body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

Third or Fourth President to be Impeached

I think there is also some disagreement about whether or not he has been impeached yet. Or whether the house has voted to impeach him but has not yet done so, and will only have done so when they bring the articles to the senate.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philomouse (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I am not sure this belongs under 3rd or 4th maybe it's own section in talk? Although, it is significant that it was Noah Feldman who wrote the article you link to. However, A Law Professor’s Provocative Argument seems to point to disagreement between legal scholars. However, there is no court precedent regarding this. Moreover, the longer the articles are with-held the question does become more important. Although, it seems factual to say the impeachment is still pending or in progress. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently says, "...making Trump the third president in U.S history to be impeached...." There's actually some legal disagreement over whether or not Richard Nixon was technically impeached as he resigned during the process. Should this be mentioned? Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article of impeachment were never voted on for Nixon, so he was never impeached. A footnote would probably be useful though (and I had one in the original revision) to avoid confusion.  Nixinova  T C   02:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a footnote would be helpful, thanks! Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the footnote I had in the original page revision: Trump will thereby be impeached, making Trump the third president to be impeached, after [[Impeachment of Andrew Johnson|Andrew Johnson in 1868]] and [[Impeachment of Bill Clinton|Bill Clinton in 1999]].<ref group=note>[[Richard Nixon]] resigned from the presidency during his impeachment process, therefore he was never actually impeached.</ref>  Nixinova  T C   02:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, yours is better than mine, Nixinova. (I mean, come on, I even misused "proffered" here: "Although Richard Nixon had articles proffered against him by the House Judiciary Committee, he resigned before the full House voted on articles of impeachment. See Impeachment process against Richard Nixon.") Still, the fact that the footnotes keep getting removed: are we sure they're necessary? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nixon was not impeached. I don't see how there could be disagreement about that.- MrX 🖋 02:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mandela Effect, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, December 19, 2019 (UTC)
Maybe minor edits to that - change “will be” to “has been” impeached; and change the Nixon resigned ‘therefore he was never actually impeached’ to ‘before the vote for impeachment.’ to avoid saying ‘therefore’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some folks tend to get the 1974 Judiciary committee vote confused with the full House, which never voted on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Reintegrate

Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, the current main article, was ripe to be moved to this name and the saga continued. However it seems different users have taken it upon themselves to create a separate article for this as well as the senate trial. This goes against all current convention for impeachment articles and is wholly unnecessary. I propose merging this and the senate trial page back into the main page content at this name. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 03:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF. There's more information about Trump's impeachment available.  Nixinova  T C   04:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could've at least waited for the Inquiry article RM to be completed. Not even the House Democrats moved that fast. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that went against consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of my primary concerns. The main subject of that RM should have been modified to be based on whether to move the inquiry article to the primary impeachment title or to split, but instead, with it still active and some people still debating whether to move the article, the unilateral split occurred. I think that will likely remain the case since many will see it as the new "status quo," especially with it on the Main Page now. Master of Time (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sudden splits will also confuse folks who took part in the RM, when they return. GoodDay (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmhermen: There's simply too much content for one article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 05:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Quinn:, it is a trial known as the Senate trial, testimony is given with managers presenting their case over several days. Senate then begins deliberations either publicly or privately. The verdict is then given on a vote. Valoem talk contrib 05:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I misunderstood what that article was supposed to be about (it's a bit premature). Changed to Oppose merge for both. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The creeper2007: I think you mean to oppose. Support means you want one article on both the inquiry and impeachment process. Oppose means you want two. Valoem talk contrib 13:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All you did was create confusion & frustration. The Inquiry article would've been moved, but you didn't give it a chance. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Opera fera: There will be much less overlap when a good amount of content from Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, such as the near-entirety of the "Background" section, is appropriately migrated to Impeachment of Donald Trump. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PhilipTerryGraham, I think that should be removed or moved to Trump–Ukraine scandal. The inquiry article has too much background. We don't want to make the same mistake with this article. The summary of the background in this article should be kept very concise. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: Still, the "Background" section for this article should have a satisfactory summary of both the Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Trump–Ukraine scandal articles; hopefully much more concise than the current "Background" section on the Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Teammm: could you clarify what you are supporting? As worded, it looks like you are supporting his actual impeachment of yesterday, rather than the proposed merging process here. — Maile (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Un huh. Well, speaking for myself ... if I have to read down through too much, I lose interest and look for something more interesting to read. How much is the average attention span on reading through all of this, even without the merging? What purpose are we serving by having it in one big glut? Given Wikipedia's easy linking from one page to the next, I see no purpose in merging everything. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quisquidillius (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment trial of Donald Trump

