Talk:First impeachment of Donald Trump/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about First impeachment of Donald Trump. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Edit Request for Neutrality, to Resolve the Appearance of Bias

WP:SNOW - Opposed — Maile (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

JUSTIFICATION

Colloquially speaking, yes President Trump has been impeached by vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. Immediately after the House vote approving articles of impeachment was held, the vast majority of media outlet headlines declared him impeached. These media outlets are currently deemed by the editors who control editing on this page as reliable, authoritative sources. However, in an effort to influence the resulting Senate impeachment trial, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that she was withholding the transmission of those articles to the Senate.

This move is unprecedented, and runs counter to the standard flow of other Constitutional processes such as the passage of House Resolution bills to the Senate. Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives sole power of impeachment to the House, while Section 3 gives sole power to try that impeachment to the Senate. So how can the House exert influence on a power given solely to the Senate? By withholding the articles of impeachment, the entire impeachment process is being interrupted.

There is now question as to whether transmission of these articles to the Senate is the last procedural step required to formally solidify the official impeachment of President Trump. Initially, Noah Feldman was the only Constitutional expert publicly recognized by media outlets as holding that historical precedent requires the articles of impeachment are officially transmitted to the Senate, and until that happens President Trump is not technically impeached. As he backed his stance with lower judicial rulings from OK and FL which required transmission of impeachment articles to the Senate in order to make impeachment official, in his explanation for why can't the Senate start a trial now?, other experts began to join in on both sides of the ensuing debate. Keith E. Whittington of Reason.com added to this discussion with a series of articles in The Volokh Conspiracy editorial, discussing When Is an Officer Impeached? I, II, III, IV Additionally, another stance has also developed in the view that if the articles are not transmitted to the Senate, then the courts could decide if the impeachment is official..

Many of the same sources that headlined "Trump Impeached" have also reported (some grudgingly) that there is or may be technical validity to Noah Feldman's point:

David Montanaro, Fox News Trump is not actually impeached yet, lawyer who testified for Democrats says

Andrew Feinberg, The Independent Trump's lawyers could argue he has not been impeached despite historic vote

Zachary B. Wolf, CNN A technical argument is Trump's new line of attack

Brooke Singman, Fox News Dems' own witness says Trump not truly impeached unless articles go to Senate

Bart Jansen and Ledyard King, USA TODAY Is Trump impeached?

Ben Tracy, Grace Segers, CBS News Is Donald Trump Impeached? White House considers arguing no because articles of impeachment not delivered to Senate

Bob Fredericks, New York Post Trump may not be impeached if Pelosi declines to send articles to Senate: Harvard professor

Adam Liptak, New York Times A Law Professor’s Provocative Argument: Trump Has Not Yet Been Impeached

Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review If Impeachment Articles Are Not Delivered, Did Impeachment Happen?

The "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" pillar of Wikipedia's Five Pillars states that "We strive for articles in an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence." This means that the content of this article should not be based on the consensus of media outlets alone. The view that Trump is not technically impeached yet is admittedly a minority view that is not as prominent compared to the headlines which say he is impeached, but the cited acknowledgement from media outlets means it is far from a "fringe" view. Reliable sources states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." Defining those sources, it also states that "... we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Since many of the cited authors above lend credibility or at least acknowledgement to Noah Feldman's published view on the technical status of President Trump's impeachment, this view should not be excluded or censored from the article because it gives the appearance of bias toward the view that Trump is officially impeached.

My previous edit request was only partially acknowledged/fulfilled, due to the argument that I hadn't offered enough reliable sources to justify the change on impeachment status. In the spirit of Wikipedia:NPOV, I have created this new edit request to hopefully satisfy both the views which see that "the sky is blue or the sky is red" by acknowledging the factual impeachment vote but avoiding the arguable claim that the impeachment process is officially completed.

Rotaryenginepete (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST

PLEASE CHANGE THE FOLLOWING CONTENT

The impeachment of Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, occurred on December 18, 2019, when the House of Representatives approved articles of impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.[a] The president's impeachment came after a formal House inquiry found that he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony. The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid[b] and an invitation to the White House to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in order to influence Ukraine to announce an investigation of Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and to promote a discredited CrowdStrike conspiracy theory[5] that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election.

~~Donald Trump is the third U.S. president to face a Senate impeachment trial, after~~ Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999.

TO READ

Articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, were approved on December 18, 2019 by the U.S. House of Representatives. He is charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.[a] The impeachment ~~approval~~ votes came after a formal House inquiry found that he had solicited foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. presidential election to help his re-election bid, and then obstructed the inquiry itself by telling his administration officials to ignore subpoenas for documents and testimony. The inquiry reported that Trump withheld military aid[b] and an invitation to the White House to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in order to influence Ukraine to announce an investigation of Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, and to promote a discredited CrowdStrike conspiracy theory[5] that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind interference in the 2016 presidential election.

~~If the House transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate, then Donald Trump would be the third U.S. president to face a Senate impeachment trial, following~~ Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The last presidents to face impeachment trials were Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

As you may be aware, there is speculation and controversy as to what the House of Representatives will do. Since Wikipedia is a Neutral Point of View website (NPOV), nor does it attempt to predict the future, your proposal warrants change. Furthermore, the word 'charged' seems like loaded language which could further inject bias. I suggest the following as a replacement to your proposal:

Articles of impeachment against Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, were approved on December 18, 2019 by the U.S. House of Representatives. He ~~is charged with~~ abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.[a] The impeachment approval Change this to "While speculation surrounds the specifics of formal impeachment, if the House of Representatives transmits the articles to the Senate he will face accusations of"StanTheMan0131 (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

StanTheMan0131 The reasoning behind this wording is due to the rejection of my previous request, which included very similar wording to what you have proposed here. In order to satisfy the Wikipedia:Facts precede opinions where some see the President as impeached and some do not, we need to include information which supports both sides of the argument. The articles of impeachment are charges, and they were approved by a House vote...however those charges have not been brought to the Senate yet. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

StanTheMan0131My strategy here is to remain neutral by not claiming that Trump is or isn't impeached, nor mentioning the debate. Just laying out the facts as they are.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

~~After the House transmits the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Donald Trump will be the third U.S. president to face a Senate impeachment trial, following~~ This needs to be fully removed. Using phrases like "After the House transmits, Donald Trump will be" is predicting the future, and is not possible. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 23:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

StanTheMan0131 I agree use of the words "after" and "will" is predicting. I have changed these to "If" and "would", and because the remaining information is not biased I removed my proposed replacement.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose - That wording is very awkward, and inaccurate. The articles of impeachment were not "approved" in the commonly understood meaning of the word approved. The last sentence seems to be designed to plant seeds of doubt in our readers' minds. - Mr X 🖋 00:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX The wording currently says "approved"...so you agree with me that the current wording is very awkward and inaccurate, and needs to be updated?Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX I updated the last sentence to remove any seeds of doubt or predictions.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@Rotaryenginepete: The word approved/approval is bad, but you used it twice. You also used more words and made the paragraph and sentence more passive. I don't understand why you think that's better.- Mr X 🖋 01:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX I agree. Swapped out the "approval" for "votes". I made it more passive on purpose, because of the reasoning in my justification. My strategy here is to remain neutral by not claiming that Trump is or isn't impeached, nor mentioning the debate. Just laying out the facts as they are. I am open to any input and will change my proposal as necessary to achieve this NPOV goal.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The consensus is that the preponderance of sources have reported that Trump has been impeached. You should know this because you started a previous discussion in which this was patiently explained in detail. - Mr X 🖋 03:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

My justification explains why the consensus/preponderance of the sources is irrelevant here. Reliable sources states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. The sources I provided establish a minority view that Trump is not technically impeached, so until the debate is settled by actual events the content of this article needs to reflect that the minority view exists and remain neutral in that respect.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Strong oppose - House Resolution 755 adopted on December 18, 2019 impeaches President Donald J. Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors. It has been voted on and agreed to in the House. What happens next deals with the trial. Teammm ^talk
_email 01:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Teammm Unfortunately your opinion nor my opinion matters here, as I already cited the Wikipedia policy states "... we publish the opinions only of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves." Please contribute feedback that contains a valid reason for opposing. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

