Talk:First impeachment trial of Donald Trump

Infobox

Since the trail was not finalized until tonights vote, I changed the date in the infobox of this page for December 18, 2019. However I have noticed the Impeachment of Donald Trump infobox still has September 24, 2019 as the date so feel free to change it. Leaky.Solar (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The infobox/image/page is missing links to relevant people ( Joe Biden and Zelensky in particular ) FrequencyZero (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@FrequencyZero:  Added to the image caption of Template:Trump–Ukraine scandal. The links to the relevant people are also in the "People" section of the template. GoingBatty (talk) 02:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Is this article crystal ball?

First, I want to state that I am not asking this question with any political motivation, but rather one of factual accuracy. I am also aware that we are authors to an encyclopedia, and not doing original legal research.

With these disclaimers out of the way, what happens with this article and the Impeachment article (no pun intended) if the articles of impeachment are either never delivered or delivered with extensive delay. Bloomberg News has opined that the President is not impeached until articles of impeachment are delivered. The Senate most likely won’t call the Chief Justice for a trial until delivery of the articles. 2606:A000:C1C6:CEF0:798E:ECF0:E61F:430 (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary - Propose Reintegration

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The primary discussion on this issue is currently at Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump#Merge and Reintegrate. Please redirect comments there. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

---

This is completely unnecessary to break the single article we had into three articles, which breaks all precedents we have with US impeachment articles. We don't need three or two, just one. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 02:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

The article should be AfD'd, as we don't have articles called Impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson or Impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 19 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.

Allegedly, the consensus was to merge until the trial started

Well, the start of the trial was announced to be tomorrow. In the morning, to be exact. So it's been revived.

To answer a complaint from just before it got taken down, There are no precedents, as the last two impeachment trials preceded the invention of wikipedia. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... What is the reason, is there another page? If so, please leave a wikilink to there. --X1\ (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

David O. Johnson, where is the deletion discussion that led to the deletion of this article? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I've declined the G4 CSD. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, this article should be merged into the Impeachment of Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It shouldn't for the following reasons: The "impeachment of" article was on the way to becoming too long. If they immediately vote to dismiss all charges this afternoon, we should revisit the topic, but none of the news reports suggest that the vote, if it takes place, will pass. therefore, leave it.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Aesthetics

The replacement of the Judge Roberts chart left the section looking awful. The reason that it is different than the Managers and Defense council charts, is that there are a whole bunch of each and only one of him. We have to consider page design. While in some circumstances negative space is a good thing, it is not here.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

What changes do you propose? WittyRecluse (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

First off, we find more pictures. There is no picture of Pat Cipollone, and he's white house counsel, a major player in both government and the trial. There should be a creative commons portrait of him somewhere. Same with the rest of the defense team. I'm going to be putting back the thing I did for Roberts. The reason is that it's about who he is. That he became CJ under Bush jr, is relevant. We should also have a number of pictures on the left. It just doesn't look good if the text is on the left and the pictures are on the right.

We should also have the votes in a chart. On a day by day basis. If there are no votes, fine, but if there are lots of them, have them all in a box for that day together. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I originally asked myself why this section was called athletics...

I agree that there should be votes on day-by-day basis for this sub. At least the "major" votes during the impeachment, the ones that set the rules, subpoena witnesses, acquit, etc.. TwoEvenPrimes (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Introduction

The following might be a better replacement for the current introduction:

The Impeachment trail of Donald Trump is an ongoing tribunal court of the US Senate that will judge Donald Trump, the current President of the United States, against the charges brought to it by the House of Representatives (known as the Articles of Impeachment).

And furthermore, it would be good to explain, in simpler terms, what an impeachment and impeachment trail is, essentially comparing the two to a "charge/accusation" and "court".

Tsukide (talk) 07:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I preferred the earlier version. This is too wordy.David O. Johnson (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with David O. Johnson. Per this guideline, among others, the precedent seems pretty clear. If we overcomplicate things with confusing definitions that are unneeeded (rather than the links to articles that are otherwise self-explanatory), we are not doing our jobs well as Wikipedia editors. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Central argument

I've taken this from "Background":

A central argument of Trump's legal team is that the articles of impeachment did not charge the president with a crime and that abuse of power is not in itself an impeachable offense. This reasoning has been roundly rejected by legal scholars, including Trump's attorney general Bill Barr, who before taking office wrote a 2018 memo to Trump's Justice Department and legal team advising that abuse of power is an impeachable offense.

