Talk:List of impeachments of heads of state

Title column

Why is there a "Title" column when all titles are/should be President? --213.112.65.159 (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Because the list also includes the holders of other, equivalent titles, like Warren Hastings, whose title was "Governor-General". ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Oops

There have been no completed USA impeachments.

I disagree, but I suppose it depends on the nature of the argument. Impeachment does not mean removal from office (at least in the USA). It is similar to an indictment or an arrest, for sanctions to occur (removal from office) the impeached official must be tried and convicted by the Senate (for US federal officials) or the appropriate body politic.

Clinton and Andrew Johnson were impeached but they were not *convicted* so remained in office. I suspect that is the same for many of the others in the list.N9jig (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

“Tricky Dickie” and impeachment”

The impeachment proceedings against Richard M. Nixon were not a failure at all, but were the one totally successful use of the process. In almost a quarter millennium since the constitution was ratified, he’s the only president to have resigned. It’s all about removing a president. In 1974, Nixon was removed from office by his own hand.Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Nixon is a special case and probably deserves to have a section all by his lonesome self. Impeachment of a U.S. president does not automatically remove him from office without the trial in the U.S. Senate. A number of other countries listed here are similar, in that they also require another body to actually remove its president. Going down the two recent entries listed here, the impeachment of Park Geun-hye required the Constitutional Court of Korea to actually remove him. In the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, another vote had to be taken by the Federal Senate after the Chamber of Deputies (Brazil) passed the impeachment. No, Nixon was the only one resigned before ever facing the impeachment vote, and thus should be listed separately. Otherwise (especially for international readers), he'll get buried in the list where this unique case will likely be overlooked. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

There was a Movement to impeach Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan and he resigned to avoid being impeached, should he be included in the same section? --Millionsandbillions (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing impeachment inquiries

@Wekeepwhatwekill, Zzyzx11, and Johndavies837: I believe that is all the registered users who have either added or removed something about the Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump to this article. In addition there are two IP users who have either added or removed the content.

We should probably have a discussion and hash out what sort of criteria there should be for inclusion. There is a good argument to be made that Trump should not be on this list until he has actually been impeached - i.e. the house passes articles of impeachment. That said, if that's the case than Nixon should not be on the list either, and most (or all) of the "Failed impeachment attempts" section should go. (Certainly Bush and Tyler should go in that case, although Warren Hastings should stay since his impeachment actually went to trial. I'm not sure about the others.)

On the other hand, I can see merit to including serious impeachment investigations that fall short of formal proceedings in a separate section, which is what I think is being attempted with the failed impeachment attempts section.  If we are doing that, then Trump definitely belongs. The problem there is separating serious investigations from frivolous ones. At least in the U.S., virtually every president has at least a fringe on the other side calling for impeachment from day one, and we have an article about Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, but I don't believe the efforts there ever rose to a level where they should be included on this list.

At any rate, for the moment I have commented out the section including Trump, but left the older Failed impeachment attempts section and Nixon. What are everyone else's thoughts? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, from the page history, [1], note "Ongoing impeachment attempts" regarding Pedro Pablo Kuczynski. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. You're right about Nixon, he wasn't impeached and should be removed because that's what the reliable sources say. The same thing would be true about Donald Trump.

As far as needing a criteria, I don't think we need a specific criteria for this page, we already have a criteria governing all of Wikipedia, essentially, if it's in a realiable source, it can potentially be printed in wikipedia, if it's not a reliable source that it cannot be printed Wikipedia. What do the rest of you think ? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

When I edited the page, Trump was listed under "Successful impeachments," which is factually incorrect because there hasn't been a vote yet. It seems some people are confused about what an impeachment inquiry is and isn't (not only on Wikipedia, I've seen the same confusion on social media and in a few media reports). A section called "Ongoing impeachment inquiries" sounds good to me, although strictly speaking it doesn't fit the page criteria (yet), as it is called List of impeached presidents. But the same could be said for the "Failed impeachment attempts" section. Maybe the page should be renamed to be more inclusive? Johndavies837 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

