of the inquiry (the two politico refs I note do actually mention impeachment but don't actually cover the impeachment inquiry), but the section itself and how it was worded was simply entirely so unencyclopedic it is better for it to be removed at the moment and I don't have the time to properly insert the data into the article in the relevant sections. I recommend placing any of the data from those into a section for concurrent judicial proceedings or finding a way to chronologically add it inline into the article. ☕️ (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

They are already part of the inquiry. The Michael Cohen hearing last January (or was it February?), had as part of its mandate that if they found anything they would give it over to the Judiciary Committee, but Pelosi said that she didn't want an impeachment inquiry yet. Nadler first mentioned an impeachment inquiry as soon as the Meuller report came out and mentioned impeachment in a court filing prior to the Meuller hearing over the summer. So yeah, they are indeed part of impeachment proceedings. The reason that there's all those "concurrent judicial proceedings" coming to a head around now is leftover stuff from the earlier impeachment proceedings that are technically still going on, but have been forgotten because of the Ukraine extortion mishegaas that has riveted the nation and (forced this talk page to be archived a couple of times) had subsumed everything in its path.

Yeah, I know the title of what I put in the section on the collateral judicial proceedings wasn't particularly good, and I apologize for that.f I know that the section sticks out like a sore thumb. However, the mandate from September and the official rules voted last month, state that several committees have status as "subcommittees" with regard to this inquiry, and the Intelligence committee's report will not be the only one submitted to the HJC. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's announcement that she would rule on the McGahnn case on Monday was in response to a filing for relief from the HJC stating that McGahn, if Judge Jackson's decision was favorable, would be forced to tetify in full-blown hearings on the subject of obstruction in the Meuller case concurrent to the consideration of the HIC's impeachment report(s). This is tangential to the Ukraine stuff to be sure, but the article isn't titled "Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump in relation to the Ukraine scandal," it's "Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump." Either the article ends with yesterday's testimony (with an epilogue on the reports), or it doesn't.

If its the former, fine. We can mention the two reports when they come out and that they say. Then we can summarize them in a third article. (which I mentioned in an earlier post), which will contain a paragraph or two on McGahn and other Meuller stuff hearings before the votes on the actual articles. Whether or not we need an article on the Senate Trial is a topic for later.

If it's the latter, then what the heck do we do? What we have now is a long and detailed article that will be read by millions of elementary and middle school students for reports on the topic during the rest of the century. Do we just throw out 80% of the article as is and replace it with two or three longish paragraphs before a paragraph or two on what the HJC does, and then a paragraph on the vote and two more on the trial? Remember that this article was originally titled "The Impeachment of Donald Trump." We need to decide what to do NOW.

Sorry for the rant, but it needed to be said.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Date/Time Removal

Soibangla (talk · contribs), why did you remove the testimony times? This is reasonable information and suits the style of nesting multiple-testimony days. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 08:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey of editors: who believes Ambassador Gordon Sondland testified from 9:07am to 3:47pm EST. Later that day, Laura Cooper and David Hale co-testified from 5:40pm to 8:03pm EST. is worthy of inclusion? soibangla (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

If it's worthy, build a master table / calendar of who testified and when as a schedule. Koncorde (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That already exists in §Public hearings. The times could be added as Footnotes to that table.  Nixinova  T C   00:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I would be okay with time ranges added to date data in the table. It just needs to be included somehow in the relevant section. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 06:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Not really seeing why it be significant narratively. If people want date and timestamps then they can read the relevant articles cited or go to the relevant table. Koncorde (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

"Whistle blower"

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.

---

Isn't there a bona fide dispute as to whether or not he can be called a "whistle blower"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

NoArglebargle79 (talk) 22:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, there is. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Not in reliable sources, which is the only thing that matters here. - MrX 🖋 22:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Reliable source right here. One Google search. I am sure there are plenty more. The ‘Whistleblower’ Probably Isn’t. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That is Taibbi's opinion. He calls Edward Snowden a whistleblower, but lots of people contest that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it's an opinion. Some opine that he's a whistle-blower. Some, that he is not. Of course, it's opinion. Thus, a bona fide dispute (i.e., difference of opinion). I don't believe that the Supreme Court has "officially ruled" on this particular individual, and whether or not he is a "whistle blower". Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Adam Schiff's "opinion" on this matters much more than Matt Taibbi's. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Taibbi is complaining that a person that has not yet been outed is being treated better than some other people who were outed against their will by the people they confided in, or were considered to have leaked state secrets beyond their official capacity (in effect 'leaking'), leaving them open to significant legal repurcussions. There are no legal repurcussions in this case however. The WB followed the chain of command, and the report was brought to light. If there was any leaking it has barely come to light. However if, for instance, it is proved that this individual went to the Democrats first and / or was in communication and actively participating in a coup with others, their experience would have largely been the same I expect.