First, this isn't part of the "Background". Secondly, we don't know what Trump's legal team's arguments will be. Thirdly, it is written in a POV way.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, we do know what their arguments are, at least what they plan to argue with, based on their memo and response to the managers memo, just saying.Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, the first page after the cover sheet of the Trump trial brief references: House Democrats’ Novel Theory of “Abuse of Power” as an Impeachable Offense Subverts Constitutional Standards. It's not at all a novel theory, it's the broad consensus of legal scholars, as the cited source (and others that can be provided) states, and as the president's chief legal officer concurs. So we know what their central arguments are. It is not POV, it's an accurate representation of what the reliable source says. The edit should be restored, if only to a different/new section. soibangla (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "roundly rejected" and the reference to Barr contradicting himself are POV. It is not worded in a neutral way. If the article refers to the memo, it should do so explicitly.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Evidently you have not read the source, sentence one of which reads: Scholars have roundly rejected a central argument of President Trump’s lawyers that abuse of power is not by itself an impeachable offense. The edit does not say Barr contradicted himself, because the source doesn't say that, and even if it did, it wouldn't be POV, it would be a simple fact. If the article refers to the memo, it should do so explicitly It does. soibangla (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the article does have "Trial memorandum" section, and I know see that you inserted this same information there, which is all the more reason to remove it from the "Background" section. I haven't been able to access the source, but I don't doubt what you say. However, the NYT does not have a policy of neutrality. In any case, the Senate will determine this issue, not legal scholars.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

If his attorneys are asserting something that distorts the truth or is an outright lie, then weight should in turn be given to pointing out that those assertions are such. Not doing so is what would be POV. And the Senate doesn't determine what is or isn't "impeachable", they only determine removal or no removal. Persistent Corvid (talk) 04:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think Trump's lawyers are distorting the truth or lying; they are just advancing a position which appears to be rejected by the consensus of legal scholars. There's nothing wrong with noting this, as the article currently does, but this needs to be kept in perspective. Many lawyers have referred to a minority view and won the case. In the end, legal scholars will be assessing the outcome of this trial, and it will recorded in textbooks. No one, not even legal scholars, will care about the opinions of legal scholars given as the process unfolded. American law is not made by legal scholars. It is made by Congress and the other legislatures, and by the courts. In this case Congress is a court. The most important thing to do is to record how Congress votes — House and Senate — not what pundits opine, not how the polls swing, not how the groundhog grunts.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

NYT does not have a policy of neutrality The NYT is one of the most reliable sources on the planet. If anyone challenges this, then there would be no reliable sources at all for anyone to cite and WP might as well just shut down. I don't think Trump's lawyers are distorting the truth House Democrats’ Novel Theory of “Abuse of Power” as an Impeachable Offense Subverts Constitutional Standards is very clearly a distortion of the truth. Trump's attorneys are the ones asserting novel theories. soibangla (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Even if that is true, there is no reason to duplicate the information.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

References

add public opinion polls on evidence?

57% of Americans say House managers should be able to introduce new evidence in Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, per Majority Support Allowing New Impeachment Evidence Monmouth University Polling Institute X1\ (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

The opinion polls are irrelevant. We should concentrate on the trial. After the verdict we can document public reactions.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: aside from it being your personal opinion (that being irrelevant) please elaborate with a policy or guideline explaining why opinion polls by RS (which actually do relate to the Senate trial) are "irrelevant". —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:ONUS.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Considering this is a political process and this is the USA and Congress works for the people of the USA, I would say that the opinions of citizens do in fact matter and the polls of such do deserve inclusion. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Upland: yep, so next time how about you say that instead of spouting your own opinion (which is irrelevant anyway)? I’ll make sure to add the opinion polls in when I get the chance today. Thanks —MelbourneStar☆^talk 00:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I have done political polls before...they were obviously biased...just stating a fact..others may not be..i see no reason to include any polls of any kind here or anywhere in Wikipedia unless they can be somehow verified as completely neutral... DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN !!!! 2600:1702:2340:9470:C0CB:B34E:3450:979F (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

We are far removed from the errors of the DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN days. I am not saying polls are always right and we know "house biases" exist, but looking at metaänalyses can be useful. What I worry more about is cherry-picking polls. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Mmm not so long ago polls were wrong. The election polls showed Hillary with a big lead over Trump, but the votes were different. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude generally. These are not part of the trial so WP:OFFTOPIC. Also, they are ad hoc events of low WP:WEIGHT and not common or meaningful. In contrast, the approval rating is widely known and understood, is done repeatedly, and has been done for many presidents. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

