Talk:First impeachment trial of Donald Trump/Archive 1

Archive 1

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Is this cspan video of the impeachment in the public domain?

https://www.c-span.org/video/?468618-1/senate-impeachment-trial

Victor Grigas (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Victorgrigas, C-Span is a work of the U.S. federal government, so it is acceptable to use, as long as it's properly attributed. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Please note link to all C-SPAN impeachment stuff under External links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump#External_links soibangla (talk) 02:05, 29 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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. WMSR (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Hopenottoopicky and WMSR: - I understood the request. It was to include the missing reply of the House managers to the Trump memo. I have done so, but with different text based on coverage of secondary reliable sources, see here. starship.paint (talk) 04:15, 29 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)
• Exclude because which opinion polls do we trust. It would just open a can of worms based on politics. Also, it is not focused on the actual impeachment in the House or Senate. It might be important after the trial and after a number of years pass. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:13, 29 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)

• Include. It is directly related to the event. Also, the vote tally is germane. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Improper use of a reference from 2012 to WP:SYN content

Concerning this edit.

• This is improper use of a reference, as it is WP:SYN of a source published in 2012.
• In the edit summary, User:Soibangla says "readers may not recall the hot mic incident". This is nonsensical, as references do not serve as reminders but to WP:VERIFY the content. --Cold Season (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see that this is related to the above discussion Talk:Impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump#POV_in_presentation and will continue there. --Cold Season (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

concerning 50 - 50 votes

some time or another, sourced info about possible roberts tie-breaking was removed from the article. Here is an add'l source https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/29/john-roberts-trump-impeachment-trial-109109 --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/480593-gop-predicts-roberts-wont-cast-a-tie-breaking-vote-on-witnesses

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/politics/trump-impeachment-trial-witness-vote-tie/index.html

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:25, 30 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)

References

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)

User:Jack Upland The NYT is not neutral on the topic of Donald Trump, and maybe not BESTSOURCES or even RS at times in this context. Their explicitly declared editorial endorsements and declared opposition to Donald Trump, plus 4 years of exclusively negative pieces and POV, plus other press noting them neutrally as opponent, or right wing sources denouncing instances of fake news or smears, makes ‘neutral’ not a viable claim. But that very trail of being so often noted as an opponent and doing so many anti-Trump pieces also supports use of them as a WP:BIASED source — something to be attributed as said by a notable opponent. Not a ranting left-wingnut to avoid, just something to use with a bit of care and in moderation. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The claim that "The NYT is not neutral on the topic of Donald Trump" is bunk. Newsrooms and editorial rooms are kept separate. NYT is reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall that on the Trump BLP Talk page you asserted that the Washington Times was a superior source to The New York Times, so I think we have a pretty good idea of your perspective. soibangla (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

References

New Bolton book revelations via New York Times

This information ought to be incorporated, esp: (1) Bolton asserts in his book that Trump pressured him to pressure Zelensky to work with Giuliani already in May of 2019; (2) Bolton states that there were multiple witnesses at that meeting with Trump - Mulvaney, Giuliani, and Cipollone. "The account in Mr. Bolton’s manuscript portrays the most senior White House advisers as early witnesses in the effort that they have sought to distance the president from." Yes, the Trump lawyer who has spent the trial asserting that there's no evidence Trump took part in a campaign to pressure Ukraine allegedly was present at a meeting in which Trump did so. And since Giuliani denies the meeting ever took place and Trump denies Bolton's account of it, this pertains directly to the Democratic case that witnesses need to be heard from at the trial.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/31/us/politics/trump-bolton-ukraine.html 72.86.138.119 (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree. My only question is: Which section do you think this should be in? Okay, now disagree per below comments. This might be good over at Impeachment of Donald Trump. Cheers. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

EXCLUDE - not part of the trial. Mention the question came up, yes — but only as that topic was presented in the trial. Inserting text not actually part of the article’s topic is inappropriate. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what Markbassett said completely. If Bolton had been called to testify, or if the relevant passage of his book had been used as evidence that shifted the direction of the votes on either witnesses in general or the outcome of the trial in particular, that would be a different issue that would warrant mentioning specifically in this article. As things now stand, Bolton will not be called to testify, so unless a senator cites the book in his or her floor speech prior to the vote on the charges, or unless it is specifically noted after the fact that the details reported in the Bolton book directly had bearing on how any senator votes on the question of conviction and/or removal, then mentioning the book or its' substance might fall under this policy, as it would involve conjecturing about what Bolton's testimony would have been had he been called to testify. Wikipedia doesn't operate like that, and it strikes me as somewhat disingenuous to mention the Bolton book in any form for that reason, unless it has direct bearing on the outcome of the trial. Just my two cents, for whatever they might be worth to anyone reading this comment. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Who are you to conclude what bearing it has on the outcome of the trial? The new report about those parts of Bolton's book was mentioned during the trial, and since it was widely reported in the news it is certain that many if not all Senators considered the information, which is directly relevant to the factual issues at the center of the trial. I think editors' personal tendencies and preferences for what information is/is not included ought to be irrelevant. The test ought to be (a) relevance to the subject and (b) documentation by RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.138.65 (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Guessing what considerations were is SPECULATION. Include what RS said actually was in the trial, in DUE proportion to it’s WEIGHT. So again, saying that the trial discussed getting witnesses seems necessary, and say Bolton or the whistle blower and Biden and such is possible because it was part of the trial (and the House refusal of Republican list of 8 witnesses). But inserting text that was not part of the trial is inappropriate, and basically OFFTOPIC. Actually putting in what is reported leaked pre-final book text would be as bad as inserting text from the Shokin affadavit. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Bolton book: the work of a recently inner-circle advisor to the POTUS who until now was a highly-revered conservative figure for decades, as reported by one of the most reliable sources on Earth. Shokin affidavit: drafted at the request of attorneys representing Dmitry Firtash, a Ukrainian oligarch whom the DOJ believes is connected to the highest levels of Russian mob, and is under American indictment, and among those attorneys are diGenova and Toensing, frequent Hannity guests and close Trump-Giuliani associates, and whom Rudy told Parnas to recommend to Firtash because they might help him get his indictment dropped if he helped to smear Biden, and they met with Barr to discuss it. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Minecrafter0271: - Bolton book 100% deserves to go into Background of this article. It's relevant for this article because the reliable sources connect it to the trial, as proven below. starship.paint (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

