Jump to content

Talk:Efforts to impeach Joe Biden

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.41.136.212 (talk) at 00:48, 29 March 2023 (→‎2023 Impeachment Forum: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden into Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. I think that the content in the first article is about the same exact thing in the Efforts to impeach Joe Biden article, the first one also contains content that is missing in Efforts to impeach Joe Biden article. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The merge cannot take place until the Afd has completed.

  • Support; there is no formal impeachment inquiry at this time. The proposed target also contains information not covered in the article proposed to be merged. BD2412 T 02:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, We should split it if it gets any real traction, which it won't. 777burger talk contribs 03:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; Greene filed Articles of Impeachment, not an inquiry. Unless this goes somewhere (which I'd be truly shocked if it does) it's better to merge. Jonmaxras (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - It appears to be the norm these days, immediately begin impeachment efforts against the other sides' leader. GoodDay (talk) 03:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: No inquiry has begun, as that requires the House committees to hold hearings/meetings on them. Numerous articles of impeachment were filed against Trump each year of his presidency, but articles were only created for the two times formal proceedings were initiated. TheSubmarine (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: we do not need duplication of this political theatre. KillerChihuahua 06:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Until there is a formal impeachment inquiry in the House I don't see a reason for the split. Volteer1 (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There's no reason for two pages that say essentially the same thing to co-exist. TJD2 (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Since there is no reason for 2 pages. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As above 2 pages on a single topic can lead to chaos, as they may diverge and contradict one another. Geo Swan (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support: This is not an impeachment, and may not ever be. However, Greene filed Articles of Impeachment, which should be noted in the Efforts to Impeach Joe Biden article. (I made a more extended comment on the other discussion page about this matter, the AfD discussion for Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden, per existing WP articles for Efforts to impeach X for X = Bush through Trump.)--FeralOink (talk) 07:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it hasn’t already been done, I support SRD625 (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm for a full-on deletion with no redirect. There is no inquiry, nor has there ever been. To have such a redirect sort of implies that is not the case. SecretName101 (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Forget the redirect; both articles should be deleted on the spot. The notability for this topic goes far below the threshold of inconsequential. It can be briefly mentioned on Impeachments of presidents of the United States. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 17:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Right now, it's a singular effort to impeach Joe Biden, and while I think it's possible that over the course of four years, we'll probably get another, I'm not sure if what has currently happened meets notability for anything more than a subsection on the Impeachments of presidents of the United States HunterAlexBrown (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I oppose as no such impeachment inquiry exists. Only an impeachment inquiry exists until the House Speaker announces one re: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's reasonable idea to merge "Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden" into "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden" as it's the current situation and it would be the suitable subject for this case Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closed as delete. All usable content is in this page.  Nixinova   T   C   01:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POV

I've tagged this with POV as some of the language and content is clearly skewed against Biden. For example, 'Joe Biden's alleged wrongdoing' (which would be more neutrally worded as something like 'Allegations of misconduct') currently reads The Biden–Ukraine theory is a series of merited claims, directly in contradiction with the (much better sourced) article on the conspiracy, the opening sentence of which is 'The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation that.... If I have the time I'll come back and rewrite it, but if someone is able to fix it in the meantime it'd be much appreciated. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 13:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

POV is hard to get since majority of RS either praise Biden or curse Biden. Maybe use what AP News says. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had another look and the NPOV violating content was inserted by an IP editor, which I missed when adding the tag. I've reverted the IP's edits and removed that tag. Jr8825 • Talk 13:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Change "The impeachment articles" to "Impeachment articles by Marjorie Taylor Greene"

I believe that we should change the section title "The impeachment articles" to "Impeachment articles by Marjorie Taylor Greene" I recall, even when there was only a single series of impeachment that had been announced for Trump's second impeachment, we still referred to them by the author's name, rather than simply as "the articles". SecretName101 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Though Marjorie Taylor Greene is a conspiracy-theorizing lunatic, renaming it as such sounds like a terrible idea, as the subject matter is Biden. I support simply deleting this page until there is something substantial to go off of. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 19:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mainly looking at Efforts to impeach George W. Bush, where we refer to them as the "Kucinich–Wexler impeachment articles". SecretName101 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the statement "false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma", I recommend that the word FALSE be removed. There is no evidence that the allegation is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.91.226 (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've revamped the page, including a change that somewhat implements this ("effort by MTG")  Nixinova   T   C   02:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add the FBI government source of them investigating Joe and Hunter Biden for the Ukraine dealings.

https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HSGAC_Finance_Report_FINAL.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.245.198 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2021

Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory Further information: Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory The Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory is a series of unevidenced claims centered on the false allegation that while Joe Biden was vice president of the United States, he engaged in corrupt activities relating to the employment of his son Hunter Biden by the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.[1]

First impeachment trial of Donald Trump Main article: First impeachment trial of Donald Trump Further information: Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal In February 2020, Iowa Senator Joni Ernst suggested that if Biden were elected, he could be impeached over alleged dealings with Ukraine.[2]

I think this door of impeachable whatever has been opened. ... Joe Biden should be very careful what he's asking for because, you know, we can have a situation where if it should ever be President Biden, that immediately, people, right the day after he would be elected would be saying, 'Well, we’re going to impeach him'.[2]

In Trump's defense during the trial, Florida attorney general Pam Bondi dedicated most of her time discussing the motive behind Trump's actions, citing the unevidenced conspiracy theory involving the Bidens and Burisma, saying, "We would prefer not to be talking about this. But the House managers have placed this squarely at issue, so we must address it." She repeated allegations that Joe Biden had sought the removal of Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin, who was ostensibly investigating the firm that employed Hunter Biden, though this action was in agreement with the foreign policy of the United States and other Western governments towards Ukraine at the time. Bondi did not mention that both Western governments and non-governmental organizations had sought Shokin's removal because they believed he was corrupt and that the Burisma investigation had gone dormant under him.[3] Bondi also falsely asserted that The New York Times reported in 2015 that Shokin was investigating Burisma and its owner.[4]

Inauguration of Joe Biden Main article: Inauguration of Joe Biden On January 13, 2021, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA.) stated that she would file articles of impeachment against Joe Biden alleging abuse of power on January 21, 2021, the day after Biden's inauguration, further stating in an interview that "We cannot have a President of the United States that is willing to abuse the power of the presidency and be easily bought off by foreign governments, Chinese energy companies, Ukrainian energy companies".[5]

On January 20, 2021, Joe Biden was inaugurated as the 46th president of the United States. Senator Kamala Harris was sworn in as the Vice President of the United States.

The impeachment articles Wikisource has original text related to this article: Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against President Joe Biden Main article: Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden The six articles of impeachment were filed less than thirty hours into Biden's term. Greene alleged that Joe Biden "will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family's pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies."[6] The articles additionally state that Biden abused his power during his tenure as Vice President of the United States by allowing his son, Hunter Biden, to siphon cash off foreign powers such as Russia and China.[7]

Biden has denied being involved in U.S. foreign policy related to his son's work. A Senate Republican investigation in 2020 found no evidence of wrongdoing, hearing "witness testimony that rebutted those charges"


To

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced articles of impeachment against President Joe Biden for his corrupt actions involving his quid pro quo in Ukraine and his abuse of power by allowing his son, Hunter Biden, to siphon off cash from America’s greatest enemies Russia and China.

Congresswoman Greene released the following statement:

"President Joe Biden is unfit to hold the office of the Presidency. His pattern of abuse of power as President Obama's Vice President is lengthy and disturbing. President Biden has demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to bail out his son, Hunter, and line his family's pockets with cash from corrupt foreign energy companies.

President Biden is even on tape admitting to a quid pro quo with the Ukrainian government threatening to withhold $1,000,000,000 in foreign aid if they did not do his bidding. President Biden residing in the White House is a threat to national security and he must be immediately impeached."

The case against President Joe Biden is vast and detailed:

Joe Biden abused the power of the Office of the Vice President, enabling bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, by allowing his son to influence the domestic policy of a foreign nation and accept various benefits—including financial compensation—from foreign nationals in exchange for certain favors.

The evidence of widespread knowledge, corruption, and collusion on behalf of the Biden family with foreign nationals is clear and compelling.

As Vice President, Joe Biden was the senior Obama Administration official overseeing anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. Hence, any illegal activity involving corruption conducted by Hunter Biden within or in relation to Ukraine would fall under the purview of the Office of Vice President Biden and the Obama State Department’s anti-corruption efforts. In fact, many State Department officials within the Obama Administration repeatedly registered reservations about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of a corrupt company. Thus, any instances of corruption on behalf of Hunter Biden via his role as a board member of the Ukrainian-operated Burisma energy firm were intentionally not investigated or covered up.

In 2016, Ukraine’s top anti-corruption prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had an active and ongoing investigation into Burisma and its owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. At the time, Hunter Biden continued to serve on Burisma’s board of directors. According to news reports, then Vice-President Biden “threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss [Shokin].” After that, Ukraine’s Parliament fired Shokin.

