Talk:Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Most of the text under "Trump and the White House", in the "Responses" section of this article, seems to be strongly biased against President Donald J. Trump, and should be rewritten with a more neutral point of view (or at least tagged as needing such a rewrite). I would like to particularly highlight the language used when referring to his responses, as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

What specific text are you claiming is biased? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I usually stay out of Wikipedia edits and I don't want to directly edit this page, but under the section for RESPONSES, the first section titled "Trump and the White House", 2nd Paragraph, 3rd sentence: "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged, but largely baseless involvement with Ukraine." I have italicized the part of the sentence that is opinion without any supporting evidence, considering Joe Biden actually bragged about what he did on Television. Because it is an opinion, I would suggest it be removed and the sentence left at: "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged involvement with Ukraine." This statement is factually correct, more neutral, and allows for interpretation by the reader instead of trying to convince them of one side or the other. This is why I put it here under "Bias." Please discuss. - Subzerox (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I've added a failed verification tag to the sentence. The sentence is awkwardly worded, but the gist of it is verifiable in numerous sources. The Bidens have been involved with Ukraine, but the conspiracy theory about the nature of their involvement is baseless (based on what is currently publicly known).- MrX 🖋 19:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The allegation of involvement isn't baseless, so we shouldn't say it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The nature of the involvement is what's baseless. In fact, it's a conspiracy theory.[1]

"Trump urged Ukraine to investigate Biden over baseless allegations regarding the former vice president's role in seeing a prosecutor ousted and Hunter serving on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma Holdings. There's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden.
— [2]

- MrX 🖋 20:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- By that logic, the accusations against President Trump would also be baseless, as there's no "evidence" of wrongdoing on the part of President Trump either, yet we're having a massive discussion about it and even threatening an impeachment. So, how about we leave out the opinions that haven't been proven either way and just let the statement that the accusation is what the Republicans and the White House are saying stand? - Subzerox (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
There's the fact that Trump has literally said he did it. I'd say that's pretty strong evidence.Vision Insider (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Subzerox: - let me make this clear: reliable sources say there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens. See below. Also, Hunter Biden was never under investigation by Ukraine, so how can his father have interfered to protect him? I’d like to see your sources on there being no evidence of wrongdoing by the president. I think a particular memorandum would count as evidence. starship.paint (talk) 00:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
John Solomon includes his documentation in his articles You can view it for yourself. I believe your statement in not accurate until there is a through review of this evidence.RBWilson1000 (talk) 06:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • BBC There is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens
  • AFP: there has been no evidence of illegal conduct or wrongdoing in Ukraine by the Bidens
  • Reuters: There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden.
  • Associated Press: there has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either the former vice president or his son
  • NBC News: But despite Trump's continued claims, there's no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of either Biden
- Even if you are so adamant on only accepting left-wing biased media as "reliable", it's still not a valid excuse for keeping an article section that's written in a tone that makes it sound like some kind of good vs. evil fairytale struggle. Sentences like "Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit impeachment." are simply unencyclopedic. Why call something a campaign to discredit when it could be a defense against false allegations? (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
87, we are not adamant about only accepting left-wing media as reliable. We are adamant that only reliable sources will be accepted. I see that Following the initiation of the impeachment inquiry, Trump and his surrogates engaged in a campaign to discredit impeachment. seems to be unsourced. I have added a failed verification tag. Could someone add a citation, or rephrase it, or remove it? starship.paint (talk) 11:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Even though there is a reference, the sentence "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son for their alleged, but baseless<reference> involvement with Ukraine" is poor. It is inaccurate. It is not "baseless" that they each had an "involvement", a connection of sorts, with Ukraine. What is baseless is the allegation that the connection involved misconduct of some kind. Can we find a better way to word this? How about "One aspect of the campaign focused on attacking Joe Biden and his son over alleged but unproven misconduct involving Ukraine." -- MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

In fact I'm going to put that version of the sentence into the article. Can be discussed here if someone objects. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Bias in lead[edit]

If you assume that 35% of Americans are "Trump's base" and that therefore (say) 20% of all voters believe in some form of a deep state and/or conspiracy theories against Trump then the lead lacks any attempt to portray that 20%. This seems to be a question of WP:WEIGHT.

WP:NPOV states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Yes, the article's title is "Impeachment inquiry..." and so one might expect the vast majority of opinions (by realiable sources) to be based on that that inquiry. But just because most of the arguments against impeachment inquiry are (in my opinion) debunked conspiracy theories doesn't mean we should ignore them in the lead if, say, 10% of reliable sources (like Fox News?) believe in those theories.