1. Associated Press [11]
2. Reuters [12]
3. Agence France Presse [13]
4. United Press International [14]
5. Al Jazeera [15]
6. BBC News [16]
7. Australian Associated Press [17]
8. Wall Street Journal [18]
9. Bloomberg [19]
10. ABC News (US) [20]
11. NBC News [21]
12. CBC News [22]
13. CBS News [23]
14. CNN [24]
15. IJR [25]
16. Financial Times [26]
17. NPR [27]
18. Washington Post [28]
19. The Hill [29]
20. Politico [30]
21. LA Times [31]
22. USA Today [32] starship.paint (talk) 01:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

POV in presentation

I think there is a POV issue in the presentation. Time and again, whenever a Trump supporter makes a point, it is uncut by a counterpoint, usually in "Wikivoice" and not attributed to a Trump opponent. While most of these counterpoints are valid, the presentation is not.

• Three days later, McConnell stated, "I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."[8] The Constitution mandates senators to take an impeachment oath, in which by Senate rules is stated, "I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help me God."[9][10]
• 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,[65] and contradicts a 2018 statement by Trump's attorney general Bill Barr, who before taking office wrote a memo to Trump's Justice Department and legal team advising that abuse of power is an impeachable offense.[66]

In reality, there is a range of opinions on this, and many people have changed their minds.

• 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 resurfaced in light of the Trump trial, Dershowitz retracted his earlier position.[67][68]

This is mentioned again under "Prosecution". Is it really that important that Dershowitz had a different opinion 22 years ago? Saying the video "resurfaced" is a really passive way of putting it.

• For Trump's impeachment trial, McConnell supports the procedure that if any proposed rules change should receive less than a majority of the Senate's support, it will fail. This is contrast to the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson in 1868, when a majority of senators agreed that ties of votes regarding procedural challenges could be broken by the presiding officer.[71]

Who really cares what happened in 1868?

• Some conservatives floated a proposal to permit Bolton's testimony in exchange for requiring Hunter Biden to testify, which Democrats rejected.[76][77] Biden had been the subject of baseless conspiracy theories related to his business activities in Ukraine.[78][79]
• On January 21, Sekulow drew a parallel between Trump withholding aid to Ukraine and President Obama withholding aid to Egypt in 2013. In the latter case, Egypt had just experienced a military coup d'etat, which under US law required aid to be withheld.[84]
• On January 22, Trump gave public comments on his impeachment trial. He stated: "I thought our team did a very good job. But honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material." The White House denied Trump was referring to documents that had been withheld from House impeachment investigators and sought by the Democratic trial managers.

Who said that he was?

• Deputy White House counsel Michael Purpura presented video from the impeachment inquiry of three envoys to Ukraine testifying that the first time they had become aware Ukraine had expressed concern about the aid being withheld was in August 2019, suggesting that Ukraine was unaware of the hold at the time of the Trump–Zelensky phone call. Purpura did not present the testimony of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper, who testified that her office received emails about the hold from Ukrainian officials on July 25, the day of the call[109]

Who said that he should?

• The following day, Pam Bondi dedicated most of her time discussing the motive behind President Donald Trump's actions... Meanwhile, Bondi herself had been tied to indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas by Parnas and his lawyer.

Relevance???

• Trump attorney Jane Raskin followed Bondi and told senators, "In this trial... Mr. Giuliani is just a minor player, that shiny object designed to distract you," though several impeachment inquiry witnesses testified that Trump had instructed them to coordinate their activities through Giuliani[121] and he was mentioned by name multiple times in the Trump–Zelensky phone call.