I converted this third article on the subject to a redirect here. Rmhermen (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References to official House roll call results

Hi Javert2113, can you say more about why you removed the links to clerk.house.gov in this revision? The revision comment says "never been able to get clerk.house.gov to work", but I don't understand what that means; [1] and [2] both load fine for me in Firefox and in Chrome. They seem like useful references, as they show how every member voted on this historic matter. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I get a "HTTP Error 404" every time I try to load a clerk.house.gov vote, so it honestly might just be me. Regardless, I think the Clerk, while certainly a source for information, isn't the best independent source here, given that, well, most every news outlet in the United States was counting every vote. Regardless, you're right, and I'm sorry for removing the links. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever help it may be.... The links work for me in Safari on my mobi. Seem like decent cites to have. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of this article

Putting this to writing to preempt any discussion on the purpose and role of this article – ideally, this article should serve as the main article on the topic of the Impeachment of Donald Trump, with certain sections of this article being written in summary style to serve as adequate summaries, for casual readers, of articles which go into greater depth. Here what the structure of the article should look like in my opinion:

  • Intro
  • Summary of this article
  • Impeachment
  • Details on the House of Representatives' votes on Impeachment
  • Opinion polling
  • Details on opinion polling for impeachment throughout the Trump administration, and not just December 2019

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 07:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think polling should start in December 2019 and continue from there. We have at least an month or two of this thing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think also editors are going to want a Response section to handle opinions from the masses of commentators and politicians that are going to add their two-cents. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above, I think that will be the most logical and simple formating.★Trekker (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ★Trekker Teammm talk
email 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout holding off, until the 'merge' discussion has completed? There's no panic here. GoodDay (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The merge discussion is running 53% Opposed. I just finished counting. There's no consensus to merge.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham's structure for the article is fine in my book, although it could use more on the media and protests, not to mention the Trump campaign's massive spending on TV and print ads. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Pelosi Says Articles of Impeachment May Not Be Sent to the Senate

Not certain if we need to add this.. Seems Nancy Pelosi doesn't want President Trump to be acquitted of the impeachment by the senate...

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/12/pelosi-considering-not-sending-articles-of-impeachment-to-senate-until-mcconnell-agrees-to-fair-trial-report/

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/12/18/pelosi-says-articles-impeachment-may-not-sent-senate/ 74.76.202.168 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more nuanced than that. McConnell has not agreed to what Pelosi calls a fair trial; that's the obstacle. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delaying the Senate trial 'til February-March? would certainly hurt the Sanders & Warren campaigns. Anyways, seeing as Pelosi might overly delay in this situation, it should be added to the article given its historical uniqueness. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, Pelosi is not delaying this. McConnell already admitted on-air that he is not an impartial juror, and that he would not overly drag out the trial. By his own admission, he wants the trial and acquital achieved quickly so the nation can get past this, and is unwilling to negotiate on the number of witnesses he wants called for the trial. So including the information in a way that lays blame at Pelosi's door is not only disingenuous, but a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view regulations, which are in place for situations like this. If we, as Wikipedia editors, fail to strike the right tone of neutrality on this, and include all available information that is relevant, then it would be a great disservice to the reader. Regardless of where we, as individual editors, stand on the matter personally, either it all needs to be included, or none of it should be. Again, just my opinion, based on my understanding of the relevant policies. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since neither Pelosi or Schumer can force McConnell's hand. Perhaps it's all a nothing burger. So why bother adding. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because this issue is why there is not going to be a quick Senate trial. If the consensus agrees with you that none of it should be mentioned, I'd be okay with that, but the fact of the delay should be mentioned in an impartial matter if it can reasonably be so. The issue is relevant to the Trump impeachment. We have never seen an impeachment where a senior senator of the same political party as the president in question has boasted on-air about not being impartial and wanting to move quickly to acquit. Failing to mention it would violate this policy, among others, at least from my perception. If the consensus moves to not mention it, then clearly, I am alone in my assessment and may be off-base. But readers, where possible, should have an impartial accounting of the facts, which are laid out in reliable sources. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be stated that this impeachment was very partisan?007longbeach (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment to this section where it is more relevant. As for what you said, as several reliable news outlets have reported, it was only"very partisan" because most of the congressional Republicans prefer to exhibit a blind loyalty to Trump rather than voting in a way that reflects the attitude of those whom they have been elected to represent. Public opinion polls by reliable sources note that a majority of Americans polled feel Trump should face some consequences for his alleged wrongdoing. So mentioning what you said in the way you said it would violate Wikipedia's policies on reflecting information found in reliable sources and maintaining a neutral point of view. If the information you mentioned could be couched in a more neutral tone, it might be eligible for inclusion, but not using the terminology you mentioned. At least, that's my opinion, FWIW. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"blind loyalty to Trump rather than voting in a way that reflects the attitude of those whom they have been elected to represent" something like 90% of republicans think the impeachment is a farce, I'd say the republican reps are likely voting exactly the way the people they were voted in by want them to. I have no horse in this race, I don't edit. 65.27.84.231 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you say may be true on a national level, but on a state level, things are more nuanced than that. In my own home state of Utah, polling information shows that more than half of all Utahns support impeachment, and yet, of the four congressional representatives currently serving, only one, the lone Democrat from the delegation, voted in favor of the impeachment. The votes of the other 3 against it did not reflect the current opinions of their constitutants, and I suspect that Utah isn't the only state where that is the case. And overall, the opinion of the entire country is more in favor of impeachment of this president now than ever before, which is information that can be confirmed in the latest available nationwide polls. That is a clear demonstration that there are members of Congress who have more of a blind loyalty to the president of their party than a desire for their votes to reflect what their constituants are feeling. That is to what my previous comment was alluding. Hope that clears up why I said what I said. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to include the delay because it could mean that Trump has not been impeached.