In short, Taibbi is off the mark and aggrieved that another person's life hasn't been ruined yet. He is making an emotional argument that other "Whistleblowers" have thus far not been protected. It is basically a No True Scotsman fallacy. Otherwise, all other significant reliable sources are clear on their use of the terminology, and the WB is being treated as such and afforded the protection that should be due an individual that followed the appropriate channels. At best Taibbi article is best summed up as "in a Rolling Stone article Matt Taibbi compared the treatment of the CIA Whistleblower with earlier instances, and was critical of what he perceives to be an unequal set of outcomes". Koncorde (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not the point. There is a difference of opinion amongst scholars, legal experts, and constitutional lawyers as to whether or not the "whistle blower" is, in fact, a "whistle blower". Some say he is; some say he isn't. That is simple fact: there is a difference of opinion. Thus, it's a bona fide dispute. But, you guys can all keep your head in the sand and keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who exposes secretive information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within a private or public organization.[2]^[source] – also, the word "whistleblower" has been said dozens of times in the hearings to refer to the person. What exactly is being disputed here?  Nixinova  T C   01:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

My point is that people disagree as to whether or not he is a whistle blower. And, it's in reliable sources. Thus, it's a valid dispute. Reliable source: Andrew McCarthy: The ‘whistleblower’ isn’t really a whistleblower under the relevant law. He is a Constitutional scholar; in a reliable source. He is not a Wikipedia editor who, presumably, knows more about legal issues and Constitutional issues than does the author of this cited article (Andrew C. McCarthy). Who is not alone in his thinking. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

So what if people disagree when they are wrong? We don't give equal weight to WP:FRINGE opinions. (And a Fox News "opinion" piece by the author of this is not RS). – Muboshgu (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Correct. Some Constitutional expert / legal scholar does not know about these legal matters ... but some anonymous Wikipedia editor knows better. You are correct! Not sure what I was thinking! Geez! I am glad that you settled the question and concluded that the lawyer is "wrong" and that you are "right". Thanks for the clarification! Glad you settled that question for all of us! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that we agree that McCarthy is a political hack who is not a reliable source. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: I can "disagree" with plenty of things—that's why we use WP:Reliable sources. And it would be wise on your part to refrain from sarcasm and personal attacks against other editors. WMSR (talk) 05:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Editor suggests there are experts and scholars; presents two opinion pieces from Rolling Stone and Fox News making two entirely different arguments that are presented as a synthetic whole, while using italicised words for maximum impact, but ignores vast weight of every other source. Even the Republicans refer to the Whistleblower as a Whistleblower. The only ones that haven't are Trump (who lives throwing around the word Traitor and Spy) and fringe supporters or critics taking purposely antagonistic positions, or contrarian views as a means of criticising the perceived political shenanigans. Koncorde (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I read the full opinion piece on National Review I thought it made some interesting points. The last summary line reads “The so-called whistleblower is not a statutory whistleblower, and his [sic] anonymity is not protected by law; but the Sixth Amendment has nothing to do with impeachment, and it does not advance a claim that the whistleblower should be outed and questioned.” Given that Andrew C. McCarthy is a former US attorney, and a noted columnist, I think his opinion piece meets RS and Notability, and is suitable for citing.Nowa (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nowa: Thanks. People above are claiming "not a reliable source" ... which is Wikipedia-speak for "well, yeah, it really is a reliable source, but I am going to pretend that it's not, because I don't want that information showing up in the article". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is another article that makes the case that the whistle-blower may not really be a whistle-blower (by legal and statutory definitions): Gregg Jarrett: The Trump whistleblower may not be a whistleblower at all. But, I'm sure that's not a "reliable source", either ... right? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You keep citing opinion pieces from people who are noted for their pro-Trump bias, thinking they are reliable sources. Why is that? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