All I`m saying is I did quite a few of them and they were absurd... 99% plus wouldn`t even take the calls..they read like comic books...what I got is we were reading to the National Inquire audience...they were always skewed and the fact is they were really a form of candidate campaigning " Because OBAMA care is a failure are you voting Republican ? " Why do you believe polls are different now than in the past..if anything they`re worse 2600:1702:2340:9470:C0CB:B34E:3450:979F (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• There’s also the issue of polls coverage by WEIGHT - and BALANCE, and what specifically. Would seem to mean including % on having Bolton, % on having Biden, % on having Zelensky. Or if the poll is on the % for Democrats getting to call witnesses, then we’d also list % on Republicans getting to call witnesses. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Include polls, per PersistantCorvid. While polls commissioned by a campaign or PAC are often biased and/or contain loaded questions, reputable pollsters do not have such a track record. And yeah, polls showed Clinton with a lead over Trump and...more people voted for her. --WMSR (talk) 21:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, polls that come from reputable pollsters should be included to demonstrate public opinion for added context. Persistent Corvid (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

All polls commissioned by a campaign or a PAC are biased..that`s why they do them...they should not be included here unless they can be verified as neutral 2600:1702:2340:9470:11FF:81AB:162B:E03D (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

By "reputable pollsters" I was referring to pollsters not tied specifically to a PAC or campaign... I wasn't indicating otherwise. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain WMSR meant the same thing, also, regarding reputable pollsters. Persistent Corvid (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

PersistantCorvid, that is correct. --WMSR (talk) 02:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I`m a leftist...the CNN poll should not be there 2600:1702:2340:9470:3D3D:C54B:8709:80F (talk) 04:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The CNN one can stay, because their pollster, SSRS, is in fact reputable and isn't any less so than Gllup, which is rated with slightly more conservative bias. Whether you're leftist or rightist doesn't matter. Persistent Corvid (talk) 05:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

add public opinion on Trump encouraging foreign interference in U.S. elections?

51% of Americans say Trump has encouraged interference in U.S. elections. 41% say the U.S. is not prepared to keep the 2020 election safe and secure from outside interference, per NPR Poll: Majority Of Americans Believe Trump Encourages Election Interference. X1\ (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude. Not part of the impeachment trial. Besides, for balance there would need to be something like % of Americans who think Democrats are impeaching to try and influence the 2020 elections, or how many think Democrats would impeach regardless of what inquiry found. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Exclude, those questions aren't specifically pertinent to the article Persistent Corvid (talk) 07:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

How man Democratic amendment proposals.

How many Schumer amendments are there? Could we have this info placed in the article. GoodDay (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, there were 11 proposed amendments. GoodDay (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly bias?