To be fair, we should include a short paragraph about the responses from the White House and the Republicans, in addition to the "Two close associates of Trump..." at the start of the last paragraph in the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 14:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Upon reconsideration, I now believe that all of the text inside the lead expresses facts, or possible facts, not opinions or responses to the facts. --RoyGoldsmith (talk)
Alternative facts ? (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Just because (in your e.g.) 20% of the population are completely delusional and grasping at straws doesn't mean they should be treated as fact in the article. Neutrality doesn't mean "have an equal amount of content from both sides of the extreme", it means "state facts and don't be partisan".  Nixinova T  C  07:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Of course there is bias in the lede. This is Wikipedia where bias is an accepted practice. My complaint. Why no mention anywhere in this story of Ukraine’s Zelensky denial of any blackmail or quid pro quo? The latest was a well documented denial by Zelensky in Kyiv where 140 news correspondents were present. After all Zelensky was on the other end of that call, he should know. I have tried inputting this information, but have gotten reverted. So, red flag, bias. 10stone5 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
10stone5, when a hostage talks about how well his or her captors are treating him or her, do we accept that at face value? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Not here to give an opinion, but either scenario is definitely possible. Maybe Zelensky genuinely believes that the call was not coercion, or maybe he was lying to stay out of trouble, but only he knows that. I despise Trump, but I know that is never an excuse to harass him (or anyone else, really). Zelensky's denial does serve as weak evidence for Trump, but again, only Zelensky knows what he meant. Let's wait and see how the evidence leading to either scenario (actual impeachment or simply a Mueller probe all over again) unfolds. After all, the corruption accusation against Trump is a serious charge. GaɱingFørFuɲ365 19:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Stupid shit like this is why I can’t wait for them to get on with the vote and for it to all be over. Trillfendi (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It is astonishing how we as a whole interpret the facts these days, and it is also scary how a few of us take those facts and raise them from a civil issue to a legal issue. Let me admit this: I cannot trust the media to report this scandal accurately, but I also cannot trust conservative media to not put a spin on it. The events are either dramatized or downplayed or even incorrectly debunked. How can anyone not find Trump's concerns about the Bidens' alleged wrongdoing without presenting evidence to be potentially harassment? On the other hand, I find Muboshgu's above comment to be dramatic, but then again, no one is saying that they are wrong, yet. One thing we all can agree on is that it is frustrating to try to get the facts right without naïvely messing them up. GaɱingFørFuɲ365 18:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nixinova, 10stone5, Muboshgu, and Gamingforfun365: Nixinova, in my opinion neutrality does mean "have a proportional amount of content from all sides based on reliable sources." I object to talk like "Of course there is bias in the lede. This is Wikipedia where bias is an accepted practice." Just because there is some bias doesn't mean we shouldn't fight against it.
Other than that diatribe, 10stone5, your point about Zelenskyy's denial is well founded. I will try to add the denial again, based on sources that everyone should agree are reliable. If this gets reverted without a good reason, I'll start an RfC. 10stone5, do you know the date and time you added your content (that later got reverted), just so I can look up what you said? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
RoyGoldsmith, readding contentious material is not a good idea. Yes, Zelensky denied being pressured by Trump, in the presence of Trump. Reliable sources talk uniformly about the pressure campaign put on the Ukraine by the Trump administration. That's what we should be focusing on. Zelensky's denial belongs in the body, but not in the lead per WP:WEIGHT. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: I think that 10stone5 was referring to a later press "marathon" (12 hours) that Zelensky had in Kyiv on October 10 (see here and here), not the meeting he had several weeks earlier in New York with Trump. In it Zelensky said that there was "no blackmail" in the phone call with Trump. I intend to put that information in the article's body, not in the lead. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
RoyGoldsmith, Even then, common sense suggests that he knows Trump is going to pay attention to what he says, and he doesn't want to be involved in the situation anymore than he already is. Putting it in the body is fine. Putting it in the lead is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Done. Also in Trump–Ukraine scandal. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

The fact that all the sources are from those media outlets which have from day 1 been opposed to the Trump government is bias in itself. The entire article reads like a cnn opinion article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The article provides sources from over 30 outlets, including Fox News, the White House, and Trump. Please feel free to suggest other reliable sources that would improve the article. GoingBatty (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"incendiary rhetoric" is completely un-encyclopedic language Akeosnhaoe (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The entire tone of this article implies that Trump is already guilty and the impeachment inquiry is just finding the results of a forgone conclusion. Looking at just this specific sentence, it determines Trump is guilty when no such logic exists. "The inquiry revolves around a phone call between Trump and Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky implying that U.S. military aid to Ukraine was to be withheld until Zelensky gave in to the aforementioned demands." In the transcript, as provided to the public, there is no such implication. Trump asked Zelensky several times to investigate corruption. Having Ukraine corruption investigating is Zelensky's duty, as president of Ukraine. Trump is also duty bound to have US involved corruption investigated, since he happens to be the President of the United States. He mentions that AG Barr will be in touch. Not only is that AG Barr's sworn duty, it's his actual job. There is no mention of the aid being tied to such an investigation. The aid was held up some time earlier exactly because of corruption concerns. This is not criminal behavior, it is international politics. "We'll, give you money. You make sure we are not wasting it." This is how international politics is done. The over use of the term "quid pro quo", as if it is some sort of crime, would be more like "give me a truck load of Cuban cigars or you're not getting your millions of US tax dollars." This behavior has legal terms, blackmail, bribery, and extortion, depending on the circumstance. "Quid pro pro" should be dropped from this article except as a reference to the original accusations. And as we now know from the public, the inquires top "witnesses" are speaking entirely from hearsay. This entire episode has been spun by anti-Trump politicians and media to look like a crime. Those same media outlets are heavily used as citations in this article. If this is a crime, then the Biden's most definitely should also be investigated, because on the surface, they look a whole lot more guilty that Trump. That an article this long and heavily bias has made it onto Wikipedia reaffirms my decision not to donate any more until the editors learn to stop injecting so much opinion into political topics. I have raised this bias issue before and at the time I swore I wouldn't get involved again, and yet here I am ... again. You'd think I would learn. WAR-Ink (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Explanation of legality[edit]