How are these not reliable sources? Of course, it's an opinion. A legal opinion. By legal analysts. (About a legal issue, by the way.) There has been no "factual determination" (by the Supreme Court or any other Court) that this specific guy is or is not a whistle-blower by the relevant legal and statutory definition. So, yes, of course, it's opinion. And as I said above, a difference of opinion is a bona fide disagreement. Silly question that you ask ... you think that an anti-Trump biased commentator is going to make the claim? Bottom line: it's a valid difference of opinion amongst legal analysts ... using legal analysis. Hence, a bona fide dispute. And the opinions of these legal analysts supersedes the opinion of any random Wikipedia editor. Particularly, those who are using "Wiki-speak" to insure that the info does not get into the article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BIASEDSOURCES are not reliable sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Who says they are biased? You do. And why is that? They took the statute and made a valid legal analysis of the statute. As lawyers do, day in and day out. That is the exact opposite of "bias". One can agree or disagree with the results. Hence, the bona fide dispute. It's a valid legal analysis, by valid legal analysts, published in valid reliable sources. You simply don't like what it concludes (i.e., showing your own bias and POV) ... and want to make sure that it does not get into the article. I was born yesterday? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

He's no impartial lawyer. According to reviews of Gregg Jarrett's book, it seems everyone thinks he's biased. Save those who agree with the bias. "Fox’s Neil Cavuto Challenges Trump-Boosting Colleague: ‘Do You Fault the President for Anything?’" – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with bias. Lawyer "A" argues one side of the argument; Lawyer "B" argues the other side of the argument. These legal analysts are offering their legal analysis of why they (legally) opine that the whistle-blower does (or does not) meet the legal and statutory definition of a "whistle-blower". It has nothing to do with Trump or any Trump bias. It's legal analysis of a statute, argued from both sides. And they are presenting the counter-point. Hence, a bona fide disagreement / dispute. It's rather clear that you have the bias here. Come hell or high water, you don't want this in the article. Again, I was born yesterday? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Lawyers do indeed make arguments on both sides, and then a judge can throw out a cockamamie argument. We haven't gotten to that point here, but then again I don't see any of these pro-Trump lawyers rushing to court to unmask the whistleblower. Because they're not in court, they're just trying to score political points. Why should we give WP:FALSEBALANCE to the WP:FRINGE notion that the whistleblower isn't a whistleblower? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

There's no talking with you. Your "conclusions" are the final and correct ones, period. In your own mind. Your bias is showing. Get a grip, dude. Glad you are more versed in legal analysis than the legal analysts are. Again, in your own mind. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

In this case, it is "final and correct" that the whistleblower is a whistleblower. If you want to get consensus that an op-ed by someone who is an out-and-out Trump booster is a reliable source on this, you can seek third opinions on WP:RS/N. I wouldn't hold out hope that they'll agree with you and your bias. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say that the whistle-blower is -- or is not -- a whistle-blower. I said that legal analysts differ in their legal analysis. Hence, difference of legal opinion. Hence, bona fide dispute. Learn how to read. And, again, it's clear that you have the bias. Again, I was not born yesterday. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You should learn to be WP:CIVIL. And perhaps you didn't get what I said on FALSEBALANCE, or maybe you skipped over that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I got that you like to "Wiki Lawyer". Got it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Did anyone have a specific edit they were proposing?Nowa (talk) 23:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah. Obviously. "Some legal analysts have opined that he does not meet the statutory requirements to be called a 'whistle-blower'" ... or some such language. That was not obvious from above? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Not to this point, no. It would be a more constructive conversation if there was a specific proposal. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nowa (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Succinctly breaking down this thread into: "Some people disagree with the interpretation of a law, but are mistaken" maybe? Koncorde (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No. The person has been referred to as "the whistleblower" thousands of times. A few opinion pieces at Fox News do not meet WP:WEIGHT compared to that universal usage. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you think that I am asking to include five or six paragraphs on the subject? Or a one-line blurb? Unreal. I see what this article is full of. POV-pushing agenda. No surprise. We have at least three legal analysts analyzing the statute and offering their legal opinions / analysis. All reliable sources. And legal analysts. But these Wikipedia editors know better. Love it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with MelanieN on this because it goes back to WP:BIASED as to whether these opinion articles should be used in this article. These are people who are paid by Fox News, an organization with an overt right-wing bias, to publish articles. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 04:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha. The Wikipedia editors are more expert than the legal analysts in, um, legal analysis. Got it! Thanks! By the way, do we ever use CNN or the New York Times -- you know, those with an overt left-wing bias -- as reliable sources? Just curious. Hmmmmmmm. I guess those also must be excluded as RS's ... am I correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Joseph, Know who thinks the whistleblower is legitimate? The IC IG, that's who. The whistleblower filled out the necessary complaint form and everything. Persistent Corvid (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