RotaryEnginePete - Well, my valid reason would be that you're attempting to give undue weight to an opinion article by one man that has been regurgitated by some media for sensationalism and used by the Trump administration as a defense claim of not being impeached "yet". No other reliable source has stated that the Constitution says anything about the transmission of already adopted articles of impeachment to the Senate as a precursor to the House fulfilling its sole power of impeachment. If anything should be changed, it's the one word, "occurred" in the first sentence to "initiated" as to be consistent with the other articles on impeached presidents. Teammm ^talk
_email 11:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:D9B6:AF80:CDAB:A80C (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose - I cannot overstate how utterly dead this horse is. WMSR (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment WMSR, Muboshgu, InedibleHulk Should we take Rotaryenginepete to ANI? It's clear their editing is disruptive. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Have them do a checkuser with StanTheMan0131 while they are at it. Check their histories, definitely someone's socks. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I already gave a level 4 warning. WMSR (talk) 06:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I had a feeling that, even if I provided numerous sources like you wanted, you'd still oppose. Still haven't seen anyone on here other than MrX oppose with a real reason. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment David O. JohnsonIt's also a clear trend that opposing opinions are consistently labeled "disruptive" throughout this talk page. I've done nothing but try to communicate my opinions here, list sources, and have even stated that I want to work with editors to make my proposal better. Please take me to the admins. I haven't violated any policies, and I'd love for them to see the suppression going on here. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose – Wikipedia should reflect what the most mainstream sources say, not the tit bits here and there in opinion pieces. Mentioning Trump's/his admin's response to the impeachment is okay (ie. him not seeing it as a legitimate 'impeachment' because articles haven't been sent to the Senate), but it's rather silly to base an article's lead/or focal point on Trump's response, as opposed to what a majority of the sources say. Also, Rotaryenginepete you only do your cause a disservice by bludgeoning the process. Best to just drop it. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 12:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose an amusing "what-if" picked up by a few sources as a type of man bites dog does not affect the reality of the matter, which is that mainstream, reliably-sourced media speak of this current president being the 3rd to be impeached. Not maybe impeached, not kind of impeached, not almost impeached. The believe that he genuinely has not been is not a "significant minority view", it is fringe. Zaathras (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Would someone please close this per snowball clause ? - Mr X 🖋 16:06, 26 December 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.

Rename And Change The Trial Section

See section below. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

CHANGING THE TITLE OF THE 'TRIAL' SECTION

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

A NEW INTRODUCTION IN THE 'TRIAL' SECTION

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

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

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

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

Would someone just give a temporary block for this annoying formatting? He has been kindly been asked to stop from multiple editors and has already clearly stated he is WP:NOTHERE ^[1]^[2] 71.136.189.245 (talk) 07:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

References

User:71.136.189.245 Hello, my friend. I am here to build a article with a neutral point of view. Could you please elaborate on how I am not trying to do that? Further, I personally do not think I should be removed because I have a different style. You should be accepting of others who differ from you. Oh, and I see where you forgot to mention the gentleman on that same topic discussion who said he liked my style.--StanTheMan0131 (talk) 08:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

What you are doing is purely disruptive and I have a pretty good idea that an account created on 12/23 who quotes wikipedia policy in their first edit and has a supporter who's account is a SPA and was created on 12/21 is very fishy. At the very least, StanTheMan0131 is not your first account and is unlikely to be your only account. Knock it off. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

@71.136.189.24: Sir, I'm going to have to ask that you calm down right now. There is no need for such hostility in a place like this. Go on now, and if you need any advice just send me a message. Thank you for your cooperation. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 05:12, 26 December 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.

RfC on Situation

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

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

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

Yes that would probably be best per WP:CRYSTAL, although the existing wording is accurate according to most sources. I am not aware of any factual reporting that suggests that the Senate trial is expected to occur later than January 2020. - Mr X 🖋 14:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes That is more accurate and would be an improvement. BTW I don't think there is any need for a formal RfC on this. If there is agreement after a day or two I think we can close the RfC and simply do it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes — Maile (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes Pelosi said she will name impeachment managers and transmit the articles to the Senate when the Senate can come to a bipartisan agreement on President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial procedures like they did 20 years ago when President Bill Clinton was impeached. This is clearly an undefined date. [1] Xenagoras (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes to me, this gives off even less undertone. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
That's an improvement, but still incomplete. I would say something along the lines of "Impeached by the House. Articles of Impeachment not yet transmitted to the Senate." That said, saying "trial expected to begin in January" is clearly false, so that shouldn't remain.Adoring nanny (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Impeached by the House. Articles of Impeachment not yet transmitted to the Senate. - do the Adoring nanny suggestion. Situation should state the situation rather than a speculation, though I'd suggest even more to state the actual events of "Impeachement approved by the House on date xxx, Articles of Impeachment held." Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Impeached by the House, not yet tried by Senate is more concise and will be accurate also when a date is set. Text suggested by RFC ("Trial date in Senate not set") is also an improvement. MozeTak (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

RE: Removal of Source Content

This is not an edit proposal and the OP is unreceptive to multiple requests to stop being creative with their comment formatting. The discussion is unproductive and Wikipedia is WP:NOTAFORUM. - Mr X 🖋 23:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no evidence managers won't be called and the articles won't be sent early 2020. How is the current statement of expected to be sent in 2020 a problem? I can't find sources that point to managers and the articles never being sent. All point to just a delay. If you look at the section "Importance of Withholding for an article?" in this talk page the only thing I could see as possibly being contentious at the moment is the date of impeachment. --50.37.112.189 (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)— 50.37.112.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

User:50.37.112.189 Because it is an opinion that is factually not true. In fact the New York Times, which is also a highly verified and reliable source per Wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#The_Nation ), is saying in a newer article that a trial is doubtful and even Democratic members who voted to impeach in the House are saying they shouldn't send it over: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/us/politics/impeachment-trump-senate-trial.html

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

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

At no point has she declared a refusal to ever send the articles to the Senate. Anyway, she currently can't because they're in recess. And do you have a reliable source that asserts that the articles will never be sent to the Senate? WMSR (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

User:WMSR Could you please show me where I said that the articles will never be sent to the Senate? Probably not, as I never made that claim. I will again clarify the situation in question-

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

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

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

What we know as FACT:

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

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

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

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

Stan, please stop bolding parts of your comments. We can hear you just fine in regular type. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with MelanieN on usage of bold font. Bold font should be used very sparingly and only to make it easier to find the most important part inside a very long text and if the emphasized part is much more important than the rest. You could use italic font to emphasize important parts of text as I did here. Personally I use italics mainly to separate direct quotes from my own text and rarely to put emphasis on text parts. Xenagoras (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: See the RfC below. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Xenagoras Objection overruled. By using the bold text in such a dynamic way I am not only appearing to be more cool, but it keeps the reader engaged as well so they can feel the emotion and continued interest in reading my posts. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN Never. It makes me feel cool/more important. Furthermore - bold text is visual, not audible. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:WMSR Request denied.

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

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.

Partisan Impeachment is a Political Vendetta and not legit

WP:NOTOPINION. This article is about the facts as they unfold, not to predict the future, nor to assume motives of anyone. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Seems the Impeachment of Donald Trump wiki article might be lacking this aspect.

Whip Steve Scalise blasted House Democrats for pursuing their unprecedented, partisan impeachment as a political vendetta in an attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election.

https://scalise.house.gov/media/press-releases/impeachment-political-vendetta - 174.158.168.175 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. We don't use information from press releases by partisan politicians.- Mr X 🖋 23:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

If so, then why is a partisan Impeachment being documented in a wiki article? Seems by your logic this whole Impeachment of Donald Trump wiki article is not encyclopedic. 174.158.168.175 (talk) 00:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Get over yourself. According to a few different sources, some of which have been released today, regardless of how you categorize what happened in the House (which was only partisan because Republican representatives preferred loyalty to the President over doing their constitutional duty), when it comes to a Senate trial, more moderate Senate Republicans (including Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins and Mitt Romney have signalled their willingness to break ranks with Mitch McConnell and actually examine the evidence in an impartial manner, which they are bound by oath to do when they are sworn in as jurors for the Senate trials. And McConnell has stated point-blank he is not intending to be an impartial juror, which is a violation of the oath they will be constitutionally-mandated to take. And all arguments of the kind which started this topic have been rehashed over and over again ad nauseum. I am getting a little tired of having to have this same argument across multiple topics here. The sources that meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view regulations note that it was only partisan because so many Republicans preferred loyalty to Trump over an impartial examination of the facts. If you can't handle that POV, then by all means, find a source that, according to Wikipedia's reliability and NPOV standards indicate the truth of your statement. Otherwise, you (and everyone else making the same ridiculous claims and arguments ad nauseum) need to back away from further participation in the discussion of these matters, since you can't be bothered to either accept the consensus or read the previous topics that have covered the issues ad nauseum. Enough is enough. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:44, 27 December 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.

Democrats intend to spend the next five years impeaching Trump. Over. And. Over. Again.