I came here hoping to find the legal precedent for the proceedings currently being conducted against the president, but most of the cited sources are statements of opinion. There should be a portion of the article written about the legality of asking a foreign power to investigate a citizen, and the related laws should be cited. (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that that should be covered, but the reporting on the legal aspects seem pretty sparse. - MrX 🖋 18:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
That topic is the subject of Foreign interference in the 2020 United States elections. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 18:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
How so, Coffeeandcrumbs? I can't see it mentioned on that page...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I completely misunderstood what OP was asking. Nevermind. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Worth noting that impeachment is not a criminal process; one does not have to break the law to be impeached. WMSR (talk) 21:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
um, high crimes and misdemeanors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
"High crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to criminal statute. It is a "purposely vague term". Our article on high crimes and misdemeanors starts with "A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice." Such as obstruction of justice. It can also include abuses of power that are not criminal offenses. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
There is already an article about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:1180:9660:4414:5D73:AE97:6D14 (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Muboshgul, you do realise that Reuters is not a law firm??? "High crimes and misdemeanours" is a legal term that the framers of the US Constitution took from the law of medieval England. There is no definitive definition, but there is a consensus that it relates to criminal activity. There has never been any conviction of a President by the Senate, so there are no precedents to say what are considered "high crimes and misdemeanours" in this context. In relation to the original question, there is clearly nothing illegal about "asking a foreign power to investigate a citizen". The US government does that all the time. Currently there is an inquiry only, and we haven't been told what the articles of impeachment are. The whole point of the inquiry is to find out what Trump did and whether he should be impeached. If the Democrats believed that he should be impeached, they could do it without an inquiry.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Jack Upland, I realize that Reuters is a reliable source giving a layman's definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors". The consensus is that activity does not have to be criminal for it to meet the definition. Just ask Lindsey Graham. “You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role,” the politician said. “Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.”[3][4] – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
What Lindsey Graham said while trying to prosecute Bill Clinton is pretty irrelevant. It seems there was never clarity on what the term means.[5]--Jack Upland (talk) 23:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
... hence the opinion of Lindsey Graham, an impeachment manager in 1998 and a member of the Senate in 2019, is pretty damned important. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Gerald Ford (cited by Reuters) said "an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history". That isn't very helpful. It doesn't tell us how the majority of the House are likely to vote. And it doesn't tell us if two-thirds of the Senate will convict. And the comments of Graham decades ago don't help either.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
From Mark R. Slusar, "The Confusion Defined: Questions and Problems of Process in the Aftermath of the Clinton Impeachment", Case Western Reserve Law Review, Volume 49, Summer 1999, pp 872–873:The narrow reading of "high crimes and misdemeanors" appears to be the most common among legal scholars and senators. Their view is essentially that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" was incorporated in order to set a very high bar for the Senate to have to hurdle in order to impeach a president. Their position is based more in advocacy of protecting the raw structural power of the executive branch rather than preserving the integrity, dignity, or moral authority of the Office of the Presidency. In his remarks before the Senate, White House Counsel Charles Ruff described the "narrow" reading and the high standard it requires as "a standard that the framers intentionally set at this extraordinarily high level to ensure that only the most serious offenses and in particular those that subverted our system of government would justify overturning a popular election. Impeachment is not a remedy for private wrongs. It is a method of removing someone whose continued presence in office would cause grave danger to the Nation." Similarly, following his vote to acquit Mr. Clinton, Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota explained that impeachment requires "great and public offenses" that directly serve to "bring our commonwealth into danger". There is ample support for such a reading in the debates of the Framers and the structure of the Constitution. A number of delegates to the Constitutional Convention opposed the notion of vesting an impeachment power in the legislature in any form. Others supported the notion of impeachment only for situations in which "great crimes were committed" against the state, or to guard against "tyranny and oppression". Further, support for the narrow reading can arguably be found in the structure of the Constitution as well. The numerous references to crime and punishment in the Constitution are argued to represent an attempt to limit the bases for impeachment to criminal conduct and, thus, prevent the misuse of power. Proponents of the narrow reading tend to restrict their examination to the objective elements of a crime. Their focus is on whether a crime was directed against the state, or an attempt to subvert the Constitution, or a "great" or "serious" offense. For instance, Raoul Berger explains that the critical element in distinguishing an offense as a "high crime" is the presence of an injury to the state... A fair assessment of the Clinton impeachment and subsequent acquittal is that the narrow reading of high crimes and misdemeanors was endorsed... Cynically, I could observe that it seems that many people take a narrow reading if they wish to defend the president of the day, and a broad reading if they wish to attack him. Graham may adopt a narrower reading if he wishes to defend Trump.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Top photo[edit]