This is excessive, and editors should back off. If a Trump opponent is making these counterpoints, they should be named in the text just as the Trump supporters are.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Facts are important, but I agree with your overall point about the intrusion of wikivoice. I've tried to solve this in a few cases by putting the fact-checking into notes. They are unintrusive, and clearly separate what Trump's defenders said from the relevant facts. However, I disagree with the sentiment that we shouldn't include those facts simply because they're being ignored by a clearly biased minority; in at least some of the above examples, the facts were included in the same sources we used to reference the false/misleading statements. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying facts shouldn't be included. I think it's the presentation, as I put in the heading. I think it's also a concern that all these counterpoints are against Trump, not for him.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

If false claims are being made by the president's defense team, the corrections would naturally be against him. The same would be true for the prosecution, but that hasn't really been debunked except rhetorically by those with political careers to defend. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This is excessively cautious in the other direction. In an expansive case being broadcast in an oddly structured format, with a defense largely predicated on rhetorical flourishes, misdirection, and falsehoods, the issues and connections and basic facts relevant to the issue of whether there were conspiracies to defraud in Ukraine and to obstruct the investigation can easily be lost. In fact, muddying the waters appears to be part of the defense strategy. Therefore it is counterproductive to the goal of conveying relevant information to delete or stifle any editorial addition that seeks to show connections. For ex. you ask how is Bondi's close association, never acknowledged before, to one of the admitted crooks who led the corrupt conspiracies in Ukraine relevant now that she is (a) part of the defense team, and (b) accusing Biden of engaging in corruption in Ukraine. You really can't see how that is relevant? And if an explicit statement of its relevance is added, would you not also object to that as editorializing?72.86.139.148 (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Jack Upland, what would you do if it wasn't a Trump opponent making these counterpoints, but the reliable sources themselves making these counterpoints? starship.paint (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There is always someone making the counterpoints, but the presentation should always depend on the circumstances.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

In the order of your queries:

1) The Constitution mandates senators to take an impeachment oath, in which by Senate rules is stated You don't specify what the problem is here.

2) there is a range of opinions on this, and many people have changed their minds I encourage others to add content showing the Trump legal team's argument is more than a fringe theory, perhaps similar to the letter from 874 legal scholars saying a crime is not necessary and abuse of power is impeachable.

3) This is mentioned again under "Prosecution" So take it out.

4} Who really cares what happened in 1868? So take it out.

5) 'Biden had been the subject of baseless conspiracy theories related to his business activities in Ukraine I don't see any problem with noting that the Trump team seeks to change the subject to an irrelevant conspiracy theory, as they claim Rudy is a "shiny object designed to distract you."

6) In the latter case, Egypt had just experienced a military coup d'etat, which under US law required aid to be withheld This cuts to the argument the Trump team makes that there was nothing unusual in what he did. But in reality he did not engage in a QPQ of official acts for official acts, as other presidents did, he engaged in a QPQ of official acts for personal acts.

7) Who said that he was? Many did, and some asked the WH about it, which is why they denied it, but I see no reason to elaborate beyond the WH denial.

8) Who said that he should? A reliable source shows Purpura committed an obvious lie of omission.

9) Meanwhile, Bondi herself had been tied to indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas by Parnas and his lawyer I agree this is impertinent and it's been on my mental list to remove unless someone beats me to it.

10) though several impeachment inquiry witnesses testified that Trump had instructed them to coordinate their activities through Giulian I don't any reason why anyone might consider this unacceptable to mention, other than, "holy smokes, that's damning and I wish we could pretend Rudy was just a bit player whom Trump has never heard of."

11) This is excessive, and editors should back off I disagree because I believe it is incumbent upon us to document with reliable sources that Trump's legal team is advancing a fringe legal theory and supporting it with a litany of falsehoods in the Senate chamber. Sometimes the reality in life is that some people are just overwhelmingly not on the right side of truth, and this has been thoroughly documented as pervasive in Trump's behavior and that of the people who surround him. It's not about politics, it's about facts, reality and truth. soibangla (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

How in the world is it "impertinent" that Bondi as Attorney General met multiple times in Florida in 2018 with Lev Parnas when he was busy funneling large, illegal donations from Ukraine to prominent Republican politicians? That for some people is relevant for assessing the credibility of her statements in Trump's defense, particularly when she is accusing Biden of corruption wrt Ukraine, and more generally for assessing the integrity of Trump's defense team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.139.148 (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Um, so? Seems like the corruption (or not) of Hunter Biden getting a few million for being the Vice President's son is not disproven by whether someone else got money. If anything, Ukraine being portrayed as corrupt or of trying to influence an election in one place seems to lend credibility to claims they were doing it with Democrats and Biden back in 2015/2016. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless I missed something, all that is being claimed is that Bondi and Parnas had lunch and were photographed. No one knows what they talked about. Not pertinent to the trial, unless more is being claimed about what they discussed. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Bondi says she is an "old friend" of Trump. Parnas made it his business to raise money for Florida Republicans, allegedly to funnel Ukrainian and Russian money to them illegally. Trump knew what he was doing because Parnas talked about it in the famous dinner, around the same time as the FL Attorney General was lunching with Parnas. I think there is a reasonable suspicion that Bondi knew what Parnas was doing, especially since there are photos of at least 3 occasions when Bondi and Parnas met. Bondi herself has avoided reporters' questions so far about Parnas and changed the subject rather than answering, pretendeding that she knew him only as a guy who showed up at Republican events to have pictures taken. So Bondi is lying in the same way as Trump and Giuliani and other Republicans who participated in Parnas' allegedly illegal schemes. It certainly reflects badly on Bondi's defense of Trump that she had a close association with one of the people at the center of Trump's Ukraine scandal, whether she is complicit or merely hypocritical with regard to Ukrainian influence-buying. It also bears repeating that Parnas' influence-buying is documented in the DOJ indictment, whereas the Trump/Bondi accusations against Biden (who was not running for election) are built on thin air.72.86.133.253 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Exclude. Not part of the impeachment trial, just lots of wild speculation there about other people and allegations not involved with the impeachment articles. NOTFORUM. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Bondi is part of the impeachment trial, so she made her politics relevant. Lev Parnas is part of the alleged conspiracy. The inferences are not "wild speculation", they're documented contributions which Parnas is on record talking about and which the recipients have sought to distance themselves from after it was exposed, while pretending falsely like Bondi that they don't know Lev Parnas. When politicians and lawyers make easily disproven lies about their activities, that raises the level of scrutiny those things merit. I knew what your opinion would be before you offered it, because you have demonstrated a tendency to oppose including information that would tend to embarrass Republicans, however well documented it is or relevant. This information is both of those things.72.86.133.253 (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I favor excluding trivia, snark, or unrelated material. These wild speculations about things and people not part of the trial shouldn’t go here. Her charges against Biden were not in here. Exclude this. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