During his father’s vice presidency, Hunter Biden built many business relationships with foreign nationals and received millions of dollars from foreign sources, seemingly in exchange for access to his father. The financial transactions which Hunter engaged in illustrates serious counterintelligence and extortion concerns relating to Hunter Biden and his family.

President Biden gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of government. Through blatant nepotism, he enabled his son to influence foreign policy and financially benefit as a result of his role as Vice President. He supported his son engaging in collusion with Chinese Communist party-linked officials. He allowed his son to trade appointments with his father and other high-ranking administration officials in exchange for financial compensation. He permitted his son to take money from Russian oligarchs, including Elena Baturina, the wife of the former mayor of Moscow. 147.71.76.14 (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you want to switch the current text containing a half-dozen citations to reliable sources to wholly unsourced text? BD2412 T 22:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: In addition to the sourcing issue, this is extremely unlikely to go in the article because of the blatant failure to abide by WP:NPOV (in addition to being uncritically copied content from political statements, which are not reliable for anything but the opinion of their author). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, you need to provide reliable sources for statements, and word things in a way that is neither biased or misleading. Phrases like "America's greatest enemies" seldom have a place in wikipedia articles. BasicSID (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the word "the"

I removed the word "The" in the section heading "The Impeachment articles," as well as the definite article at the start of the body paragraph. I believe these to be minor changes, so I went ahead and performed the edits. However, I would also like to respect the invisible comment in the article's source by mentioning the change on this talk page. ―NK1406 talk•contribs 00:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposal

This article should be deleted, or at least merged with Taylor-Greene's. These impeachment efforts fail to meet notability criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.102.13.58 (talk) 04:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have this same discussion every ... four ... years, and it always ends up the same, as demonstrated by the continued existence of the preceding three links. BD2412 T 01:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, things like this are happening, which is apparently how the world works now. BD2412 T 01:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose SRD625 (talk) 07:12, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

This is about this edit that's been reverted as apparently irrelevant. Sources like these [1] make the link: "Greene's support of Trump continued as the president repeatedly claimed that the election had been stolen from him by Democrats." with the "stop the steal" campaign covered at that overturn article. I suppose that the article prose could make the link instead but have no time to waste on this and will let other editors evaluate. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 19:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article relates to the whole Hunter Biden-Ukraine situation and not the whole fraud hoax.PailSimon (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If he was impeached, the result would not technically be an overturn. On the other hand, this is obviously related in the chain of events, especially from the same person (some also suggested that this article should be merged in the BLP before). As noted above, sources also make the link. —PaleoNeonate – 04:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source simply mentions it, it does not tie it in with the impeachment attempt.PailSimon (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right: "Ms Greene, who is a pro-Trump election fraud conspiracy theorist" "Nobody, but nobody, was Trumpier than Greene in supporting the president’s efforts to overturn his election defeat". Of course, this should be mentioned.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now linked in prose supported by the two above sources, —PaleoNeonate – 15:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article's protection

Hi. The page itself is still semi-protected up to this day but there is no Protection Template icon on the top-right corner. What on earth could possibly be a mistake here?197.240.155.207 (talk) 17:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@197.240.155.207 I think since it went from being a redirect to being an article recently, the protection was maybe somehow removed? Perhaps because there if a difference between a protected article and protected redirect? I am not sure. I think if the article is subject to problematic editing, it'll have its protection re-added. SecretName101 (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretName101 I guess that you may have to discuss the issue with users specialized in the above WikiProjects. They may be there to help.197.240.155.207 (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Should I create a related article"?: SecretName101's quick thoughts that might help answer your question

Nobody asked, but I’m going to share some thoughts at the moment about when and if other articles on the subject of impeachment can or should be created. I’m very involved in the topic of impeachment on Wikipedia, so I have some thoughts on this and knowledge in the subject area. Obviously, this is just my opinion, and it’s also only my opinion at this moment not knowing what unexpected circumstances might occur. That said, it might help inform someone who is questioning whether to create a draft or article related to any future Biden impeachment developments that may or may not occur.

  • Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden: This should be created only once an actual inquiry had been started. From the journalistic and scholarly consensus at the moment, this either happens when a) The Speaker declares an impeachment inquiry has been launched or b) The House otherwise formally votes to launch an impeachment inquiry
    Note: The key phrase is "impeachment inquiry". Many investigations will be taken into Joe Biden, and they will be on topics that could lead to a hypothetical impeachment. That does not make those investigations impeachment inquiries.
    Be very cautious. Only once it is a mainstream consensus that an impeachment inquiry has been launched will it be appropriate to create such an article. A lone article or two mis-labeling other investigations as an "impeachment inquiry" or a comment by a congressperson (with the exception if the speaker of the house) characterizing an investigation as such does not mean that there is an impeachment inquiry.
  • Impeachment of Joe Biden: If Biden has actually been impeached, with articles of impeachment or a resolution otherwise impeaching him being adopted by a majority of the House, then it is appropriate to publish such an article.
    If there is an anticipated impeachment vote scheduled, it would be permissible to have such an article in the draft-space ready for publication. Or, alternatively, an article tentatively titled something like "October 2023 vote on articles of impeachment against Joe Biden" could be published, to be retitled if the articles pass, and potentially kept under that name or otherwise merged into this article if the articles fail to be adopted by the House.
  • Impeachment trial of Joe Biden: I think it'd be appropriate to create an article on a likely pending trial if articles of impeachment/a resolution to impeach have already passed in the House. Worst case scenario: No trial is ever held and the content is probably merged or the article retitled.
  • List of impeachment resolutions introduced against Joe Biden: the similarly-titled article for Donald Trump only exists because the article Efforts to impeach Donald Trump was so long it felt inappropriate for me to add this the content its length. Only if it makes sense to spin-off the similar content currently contained in this very article (Efforts to impeach Joe Biden) if it would necessarily spare this article of excess length.
  • Articles of impeachment adopted against Joe Biden: Only there is significant information about the creation of the articles or if the articles have complex enough subject matter to explore that a spun-off article is justifiable. Also, obviously, the articles must have been adopted to use a title identical to this. Also, first ask, "does this need to be its own article, or can this very content comfortably fit within another article?"
  • Timeline of efforts to impeach Joe Biden: If it seems there is a complicated enough series of events to justify a separate article with a timeline. Please ask yourself, though: would a timeline be better suited simply to be contained in the article "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden" rather than spun-off

If this was helpful to anyone, I'm glad. If anyone disagrees or has further thoughts along these lines, feel free to share.

SecretName101 (talk) 04:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder, we also have Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, both of which ended at the "efforts" stage, and therefore generated no related articles. BD2412 T 05:09, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412 Yes, definitely. This is just my effort to help ward-off any premature creation of related articles. SecretName101 (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Impeachment Forum

I met Joe Biden in the 2000s, and he seemed like a reasonable guy at first. I was very young getting to meet such a important political figure. However, after spending millions of dollars to have a normal life in the U.S., we figured out later that all he wanted to do was to defraud the United States government, and abuse his power. As a matter of fact the millions of dollars given to him were spent on nothing but luxury items: such as; sports cars, rvs, boats, yachts, real estate, and houses. He dealt business with the cartel as well under George Bush, during the 911 attack, and may or may not have even shot the president while duck hunting shortly after the 911. There has been lots of corruption while he has been in congress. He has even had miss dealings with China, which lead to the 2000s being some of the warmest years of this century. Although, he opened up none profits, he just used those to wash money. Not real U.S.A dollars of course. Furthermore, he had even started a local Real Estate company , in which I do not remember the location of as my memory is suppressed because of hypnosis treatment I didn't consent to by black seals from the middle east (sirach). I have still yet to get to the antidote. Next, he would lure people to these homes that bought their homes out right, just to kill them (they would pay good money to have a safe home). He would even have them under Norwegian surveillance; meaning, hidden cameras inside their home. He would knit pick their behaviors, and if he didn't like those he wanted you dead. He would even go as far as digging graves for the bodies in the backyards until families began suspicion as to where their family members ran off to, even raiding their bank accounts and paying off attorneys to sweep these missing Fortuna murders under the rug. So much suspicion was raised he had to close his Real Estate business down, go under a new alias, and reopen in a new location. As a matter of fact, one of his sons that go under a new last name now, followed in his footsteps and sold Real Estate. Joe even had multiple affairs, not being able to take responsibility for his actions; he would viciously pursue them thereafter. Being a powerful man, he would harass/ attack them and their families. Forcing them to commit high level offenses (treason, fraud, child trafficking, shootings and other high level war crimes). They told him back then, he will never hold a seat in congress again, but here he is a president committing multiple war crimes. The writer of this forum would like to remain anonymous, as my time is almost up considering he has still yet to take responsibility for his actions. He would much rather, as a Fortunist would call it, "sweeping it under the rug". 71.41.136.212 (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Efforts_to_impeach_Joe_Biden&oldid=1147126744"