I think we should settle this once and for all. Which photo should we use? !vote Option A / Option B. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 16:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Option A is my preferred, as it looks a lot more professionally done with all the skin tones looking natural. The other, Option B, makes his eyes look sallow, and his skin looks a bit sickly. — Maile (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This may be in part because the first is obviously slightly colour-corrected (that is, softened); the latter is probably closer to what Trump looks like in “real life”, at least when you’re photographing him in high definition. But this difference isn’t uncommon in modern professional photographs, and his official portrait certainly looks more “agreeable”. Agreed that the unmodified photo looks a bit “much”. While this isn’t a beauty contest between photographs, I’ll note that the official portrait usually ends up being the default for these type of articles, and for good reason. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • B as most recent image.  Nixinova TC   18:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
B as well. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I know this isn't policy related, but Option A makes him look like he's saying, "Ha! You can't touch me! i'm invicnicible!" I'm not going to bother to correct my typos because neither does he.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A. Same as in his biography article, where we virtually always use the official White House photo for presidents. If we are going to open up the floodgates to the hundreds of pictures of him that must be out there, we will be debating it constantly. There is something nice and final about "just use the official photograph." -- MelanieN (talk) 22:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A for now is fine, per M & M (Maile66 & MelanieN). However, if a more relevant photo emerges, that should be used. For example, a photo taken off the House floor when they vote on articles of impeachment; a photo taken during the public deposition of a prominent witness; or a photo of Trump testifying at the Senate hearing. A portrait of Trump is by far not the best lead image, but it's what we have now. - MrX 🖋 11:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A - per MrX. The portrait used is largely irrelevant, but it is used on his main article etc and no obvious reason to switch until such point as a new portrait is more significant or relevant. Koncorde (talk) 11:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B 2600:1702:2340:9470:95E2:ECE0:428:16D6 (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B because the face is a larger portion of the image. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: If we get any good screencaps of the public inquiry in the upcoming weeks we should replace it with that.  Nixinova TC   01:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    Note that screenshots of the C-SPAN footage in committee hearings are not PD. We will not get a PD photo until the whole House votes. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Option B – Because it is more recent, contemporaneous to the subject being discussed. It is also visually better to have a different photo in the infobox than the topic template right below it. Having the same photo twice seems just wrong to me. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 06:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Option A: per M, M, and M (MrX, Maile66, and MelanieN). While I do hear the arguments about using a more recent portrait, we should use the first, absent more relevant photographs. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I only added option B to the article as it's most recent and contemporary to these shenanigans, so I felt it appropriate. He looks less like a bottle of Fanta in A though. Trillfendi (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Should this be mentioned?[edit]

Rush Limbaugh said his name was accidentally disclosed. Should this be mentioned?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