WP:CRYSTALBALL. This article is about the facts as they unfold, not to predict the future, nor to assume motives of anyone. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

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.

Here might be a new section to discuss and add to the wiki article Impeachment of Donald Trump. As stated and reported on, Rep. Al Green (D-TX), who has long pushed for impeaching the president, told C-SPAN that there was "no limit" to the number of times that Democrats could impeach the president. allegedly, “A president can be impeached more than once,” per Green and "no limit to the number of times" Democrats will try to impeach.

https://thewashingtonsentinel.com/democrats-say-theyll-impeach-trump-all-over-again-even-if-hes-re-elected/

Democratic Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) warned against allowing American voters to decide who should be president, arguing that they should be stopped from choosing Donald Trump as their POTUS in 2020.

Democratic Rep. Karen Bass claims president is "owned 100 percent by the Russians". Bass claimed that Trump’s victory in 2020 would provide more evidence to impeach him. Democrat Rep. Karen Bass told TMZ that her party will push to impeach Trump again if he wins 2020.

https://newsthud.com/democrat-rep-house-will-impeach-trump-again-if-he-wins-in-2020/ 74.76.202.168 (talk) 14:15, 27 December 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.

Bias

Article talk pages are for making specific edit proposals, not for righting great wrongs or for general discussion. - Mr X 🖋 00:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased and consequently runs against the values of Wikipedia. I would strongly recommend a collaborative effort to remove all politically biased statements from this article to preserve the integrity of the entire wikipedia community. 173.88.23.106 (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The article is written on the basis of what the sources say, can you give an example of a passage you feel is a problem? Zaathras (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree regarding bias. Sadly, no matter how many people try to collaborate on Wikipedia, the overall bias permeates the entire platform - article after article. The acceptable "Reliable Sources" are a product of the "fake news" phenomenon. Potential contributors/collaborators are routinely shot down and rejected. Hey! but welcome to Wikipedia!!! 174.158.162.115 (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, the "reliable sources are inherently biased" claim made by people holding to the "deep state" conspiracy theory. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 23:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

TechBear, The so-called "Deep State" is government based legacy "civil" servant employees. The so-called "Main Stream Media" or legacy "News" Media outlets are a branch of modern day propaganda outlets that daily continually all state the same scripted things and are effectively biased towards one political party and against another political party and/or the very President of the United States. The Wikipedia platform and articles within is an extension of the "Main Stream Media" and the inherent bias on display every day.

C'mon comrade! doesn't this article deserve balanced content??? claim made by people holding to the "deep state" conspiracy theory - LOL!!174.158.162.115 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2019

This edit request to Impeachment of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

1. By definition, Trump is not impeached yet, reference constitutional scholars rather than biased media headlines https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats Initially, Noah Feldman was the only Constitutional expert publicly recognized by media outlets as holding that historical precedent requires the articles of impeachment are officially transmitted to the Senate, and until that happens President Trump is not technically impeached. As he backed his stance with lower judicial rulings from OK and FL which required transmission of impeachment articles to the Senate in order to make impeachment official, in his explanation for why can't the Senate start a trial now?, other experts began to join in on both sides of the ensuing debate. Keith E. Whittington of Reason.com added to this discussion with a series of articles in The Volokh Conspiracy editorial, discussing When Is an Officer Impeached? I, II, III, IV Additionally, another stance has also developed in the view that if the articles are not transmitted to the Senate, then the courts could decide if the impeachment is official..

Many of the same sources that headlined "Trump Impeached" have also reported (some grudgingly) that there is or may be technical validity to Noah Feldman's point:

David Montanaro, Fox News Trump is not actually impeached yet, lawyer who testified for Democrats says

Andrew Feinberg, The Independent Trump's lawyers could argue he has not been impeached despite historic vote

Zachary B. Wolf, CNN A technical argument is Trump's new line of attack

Brooke Singman, Fox News Dems' own witness says Trump not truly impeached unless articles go to Senate

Bart Jansen and Ledyard King, USA TODAY Is Trump impeached?

Ben Tracy, Grace Segers, CBS News Is Donald Trump Impeached? White House considers arguing no because articles of impeachment not delivered to Senate

Bob Fredericks, New York Post Trump may not be impeached if Pelosi declines to send articles to Senate: Harvard professor

Adam Liptak, New York Times A Law Professor’s Provocative Argument: Trump Has Not Yet Been Impeached

Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review If Impeachment Articles Are Not Delivered, Did Impeachment Happen?

2. The claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election is not discredited, it is contested by certain political opponents. The following article is left biased and it admits there is undisputed evidence (in the ledger) that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. https://www.thenation.com/article/ukraine-elections-2016/ Rotaryenginepete (talk) 17:42, 21 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

And reliable sources have contested the claims of impeachment, including constitutional law scholars from Harvard. This is documented in the above conversation, yet well ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not done - Please join the existing discussion and obtain consensus before initiating an edit request.- Mr X 🖋 18:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Trump is impeached. That is it. No discussion. Opinion articles don't mean anything here. Nixinova T C 18:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, headlines don't mean anything here the discussion and RfC on this topic and the opinions are an established minority view. NPOV means respecting all views.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 20:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I would say impeached in practice, the question here is about formalities. Formalities are important in government. However, the question is mostly moot unless the house for some crazy and highly unlikely reason holds them indefinitely. Anything, by legal scholars will be conjecture unless courts have made a ruling or the house rules committee has stated formal requirements to finish the process. It's just an interesting question. The formalities for the routine such as bills has already been worked out by the house. Impeachment is anything but routine. Therefore there are formalities that may have not been considered. Considering, it is unprecedented the house has withheld the articles it entirely possible formally impeachment is not complete. However, the effect of this question again is moot unless the house holds them indefinitely or after trump is no longer in office. Unless something like that happens the end result is a given or to repeat a forgone conclusion. Nonetheless, it still is an interesting question and probably would be better related to discussion about the process of impeachment. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Rotaryenginepete Nothing has been ignored. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. The headline of every newspaper/media outlet in the United States and probably around the world was a variation of "Trump impeached". The opinions of any individual constitutional scholar are just that- their opinions, and have no official standing. There may be some way to work those opinions into this article, but that doesn't change what reliable sources have said, that Trump is impeached- which means that's what we say. Feel free to take that up with every media outlet around the world if you disagree with what they have said. 331dot (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

as in alternate facts 2600:1702:2340:9470:E534:654A:35F0:C56C (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

And thank Mary Magdalene we don't listen to those "facts" here! OP doesn't seem to understand the process of impeachment. I hope they now do. --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

lol you guys are reaching hard here, headlines don't constitute facts. They've have been wrong before, and they will be wrong again. If the articles of impeachment don't go to the Senate, then the impeachment process will remain incomplete...therefore it isn't an impeachment until that happens. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

Thanks MarkRotaryenginepete (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

According to the LEGAL DICTIONARY, impeachment is a TWO STAGE PROCESS, so no that process hasn't been completed yet. Scholars>headlines. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impeachment Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The impeachment process is called that because it begins with an impeachment. They couldn't name it after the end, because it can end in one of two ways, and "conviction/acquittal process" is a monster. Out of curiosity, what do you call the first step? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulk According to the legal definition I cited there must be an (step 1) impeachment inquiry AND (step 2) impeachment vote/trial if necessary, regardless of the variable outcomes the last step/stage of the impeachment process isn't completed. Legal dictionary for impeachment states "The two-stage process begins in the House of Representatives with a public inquiry into allegations. It culminates, if necessary, with a trial in the Senate."

The dictionary definition is

im·peach (ĭm-pēch′)

tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es

1.

a. To make an accusation against: impeach someone of a crime.

b. To bring formal charges against (a public official) for wrongdoing while in office.