I think it is important that this is included in the article since there is a strong legal argument that Trump has not been impeached until the house sends the articles to the house with their managers and prosecutes the case. [1] Technically speaking Trump has not been impeached according to the legal scholars the house democrats called to testify during the impeachment inquiry. It will also be important to include this information to explain the difference between this impeachment and past impeachments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.12.236 (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the case. There's a difference between being impeached and being removed from office. Once the House ratifies articles of impeachment by the sufficient margin, a president is impeached, but it is up to the Senate to ratify the action before the President can be removed from office. Until that time, the ratification of the charges by the House is merely seen as a slap on the wrist. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion section

I split the public opinion section of the inquiry page here, keeping only the polls relating to the inquiry itself on the inquiry page, but this edit seems to have been reverted. Is it not better to have polls about the inquiry on that page and polls about impeachment on this one? Currently the page only lists December 2019 as if impeachment polling only started then - there's no reason to only include the polls done since the conclusion of the inquiry.  Nixinova   T   C   19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The polls seemed to be colored with no legend. I would remove the colors. The way they are now looks biased. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's explained in a footnote, though it's not really based on anything.  Nixinova   T   C   20:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those who might miss the footnote: These polls are color-coded relative to the margin of error (×2 for spread). If the poll is within the doubled margin of error, both colors are used. If the margin of error is, for example, 2.5, then the spread would be 5, so a 50% support / 45% oppose would be tied. The colors selected are more like traffic light colors - green shades for Support, and reddish-pinkish shades for Oppose. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is idiotic, if it is in the margin of error, using your logic. They should have no color. Those that exceed the margin of error should be the only one using the colors. Now it doesn't just look biased, it is biased. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this video public domain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGDSG9cj0VE It's from the house floor, should be PD?

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Works of PBS are not in the Public Domain, no. -Thespündragon 01:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Victorgrigas and Thespoondragon: Not exactly. The video was recorded using cameras that belong to the House and therefore are in the Public Domain. Even the on screen graphics identifying who is speaking comes from the Clerk of the House of Representatives. (See [3]) You can't take a work that is in the Public Domain and stamp it with your logo (which itself is in the public domain because of c:COM:TOO US) then claim it is copyrighted. This video is in the public domain.
However, the question becomes more complicated with footage from other networks with more complex on-screen graphics like CNN. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Controlled by the Democratic Party