No. Rush Limbaugh is not a reliable source. Not even close. - MrX 🖋 20:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't mean him. I meant his source.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
As MrX said above. UpdateNerd (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
We don't know who the whistleblower is. This is a non notable person who wants their identity to remain private, so blp rules dictate that whistleblower not be named, even if they are named in the press. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay. That is a policy related argument. I did find a source for my information--not the identity--but the idea that the name is known. I'm going to assume you don't want to do that either.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Vchimpanzee, we do you know that there is a name out there, but we don't know if it's the right name or someone being wrongly identified. It could be worth mentioning, the efforts that they are making to try to out the whistleblower, without actually outing whoever this person actually is, whistleblower or not. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
If you ask me, the identity of the whistleblower is pretty irrelevant. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The relevance of the whistleblowers identity depends entirely on your intent. If you're looking to prosecute the case of the administration withholding aid that should not have been withheld, It's not relevant. If you're looking to poke holes on the case based on specious arguments, then it could be useful. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It is also very illegal to disclose their identity.  Nixinova TC   23:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The fact that Donald Trump Jr. has tweeted a link purportedly revealing the name of the whistleblower is mentioned here. I don't think we should do any more than that. There is only one organization, not named here, that we would consider reliable that has published this name. It makes me doubt how reliable that organization is after publishing such an irresponsible article based on rumor. We need to avoid even linking on this talk page or from the article to any website that mentions the name. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:34, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME applies, including on the talk page.- MrX 🖋 03:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Which supposedly reputable news organization? Even Fox News said not to publish the name. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
The whole point of WHISTLEBLOWING is that you remain ANONYMOUS to protect your identity and protect yourself against death threats. If he decides to come forth on his own he will. But publishing his name without consent is illegal and against Wikipedia policy. Is it hard? Trillfendi (talk) 03:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Which law does Wikipedia follow?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Italicization of “and” was to separate two independent things.... Wikipedia has a policy about publishing private names of people without reliable source and if need be an administrator will redact the information so that no one can possibly see it anymore. Trillfendi (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Trillfendi: If it's revision deletion you're talking about, most people can't see the material anymore, true, but the administrators themselves (more than 1000 of them IIRC) can. (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I guess I forgot about oversight, which is different from revision deletion and does make the material inaccessible to administrators. (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
WMF servers are located in the U.S. and must obey U.S. law. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 08:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
And any other law?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
None except those that are ported over from URAA and other international treaties enacted by the U.S. Congress. This is getting off-topic. You can ask more questions at the Help Desk. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:50, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would *highly* recommend consulting with WP legal before we make even peripheral edits about this subject, unless/until it’s reported by a preponderance of reliable sources. I’m not sure if it’s illegal, but I’d rather we not even be liable. I think this would be mitigated if a multitude of reliable sources repeated it, but I’d rather not put the project at risk without consulting people on retainer to address this sort of stuff. We’ve already had to revdel dozens of contributions. My personal notion is that we shouldn’t except under the exceptional circumstances I mentioned, but I’m willing to hear people out. Still, this should be brought to the relevant people. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Given all the Prez's conflicting tweets and statements about anything, and the road that led to this impeachment process, the Prez has demonstrated he is not a reliable source on anything. What's the rush? The whistleblower has legal protection. Wikipedia is not a tabloid and not a newspaper. We have no obligation to reveal the whistleblower's identity, nor should we. Why would we be asking Wikimedia legal for a loophole to publish the name? That is not our responsibility. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Unless I missed something there is no official release or truly verifiable references that have listed their name yet. Only 2nd hand and mostly very unreliable sources have given names. Wikipedia is not a place to post innuendo of private peoples names. I'm a little shocked myself and other editors even have the justify why we should not post her/his name here at this time. ContentEditman (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Do not include -- at least hold back -- wait until/unless he goes public or something. It has become a topic since he is suspected of being part of arranging anti-Trump material with Ukraine while in the Obama White House and reportedly he had been the main driver of other 'anonymous leaks' until cycled back to the CIA. At the moment at least a few reporters and a couple congresspeople have given identifying material or name, but it seems to me that this sort of thing has happened before and WP holds back long after it is publicly known. That NYTimes says identifying material, and many mention that it’s known and findable does not make it DUE or needed to the narrative. The identity seems likely to be used to fuel “deep state” and Obama/Biden era misconduct narratives, but the name is not yet needed here. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Do not include At this point it's just a rumor, no confirmation. If it is mistaken identity, which it very well could be, we would do great harm to the person if we promoted it. IMO we would be very wrong to add, or link to, or in any way mention the name currently being bandied about. And if we see someone post it anywhere, we should immediate revert it and call for oversight suppression. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No inclusion at this point: I've also heard the rumors. It would be prudent, however, for us to err on the safe side in this matter; indeed, until and unless the whistleblower goes public, we would do well to be extremely cautious in the publication of anything surrounding such person's identity. I would remind all editors that we still are one of the most-highly visited websites in the entire world, and it would behoove us to remember that what we say matters. So let the news and others lead: we should follow. It is not our place to trailblaze, to "get a scoop", to expound on breaking news and rumor; leave that, and the consequences, to the journalists. Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 23:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Effectively moot. The Wikipedia community seems to have come to a sort of unofficial consensus per various noticeboard discussions regarding this issue. Edit filters preventing the posting of the name have been developed and approved, so I think we can put this to bed. It’s all speculation regardless, and mostly from unreliable and deprecated sources. Until such time as the source and tone of this changes, we shouldn’t include unverifiable speculation. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Legislative shutdown[edit]

The current version of the article says, "In the wake of the inquiry, the White House threatened to "shut down" all major legislation as political leverage.[1]". I feel like this is too short, because of its relative importance in the scheme of things... and also because it omits the Senate leadership's role (Senator McConnell, etc.) in preventing legislation from coming to the floor with the stated reason of wanting White House agreement in advance.

How can this article give due weight to these things? (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you suggest that we remove it or expand it? If the latter, would you propose the wording? - MrX 🖋 11:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm suggesting expanding it. How about this?

In the wake of the inquiry, the White House threatened to "shut down" all major legislation as political leverage.[1]. This position was first voiced by Trump, who spoke on September 24 of Democrats getting "nothing done" on account of "talk[ing] nonsense", elaborated by the the White House Press Secretary, and supported by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who continued his insistence on prior White House approval as a prerequisite for bringing legislation to the Senate floor.[2][3] Policy areas affected include defense spending[4] and the replacement of NAFTA by USMCA[5], although legislative progress had been stalled prior to these events. (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ a b Bennett, John T. (September 25, 2019). "White House threatens to shut down legislative process during impeachment inquiry". Roll Call. Archived from the original on October 26, 2019. Retrieved September 28, 2019.
  2. ^ "Republicans, Mitch McConnell 'want to abdicate' responsibility for gun reform, Senator says". Archived from the original on 2019-11-09.
  3. ^ "McConnell says waiting for White House gun proposal".
  4. ^ "Congressional Dysfunction Threatens To Halt Trump Defense Buildup". Archived from the original on 2019-11-09. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
  5. ^ "With impeachment looming, many wonder if Congress will get work done". Archived from the original on 11 November 2019. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
  • I've heard it put the other way around -- that nothing is getting done due to the inquiry. (As I recall, it was a sidenote in a NPR piece, mentioning DoD budget not yet done, and maybe the USMCA work). Personally, I think nothing coming out was the status even before all this, so not sure either can be said to be the cause. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett: can you find the article? I'd like to get consensus around this and place an edit request template, incorporating your source and what it says if necessary. (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
49 - Not that one, it literally was “heard” on a Saturday 2 November NPR episode. And googling in the area of impeachment finds a jungle of hits. I did google “Congress busy not passed Defense budget” and see others, like from (tiny weight) WKRN “With impeachment looming, many wonder if Congress will get work done” incl USMCA; Forbes “Congressional Dysfunction Threatens to Halt Trump Defense Buildup” on how budget not passing impacts Military; or Defense news “Senate dems likely to block spending in border wall dispute” expecting need for another stopgap when the one ending Nov 21 comes due. But again, generally I think Congress has a history of being last-second and gridlock long before the inquiry or even before Trump, so I’m not sure either way could be credibly said as the cause. They both sound like just spin to me, trying to blame status normal on the other side. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Markbassett and MrX: OK, I've included some text from those sources and placed an edit request template. (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but I oppose this. Nothing was getting passed before the inquiry began. Nothing is getting passed now. What's the difference? Actually I lied: they did pass an important funding bill while the inquiry was going on.[6] In any case, the threat was just talk and didn't get a lot of coverage, and hasn't amounted to anything, so not worth expanding. One sentence is about right. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