closing due to the discussion being an WP:RSN matter soibangla (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Trump attorneys Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow made significant false statements that had previously been asserted by Trump supporters, but debunked. Cipollone asserted, that Republican House members 'were not allowed' to participate in closed-door hearings, when in fact all Republicans who were members of the three investigating committees, were allowed to attend the hearings, and many did and questioned witnesses" Sounds very much like taking sides and unencyclopedic. The only two sources are AP (sounds fine) and Vox (widely known to be biased).. I think needs more POVs.114.29.224.73 (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC) AP is heavily slanted toward the left also, but the difference is that they tell their readers that they are non-partisan. Vox admits that their content is by the left, and for the left. Media sources sympathetic to Democrats should have their views represented in the article, but right-leaning media stories should be represented as well. Architeuthidæ (talk) 15:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC) @Architeuthidæ: AP isn't heavily slanted toward the left, but WP:RSP allows for a wide variety of source representation based on editor consensus, including AP, Vox, Fox, and quite a few sources from the left and right sides of the spectrum. Even this article cites all three of those. I'm sure another perspective on that issue would be helpful (WP:NPOV), so if one of y'all wants to make a minor edit you should. That being said, I don't think that statement is really biased - The Republicans who were on those committees were allowed to attend closed-door hearings alongside the Democrats on those committees, and ALL members of the House who weren't on those committees couldn't attend (Democrats and Republicans alike). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Architeuthidæ, you think the Associated Press has a left-wing bias? Facepalm – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2020 (UTC) To Thadeus: I disagree with the voters on the MediaBiasFactCheck website. This recent article from AllSides on AP's recent blaming of America for Iran blowing up a jet was quite interesting, though:[1]. I wrote to agree with the sentiment that this article is biased toward the left, like all politics-related articles here, but now that you mention it I should take a look and see how it could be improved to comply with NPOV. Seems like a disagreement of how to characterize the hearings, rather than a "Democrats are truth-tellers, whereas Republicans are lying dogs" black and white type of situation. Architeuthidæ (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC) To Muboshgu: Yes, I do. I think the fact that their lies and false reporting only damages Republicans, and almost never goes against Democrats, speaks volumes. I'm not sure why someone disagreeing with you on the media being beacons of truth and neutrality makes you pull out facepalm emojis, but I could provide you with several fake and/or highly misleading articles from AP if I thought it would influence your convictions. Last time we talked, I believe you were telling me how much you rely on NPR and defending Nancy Pelosi sitting on the impeachment articles for a month. Architeuthidæ (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Architeuthidæ, because if you're going to disparage unbiased sources as biased, you're not going to be joining consensus as your perception of what is biased is significantly skewed. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Whose consensus? Skewed from whose views? Most Americans don't trust the media[2]. Journalists overwhelmingly self-identify as liberals[3] (emphasis on the fact that these are just the ones who admit it), and 96% of political donations from journalists went to Hillary Clinton in 2016[4]. So this idea that these people who work at media conglomerates are "unbiased" and anyone who says otherwise has a "skewed" perception doesn't really have any basis in reality. Per opinion polling, if you trust the media and think these companies aren't biased, you hold the minority view. So again - whose consensus are we talking about? Architeuthidæ (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC) It's the consensus of editors on Wikipedia. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Architeuthidæ, you can see the consensus on WP:RSP, it explains the reasoning and how the community came to that decision. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC) I added additional sources as they caught up to the story. If anyone is going to assert that AP is heavily slanted toward the left then no source can ever be considered reliable and we might has well just shut WP down. Hope that helps. soibangla (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Not true at all. If AP is reporting something that other left-leaning outlets agree upon, as well as right-leaning outlets, it's highly likely that the reporting is true. If AP is exclusively reporting something that other companies can't verify or is just flat-out false, such as this fake story[5], this fake story less than a month later[6], this fake story[7], or this fake story[8] for example, then editors would do well to verify the claims of AP's journalists before using them in a Wikipedia article. No need to shut Wikipedia down - but we need to be really careful when we use partisan sources, especially when most people don't trust the media. It's also unhelpful to criticize people who correctly note the existence of media bias and the fact that journalists almost exclusively support one political party. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Architeuthidæ, AP is not a partisan source. All media outlets make mistakes, only the best ones issue corrections like the AP did. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC) I disagree. It is perfectly normal for two intelligent, rational people to see the same issue in completely different ways. But since you brought up the fact that AP was forced to issue corrections, did you happen to notice that each correction was issued to repair a negative story about the Trump administration rather than a negative story about Democrats? This isn't an accident. I didn't cherry pick. The fact that journalists are overwhelmingly self-identified liberals and Democrat donors, and false stories overwhelmingly run against the Trump administration and/or conservatism (sometimes irreparably, as in the case of the Time magazine cover of a random girl crying[9]) and rarely go against the Democratic Party is too glaring to ignore. The "everybody makes mistakes" rationale would carry much more weight if these "mistakes" harmed both sides at an equally frequent rate. Like everyone else, I am sometimes and even often wrong. If I am presented with evidence that AP writers are immune to their biases, I will be the first to apologize and admit that AP should be regarded as the pinnacle of unbiased journalism. Architeuthidæ (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Nobody is immune to biases, but AP is as good as they come. If you really disagree, go to the WP:RSN and propose it be deprecated. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Some perspective is needed here. As a news service, AP generates many hundreds if not thousands of stories each day, more than just about any other outlet, so their error rate is infinitesimal, and it's highly likely that over the years they've corrected stories in favor of both liberals and conservatives. In any event, your point is now moot due to additional sources being added. soibangla (talk) 22:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Architeuthidæ, You gave sources stating that the AP made corrections to those various reports... a source correcting itself is one of the criteria for being a Reliable Source. If they were so biased then that wouldn't happen. For comparison, how often does one hear about Breitbart correcting its false assertions? I don't think I've ever, hence one of the reasons why Breitbart is not a RS. Persistent Corvid (talk) 22:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC) I addressed this after Muboshgu made the same argument above. The criteria for objectivity isn't "often issues corrections after publishing false stories." Those are two separate issues. Part of the reason that AP is acknowledged as a left-wing company is that their "mistakes" are always harmful to Republicans and/or helpful to Democrats - this trend is independent of whether or not they later acknowledge these mistakes. As far as Breitbart goes, this was the second search result after typing "breitbart issues correction" into Google: [10]. I certainly think one could make an argument for Breitbart being unreliable. Perusing that list of perennial sources, however, readers will note that deeply left-wing sources and attack sites are almost universally accepted as shining achievements of objective journalism (Slate, Vox, Vanity Fair, SPLC, to name a few) while mainstream conservative-leaning publications are regarded as fake news 4chan-level blogs, spreading conspiracy theories for the deplorable survivalist wackos. A couple of the notes are real gut-busters, too. From The New Yorker's summary: "Editors note the publication's robust fact-checking process." And this gem from CNN's: "Some editors consider CNN somewhat biased, though not to the extent that it affects reliability." I feel like I've gotten far off topic from the topic of this page. Is there an area or forum where I can voice my concerns about reliable sources? I would love to know the ideological breakdown of the panel that decided that CNN's reporters don't allow their biases to influence their coverage. Architeuthidæ (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC) Architeuthidæ, WP:RSN. That's the place to debate sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC) Bias Bob6667 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox image

