Talk:First impeachment of Donald Trump

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the First impeachment of Donald Trump article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 14 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving First impeachment of Donald Trump was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates:

Wikipedia

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism B‑class High‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law B‑class Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics: American B‑class Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

U.S. Congress B‑class High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) Events(s).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Presidents / Government B‑class High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Problems with High crimes and misdemeanors page

Alan Dershowitz is saying ([1][2]) that one of the potential defenses for US President Trump in the next week's impeachment trial will be based on his understanding of the term "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". The US Constitution says that, "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." ([3]) Dershowitz' argument is that the current two articles of impeachment aren't accusations of treason or bribery, so the only question left is whether or not they are charges of "high crimes and/or misdemeanors". He believes that the articles of impeachment don't reach that threshold.

Based on this clip, I think we can see that the meaning of the term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is going to become something paid more and more attention to in the next few days. However, the Wikipedia article on the subject is currently made up at least in part of a copy-paste from a children's educational website ([4]) with poorly done references flung into it. I have made a simple edit on that page, but I don't know much about this subject and would like to invite people who are working here to help clean up that page so that Wikipedia has meaningful and useful content for people to read next week if this argument is deployed. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is the meaning is very debated.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Joseph Ellis

I just read this excellent commentary [5] on CNN. Among other things, it cites Joseph Ellis who is a prominent US historian (Ellis "devoted his career as a historian to studying the USA's founding generation"). He said:

Trump's chief offense is his own defense. Namely, that as president he cannot be indicted, convicted or investigated, and has no legal obligation to provide documents or witnesses when requested by the House or Senate. That means President Trump is claiming he is an elected monarch who is above the law."

I think this must be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:My very best wishes - Oppose. That doesn’t seem something to include. That cite is an opinion piece, generally something to avoid. Also, I just don’t see a large WEIGHT of coverage or any direct significance of him saying it, as he and this is not part of the impeachment. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 05:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely with Markbassett. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:40, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this all in one place at Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump#Remove opinion piece about Senate trial -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are separate topics and may have separate conclusions. TALK at an article is supposed to be about edits to that article. This thread is whether the Ellis opinion piece gets a mention here. The other article TALK is about the Senate Trial commentary isn’t part of the Impeachment inquiry at all. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Large-scale deletion

Hi,

I deleted a duplicated section in this edit here: [6] (the Public opinion section, specifically). However, Maile66 undid my edit here: [7], stating in their edit summary: "Take it to the talk page for consensus of large-scale deletion." The reasoning for the deletion was pretty straighforward, I think. The section I removed is an exact duplicate of an already existing section. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. My very best wishes (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Self-trout Well, @David O. Johnson: you were correct. It's been a very long day on my end, and I should have just left your deletion as it was. Apologies. — Maile (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. Don't worry about it. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

day by day

Hello, should the day-by-day summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Day-by-day_trial_summary include day-by-day summary of the defenders' positions through 28 of January, or does that need its own section? Kdevans (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You gnomes are slacking. For now, Be Bold and put the summaries where you think they should go. Don't make me come work on the missing days. I try to hide in AfD and do spelling and grammar. This article is a minefield like Isreal/Palestine.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

😹! too right! Kdevans (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of arguments by each side, questions in Q&A

Can we get an article to summary each side's arguments and to list the Q&A - questions and answers? MaynardClark (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do see one question that merits inclusion. When the CJ refused to read one question because it apparently named the whistleblower, it appears the Senator whose question was unread then went on national TV, named the whistleblower and then named him again in a Twitter feed. Pbmaise (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had been thinking of a chart, and ALL the questions can be found at the Congressional Record site, along with the archived on demand video of days 1-11 and the transcription of text; Q&A is distinguished by each of the questions posed during the two days of questioning. https://www.c-span.org/impeachment/ Building an archival article is not impeded by lack of readily-accessible and easy to copy ('cop') resources. MaynardClark (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:MaynardClark Thanks, but I’ll propose instead it should state the event of a Q&A and what it generally was, then just point to the Congressional Record. Each question just wasn’t noted that much, ‘answers’ tended to be long, and frankly looked like a number just rehashed topics or were playing to the cameras. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ton of videos clips of the impeachment trial here

https://twitter.com/HouseIntel This tool can download them: https://www.savetweetvid.com/ This tool can upload them: https://tools.wmflabs.org/video2commons/

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is the right article for that. Impeachment trial of Donald Trump would be a better article to post these clips. They would fit in better with that article. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment of Donald Trump

According to Article II Section 4 of the US Constitution, Donald J Trump, the 45th President these United States of America has not yet been impeached. The Constitution, Article I, Section 3: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. Since as of today, February 3rd, 2020, the Senate has not yet voted to impeach President Donald John Trump he has not yet been impeached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert911M (talk • contribs) 17:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert911M I suggest you read the part of the Constitution that says the House has the 'sole power of impeachment', not the Senate, which has the power to "try" the impeachment. Trump is impeached, this is unalterable by the Senate. The Senate is deciding whether or not to convict him. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BREAKING NEWS: Trump is still your president, libtards! TRUMP 2020!