There's only so much I can care about old man Trump and his coverage on enwiki, but a rebuttal to the argument of "nothing has changed, so why elaborate?" is "the perpetuation of a harmful status quo is inherently noteworthy." While there are some people who ideologically prefer legislative gridlock, I believe it's still neutral and properly weighted to say that gridlock is largely considered harmful. @Markbassett and MelanieN: if the argument I've rebutted is not exactly your argument, I hope you'll clarify. (talk) 23:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
While I see the news article leads with “White House threatens to shut down”... the actual content seems just Stephanie Grisham spinning that Dems are ignoring work while inquiry goes on. No quoted threat or anyone said “shut down”. So, not a good support for that. And that ‘Dems are ignoring real work’ feels like POV spin... Markbassett (talk) 02:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There have also been reports that Trump is planning to shut down the government in order to stop the impeachment process in it's tracks. But that hasn't happened yet.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Planning for the future: Let's make this a trilogy[edit]

A suggestion for y'all for when the time comes: When the Impeachment report is finished and sent to the Judiciary committee for the mark-up of the articles of impeachment, we finish this article as complete, and start a new one entitled "impeachment process against Donald Trump or just Impeachment of Donald Trump should it come to that. The investigation, after all, would be over. Remember that there were at least four articles focusing on the Clinton impeachment and more than that on Nixon's. I'm not saying we do this now, as we still have about two weeks' worth of public hearings to go through, and there's going to be a bunch of Republican shenanigans as well. Remember that Clinton was impeached approximately two years prior to the founding of Wikipedia.

This series should end with either Trump's acquittal or the inauguration of President Pence. It's something to think about. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually we have ONE article about the impeachment of Clinton, and ONE about the process against Nixon. Yes, there are separate articles about their scandals and their special counsel investigations, but we have those about Trump too. The impeachment process is its own thing. I don't favor fragmenting it into multiple articles. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I hear you. But technically speaking, he isn't impeached until the full House says he is. Let's not get too far into WP:CRYSTAL territory. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with MelanieN about crystal balls. For example, the Nixon impeachment did not end with the inauguration of President Spiro T. Agnew. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Arglebargle79, you have been arguing this point over at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump since May 2017. Nixinova recently raised a similar point. Maybe you two could set up a private forum and discuss the issue...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@cuuen328- it ended with the inauguration of Gerald Ford, which is the same exact thing, and @Jack, I believe in planning.Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Cullen's point was that at this point in the process of investigating Nixon, the reasonable (WP:CRYSTAL) assumption would have been that Nixon's departure would be followed by the inauguration of the then-vice president, Agnew. We may be just as far off in our expectations right now as theoretical Wikipedians would have been in September 1973. Anyone who "believed in planning" at that point would have been wasting their time and everybody else's. Look, we have no idea how this is going to play out. We may think we do, and we may be dead wrong. We need to await developments. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
(Please get your facts right while arguing. The Agnew scandal became public in August of 1973 and there was no impeachment investigation until after the notorious "Saturday night massacre" took place several days after Agnew resigned in October and Ford was nominated.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC))
My preference would be to change the title of this article to Impeachment of Donald Trump when the house passes articles of impeachment. The Senate trial should probably be a separate article though.- MrX 🖋 11:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree about changing the article title to Impeachment of Donald Trump when/if the House actually votes for an article of impeachment. But I would include the Senate trial and any aftermath in this same article. I am not a fan of the current trend here, of splitting a single subject into multiple articles. Looking at Category:Impeachment of Bill Clinton, I see that one article sufficed for the whole process. And the entire Nixon process is included in Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. Let’s do our readers a favor for once, and keep it all in one place. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the reality is we can't buck the current trend. Even if we correctly predict what's about to happen, as soon as Trump is impeached there will be an influx of new editors who will produce a mountain of breathless verbiage and start splitting with wild abandon...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Let’s not put the cart before the horse, lest the horse be beaten to a pulp. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, considering Arglebargle79 has been arguing the point since 2017, I think this is a WP:DEADHORSE.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
That's why we should be planning it NOW, Jack, and make sure that it's orderly and efficiently done. It's not beating a WP:DEADHORSE until the damn thing is actually dead. When it's actually dead is when there's either an exoneration by the Intelligence Committee report, the defeat of the articles of impeachment on the House floor, or the end of the trial. Those are the three reasonable possibilities. There are UNreasonable possibilities, like a Napoleon III-style auto-coup or a real-life Seven Days in May, but those are not really worth discussing. I seem to remember that you were arguing against the creation of this article after a bunch of other people created it. It' sort of like writing an obituary. You know that it has to get written, and it's dumb to wait until the last minute to write 90% of it.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
You remember wrong. My position was that this article had to wait for an impeachment inquiry to begin. If you want to draft an article about Trump's impeachment, you can do so, but I think the coup version would be more interesting.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Video of Joe Biden[edit]