What you genuinely favor always happens to be excluding information which is embarrassing for Trump and his Republican apologists. You should own your partisan POV because it is not really the secret you imagine it is. You've already made the argument against embarrassing context dozens of times on this page.72.86.138.65 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Or perhaps more a reflection on there being way too much anti-Trump trivia, snark, and unrelated information ? This was not part of the trial and personal attacks here aren’t going to change that. Over & out. Markbassett (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Nope, that can't be the reason because your tendency here to object to any information embarrasing to Republicans is the same tendency you demonstrate on the other pages you mainly comment on - which overwhelmingly are pages related to Trump. I know because I looked at your comments elsewhere...same obstructionism, over and over again. To my mind, that's a classic demonstration of bad faith.72.86.138.65 (talk) 02:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

• User:Jack Upland - thanks for pointing out some NPOV issues. I know #2 was put in Donald Trump at 23:13 on 24 Jan -- and quickly rejected as mentioned in TALK here. It is saying a 2020 defense point 'has been roundly rejected by' a 2018 Barr letter and a 2019 inquiry petition. That is a SYNTH of three items not associated in an external source, and also a false portayal as it conveys a 2018 document to be a rejection of something in 2020. (It looks like there circa 23:13 on 24 Jan had a few articles getting such.) I will delete this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the statement that this is WP:SYN. There is usage of sources that do not support the content, but it is used to imply conclusions that is not made by the sources (such as [33] by User:soibangla). I make no comment on the content, but this is improper use of references. --Cold Season (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Cold Season My deletion got reverted by the editor who created a number of these and xeroxed this one into Donald Trump and other articles. Edit comment was “not SYNTH”. I will start another section specific to this. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2016 Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony

from Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, with several current Republican senators in attendance:

By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place...An important step was taken when General Prosecutor Shokin resigned earlier this year, but parliament must now accept his resignation...Reformers in civil society spoke up for Mr. Abramavicius, so did the U.S., the EU, and the IMF. In response, President Poroshenko called for the removal of Prosecutor Genera Viktor Shokin

Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

EXCLUDE - not part of the trial, and I think even mentioning the accusations against Biden of a couple Ukraine officials (former) and Burisma documentation is inappropriate for the same reason. These may have caused the events, but were not in the trial. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Include - It was touched upon in the trial numerous times by the House managers when Trump's defense attorneys continued to bring up Joe and Hunter Biden and Joe Biden's involvement in getting Shokin ousted. The defense mischaracterized the events and the managers had to run through the truth of the matter. Markbassett, to say it wasn't in the trial simply is not true. Persistent Corvid (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Existence of Trump emails re Ukraine pressure confirmed

This should probably be added immediately to the page. Or if the usual objections are raised to adding basic context, it should be added as soon as the subject is mentioned when the trial resumes: "The Department of Justice revealed in a court filing late Friday that it has two dozen emails related to the President Donald Trump's involvement in the withholding of millions in security assistance to Ukraine -- a disclosure that came just hours after the Senate voted against subpoenaing additional documents and witnesses in Trump's impeachment trial, paving the way for his acquittal. The filing, released near midnight Friday, marks the first official acknowledgment from the Trump administration that emails about the President's thinking related to the aid exist, and that he was directly involved in asking about and deciding on the aid as early as June. The administration is still blocking those emails from the public and has successfully kept them from Congress."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/01/politics/trump-ukraine-aid-emails-omb-justice-department/ 72.86.138.65 (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

• EXCLUDE - please stay on topic and factual. Note this article is for the ‘Impeachment trial of Donald Trump’. This news is not part of the trial. Besides, it seems not really a surprise that there would be emails any more than that there would be lots of memos, meeting notes, position papers, etcetera. Only a few documents were involved though. Mentioning the vote to not seek more documents or witnesses seems an important part of the trial. But it would be inappropriate to mention external info later or loose speculations about documents other than the items involved in the trial. Such ‘Not in the trial’ is OFFTOPIC or FORUM. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It will be part of the trial as soon as the trial resumes. There was a reason the WH dropped it around midnight Friday. And we already knew you'd be opposed Mark. You're opposed to all info no matter how relevant when it embarrasses Republicans. Arguing that "there's only a few of these emails anyway" and "it's not a surprise" these suppressed emails exist kind of is a giveaway that you're looking for an excuse to exclude it. And by the way, the latter is self defeating for your position: Trump's defense involves denying that he was involved in Giuliani's pressure campaign, so the existence of emails showing that he was in fact involved would be "a surprise" to his lawyers ... that is, if his lawyers have not been lying as well.72.86.138.65 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