I object to edits that attempt to insert non-NPOV wording into the lead such as this and this. I invite Jdillonf to obtain consensus here for this edit before adding it back into the article in any form.- MrX 🖋 13:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; the House acted as a body. That it is controlled by Democrats is immaterial to that. Party affiliation can be discussed as part of discussing the vote totals or something. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the 'impeachment' was so blatantly farcial it has to be pointed out continually throughout the article that this exercise is a partisan exercise, and at no time should any of this article infer that Republicans had ANYTHING to do with it. It is imperative that that tone be represented. At this time the article represents the talking points of the office of the Speaker of the House and the DNC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdillonf (talk • contribs)
That Democrats control the House is immaterial to the fact that the House acted as a body. It also was not just Democrats, as independent ex-Republican Justin Amash voted in favor. Several Republican officials not in Congress have supported their actions, including John Kasich and Tom Ridge. There is also general agreement that most of the GOP caucus is simply too afraid of Trump and his supporters to oppose him openly. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NO REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IMPEACHMENT! This is the headline that has to be repeated throughout this article as a counterweight to obvious propaganda that is now spewing across the page. That no Republican voted for the impeachment is paramount in a understanding of this subject. If you want to continue to rant about your own politics, go somewhere else. This page has to instruct (this is Wikipedia, not your blog) why the Democratic Party insisted on trying to impeach President Donald John Trump five times before they succeeded.Jdillonf (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jdillonf, what is "paramount" here is that Trump attempted to unduly influence a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen. That's why he was impeached. That no Republican, save Justin Amash, of course, voted to impeach is an important detail covered in the article already. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hearsay & presumptions don't amount to concrete evidence, however. It's up to the Senate to decide if Trump's guilty or not. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concrete evidence already exists in not only testimony, but documentation, and self-admission by the administration. What isn't being decided isn't the fact of what happened. That's already known, admitted-to, well-corroborated, and established. The only thing the Senate will decide is whether or not the facts of what happened merit disqualification and removal from office. The truth exists outside of verdicts. Wikipedia just has to be careful with WP:BLPCRIME because without public backing of an indictment or conviction, not much can be said without risking legal issues. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: - Trump and the White House: key witnesses, don’t testify, don’t provide documents. Sondland blocked from reviewing calls and notes. Republicans: what a thin case you have! Where’s the evidence? Not guilty! starship.paint (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump#Previous calls for impeachment which discuss attempts prior to this successful impeachment. Also, the vote counts are labeled clearly by party in the tables. To say anything beyond the facts to frame this as a solely political move by a party would be serious NPOV violations and push propaganda. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Jdillonf (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That impeachments are partisan isn't anything new, as it only requires a simple majority vote. Republicans had the majority in the House during the 1867–69 Congress, when they impeached a Democrat (Andrew Johnson) & Republicans had the majority in the House during the 1997–99 Congress, when they impeached a Democrat (Bill Clinton). So, it's nothing unique. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should point out, in the lead and in the text, (the text already makes it clear) that the House vote was along party lines - as it already does for the Judiciary Committee vote. I see that it doesn't and I will add it. There is no need to make more of it than that. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE EXCLAMATION MARKS ARE NECESSARY. EXCUSE THEM FOR NOW. Can we all just be civil here? Why not screw the political infighting and write Facts and Information. We all have our opinions, but this is no place to discuss them. Use social media for that. What is important is that the World is full of information and mis-information on this subject. BOTH THESE things should be discussed in this article, but keep opinions out of it! Give the QUOTED opinions of person (think Mcarthy and Pelosi) that are informed on this situation, not your own. Even in the talk pages, we should remember this is an encyclopedia, not a platform for personal opinion shuffling. Mulstev (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dig it!Jdillonf (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think anybody was being uncivil. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't SHOUT. Anyhow it is not clear what you are shouting about. What specifically do you think needs to be in the article, that isn't there now? The talk page is for discussing what should go in the article. This specific discussion is about how big a point to make out of the fact that the vote was along near-party lines. IMO there is enough in the article now on that subject. --MelanieN alt (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on both points, and excuse my rashness. However, talk pages are as visible as the main article, even if they are less viewed. The discussion above is civil, bar my own screeches, but it does contain amounts of opinion, which may exist but are damaging to the fact based ideals of wikipedia. I write mainly to warn, and hopefully to remind, that there are persons always looking for ways to discredit or laugh at sources of information which are user-edited, such as Wikipedia. There is no reason to put anything on or in an article or talk page that may be damaging toward public opinion and trust of Wikipedia. Hopefully this second comment clarifies my above comment. Apologies if they be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really make much sense, talk pages are meant to discuss what people think about the article, so of course it'll have people's opinions in it.  Nixinova   T   C   21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be as objective as possible. It should include the fact that only democrats were in favor of impeachment and there was bipartisann support for Trump. You can simply cite the voting record. Any comment about what individuals outside the house thought about impeachment does nothing to make the article any more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.12.236 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, not only Democrats supported impeachment. Amash is independent, he supported impeachment. starship.paint (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment did not actually occur yet