Video of Joe Biden's 2018 speech where he bragged about with-holding Ukrainian aid should be added as it was discussed during the impeachment hearings and are the comments President Trump is referring to in the Ukrainian call transcript The video is all over the web and on YouTube. There is a link to one below. Here's a story from the Federalist about it. RBWilson1000 (talk) 18:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC) This article is not about Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
And the article you cite has it backwards. That's what you get when you rely on The Federalist for factual information. Biden urged that the prosecutor, Shokin, be fired because the prosecutor was NOT investigating corruption at Burisma and other companies. Western nations everywhere were urging that Shokin be fired because he was part of the problem; he was squelching investigations into oligarchs and other corrupt actors. When Biden urged that the prosecutor be fired, he was following Obama administration policy intended to counter corruption in Ukraine - and incidentally making it MORE likely that Burisma would be investigated. Please read the real story: [7] Or see our article on Viktor Shokin. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
We also do not violate copyright or link to YouTube channels and websites that violate copyrights, as OP has done on this talk page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I read the article on Shokin. Are you sure it is correct? It appears that there may be evidence that the investigation was open at the time of the firing. John Solomon posted the evidence in his article that he says proves the case was open. RBWilson1000 (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I recommend you read up on recent revelations about the credibility of Solomon's reporting: "non-truths and non sequiturs," "his grammar might have been right," "false narrative," "entirely made up in full cloth." soibangla (talk) 00:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I heard retorts from Solomon and his comment was that generalized claims like this are made but the criticisms lack specificity and don't attack the detailed documentation that he attaches inside his articles (scribd documents [ex. sworn affidavits], video, story links, ect.). I noticed those quotes were opinions of people but there were more specific criticisms in this article. Ironically, the NYT story confirms from Mr. Lutsenko there was a do-not prosecute list - I guess the debate is why those individuals were on the list. We may learn more when Marie Yovanovitch testifies Friday. RBWilson1000 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
RBWilson1000the detailed documentation that he attaches inside his articles is often misleading, much in the same way Judicial Watch provides documents then misrepresents what they say. The Shokin "affifavit," in particular, is dubious, due to the evident motives he and Firtash have. soibangla (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. I'll keep by guard up regarding Shokin. However, from what I've seen the past couple of years John Solomon was onto the lack of substantiation for allegations of conspiracy between the 2016 Trump Campaign and Russian government long before other news outlets. Outlets that pushed single-anonymous sourced story after story shown untrue by the Mueller investigation. It really makes it hard to know what to believe anymore. RBWilson1000 (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
story after story shown untrue by the Mueller investigation Actually, see Mueller Report#Press coverage of the investigation. But anyway, this is a digression from the article. Solomon exists in the Hannity bubble and his work should be considered accordingly. soibangla (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Solomon exists in the Hannity bubble and his work should be considered accordingly There is a reason Fox News ratings went up after the Mueller report while CNN and MSNBC's fell as widely reported but this is a digression. Unfortunately, the skepticism of the latter sources from a conservative I know has drifted to Wikipedia now too. RBWilson1000 (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
There is a reason Fox News ratings went up: many find cartoonish sensationalism entertaining. Let's stop this now. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it is correct. Shokin was essentially just sitting on the case to give the appearance of an investigation, and it was narrowly and solely focused on details from before Hunter Biden joined the company (in other words, it had nothing to do with him or his actions). I would think the Federalist title implying Biden “bribed” Ukrainians should have given you pause to consider it wasn’t exactly a reliable or impartial source of information. Essentially, people pushing the theory you were citing are either twisting the story, or misinformed. Impeccably reliable investigative journalists have already sorted this. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I grabbed the Federalist story because it had the video in it. I probably should have been more careful. Didn't read it or care what the title was. Solomon has links to documents and a story from Ukraine in 2017 (see link) that seems to say the case wasn't closed until January 2017 in the opening paragraph - the prosecutor was fired March 2016. It just seems that the president's intent is important here. Did the president mention Biden six months before the first primary because he feared Biden politically, or because based on things like the video (which he may have misunderstood) he thought something corrupt happened? In this context it seems important but I am not a lawyer. RBWilson1000 (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
No worries. Regardless of what you’ve said, that would be definitely be engaging in original research. We can evaluate sources and contributions, but this is more than a bit outside our wheelhouse. As far as I’m aware though, the firing of the prosecutor and the closing of the case is not necessarily causative, even if it is correlated. The gears of any government move slowly. We can’t draw any conclusions from a lack of evidence, regardless. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