+1 I would change the first line to "This is a list of presidents or holders of other offices equivalent to a head of state who have undergone impeachment proceedings, or have been subject to formal impeachment inquiries by an overseeing body." and change the article name to "List of presidential impeachments" so as to encompass the proceedings/inquiries themselves, and not just the people subject to them or the outcomes, which differ from country to country depending on how their impeachment laws work. A sentient pickle (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I was bold and made this change. I believe refocusing the wording in the title and lead to the impeachment attempts/inquiries themselves makes more sense. This way those that succeeded, failed or are in progress can be included. A sentient pickle (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism relating to American President Donald Trump's recent impeachment

Anonymous editors have been repeatedly removing him from the list.

Sinsoto (talk) 02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

That was fast. Sinsoto (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

He should be removed from the list. The Democrats' own witness during the impeachment proceedings wrote an op-ed insisting that Trump has not been impeached until the process in the House is complete and the articles are sent over to the Senate for trial. If you have a shred of integrity, you'll remove him from the list yourself.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats 2600:1012:B165:9CCE:6194:C251:E700:C2EA (talk) 11:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I second this last edit request Keleusx (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

The Wikipedia article "Impeachment" is linked twice within in the opening sentence, one immediately after the other. I propose we remove one of the links. Which one, it doesn't matter. 47.13.147.63 (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 03:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2019

The line: "where he will likely be aquitted and remain in office" is speculative and can have a propagandist effect, and thus should be removed. It's sufficient and factual to write: "Impeached by the House of Representatives. Awaiting trial in the United States Senate." Pavlovius (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

It's a foregone conclusion that he will be aquitted in the Senate. Not including that he will likely be aquitted is lying by omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alec935 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

 Already done DannyS712 (talk) 07:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

Donald Trump needs to be removed from the Successful Impeachments list and put back on "Ongoing" since he was added too early. Per the United States Constitution impeachment is a process and not a vote, the process is not complete until the articles of impeachment have been transmitted to the senate which they have not as they are still held in the House of Representatives. Once they are transmitted Donald Trump will be legally classified as Impeached as the process for impeachment will have been completed. The status of "Awaiting Trial in the United States Senate" should also be removed as such being that the impeachment is not in the senate yet so the House still has control of it and can vote on adjustments etc... It will be awaiting trial in the senate, once its in the senate. Keleusx (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Courtesy link: this is also being discussed at Talk:Impeachment in the United States. 331dot (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Not technically impeached"

Trump's impeachment was edited to say that he was not technically impeached because the impeachment was not formally transmitted to the senate. There is a bloomberg article arguing this, but this opinion seems to be very far from a hard fact about the constitution. I believe this should either be removed, or should be reworded to say that "some have argued ..." but this opinion should not be presented as an absolute truth about the constitution

I think this article should follow the precedent of Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump in stating in the affirmative that Trump has been impeached and not present a single law professor's opinion as objective fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.23.146 (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2019

The House has the soul power to impeach, the President is not 'technically not impeached' he is impeached 2600:6C5A:6F7F:FF7C:6CFE:5E75:D6F7:183A (talk) 20:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Not technically impeached" is absolutely incorrect

From the United States Constitution: Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 provides that "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 provides that "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments"

From the wikipedia page on impeachment located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States : "Procedure At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.[19] First, the Congress investigates... 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". Third, the Senate tries the accused..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.50.75 (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Further, the Wiki Article on the Impeachment of Donald Trump has several citations making clear that Trump has been impeached. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.50.75 (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

”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.MoMoBig (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, technically impeached

Since fucking when is an opinion article a valid source for a claim here? Remove the section that says "technically not impeached." The House voted and the yeas have it. He is impeached. This is not a debate. Remove it now. Flyboyrob2112 (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)