UpdateNerd has added this information, but in a fashion that is highly confusing. It is appended to a discussion of arguments advanced at the start of the trial, and the release of the (redacted) emails is not explicitly dated. The edit makes it appear that Schumer was deploring the emails' release before rather than after the main stage of the trial. Also, maybe worse, the nature of their evidence is put into a footnote which just confuses matters further. If the emails and their delayed acknowledgement are relevant to assessing the defense and the majority vote not to subpoena evidence (and they are), then they need to be presented in a way that doesn't obscure that relevance. "Chronology is the lens of history" as Theodor Mommsen remarked, and the chronology here is way out of focus.72.86.139.74 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Resolving Trump team reasoning is "roundly rejected" by legal scholars

the addition of multiple decisive refs to support the edit, plus the lack of contradictory evidence, obviates further need for this discussion soibangla (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This has been disputed: 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 NYT: Scholars have roundly rejected a central argument of President Trump’s lawyers that abuse of power is not by itself an impeachable offense CNN: Legal scholars are panning new arguments championed by Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, who recently joined President Donald Trump's legal team and is making the case that Trump cannot be impeached because he didn't commit any crimes Politico: Dershowitz’s view has been overwhelmingly rejected by serious constitutional scholars AP: Impeachment does not require a crime to have been committed. Politico: academic experts have rushed to reject this “bogus” argument as “constitutional nonsense” The Week: Almost all constitutional scholars disagree with [Dershowitz's] views on impeachment The Nation: essentially no credible legal scholars agree with [Dershowitz] 1998 Alan Dershowitz: "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...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" Letter to Congress from 878 Legal Scholars: conduct need not be criminal to be impeachable...Impeachment is a remedy for grave abuses of the public trust 2,091 Historians’ statement on the impeachment of President Trump: President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president I encourage other editors to present letters comparable to those shown above, signed by multiple scholars, that defend the Trump team argument that a crime is necessary and that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. soibangla (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC) User:Soibangla Well this is attempting to be SOMEwhat better than your first effort that portrayed a 2019 cite to be a rejection of the 2020 impeachment defense. But two things wrong... First, folks need to know the REST of the line is “and contradicts a 2018 statement by Trump's attorney general Bill Barr, who before taking office wrote a memo to Trump's Justice Department and legal team advising that abuse of power is an impeachable offense.”. Which is similarly not actually a response to the trial and also associating three things not from an external cite is SYNTH. Second, this seems misguidedly trying to find cite(s) to allow keeping the words unchanged rather than finding words to better fit reality and WEIGHT, or at least to follow the cites. Because these cites don’t exactly fit those words. For example, using the Nation has Dershowitz saying “most” of legal academia roundly reject his view that abuse should not be impeachable, but that should change “is not impeachable” to “should not be impeachable”. Or using AP has the reporter (not any legal scholars) saying the claim that “The practical application of the Impeachment Clause” ...”requires a violation of established law” is not correct. So that could be put as “the AP says that is incorrect”, although I note it seems Dershowitz was citing from Andrew Johnson on the *practical* necessity of having a clear legal definition of the offense to work with and from discussions disliking the vagueness of “abuse of power” there seems support to his view. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC) References p.s. Third, the section is “Trial memorandum and response” - a cite to Dershowitz 1998 position that he had since changed is not a “response” - nor is a cite to a 2018 note, or to a 2019 petition about the Inquiry. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC) First, folks need to know the REST of the line which shows Barr agrees the Trump team argument is bogus, and his position doesn't need to be in association with the trial, which is the logical fallacy you are making to falsely characterize the edit as SYNTH. You have a fascinating habit of making such logical fallacies. Cheers.soibangla (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Line this thread is about is a dispute of misportrayal and SYNTH so should show the whole of a 2018 letter plus 2019 petition being stitched into one SYNTH line and misportrayed as if a “response” to the 2020 impeachment defense topic. See SYNTH “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.” There are actual, meaningful responses to Dershowitz, please stop wasting our time trying to keep manufactured stuff in here. Markbassett (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC) We should wait for the verdict of the Senate. If the Senate acquits, the opinions of legal scholars is irrelevant. They will have to update their constitutional law textbooks to take notice of this precedent.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC) No we don't need the opinion of partisans in the Senate to gauge the truth value of what purports to be a factual assertion. And the assertion is specious nonsense. The Constitution states that the House makes the judgment to impeach and does not set specific limits on the grounds over which it may impeach. Therefore what makes certain actions impeachable is the fact that the House passed articles of impeachment. It is not knowable in advance of a House vote whether those actions are impeachable, and it is not a matter that can be relitigated after the House does vote. The job given to the Senate in the Constitution is NOT to decide what is impeachable. It is to decide whether to convict the person for the charges on which he/she has been impeached. No amount of quibbling can distract from the fact that Trump's actions are already proven to be impeachable even before the Senate trial begins. As for the historical question (which the House's vote for articles of impeachment supercedes), the historians cited by the news articles here are factually correct. They know what was said in the 18th century by the people who wrote the Constitution, whereas Trump's defenders either do not possess that expertise or they are counting on a large part of the public not knowing that the "Framers" were clear about the matter of addressing abuse of power (or both).72.86.139.74 (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Jack Upland, historians are going to have a field day with this, but not in they'll likely update their textbooks on how this is an example of what not to do. "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office. ... ... I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation." So, yes, he committed impeachable conduct, but we shouldn't impeach. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ – Muboshgu (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC) I'm not talking about historians. I'm talking about constitutional law textbooks. Go and have a look at one some day. The American legal system is based on precedent, not on scholarly opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Jack Upland, I imagine constitutional law scholars aren't going to look kindly on the "it's impeachable, but we shouldn't impeach because we're afraid of Trump" legal argument either. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC) If what you predict comes to pass, we'll change This reasoning was roundly rejected by legal scholars to "Despite being roundly rejected by legal scholars, this reasoning was nevertheless adopted by Senate Republicans to subvert the Constitution because they feared the president might snap them in two with a single tweet." soibangla (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Legal scholars don't decide the law.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Senators do when they approve bills that are subsequently signed into law, and courts do when they make rulings about laws. Neither event has occurred here. The only precedents set here are the willful refusal of the Senate to call witnesses in an impeachment trial, as clear majorities of Americans demanded, and to ignore the nearly unanimous consensus of constitutional scholars. soibangla (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC) For the purposes of the trial, which is what the article about, what is important is how much Senator's opinions, or the opinions of those arguing in the trial, would be affected by the opinions of legal scholars. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Jack Upland, the law is not based in truth 2600:1702:2340:9470:34C8:CE55:7319:6C7 (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC) The Senate here is the equivalent of a court.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Are you asserting that Trump's acquittal by the Senate will set a constitutional precedent that a president cannot be removed for abuse of power? If that's what it means, I suppose we can just declare The American Experiment over and get on with the totalitarianism. soibangla (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Whatever results are stated will be precedent, yes. Yes, Senators are the relevant authorities here since impeachment is a political proceeding and not a legal one. And yes, the Dershowitz position that the ‘practical application’ of impeachment requires violation of established law and one ‘should not’ impeach on general phrases such as “abuse of power” may be about to gain wider acceptance. But those are for future considerations, topic of this thread is about a 2018 letter plus 2019 petition being stitched into one SYNTH line and presented as if a “response” to the 2020 impeachment. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC) I note that no editor has stepped forward in support of your SYNTH argument, which was the basis of your reversion. Because it isn't SYNTH, it is a statement of reality that, while made during the current events, nevertheless exists irrespective of the current events. soibangla (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC) False, ColdSeason and JackUpland favored removal in the PRIOR TWO THREADs about this. And WP is to V from RS, not to manufacture “statement of reality” by stitching together items of OR. Either make an honest portrayal of an ACTUAL Dershowitz response or expect folks to note the stitching. Markbassett (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC) There is no stitching, there is no OR, there is no SYNTH. I believe it is merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT because it shows the Trump team posits a novel theory that is contradicted by overwhelming consensus, as the Trump team hilariously asserts that the overwhelming consensus is a "novel theory." Again, show us any document by scholars supporting the Trump argument. And WP is to V from RS which I have provided above and would gladly overcite in the edit, with even more as well, if others deem it necessary to decisively close this matter. soibangla (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC) So get a 2020 cite that actually is on the trial response to Dershowitz and put it in. Meanwhile, ditch the manufactured line of SYNTH already dinged in two prior threads. This thread actually seems just trolling for people to give countering cites - but there is no edit in discussion. Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC) So get a 2020 cite that actually is on the trial response to Dershowitz and put it in OK, I can do that from the sources shown above. So we can then close this matter and leave the edit intact, right? soibangla (talk) 01:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC) True, but the focus of the article should be on what the Senate decides not what learned commentators think it should have decided.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC) This discussion is not about what anyone thinks should happen. It's simply about what the overwhelming legal consensus is. soibangla (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC) No, this discussion is about the edit shown got dinged as failed V and SYNTH. There were actual responses to Dershowitz, but instead we’re stuck talking about an editors remark that does not come from an RS and is not about any part of the trial. DELETE already. Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Similar a bit to Clinton’s trial. It was really undisputed that he committed perjury, but he was still acquitted of impeachment. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC) Thank you Soibangla. Clearly, the cites back the line This reasoning has been roundly rejected by legal scholars, which is what this section is discussing. Soibangla is also right - opposers should bring evidence of their own that the Trump team's reasoning has been in fact, embraced by legal scholars. starship.paint (talk) 04:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC) References

Acquitted by legal definition doesn't mean innocent. CharlesViBritannia (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

YouTube link for a citation?