The lower House of Congress voted and approved articles of impeachment, but they have NOT YET BROUGHT those articles to the place of trial/accusal, which is the upper house of the Senate. This is the equivalent of a prosecution drawing up charges but not submitting them to the court. If the allegations remain unsubmitted, then the two stage impeachment process remains incomplete by definition. This is the same reason that Nixon wasn't impeached, because he resigned under threat of impeachment before the process could be completed. Another parallel example would be a bill passed by the House but not submitted to the Senate would not be considered as successfully completed legislation. 331dot Nixinova WhoAteMyButter MrX don't let opinions get in the way of facts, this is an encyclopedia not an op ed. You could say the House impeached Trump, but you cannot say he is impeached until the articles are transmitted/allegations brought against him. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

331dot Nixinova WhoAteMyButter MrX consider what the Constitution and Senate Impeachment rules say over popular opinion. The Senate has the sole and final say on impeachment, they consider it in a preliminary hearing made by the House impeachment managers, and they can (and did in 1797) dismiss an impeachment resolution altogether. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 says "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." So, this is just like any other regular H.R. legislation bill. If the lower House passes a Resolution and it is not transmitted to or approved by the upper house of Senate, then said legislation isn't passed or completed. The official and reliable sources include those Constitutional scholars originally cited, the Constitution and history from https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/17/trial-of-impeachment , and the Senate website https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/1_1868ImpeachmentRules.pdf Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, reading the Constitution, it says "The house has the sole power of impeachment". Nixinova T C 00:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Meaning exclusive power, not boot power. The Senate has the power to boot. The USFWS controls the sole fish. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You're quoting the Heritage Foundation, and I'm the one letting opinions get in the way of facts? Please don't waste my time with this nonsense and please learn about how Wikipedia works before diving into the deep end. - Mr X 🖋 00:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX SO you're saying the Senate never dismissed an impeachment resolution from the House in 1797? Because that was the history I cited from the Heritage Foundation, which is also found here on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States and here in the sources cited for that article as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#cite_note-SenateJ1798-16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#cite_note-18 Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nixinova And just like any other House Resolution, the Senate has the sole power to try that impeachment and if necessary dismiss it. So if the articles are withheld indefinitely, then the impeachment remains incomplete. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nobody can try an impeachment until it already exists. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulk Exactly. They can't get this fact through their thick skulls, and so Wikipedia remains an biased un-citeworthy source. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Wikipedia is certainly un-citeworthy, as Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia presents the sources for people to review for themselves. 331dot (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

So then why is the Wikipedia policy being ignored here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Facts_precede_opinions Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It already exists. The Senate just hasn't tried it. I'm implying you're dense. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulk lol but there's the small inconvenient fact that the Senate CANNOT try the impeachment yet, because it does not exist as a resolution that can be tried by the Senate. That won't happen until it has been brought/delivered by the House to the Senate. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Aye, has not been tried. But neither has Nikolas Cruz. Still currently charged, which is like remaining impeached, but harsher. Both the defendant and the impeachment exist for a later trial, where their current status cannot change. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Except an indictment/charges against Nikolas Cruz were issued with and await the action of the court. An indictment is similar to impeachment in that it shares the defining characteristic that the charges must be BROUGHT/ISSUED/DELIVERED/FILED. Indictment: A set of written criminal charges issued against a party, where a grand jury, under the guidance of a prosecutor, has found that sufficient evidence exists to justify trying the party for that crime. See what I am saying here?Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I hear you repeatedly on that point, loud and clear. But you're fundamentally mistaken each time. What the Senate does or can not do with this House impeachment is irrelevant to its continued political effect as an actual untried thing. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

lol so you disagree that the impeachment process, by definition, means to BRING CHARGES AGAINST...and you disagree that the House hasn't BROUGHT CHARGES AGAINST yet. So what fundamental part of the "House hasn't completed the impeachment yet" don't you understand? Rotaryenginepete (talk) 02:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Trump watched or heard about the vote in the House, where the charges were brought. That counts as "arraignment", in spirit. Now his completed impeachment is merely awaiting delivery, like in two-step pregnancy. The first result is totally over, regardless of whether "the mother" (Nancy Pelosi) goes to a hospital near the end or "the baby" (his seat) stays or goes at the end. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

So the charges were brought, but awaiting delivery? Who's fundamentally contradicting now? The charges have only been drawn up and voted on, which all we have to look at are the fancy papers...not legally impeached yet. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Brought to the "cellar door" of this institution, awaiting its gentle rapping at the "attic window". Whole other level, dude. Impeachment is words on paper, never more. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, impeachment articles are words on paper. But impeached is a verb, not a noun (as cited above). It's a process. Thinking it is words on paper is fundamentally misunderstanding grammar. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The process is complete. It was completed when the vote occured, as that is the last step. From the drafting of articles, to the presentation, to the vote; that is the process. The process has ended, and it ended with Donald J Trump being impeached. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

OK, cite your source. Where does the Constitution layout your imaginary steps, and say the vote "is the last step" of impeachment? Because Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 says The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. If the impeachment is completed, then the Senate should have been able to start the trial today...but that didn't happen. It didn't happen and it won't happen until the impeachment process is completed, so according to the Constitution, you're wrong.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Multiple sources describe the exact same procedure. History.com has a good one on it. So does CBS. And ABC. NY Times even has a timeline on this. Washington Post too. I could go on and on and list many more sources and news articles, but they all have one essential thing in common. They all say something along the lines of "For the House, passage of impeachment articles would require only a simple majority of the chamber. If even just one article passes, the president has been impeached." If you can link and explain a source that tells me the impeachment has not occured yet and can properly explain why, please do. If (for whatever reason) you want me to list more sources, please open a topic on my talk page; I would love to make a bulleted list. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you miss the original source, Harvard Constitutional scholar and impeachment trial witness Noah Feldman? Here it is again https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats “If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all,” Mr. Feldman wrote for Bloomberg. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 05:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That is Noah Feldman's opinion, it is not fact. Not to mention that this article is in the OPINION section. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

So the articles you dropped aren't the opinions of those media journalists who wrote them, but blatant facts? Rotaryenginepete (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Correct. A timeline with matching times is reliable. If you can point out something that is an opinion (not a fact) in my citations, please let me know. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 06:35, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

In your ABC source, direct quote: "If the Senate fails to convict, a president is considered impeached but is not removed, as was the case with both Clinton in 1998 and Andrew Johnson in 1868." Isn't this implying the Senate must actually try the impeachment? That's what I have been saying...Rotaryenginepete (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Additionally, the sources conflict in the stated number of past presidents who have faced impeachment proceedings. NYT says 3, while CBS says 2. This means there is opinion in play, because they don't agree on the facts/steps of impeachment.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC) — Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Then you should be calling up every media outlet around the world to tell them that they are all wrong and ask them to issue retractions that say impeachment is not "official" until it is walked across the capitol building. The House has the 'sole power of impeachment' but that doesn't seem to matter to you. 331dot (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The media is biased, there's no use in referencing them for factual content. But you're still missing what I put down. Look at the historical precedent. The 1868 Senate Impeachment rules and the instance where the Senate dismissed the impeachment in 1797 both hinge on a critical detail. I'm not saying the House doesn't have the sole power to impeach, I'm saying they haven't completed/fulfilled that power yet. The House must have brought the impeachment to the Senate, a.k.a. filed the charges with the court. Until that happens this impeachment resolution is nothing more than symbolic...and does not meet the legal definition of impeachment. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please don't bring up the "fake news" argument. If you can point out bias in the source, please document it in your arguments instead of saying "nope, biased news.". I can assert to you that your failure to do so helps no one. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

That would be great advice for the person who originally accused my cited sources of being biased. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

He said your source was unreliable because it was this Wikipedia article that we are discussing. See WP:WINRS. All of the rebuttals I can see to your sources are well-documented and explained as far as I can make sense of. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