And am I disputing that? Show me where I disputed that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

If not, then why do the opinions of lawyers not directly involved matter? All that does is give undue weight to opinions that are contrary to fact. Persistent Corvid (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 23 November 2019

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment process against Donald Trump – Now that the investigations and hearings have concluded, this is no longer just an "inquiry", and since articles of impeachment are in the process of being drafted this should be moved to "impeachment process" to be inline with Impeachment process against Richard Nixon.  Nixinova  T C   01:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I doubt anyone would have reason to refuse the move. And the titling, which is consistent. But I do think as a matter of process we should probably wait until the Articles are actually filed. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but substantively actually add stuff about the process, can't find what the plan is here although I've heard elements referred to in media, e.g. Articles of Impeachment b4 the full house before the end of the year. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 09:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Think we should wait still until Early December, Congress is currently in Thanksgiving recess and goes open for about 2 weeks in Early December than goes on Christmas recess, they might still request more subpoenas or individuals who were subpoena but declined might decide to accept it and testify, we should wait until the draft of an actual articles of impeachment is done.

Above is either MrX or an unsigned ip, not me. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - While I don't object The proposed title change, I'm not sure there is much point. The title should be changed to Impeachment of Donald Trump as soon as the house votes to impeach, which is likely to occur in 3-4 weeks. - MrX 🖋 11:44, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Think of the impeachment saga as a book with several chapters. This article is one chapter of the book. It's long and it's complicated. it has a beginning, middle, and end. The end, in this case, is the issuance of the two reports. The hearings before the Judiciary Committee should be the "impeachment process" article, and that should be changed to just "impeachment" when and if the vote passes. In the meantime, we should work on cleaning this up and shopping for thanksgiving. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose - What's happening is a multi-step process towards the Impeachment. If we try to put it all into one article, it will be too large downloading on the page, much less editing it. I believe this will work better as a series of articles, each unique to the individual steps in the process. This was the inquiry. Now the House vote to impeach (or not). Then the Senate proceedings. And whatever, if anything, happens after the Senate. It should be a series of separate articles. We don't need to move this one. — Maile (talk) 15:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose/wait per Maile66. This article is pretty big already. If we try to make it cover the entire process, it could either become way too big or a lot of material will need to be deleted. If the process stops soon without much else happening, we could revisit the question. If there are several further stages of the process, we can create an overview article at the proposed title. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC):

• Oppose -The inquiry itself points more to what evidence is there in my opinion and the process is a separate but related beast. Chances are the actual impeachment process page won't be much smaller. There is a lot of material to cover here. Information needs to be kept on Wikipedia with as little removed as possible due to the sheer disinformation around the impeachment inquiry. --Lamoxlamae (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support/Neutral -It is no longer an inquiry, they have moved past that. Yes, this article is large, but if we don't move it, it won't be comprehensive enough. However, we don't want to turn this into a TL;DR, so I'm suggesting we polish up and shorten the article as much as possible (while keeping the core meaning). Then we move it. TL The Legend ^talk 21:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment -We can also split this article, moving the relevant information per WP:PROSPLIT. TL The Legend ^talk 21:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment -Seconding the idea of splitting the article. Keep the inquiry information on the inquiry page and move the impeachment process information to a linked brand new impeachment process page. This can also be done for sections that are too bloated on the Inquiry page. Information on the impeachment proceedings needs to be kept as complete as possible to help people stay informed. I really can't overstate the high levels of misinformation going on about these proceedings: it's the reason the page is protected. Removing information completely from the wiki is unwise, but relocating to a sub/split page it then linking to it in a summary would be reasonable. --Lamoxlamae (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would support that. The inquiry stage is done, so this page should be left, and the upcoming impeachment article could be moved to a main impeachment page.  Nixinova  T C   00:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming it now; it is still in the inquiry stage, at least until articles are drawn up. They are still receiving documents and other information. And I oppose the notion of splitting it into multiple artices. We had this same discussion just a few weeks ago, see #Planning for the future: Let's make this a trilogy. I disagreed then and I disagree now with the notion of multiple articles about the different stages of impeachment. We have one article about Clinton’s impeachment, and one about the process against Nixon. It would be a disservice to our readers to make them go searching back and forth between multiple articles to get what is basically one story. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that we should have two pages (inquiry and process) to describe what happened in the inquiry.