User:RBWilson1000, you are correct that the investigations were still open when Shokin was fired, and otherwise much is recent spin. Factually, it seems Burisma (large, rich, connected) investigations were stalled before Shokin, during Shokin, and after Shokin and the next guy closed them. There’s also not much push from the U.S. at the time for investigations before or after. The Hill reported on once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Bidens story, and it’s possible the anecdote as told by Biden may be a bit embellished, plus Burisma memos may have been spinning they had influence on him that they didn’t really have. It also seems both Shokin and recently removed Prosecutor General Lutsenko have said things causing suspicion of Biden, and mentions of miscellaneous mentions of Ukrainian interference in the US 2016 elections have some WEIGHT. But there is not much plausible in those. It’s clear Hunter got money and the appropriateness of that was a concern for conflict of interest. It seems not very plausible Joe Biden was unaware, but also not very plausible that he did provable extortion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason why this article should be complicit in a partisan effort to deploy yet another conspiracy theory to divert attention from the pertinent facts emerging from these vital proceedings. soibangla (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm a registered Independent and did not vote for the president in 2016. I thought this was a historical account of the impeachment inquiry. The Biden comment was cited numerous times during the inquiry and by the president in the phone call for which the impeachment proceedings are about. The president clearly interpreted it as a potentially corrupt act and brought it up as such. How is it not appropriate for it to be included whether he is correct or not? RBWilson1000 (talk) 21:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your political affiliation isn’t pertinent. While there are definite POV problems in the AP2 area, it’s largely down to worldview and how this jives with reliable sources. Not political parties. Coincidentally, I likewise am a non-partisan Independent (and libertarian), but that should have no bearing on our editing. Political leanings should always take a backseat to our core policies, especially verifiability, reliable sourcing, and the weight of those sources according to coverage and reputation for fact-checking. I suggest you read MelanieN’s comment again. Biden isn’t talking what you think he’s talking about. That selective interpretation is part of counter-narrative based on a conspiracy theory. Reliable sources have thoroughly debunked it. That some Republicans in the hearings are attempting to use this as a misguided preemptive “defense” for the President during the hearings is not our problem. We’re certainly not going to repeat what unreliable sources and pundits say, or politicians looking to spin the pertinent facts as a subjective “truth”, especially in wiki-voice. If anything, it’s going to show up here attributed, but put into the context of falsity that reliable sources are sure to demonstrate. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Since the genuineness of a rationale used in Trump's defense is a key part of the dispute that's leading to impeachment, it would be definitely non-neutral to assume the "president clearly interpreted it as a potentially corrupt act[.]" President Trump has a poor track record for truth. He has said many objectively false things over the past 3 years, that people cannot in good faith claim are true. We should not uncritically depict his claimed motives for acts as his confirmed true motive without robust corroboration. We should write that he "claimed" or "said" or "alleged" rather than "believed." Since we're not mind readers, that also a general good rule of thumb, even regarding people that have a normal track record regarding honesty. JamesAM (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
A couple of things.
  • First, Biden was agitating to have Shokin fired. Shokin was corrupt and was not prosecuting large numbers of people, specifically including Zlochevsky and Burisma.
  • Second, after Shokin was fired (in April 2016, Biden's visit was the previous December) Lutsenko was appointed. That required a change in the law in Ukraine to allow appointment of a non-lawyer to that post. There was no evidence then that he would be corrupt as well (in fact he is less corrupt than Shokin, but only in the sense that Michael Avenatti is a better lawyer than Larry Klayman), and no way at all that Biden or anyone else could have known he, specifically, would be appointed. The clear expectation was that Shokin would be replaced by someoen less corrupt and more serious about prosecuting Zlochevsky, who was, in turn, always a bigger target than Burisma.
  • Hunter Biden and Devon Archer were clearly appointed with a view to currying favour in the US, but firing Shokin put Burisma at more risk, not less, and Yovanovich was a serious anti-corruption advocate as well.
  • The claim of a "do not prosecute" list including Hunter Biden has been debunked: it originates with John Solomon and has been called "an outright fabrication" by the State Department.
  • Finally, if corruption is that important, how come Trump allowed Perry to broker 50-year mineral extraction deals for his donors, at well below the high bidder? That is a clear and flagrant conflict of interest. Trump mentions Biden three times on the July call, and does not mention corruption or even Burisma.
It is legitimate to question whether Trump is honest here, and it is also clear that Biden's actions were, if anything, the opposite of what is claimed. It is abundantly clear that the appearance of conflict of interest was known in State at the time of Biden's visit. The most charitable explanation is that Trump - who by all accounts and evidence views the world through the lens of "everything I do is pure and perfect, everything done by any critic or opponent is disgusting and corrupt" - knows he would have advanced the interests of his adult children (as he has done multiple times while in office) and can't see why anyone else would not have done the same. Guy (help!) 23:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


CNN has put up an article listing all the ways Trump has been dishonest about his impeachment that might be of some use here. I don't edit on this article, so I shall leave it here for others to use or ignore as they see fit. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Remember Meuller and Russia?[edit]

There were arguments over the House getting the unredacted grand jury materials from the Meuller probe today, as well as a bunch of other lawsuits over Trump and the DoJ's stonewalling on subpoenas. Where does this fit in in this article?Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)