We may have to update the infobox image, to include the House managers & Defence team. Beginning January 21, those two rectangle tables have been (temporarily) replaced by the slightly rounded larger tables. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2020

Also on January 20, Trump attorneys released a 110-page trial memorandum.[63] The memorandum asserted the impeachment was illegitimate and the president should be immediately acquitted because he was not accused of violating any specific law and that abuse of power is not in itself an impeachable offense. This reasoning has been roundly rejected by legal scholars,[64] including Trump's attorney general Bill Barr, who before taking office wrote a 2018 memo to Trump's Justice Department and legal team advising that abuse of power is an impeachable offense.[65] As a Trump legal team member, prominent constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz also argued that proof of a crime is required to impeach a president, though during the 1998 impeachment of President Clinton he asserted, "It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty. You don’t need a technical crime," adding, "We look at their acts of state. We look at how they conduct the foreign policy. We look at whether they try to subvert the Constitution." After video of his statements surfaced as the Trump trial began, Dershowitz retracted his earlier position.[66][67]

On January 21, House trial managers released a 34-page reply to the Trump trial memorandum. With respect to the charge of abuse of power, the reply summarizes the House argument that it has proven that President Trump corruptly pressured Ukraine to interfere in the Presidential election for his personal benefit and expresses the House view of why that abuse of power is a quintessential impeachable offense. With respect to the charge of obstructing Congress, the reply summarizes its view of how President Trump's claim of transparency conflicts with facts, how President Trump categorically refused to comply with the House's Impeachment Inquiry, and why President Trump's assertion of immunities does not excuse his categorical obstruction. Finally, the House argues that the Constitution does not authorize President Trump to second guess the House's exercise of its "sole power of impeachment" and that the House Impeachment Inquiry was a fair process. Hopenottoopicky (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

[Note to editor: Explanation of proposed change

The section titled "Trial memoranda and responses" is not complete. An important document is missing and should be included at the end of the section. The document is Reply Memorandum of the United States House of Representatives in the Impeachment Trial of President Donald Trump, dated January 21, 2020. See link:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6712-house-response-white-house-brief/4ff3c8790f9777918b53/optimized/full.pdf#page=1?te=1&nl=impeachment-briefing&emc=edit_ib_20200122?campaign_id=140&instance_id=15359&segment_id=20528&user_id=fe5c4ee371815ff376a160445647a373&regi_id=5508666520200122

The following, the text of which is drawn from the Table of Contents of the document, should be added as a paragraph at the end of the section "Trial memoranda and responses," as shown in the shown in the suggested change field above:

On January 21, House trial managers released a 34-page reply to the Trump trial memorandum. With respect to the charge of abuse of power, the reply summarizes the House argument that it has proven that President Trump corruptly pressured Ukraine to interfere in the Presidential election for his personal benefit and expresses the House view of why that abuse of power is a quintessential impeachable offense. With respect to the charge of obstructing Congress, the reply summarizes its view of how President Trump's claim of transparency conflicts with facts, how President Trump categorically refused to comply with the House's Impeachment Inquiry, and why President Trump's assertion of immunities does not excuse his categorical obstruction. Finally, the House argues that the Constitution does not authorize President Trump to second guess the House's exercise of its "sole power of impeachment" and that the House Impeachment Inquiry was a fair process.]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopenottoopicky (talk • contribs) 10:04, January 25, 2020 (UTC)