I recommend changing it to "Impeachment of Donald Trump" as it matches the title of Bill Clinton's wiki. Of course, we also would need to change Nixon's, as his matches this proposed change. 208.185.185.114 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

E Super Maker (😲 shout) 13:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2019

Add the word "the" to the sentence below before "House Intelligence Committee."

November 13: Kent and Taylor With live coverage on television, public hearings began at 10 am EST (15:00 UTC) on November 13, 2019, in which Kent and Taylor testified before House Intelligence Committee.

CHANGE TO: in which Kent and Taylor testified before the House Intelligence Committee. Ronbert65 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Good catch. --Nowa (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Handling the BLT team meetings

The announcements that Parnas has info to share likely caught most eyes here. Specifically about Nunes trip to Europe and alleged meetings to get dirt on Biden as reported by Daily Beast and CNN some of which was placed into the record of the. Impeachment inquiry.

Since Nunes said he would sue both DB and CNN I thought an update to his personal page section Lawsuits was logical.

I predict after reading today how a whole cast of characters associated with the impeachment inquiry began meeting in Trump Hotel BLT restaurant that this budding story will blossom into full ethics inquiry of Nunes.

Characters at these BLT meetings include Nunes via his aid Harvey, Parnas, the two attorneys for Firtash, reporter Soloman?, and of course Giuliani. Each with there own objects and each with possible fall out and cross links to other pages.

Adam Shiff said any issue about Nunes traveling on tax payer dollar to Europe to find dirt on Biden would be set to the Ethics Committee so I think it logical to start a separate page which I propose to be

The BLT Meetings

Creating a whole new page is beyond my available time constraints.

Thoughts? Pbmaise (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It's too soon to include any of this yet. If Nunes does actually sue, then maybe there's enough to merit inclusion. For now, you "predict" things and should avoid using the WP:CRYSTAL ball here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Correction CNN reports this as "The BLT Team" making this the more logical page name. Pbmaise (talk) 22:14, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Split proposed

As of the current revision of this article, it is 288,000 bytes in length, which is extremely long. Therefore, I am proposing multiple splits in this article into the following:

• Investigations related to the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
• Timeline of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
• Reactions to the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump
• Public opinion of the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump

The name of these titles may be debated accordingly, but the content of these articles will remain the same throughout. The content that exists in this article should be used to create these new articles and summaries should be left in their place on this article. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 04:33, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You haven't even edited this article, which is important in this case because the proposed titles seem rather useless to me. I suggest withdrawing your split proposal at least until you have a better grasp of the content. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@I am One of Many: Just because I haven't edited the article, that doesn't mean I haven't been watching the article nor does it mean I don't have a "grasp of the content", a comment of which I find condescending. I was the person who proposed a split in the timeline of the 2019 Hong Kong protests article and I didn't edit the article either. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 07:46, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is 282 kB in "Wiki text", but that's not the number that matters. What matters is "readable prose size", which for this article is 77 kB (12189 words). WP:SIZERULE says it "probably" should be split, but we could choose not to. Or we could trim instead. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Too soon. And I agree with those who suggest withdrawing the request because it adds a huge block of distracting red text to a very highly read article. UpdateNerd (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually I support an article for "Timeline of public hearings..." because that section is beginning to get out of scope, and could easily compose its own article. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support / Comment: I agree on the idea of a split, but not to those names. It should be more like the following: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump (For the inquiry phase), Impeachment Process Against Donald Trump (for the phase starting now). Also possibly there could be sub pages for sections that have arguably gotten too big. Just summarize the overall information, then link to the subpage in that section for users who would like further details.

For those of you wondering, this idea is something that came out of the rename/move proposal of the same article further up on this page. The article in quesiton is getting very large and there is likely to be even more information added as the impeachment proceedings get underway. A simple rename/move wouldn't help as the article size. As I also said in the renaming section, it's wise to keep as much information on this on Wikipedia as feasibly possible due to the high levels of misinformation on this subject. In order to keep things readable, this may mean some split pages or subpages. It will be set up a little different than the other impeachment articles, but with the extreme level of misinformation the further details could be welcome to readers. -- Lamoxlamae (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Alexander

Alexander Vindman has appeared in the latest developements.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.11.67.132 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)