MrX claimed that tidbit of history from the Constitution article on the Heritage Foundation website, which is reflected in NUMEROUS other historical sources, was wasting his time...maybe not because it has to do with opinions, but because historical facts and precedent easily prove all of you wrong for calling this impeachment a done deal. The entire point of my sources was to illustrate the impeachment process cannot proceed without the articles of impeachment being transmitted to the Senate. This is equivalent to an incomplete process, and furthermore the House has NOT BROUGHT CHARGES YET. Not legally impeached. He is only impeached in your opinions.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not going to speak for MrX, but please cite the source (other than bloomberg) that says "impeachment process cannot proceed without the articles of impeachment being transmitted to the Senate.", as you said. I cannot find it, and I cannot find proper and reliable instances of you writing it down either. Please put it down here definitively. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 06:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the House still has sole power to impeach and set their own procedural rules. But, under current Senate rules, if they do not transmit the articles then the entire impeachment process remains incomplete...and it is legally defined as a process. Now I understand that the Senate Impeachment rules do not trump the Constitution, but the Constitution is silent regarding procedural details of impeachment...so what do we reference to define the steps of the impeachment process? It has to be a combination of House rules and Senate rules. We already know how the House set their rules...but nobody is talking about the Senate rules here, as if they aren't Constitutionally relevant. The ones I cited/provided previously were from 1868...but the new rules are largely unchanged from then. These updated rules contain the procedural details regarding transmitting the articles of impeachment and requirements for proceeding with impeachment... https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-69.pdf Approved articles of impeachment that remain dorment/unpassed to the Senate are going to be symbolic at best, until those charges are actually BROUGHT to the place of impeachment trial. Currently, the situation is no different than a prosecutor drawing up charges and then waving them in front of the courthouse claiming he has charged a defendant...even though he hasn't formally presented those charges to the court. However this is technically a bluff by the Speaker, because the only way around this would be if the Senate changed their impeachment rules to remove the requirement of transmission...exercising their Constitutional sole power to try an impeachment. If that happens, and the Senate rules are changed, then it would be like the judge snatching the charges from that prosecutor...the impeachment process would be allowed to proceed and you could say Trump was impeached.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 06:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Okay. But nothing in that PDF says the impeachment is incomplete or unfinished until that happens. Even the House's own website says "three Presidents [...], and Donald J. Trump in 2019], [...] have also been impeached.", under "The Use of Impeachment". The House says he is impeached, 755's resolution is that he is impeached, and since the House has sole power over impeachment, that is how it is. If the house says he is impeached, that is fact, as it is written confidence of sole power. Because of sole power, House overrides Senate here. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The House has also made allegations in the articles of impeachment, but that doesn't make those facts or convictions. The Senate also has sole power, so the only way for the House to interrupt the sole power of the Senate is to play on a technicality of an incomplete impeachment process. Yes, that lawyer is still waiving his papers saying he filed charges, but the judge is still empty handed.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please point to which charges in the article(s) of impeachment are not fact. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 08:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The charge on Abuse of Power, alleges no statutory violation nor offers any factual evidence of a crime...the violation is purely subjective. The charge on Obstruction of Congress is also subjective and alleges no statutory violation, where the House is simply claiming that Trump's defiance of their subpoenas was unlawful...but that is assuming they have the lawful power to do so in the first place. The SCOTUS taking Trump's lawsuit over financial record subpoenas proves that this Congressional subpoena power is limited. While the alleged actions may be factual, none of the alleged violations in these impeachment articles are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) 09:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC) — Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1) He abused power by telling Ukraine to announce investigations into Biden through a proven false conspiracy theory. He used his presidential status to try to hurt one of his political opponents. When it didn't work out, he revoked aid to them. 2) How would a subpoena be unlawful? Trump refused to comply with an order by Congress. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, everything you said, 1) and 2) is subjective opinion, assumption, and allegation only. Not a shred of it is documented facts, or you'd be able to cite sources. What President Trump actually said (documented fact https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-phone-call-transcript-text-pdf-1510770) "I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me." A subpoena can be unlawful if enforcement is attempted outside of jurisdiction. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Impeachment is the charge. Trial is the trying of those charges. Impeachment is seperate from Trial. Please direct me to the exact quote that says the Senate has sole power/say/ending/what have you on Impeachment, as you said: "The Senate has the sole and final say on impeachment". This contradicts the Constitution, which says the House has sole power. The Senate TRIES the charges. The charges (impeachment) part is over. We are currently waiting for the transition to Trial. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 00:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

WhoAteMyButter The articles of impeachment are the charges from the House, but those charges haven't been brought yet. Impeachment, by the legal definition previously cited, is a two stage process which may include a trial, but most importantly it means that the charges have bveen presented/brought to the place of impeachment (the Senate). That has not happened yet. You did not read the cited Senate Impeachment Rules March 2, 1868. Prior to the trial the House impeachment managers must bring the impeachment before the Senate, who must decide whether to hold a trial or not. This is why the President requested a trial, because the Senate can also dismiss an impeachment resolution. Although it is not necessarily required, the trial is most definitely part of the impeachment, as quoted in the Constitution Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 says "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You said [sic] "charges have bveen presented/brought to the place of impeachment". The place of impeachment is the House'; as evident in the "House has sole power" part of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution overrides whatever a dictionary says. You also said that "House impeachment managers must bring the impeachment before the Senate, who must decide whether to hold a trial or not". This is correct, but you contradict yourself here. How can the managers bring impeachment to the Senate, if the "impeachment never existed", as you commonly put it? WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes I made a typo mistake, it should be "the place of impeachment trial is the Senate", per the Constitution. The act of House managers bringing the impeachment to the Senate is exactly what defines impeachment (bringing the charges). Just because you disagree with the legal dictionary doesn't mean the Constitution "overrides" that definition. You're going to need something better than that strawman argument to prove your point. Show me where the Constitution defines impeachment as only being a House vote. The sole Power of Impeachment clause does not define impeachment, it defines who has the authority to execute impeachment. What I am saying is the House has unfinished business, and until that business is finished it is not a legally defined impeachment. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Bringing the charges means presenting them to the House for a vote. The Consitution overrides a dictionary because a dictionary has to cover all nations, and all cases. Plus, not all dictionaries agree on definitions. Each one is different. The Consitution is one and unified. The bringing of those impeachment charges to the Senate for trial is the beginning of the Trial, which must occur after Impeachment. Additionally, This is further supported by the fact you yourself said "place of impeachment trial", which means it's a trial on the impeachment. The impeachment already happened, the Trial is next. Again, Impeachment and Trial are seperate but related. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

No, bringing charges is NOT drawing up nor approving charges by a House vote. Once again, the Constitution does not back you up here. In fact it rebuts your statements. Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6 says The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. If the impeachment was completed, then the Senate could start the trial...but that has not happened. It won't happen until the impeachment process is completed. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC) — Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The Senate has not started Trial yet because Pelosi has not sent over the articles. Whether she sent them or not, he is still impeached. The articles being given is part of Trial. Also, because the Senate isn't even in session yet. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 06:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

If a lawyer draws up a lawsuit (just as the House drew and approved an impeachment resolution) but never BRINGS/ISSUES/DELIVERS/FILES the suit to a court (the Senate), then can that lawyer say the defendant has been sued (impeached)? This is the exact principal I am trying to convey here. The President cannot be served with impeachment (or declared impeached) because the impeachment process remains incomplete until the charges are brought. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Sorry, still no. You are incorrect about the definitions. Impeachment is the forming of charges and agreeing that those charges "check out". Yes, the trial takes place in the Senate, but that is the trial. You cannot have a trial if the charge(s) (impeachment) doesn't exist. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, still yes. So finally admitting you disagree with the legal definition of impeachment? The charges aren't brought yet. You also cannot have an impeachment trial if the impeachment charges remain un-filed or un-submitted to the court which with they are supposed to be tried in. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please do not put words in my mouth if I did not say them. The definition of impeachment can be boiled down to "to charge with a crime or misdemeanor". You are correct in that the Trial cannot begin if the charges did not pass, or have not been submitted yet, but that is Trial. That is not impeachment. The reason the Trial has not begun yet is because Pelosi has not given them over to the Senate for trial. Impeachment already happened. Pelosi's next step is to submit the impeachment articles to the Senate. Trial is next. The Senate then judges if the impeachment consitutes the removal. If anything comes out of this, I want you to know that I note this about you: you keep confusing impeachment and trial and assuming the trial is part of the impeachment itself. It is not. It comes after. Trial occurs only to judge the impeachment and determine if the impeachment is enough for the removal. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand it is difficult to grasp, but the biggest problem is you've repeatedly tried to define impeachment in your own words...without source...to back your argument. Your definitions conflict with the already cited legal definitions and procedures laid out in the Constitution, so I didn't put words in your mouth by saying you admittedly disagree with the legal definition because your words say otherwise. Then you tried to shoot this down with a strawman argument about impeachment vs trial, but that isn't what I am arguing here. I am saying that BECAUSE there cannot be a trial yet, the impeachment process isn't completed. If the Senate has sole power to try an impeachment, but they cannot try it yet, then this cannot be a completed and legally defined impeachment. Once Pelosi has brought the charges to the Senate, then Trump will be impeached. Not a moment before that. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 05:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. As you said: "specifically: to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office", I believe the competent tribunal is to be the House. Also, I cannot find any source that says that for impeachment to be fully completed, a trial must take place; please cite that. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe I said a trial must take place to complete the process, but a vote to impeach does formally advance the impeachment process and require a trial. From the previously cited https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/impeachment "Impeachment is conducted in two stages. Impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives (art. I, sec. 2). This stage satisfies the Framers' belief that impeachment should be a public inquiry into charges against an official, and it involves fact-finding at hearings. After accumulating all the evidence, the House votes on whether or not to impeach. A vote against impeachment ends the process. A vote to impeach formally advances the process to its second stage through what is called adoption of the Articles of Impeachment. Each article is a formal charge with conviction on any one article being sufficient for removal. The case is then sent to the Senate, which organizes the matter for trial (art. I, sec. 3)." The case hasn't been sent yet...Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