Resolved

Someone added a YouTube link for a citation to the beginning section of the article. Are YouTube links allowed for citations? 2001:5B0:4BCD:B898:D0A8:5666:DCB8:A1BD (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. 2001:5B0:4BCD:B898:D0A8:5666:DCB8:A1BD (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2020

TRUMP WAS FOUND INNOCENT IN THE SENATE TRIAL!The vote was 4:00-4:32 Eastern Time.The first vote was denied 58-42.The second was 53-47.Mitt Romney voted guilty on the 1st article but not the 2nd. 47.16.99.72 (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Correction: He was acquitted. It is not legally appropriate to declare a defendant innocent - they can be found not guilty. The Senate rejected the articles of impeachment. Biasbalancer1 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)biasbalancer1

Ok, so can you say he was acquitted and the trial was 32 minutes long, and the votes? And the Mitt Romney thing?47.16.99.72 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

It would be clear to say he was impeached, but not removed from office also. X1\ (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Mgasparin (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Improper reinstatement of SYNTH / POV, contrary to BRD

User:Soibangla - Please self-undo your revert of my deleting the “This reasoning has been roundly rejected by legal scholars” bit with your edit comment just a denial “not SYNTH”.

Doing so was contrary to WP:BRD discussion guidance “Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting.”

This bit was previously mentioned in User:Jack Upland thread “POV in presentation” and the xerox of it in Donald Trump was removed, sidenote in thread “Impeachment Trial reversion”.

And besides - some opinion that a line in the Barr letter seems different than someone else’s line in the impeachment defense is not only a syn comparison opinionating, it’s opinionating over bits of microscopic detail.

Again, please self-undo the improper reinstatement pending any discussion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I reject your assertion of SYNTH and I will not self-revert. Cheers. soibangla (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Very well, I note you are in breach of BRD and will mark it disputed inline for now, and give a while for further developments. Perhaps you will reconsider or perhaps other editors will weigh in on SYNTH or misportrayal or it being just some reflections about small things.

For reference, recall my deletion remark in the POV thread was “User:Jack Upland - thanks for pointing out some NPOV issues. I know #2 was put in Donald Trump at 23:13 on 24 Jan -- and quickly rejected as mentioned in TALK here. It is saying a 2020 defense point 'has been roundly rejected by' a 2018 Barr letter and a 2019 inquiry petition. That is a SYNTH of three items not associated in an external source, and also a false portayal as it conveys a 2018 document to be a rejection of something in 2020. (It looks like there circa 23:13 on 24 Jan had a few articles getting such.) I will delete this one. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)”

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

At this point the user is well aware of what WP:SYN is and continues to do it. I agree that this is the case here too, as the arguments are constructed by the user themselves in his/her own voice and not attributed to a secondary source (which predate 2020 and therefore does not comment on the trial). --Cold Season (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It may have been inadequately referenced, but that has now been rectified, and it was never SYNTH. The words "roundly rejected" came from the lede sentence of a NYT story that was cited after the next sentence, not in my voice. The mere fact that this overwhelming consensus of legal scholars long predates this trial does not diminish or obviate its relevance during these current events. It is directly applicable to article. soibangla (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not question the legitimacy of that source later provided. I do contest that there is no WP:SYN when only older sources are used, as is the case when I noticed it on my first casual perusal (which got reverted by you and thus still remains) of the article when visiting from the front page. All things need is a current source that actually talks about it in the context of the trial. --Cold Season (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

It wasn't later provided, it was just placed at the end of the next sentence. Those two sentences were originally one sentence, then later split into two, with the associated reference that originally covered both sentence fragments left at the end of the new second sentence, making it appear "roundly rejected" was not supported by a RS. I disagree with the position that every reference must be only for verification and cannot be cited to explain historical context. It's simply an expediency so readers don't have to run off to find out what the "hot mic" incident was. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

One should not misportray old documents as a response or rejection of a new event, portray a petition about inquiry as being about the trial, or use a click lede as substantive. Just get and put in some of the actual trial response and not manufactured stuff. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

it`s spelled lead 2600:1702:2340:9470:1589:F964:FAEA:AC97 (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Cold Season, User:Jack Upland - I had to do a revert (partial) to replace my disputed tag, improperly removed among various edits. (*sigh after Improper reinstatement of SYNTH / POV, contrary to BRD, we have improper removal of disputed tag...) I have put in "This reasoning had been previously rejected by most legal scholars" vice the just prior "This reasoning has been roundly rejected by legal scholars" to try at least no longer giving the false appearance of old articles being a response in or to the trial. How does the current text and cites relate the prior concerns on POV and SYNTH or UNDUE and such ? Better ? Worse ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:05, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

p.s. And since the one line/cite got split into two cite-parts, should I paste the disputed tag at the end of the Barr comment instead or as well ? That one seems to misphrase in wikivoice what is a NYT article about the Barr memorandum (predated the Barr letter). The Barr memo never says the phrase "Abuse of power" so does not seem V for article text in wikivoice "and contradicts a 2018 statement by Trump's attorney general Bill Barr, who before taking office wrote a memo to Trump's Justice Department and legal team advising that abuse of power is an impeachable offense.[76]". NYT Charlie Savage says it means that, which seems only enough to V for " the NYT said that contradicts with a 2018 memorandum by William Barr...' Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I submit MarkBassett's arguments are specious in multiple ways, beating a dead horse to the point of disruption and are unworthy of further discussion, and I recommend another editor revert his changes as I do not wish to appear to be inciting him into further disruptive conflict. soibangla (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Soibangla Coming from the one dinged as having introduced a Synth misportrayal and then not complying to BRD when reverted, then seemingly not respecting a disputed tag, this canvassing for someone else to also breech WP guidances seems continuing bad practices. There seems no apparent move to actually discuss the failed V, let alone the concerns of others on POV or UNDUE. Unless you actually go get an actual response to Dershowitz, trying to portray a SYNTH collection of things from prior years as a current trial response simply fails V, and clumping together a googling of items under your own words is SYNTH. You can either use only current cite(s), accept rewording to portray old cites properly, kick it to another form of dispute resolution, or just leave it as disputed, seems your productive choices. Or bemoan, deny, and counter-accuse which seems often preferred but isn’t getting to a more accurate article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Vote on subpoenas