According to articles from Bloomberg and National Review, President Trump is not impeached until the House sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Should consider revising these pages to reflect so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MugwumpSpirit110 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MugwumpSpirit110, those are opinion pieces. I don't believe those opinions are the consensus view of things. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is 1) what reliable sources say and 2) what the House itself says. Every newspaper/media outlet in the US had a variation of "House impeached Trump" as their headline. The House itself gets to determine if they impeached someone as the Constitution gives the House the "sole power of impeachment". The view that it is not valid until actually carried across the Capitol Building to the Senate(which can't be done until the session resumes on January 6th) is the opinion of those who hold that view and is not an official finding. It would be like saying your dinner is not finished until you put your plate in the dishwasher. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copy here what I said at Talk:Donald Trump: We should keep, in the lead, the affirmative statement that he has been impeached. All Reliable Sources are treating the House vote as being actual impeachment, and previous impeachments have been dated as of the House vote. But several publications have noted Feldman's opinion, published in a Blooomberg op-ed here, and reportedly the White House is considering making the argument.[4] So we could add a sentence to the House Vote section of the text, attributed to Feldman and identified as opinion. Something like "Legal scholar Noah Feldman has stated in an op-ed that it is not an actual impeachment until the report is forwarded to the Senate, and the White House has echoed the argument." Sorry, I can't add it myself; I am not at my regular computer and would have difficulty citing references. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to the US Constitution, Trump was impeached the moment the full House passed the first impeachment article & Pelosi confirmed the result. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean you are opposed to adding a sentence about Feldman's opinion - and the White House's possible use of it? Trying to get opinions here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I found the following sentence at our article Impeachment in the United States: Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". If this becomes a bigger issue than the opinion of one person, it might be worth citing that here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's been impeached, keep it in the leader. Note the name of the article itself. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping it in the lead, unqualified. My suggestion was to add a sentence to the article text. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 made a suggestion at the main Donald Trump article: we change the language to read "the House voted to impeach," and we remove "was impeached"/"third president to be impeached" and anything else like that until legal scholars resolve the controversy. While the debate goes on, I think we should stay with language that all sides agree on. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no debate, just some opinions that differ with what most other sources and the House itself says. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I would probably just say, yes, let's just go by what the majority of the reporting is saying, but this isn't an ordinary situation. It's the first time in American history that the House has refused to send articles of impeachment to the Senate after passing them, so we're in uncharted territory. Also the op-ed this morning from the House Democrats' own legal expert stating that Trump hasn't been impeached is pretty stunning, actually. In all likelihood, this will all become moot in relatively short order when Nancy finally forks over those articles...but in the meantime there is some definite ambiguity here. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has yet been withheld, the articles cannot be delivered until the Senate is back in session on January 6th. Pelosi has said she is only waiting until the structure of the trial is agreed to, so she can decide who she wants for managers. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are saying she's holding onto them for now, and she could have delivered them before the recess but chose not to until the Senate does what she wants the Senate to do.[5][6][7] Lots of language like "refusing," "sitting on," "holding up," etc. I don't think it's in contention that she's withholding the articles until her demands are met. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm
The legal meaning of “formally charged” is that charges have been filed.
Even though the house has voted to impeach, charges have not been filed. Hence Donald Trump has NOT been impeached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoMoBig (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MoMoBig Every reliable source in the United States disagrees with you, as does the House itself. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it’s about time to overthink Wikipedia’s “reliable sources”, because the word impeachment literally means that charges are filed and it is a fact that charges have NOT been filed.MoMoBig (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So now there are two law professors arguing that impeachment has not occurred. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.html 99.203.17.28 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not care about truth, per se, but the representation of truth in popular thought. Things can be clearly wrong, technically, but be considered "correct," by Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. Wikipedia editing is more of a theological discussion, than a scientific one, so don't start talking about technicalities and truths. Talk about what reliable sources think, and adjust weight accordingly. Hey, it is why your middle school teacher told you not to use Wikipedia as a source. 2601:982:4200:8C80:81BD:612A:6457:BF48 (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting question. Sadly, there is no court/legal precedent regarding it. There does seem disagreement among legal scholars so whether or not that's the case seems be hard to say. However, the longer the articles are delayed the fact of this question does become more important. So the most factual statement would be the articles of impeachment have formally been approved, and the rest of the process is in progress or pending. It's not a far fetched idea though like presidents instead of vetoing a bill have waited to sign or veto it leaving it limbo. You also have things like the 27th amendment; it's certainly possible to delay or put things in limbo by not following through processes.--50.37.100.51 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations supporting that Pelosi resisted impeachment

There's a sentence a couple paragraphs in, in the Background, that Pelosi resisted impeachment, but it didn't include citations. The line is "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi initially resisted calls for impeachment." I'm afraid I'm in a real hurry or I'd try to add these into the article, which seems locked down. I'd like to leave them here, and hope someone can include them to support the claim that Pelosi resisted call: https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/183296-2 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-1336587 174.52.240.90 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats
Categories