...but your source doesn't say that it needs to be. Nor does literally any reliable source. Until reliable sources start retracting reportage that impeachment has occurred, please WP:DROPTHESTICK. WMSR (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned in my other response, we have to go off of the House and Senate rules for impeachment. Also, from https://www.legislativeprocedure.com/blog/2019/4/8/a-primer-on-impeachment-procedures-in-the-house "What Happens Next? Upon adoption of articles of impeachment, the House will adopt resolutions appointing managers, authorizing those managers to prepare for and conduct a Senate trial and to notify the Senate of the adoption of the articles of impeachment and the appointment of the managers. During the Senate trial, the House managers present evidence and arguments subject to the procedures adopted by the Senate." This also hasn't happened yet, the House hasn't completed their job on impeachment. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

First off, that's a blog, not WP:RS. But let's put that aside. Your source does not explicitly state that "in order to be impeached, the House must transmit articles to the Senate." You are arriving at that conclusion through your own analysis. Meanwhile, myriad reliable sources have directly and succinctly reported that the President has been impeached. It's as simple as that. You can come up with as many theories as you want, but the standard for inclusion is reporting from reliable sources, and your claim does not meet that standard. WMSR (talk) 07:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is a blog, but it is based on the Senate and House impeachment rules. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-RIDDICK-1992/pdf/GPO-RIDDICK-1992-69.pdf https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/text The Constitution implies there must be a trial, by the sole power clause. How can the Senate have sole Constitutional power to try an impeachment, but that power is being be withheld by the House? It is because the Speaker has taken advantage of both the current House and Senate rules of impeachment, using technicalities to suspend progression...so by not completing the impeachment according to these rules they are in effect not completing the impeachment process. That's why the Senate can't commence the trial yet, because until the articles get transmitted it's an impeachment fake out.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

ok, I will gather more sources.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

in the meantime, Noah Feldman's newer follow on article provides several more historical sources and precedents (not just opinions) https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-22/trump-impeachment-why-can-t-the-senate-start-a-trial-now Rotaryenginepete (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's still just their opinion and not an official finding- which as already noted, can only be from the House itself. If Trump sues to have the impeachment declared invalid because it has not been walked across the capitol building and placed in Senator McConnell's hand, he can do that. He would lose(and that's if it even got that far, since the Senate is not in session to accept any paperwork and Speaker Pelosi can't do anything yet anyway). 331dot (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Do I need to unpack the links to his sources here? Did anyone even read these articles? He backs his opinions with historical documents which detail the basis of his argument, and even a judicial ruling And as Whittington also points out, the Oklahoma Supreme Court held in 1923 that impeachment is official “when articles of impeachment are duly filed with the Senate and duly accepted and filed by the Senate.” https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-jeffersonman.pdf Rotaryenginepete (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And if you get Trump to sue and get SCOTUS to hear and resolve this case before January 6th, I wish you luck. Until then, we go with what reliable sources state. You are, of course, free to disagree with just about every media outlet in the world. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

He doesn't need to sue, nor does he want to since he already asked for a trial, but how is this even relevant? Rotaryenginepete (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In order to establish the opinions of those you are citing as an official finding, there needs to be a lawsuit to do so(which only Trump would have standing to file). Until then, it is just their unsolicited opinion. I think that the horse died long ago. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

No, you can't dismiss him nor his sources that easily. The Senate and House impeachment rules, historical documents, and lower judicial rulings cited back what he is saying. A majority media consensus of opinions saying he is "impeached" doesn't suddenly make it a fact...although tempting, the media isn't a reliable source for legal definitions.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yes, this is not a place to get legal definitions or nitpick over stuff like he's not impeached because a paper was not walked across the Capitol building. What we do here is summarize what independent sources state. If that's not what you are into, I'm sure there are legal websites or journals for what you want to do. 331dot (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars I can't find anywhere that says this isn't a place to get legal definitions, especially with reference to such a major historical event. My requested edits are in the spirit of neutrality, not nitpicking the details. They are formed to avoid the appearance of bias to those who do nitpick the details. I agree you are seeking to find consensus, but the consensus of media headlines does not constitute fact nor does it reflect what everyone actually believes. The consensus of other editors on this page User:MugwumpSpirit110, User:MoMoBig, User:Sonar1313, User:50.37.100.51, User:Jacket2018, User:Xenagoras, User:50.37.112.189, User:Partytemple, and User:StanTheMan0131 who have individually disagreed with the content have also been shot down. This is not in the spirit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered".Rotaryenginepete (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This is still going on? What a waste of everybody's time. There is consensus in reliable sources that Trump has been impeached. That does not require unanimity of opinion. The articles will be sent at some point(yes, I know about WP:CRYSTAL concerns) making this whole academic exercise pointless. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

It's not about consensus in sources, it is about the NEUTRALITY PILLAR and making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. You cannot say if the articles will be sent because you cannot predict the future.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Headlines are not written by the author of an article but by another person that aims at generating maximum advertising effect for the article. Therefore Wiki editors are discouraged to use headlines as source. See also the discussion and RfC on this topic Xenagoras (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Xenagoras Exactly. The strongest argument here is "but mah headlines all say impeached". Rotaryenginepete (talk) 06:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)— Rotaryenginepete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Is it at all possible to add a section about the impeachment being in a possible “limbo” so to speak where we mention that sources such as the mainstream media and some legal scholars are conflicted as to whether or not Trump is impeached? This is no longer a “flat earth” type conspiracy. This relates to differing opinions from reputable sources be it legal scholars, Fox News, or CNN. Both claims have merit and until everyone can agree on it, in the name of neutrality, please show both sides of the argument. While a poor analogy, one could write an article on the Civil War and mention Confederate States and all the evils of slavery but never mention state rights, the actual cause of the Civil War (yes, slavery was part of it). By ignoring one side, we get a biased POV, which is not a neutral reporting stance. While WP will always be somewhat unreliable, we should try to make it as reliable as possible. Even a subsection hidden somewhere in the controversies would be fine to just mention the “not yet technically impeached” POV. Jacket2018 (talk) 04:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

No, per WP:DUE. One prominent individual has expressed this view, and myriad others have said otherwise. Not a single reliable source reports as fact that impeachment is "in limbo" because it isn't. This talk section should really be closed. WMSR (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you read the article from the National Review. 162.251.232.57 (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

impeached?

The article currently reflects a common understanding that inasmuch as the Congressional articles read "is impeached," after passage this is so; that said, the handful of times various states' highest courts issued decisions regarding the matter, their conclusions have been it occurs at the bar, even if figuratively, of the trying body. Inasmuch as legal precedents consistently inform the latter and but common presumptions do the former, WP ought give more weight to both interpretations than currently.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The article currently says Trump has questioned the validity of the impeachment, citing Noah Feldman, who argues that the impeachment has technically not taken place until the articles are handed to the Senate. That, along with the footnote in the lead,→÷ weight seems appropriate to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

State court rulings do not apply at the national level. This issue has been addressed ad nauseum above. WMSR (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

How so? Please do post a diff to where this specific issue is discussed above.

Per Feldman[2] (taking his job as "explain[ing] what the U.S. Constitution actually means no matter who likes it"), "[Oklahoma[3] &] Florida law doesn’t control, of course, but [e.g] the Florida court went through all the sources (at pp. 675-78 here[4]; tip of the hat to Prof. Keith Whittington of Princeton University for unearthing[5] [6] it)." [The Florida Supremes conclude]:

It thus appears by ample precedent and authority, that an impeachment is not simply the adoption of a resolution declaring that a party be impeached, but that it is the actual announcement and declaration of impeachment by the House through its committee at the bar of the Senate, to the Senate, that it does thereby impeach the officer accused, which proceeding is at once recognized by the Senate.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

And Jonathan Turley, the Republican impeachment expert, calls the notion that Trump hasn't been impeached bunk.[7] – Muboshgu (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Muboshgu, perhaps terming turley "the GOP impeachment expert" might mislead some tkpg readers (WaMonthly[8]: "[turley] did not vote for the president and that he has previously voted for Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama [plus...] in 2015, Turley criticized candidate Trump’s proposed Muslim ban as unconstitutional in the Washington Post")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, House Republicans got to call one expert witness, and they called Turley. Hence, "the GOP impeachment expert" is perfectly acceptable. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

user:Muboshgu, okay fair enough however I was just noting that turley's politics hv bn eg 'liberal' enough to hv voted for Nader & 'libertarian' enough to hv brought Sister Wives' cast members' suit against utah w rgd the states' anti-bigamy laws &tc (the cato I.'s gene healy[9] observes "Turley’s politics, it seems to me, have always been heterodox and hard to squeeze into a conventional left-right framework. If forced to guess, I’d say his growing skepticism toward impeachment has more to do with his 2010 experience as defense counsel in a judicial impeachment trial than any latent #MAGA tendencies")--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, "If forced to guess, I’d say..." is your WP:OR and we're not here to engage in that. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

hurley was a GOP witness, whose opinion that impeachment neednt occur at the figurative bar of the US senate (contra that of fellow Congressional witness feldman's) wasn't proffered during this hearing but in a written post elsewhere; but, as to whether he's a "GOP expert" in contexts elsewise, see the NYT[10] ("[he's] a civil libertarian and a skeptic of executive power who also has a history of sometimes making arguments that please Republicans and irritate Democrats — while emphasizing that he personally agrees with liberals," realclearpolitics[11] ("[he's] an elite liberal legal scholar"), & thedailywire[12] ("[he's] best described as a left-leaning civil libertarian") (or yes, user:Muboshgu, the CATO Instutute's gene healy, whom I'd quoted immed abv.)--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

And I don't need to provide a diff saying that the laws of one jurisdiction don't apply everywhere. Scroll up if you want to read discussions on whether the President has been impeached. You have provided no new evidence, and this constant back-and-forth is getting tiresome. Come back when you have a reliable source that explicitly reports, as a fact, that the President has not been impeached. WMSR (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Hodgdon's secret garden: This is not a proper RfC. There is no proposal or question. - Mr X 🖋 21:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
user:Hodgdon's secret garden This has been discussed already. here: Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Impeachment_did_not_actually_occur_yet and here: Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Third_or_Fourth_President_to_be_Impeached. I don't see why you think this discussion will be any different. This is a waste of everyone's time, to be frank.David O. Johnson (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention, one of the sources you just cited says right there "Florida law doesn't control," e.g. has no bearing on federal procedures...Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Right you are, bird. Same deal for Arizona, California, Texas, North Dakota and Maine. I hear New York can still get things done (somehow), but for the most part, federal, state and municipal authorities literally and intentionally play by their own rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking for, in this Rfc? GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden you make interesting points. Unfortunately, the legacy media outlets - the so called "reliable sources", democrats and even some wiki editors seem bent on labeling Donald Trump as "impeached" and some even revel in it. Keep up the effort! You are onto something, but maybe take your ideas to Conservapedia. You will be welcome there... 174.158.83.150 (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO Mr. Trump's unfortunate agreement with prof. Feldman's analysis, relegated to a footnote, seems more like Wikipedia's official 'voice' seeking to thereby discredit the position rather than to account for these varying views in as neutral of a manner as possible. (After all, unlike Barack, the Donald never was senior lecturer a of US Constitutional law at the Univ. of Chicago....) Sure, maybe the cows haven't yet come home w rgd to whether its been determined, legally speaking, whether what's apparently a more innovative meaning of 'impeachment' as a state arrived at, similar to one's being the subject of an indictment, is correct or else if only its apparently more trad. meaning is, as its being a dynamic process such as say one's being subjected to an actual prosecution. But surely, could not the wording of the article reflect more of the nuances involved than currently?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, what are you proposing to be put into this article? GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, these 2 diffs: [13] & [14] --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

user:WMSR, as to the existance of such a view, here are a few sources:

NYT[15]
jonathanturley.org[16]: "[Noah] Feldman has written in Bloomberg News that Trump is not actually impeached until the articles of impeachment are transferred to the Senate. I disagree and believe that Feldman is conflating provisions concerning removal with those for impeachment."
WaPo[17]: "
Mediaite[18]
CNN[19] "...Noah Feldman, who had testified before the Judiciary Committee as an expert witness that President Trump should be impeached and removed from office, responded to the decision to delay delivering the Articles of Impeachment with a bombshell op-ed of his own: Transmittal of the Articles to the Senate is part of the act of impeachment, he argued, and until that occurs the president has not been impeached. As Feldman concisely put it, 'Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial' so the Senate can conduct a trial."
CBS News[20]: "[Noah] Feldman was one of the legal experts called by Democrats to testify before the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month and has advocated for Mr. Trump's impeachment and removal from office. 'Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial,' Feldman wrote in Bloomberg. 'Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution: The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.'"
--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Hodgdon's secret garden, again, we know that this is Noah Feldman's view, reliable source media outlets have covered it, and it is duly included in the article. So what are we talking about here? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that Feldman has that view. And certainly it deserves to be mentioned. But every source you listed all serve to make the same point: that Feldman has that view. Reliable sources have all reported that Donald Trump has been impeached. Full stop. Mr. Feldman's opinion is certainly notable, but still constitutes a fringe view, especially given that reliable sources have only reported that he holds such a view, not that such a view has gained widespread acceptance. I've said it before and I'll say it again: come back when reliable sources explicitly report that the President has not been impeached. WMSR (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed..this is ridiculous 2600:1702:2340:9470:8C71:2604:397D:9C5E (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The belief that the president has not actually been impeached is a nugget from the fringe of politics. This is beyond silly. Zaathras (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

except the very first line in the articles of impeachment explicitly states "... that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate" . Obviously that hasn't happened yet. I agree he isn't officially impeached until the wording in the articles themselves is fulfilled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.213.87.38 (talk) 04:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

You left part of it out... "Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate." The articles themselves states that he is already impeached. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

IP editor, it doesn't matter what you agree to, or what your personal armchair analysis of the Constitution is., It matters what sources can be cited, and how they cover the matter. The general consensus of which is "Donald Trump has been impeached". Zaathras (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it fair to say that the claim that Trump is not impeached is a lie even when people spouting it are not intentionally trying to lie? GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 21:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

IMO, yes. The House has the sole power of impeachment, and they impeached him. No reliable source has said anything to the contrary, except in opinion articles. It's frankly ridiculous that this discussion is happening here, where WP:RS is king. WMSR (talk) 23:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable source articles that tackle this exact discussion. The reason is because many don't see the impeachment as legitimate until it can be tried by the Senate (like any other charges brought against someone). The simple fact that experts from both sides of the isle are debating this at length should be enough of a clue that this isn't a ridiculous political narrative, like some are trying to fool us into thinking. 162.251.232.57 (talk) 03:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Good luck proving it 2600:1702:2340:9470:1094:51E1:6B14:129D (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Unredacted White House emails

I think we need a new section for the White House emails released post-impeachment. Sources here:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]

References

^ Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (December 22, 2019). "Democrats, Citing White House Emails, Renew Calls for Impeachment Witnesses". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 3, 2020.
^ Wong, Edward (December 21, 2019). "Officials Discussed Hold on Ukraine Aid After Trump Spoke With Country's Leader". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 3, 2020.
^ Shabad, Rebecca (January 2, 2020). "'Devastating blow': Schumer says newly revealed emails show why Senate GOP needs to allow impeachment witnesses". NBC News. Retrieved January 3, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ Feinberg, Andrew (January 2, 2020). "Newly unredacted emails provide fresh evidence in Trump impeachment case". The Independent. Retrieved January 3, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ Lipton, Eric; Haberman, Maggie; Mazzetti, Mark (December 29, 2019). "Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 3, 2020.
^ Wagner, John; Sonmez, Felicia (January 2, 2020). "Democrats seize on report to press for key witnesses in Senate impeachment trial". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 3, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
^ Blake, Aaron (January 2, 2019). "Analysis: New coverup questions in Trump's Ukraine scandal". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 3, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

I do not have the time to include these properly myself. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment Status?

Per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOTOPINION: Recycling the same small minority argument that the House hasn't impeached Trump is not only false, but counterproductive. If there's a new angle that hasn't been discussed ad nauseam -- then discuss it. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

To me it sounds like there is some disagreement over what impeachment means and if it succeeded as of yet? If you look strictly at the legal definitions, the Impeachment is not complete until the Senate delivers a Guilty Verdict. Using a more loose definition (and even the House's own definition), the Impeachment status is not certain until the House provides the articles to the Senate.173.17.209.23 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

If you take a look at the other discussions on this in the archives, you'll find that we have come to the consensus that Trump has been impeached, which does not mean removal from office. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, not so much. Impeachment, as it is identified in the Constitution, requires that the Articles of Impeachment make it to the Senate. Due to the Speaker of the House, that has yet to occur. In addition, If the Senate chooses to declare Trump, not guilty, that also invalidates the Impeachment. As the Senate has yet to hold a trial, the best the Impeachment can be described as is Ongoing, as in all legal cases those charges become invalid the moment the verdict of innocent is given.173.17.209.23 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Have any sources that indicate that? David O. Johnson (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

On that same vein, why is Clinton, who was acquited in the Senate, considered "impeached"? WittyRecluse (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a person is not impeached until the articles are sent to the Senate. See Impeachment in the United States#Constitutional provisions. Also, the Senate's role is to acquit or convict: they cannot "un-impeach" Trump. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Alternatively, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a person is impeached until the articles are sent to the Senate, either. See Impeachment in the United States#Constitutional provisions. Also, the Senate's sole power is to try impeachment charges: so if they cannot act on that sole power, then the impeachment isn't really completed by the House yet, since they have the sole power to impeach, a.k.a. initiate the impeachment process. 162.251.232.119 (talk) 23:58, 3 January 2020 (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.

Table formatting error

The second table counting the votes by Democrats and Republicans (under 'Voting results on House Resolution 755') is formatted incorrectly. The column headings do not align with the actual data. I'm not sure how to fix this in source, and I'd rather not mess with such a prominent article willy-nilly. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020

The horse is dead. --WMSR (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This edit request to Impeachment of Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

can the heading actually be rewritten to include that its not actually an impeachment until after the senate trial? 2601:192:8603:50B0:1037:5D97:EDF3:4D5C (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Not this again. search 'senate' or 'trial' in the archives, you'll see this has been heard at length. So, in short, no. Kingsif (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Just say no to every such request that has been debated ad nauseam and move on. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 01:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

yeah just ignore the WP:RS articles104.189.141.136 (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RS plus House vote to appoint impeachment managers and send articles

Per WP:NOTAFORUM,WP:DEADHORSE and WP:NOTOPINION: Still the same arguments that Trump has not been impeached, despite consensus otherwise. —David O. Johnson (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:SOURCETYPES "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content." and "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources."

1. IMPEACHMENT NOT OFFICIALLY DOCUMENTED. Donald J. Trump is NOT named in the official U.S. House List of Individuals Impeached.

2. NO SCHOLARLY OR MEDIA CONSENSUS ON IMPEACHMENT. In addition to articles explaining the debate within the academic community, such as Noah Feldman's scholarly opinion and cited judicial precedent and an editorial series by a team of established law and political professors discussing historical precedent that "It thus appears by ample precedent and authority, that an impeachment is not simply the adoption of a resolution declaring that a party be impeached, but that it is the actual announcement and declaration of impeachment by the House through its committee at the bar of the Senate, to the Senate, that it does thereby impeach the officer accused, which proceeding is at once recognized by the Senate.", there is also considerable debate over the official status of impeachment within media sources:

"But many scholars take the position that the Constitution requires a trial if there has been an impeachment. If such a trial cannot properly occur unless and until articles of impeachment have been transferred from the House to the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi won’t transfer them, has President Trump actually been impeached?"

"the move by the House to decline to complete the process of appointing “managers” – House members who present the impeachment case to the Senate – and formally transmit the articles to the upper chamber, raised the possibility that the House has not yet impeached the president until transmission is complete."

"The Democratic-led US House of Representatives will send formal impeachment charges against President Donald Trump to the Senate as early as next week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday, setting the stage for his long-awaited trial."

"Because whatever you make of the case against Donald Trump, it's getting increasingly difficult to argue that this amateurish, constantly shifting effort by the House has been effective."

"Even when and if Trump is acquitted, he will forever be known as being only the third president to ever face impeachment." (Does not declare him impeached yet)

"the House voted on Dec. 18 to impeach the president, but Pelosi led an unprecedented strategy to delay sending the articles to the Senate so Trump’s trial could begin,",

"if the House doesn't release the articles, Trump could legitimately declare that he was never actually impeached."

"We all watched the House pass the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. Now there's a very technical legal debate that may be getting out of hand."

"The House must vote on a resolution designating impeachment managers to prosecute the case against Mr. Trump in the Senate before delivering the articles."

3. NO HISTORICAL PRECEDENT ON IMPEACHMENT. As the Constitution does not define impeachment for us, according to reliable sources we must lean on historical precedence. Within the scope of how both House and Senate impeachment rules are currently written, and despite the House vote adopting articles of impeachment, the initiation of the impeachment process has not been completed yet...end of story. Per Art II, Sect 4 Overview, "The weight of historical practice, rather than judicial precedent, is thus central to understanding the nature of impeachment in the United States.". Within that direct precedent, the Senate Impeachment Rules for Clinton "I. Whensoever the Senate shall receive notice from the House of Representatives that managers are appointed on their part to conduct an impeachment against any person and are directed to carry articles of impeachment to the Senate, the Secretary of the Senate shall immediately inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers for the purpose of exhibiting such articles of impeachment, agreeably to such notice." This is confirmed by news media in this recent CBS News article "Under Senate rules, the trial cannot begin until the House names impeachment managers to prosecute the case against [President] Trump and then formally delivers the articles to the Senate."

4. "IMPEACHED" REMAINS UNDEFINED, DESPITE LANGUAGE IN ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. Per Wikipedia's own existing articles about impeachment, the initiation of impeachment against President Trump hasn't been completed, despite the articles of impeachment declaring that he is impeached. Articles_of_impeachment "Articles of impeachment are the set of charges drafted against a public official to initiate the impeachment process." and "In the United States, the articles of impeachment are drafted by the House of Representatives for cases involving federal officials. Once approved by the House, a trial is held in the United States Senate where a supermajority is required for conviction." Per Impeachment "Once impeached, an individual must then face the possibility of conviction on the charges by a legislative vote, which is separate from the impeachment, but flows from it, and a judgment which convicts the official on the articles of impeachment entails the official's definitive removal from office." The House is obviously still actively exercising this sole power, and since President Trump does not yet actually face an impeachment trial until the articles of impeachment are transmitted, this means the initiation of the impeachment process is not yet completed. While the House did approve the resolution of impeachment articles, it has NOT yet approved the transmission and exhibit of those same articles, and so impeachment is not yet initiated per previous recent CBS News article.

5. EXISTING SOURCES ARE BIASED AND NON-ACADEMIC MEDIA REPORTS, THEY DON'T WEIGH MORE THAN SCHOLARLY OPINIONS. The vast majority of sources currently cited for this article are biased towards non-academic, politically inspired news/media articles instead of scholarly material. In this respect, the extrapolations of fact are based on a consensus of popular media opinion instead of the academic NPOV sources. A prime example is this CNN article where the headline claims "Trump was impeached December 18." and then backpedals with "But then they were supposed to conduct a third vote, to appoint managers who would present the articles in the Senate and basically serve as prosecutors." They have not yet taken that last vote."

This article should not state that the "impeachment of Donald Trump...occurred" but rather "articles of impeachment against Donald Trump...were adopted by a House vote".

Per the scholarly sources and Wikipedia's own declarations cited above, which take precedence over news media sources, once the House votes to name impeachment managers and formally exhibit the articles of impeachment, then he may be declared impeached from a NPOV. Until then, this article remains tainted with the political bias of those who want to define the steps of impeachment to fit their own political narratives. 104.189.141.136 (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Impeachment has occurred. This has already been thoroughly discussed on this page with the same twisted arguments and misrepresented sources. We will not be rewriting this article to resemble a Fox News report. Cheers. - Mr X 🖋 21:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

In your opinion, yes, impeachment has occurred. And yes this article should not be rewritten like a Fox news report. But because it currently resembles a CNN news report and omits any academic sources which are supposed to weigh more than media opinion, it needs to be re-written to reflect actual reliable sources.104.189.141.136 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, many of the cited sources were written within the past few days, so I am hard-pressed to see how they are all "the same" as whatever someone presented before me, nor how direct quotes are misrepresenting them? 104.189.141.136 (talk) 21:17, 11 January 2020 (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.

[1] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump&diff=932204503&oldid=932204259

[2] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump&diff=932203908&oldid=932203826

[3] Stolberg, Sheryl Gay (December 22, 2019). "Democrats, Citing White House Emails, Renew Calls for Impeachment Witnesses". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 3, 2020.

[4] Wong, Edward (December 21, 2019). "Officials Discussed Hold on Ukraine Aid After Trump Spoke With Country's Leader". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 3, 2020.

[5] Shabad, Rebecca (January 2, 2020). "'Devastating blow': Schumer says newly revealed emails show why Senate GOP needs to allow impeachment witnesses". NBC News. Retrieved January 3, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[6] Feinberg, Andrew (January 2, 2020). "Newly unredacted emails provide fresh evidence in Trump impeachment case". The Independent. Retrieved January 3, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[7] Lipton, Eric; Haberman, Maggie; Mazzetti, Mark (December 29, 2019). "Behind the Ukraine Aid Freeze: 84 Days of Conflict and Confusion". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 3, 2020.

[8] Wagner, John; Sonmez, Felicia (January 2, 2020). "Democrats seize on report to press for key witnesses in Senate impeachment trial". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 3, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[9] Blake, Aaron (January 2, 2019). "Analysis: New coverup questions in Trump's Ukraine scandal". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 3, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]