There is an inconsistency between several paragraphs relate to subpoenas. Some of them reference to "witnesses and documents" while the Table of the Senate voting results on the issue, specifically indicates "new witnesses and new documents". It would be better for the article to be consistent within itself, for the purpose of credibility.66.98.34.164 (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Followed by?

"only the third impeachment trial in US history, *followed by* Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton"

Followed by or following? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:647:D8A8:3D15:9791:D5ED:9D31 (talk) 14:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Roll call vote

In the impeachment articles on Johnson and Clinton there is roll call vote table showing how each senator voted. I think it would be good to have that on this page as well. [34] [35] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.54.238 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

A second vote needed, for disqualification?

For years, I've always heard & read that if the president was convicted, he was automatically disqualified from later holding another office. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying that? If so, I would love to see it. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

That's how I interpreted what I read in the US Constitution. GoodDay (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The US Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, clause 7: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States".--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Senate’s practice in impeachment cases has been to hold separate votes on removal and disqualification. The removal vote is the same as the vote on whether to convict on the charges presented by the House’s referral of impeachment. The Constitution’s threshold for conviction and removal is “two-thirds of the [Senators] present.” But disqualification is different. The Senate has long taken the position (not without some controversy) that the vote to disqualify an official from again seeking office requires only a simple majority vote, not the higher two-thirds threshold.

soibangla (talk) 04:46, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

So the Constitution says a separate vote isn't necessary, but the Senate has historically done so, anyway. GoodDay (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

User:GoodDay - try reading that as limits on the result of conviction - it bars the result from having the powers of the judiciary to impose fines, prison, or execution. Saying the result here might at most be both a suspension and permanent ban is setting an upper limit, but ‘both’ being the maximum doesn’t mean they couldn’t choose something lesser. Many politicians in office are convicted felons - but that did not bar them from running from office. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Senate has never voted to convict a President, so there really isn't a precedent.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

True, much like the 1947 presidential succession act. That act has never been implemented so we don't know if the speaker (for example) would succeed to the presidency or merely perform the powers & duties as acting president, until a 'new' president took office. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The Speaker  ? I thought that was the vice president`s job 2600:1702:2340:9470:1589:F964:FAEA:AC97 (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely the Speaker.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

32 Minutes

The votes are added, but can you say it was 32 minutes long on the final vote? Also, can you define the Obstruction of Congress?16:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

You need to add four tildas ~ when you post. No one takes you seriously otherwise. 50.111.46.80 (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The time seems like a minor detail. Obstruction of Congress is defined there. -- Kendrick7^talk 23:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Which is balanced or contesting constitutionally against Executive privilege. There is a good article at lawfareblog. It also notes that we're not so far from the Clinton impeachment or the Obama-era information tussles over Operation Fast and Furious or the 2012 Benghazi attack, when the parties’ roles were reversed. Not sure there is an edit in prospect for information and explanation of this kind though, it looks to me that the WEIGHT is that coverage was given to hyperbole and posturing. Maybe in a few years when scholarly coverage and books come ut ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

1RR now in effect

Please be mindful, everyone. El_C 17:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Strange lack of neutrality

It's to be expected on a political article on wikipedia, but calling Bernie Sanders as an independent, when he is at the same time voting for impeaching and also running FOR the Democratic seat in the presidential election is a bit "unbiased". The public opinions section makes no mention of the significant drop when the vote was passed through the house, and makes no mention that voting for impeachment has been a position held by over 40% of those polled ever since 2017. Everything in the political reactions section is absolutely negative towards Trump, when at least some people clearly disagreed with the proceedings in the house (i.e. see the drop in opinin for impeachment right after it). I doubt that any of the "approved" opinionholders on this website will care to fix the NPOV though.205.175.106.20 (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Bernie is an independent in the Senate. That's a simple fact. I don't know what drop you're referring to. When impeachment passed the House, polling found increased support. What specifically is not covered? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

See Bernie's Template:Infobox officeholder info. X1\ (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Also see the RS at my response at #New poll. X1\ (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find it hilarious that there are editors that feel that articles "need" neutrality just because the held opinions are generally negative or positive, when in fact that is what is generally held by the reliable sources. What I find not hilarious is the fact that the United States has just become a totalitarian state following the acquittal, which clearly shows that the two hyperpartisan major parties will not work together to get anything done, and will work merely in their own parties' interests. Fortunately, NPOV is there to expose that. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 00:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

That is an exaggeration, Gamingforfun365. X1\ (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

The exaggeration was supposed to be a hyperbole, which is not meant to be taken seriously. Perhaps I should have clarified that in my previous edit? Still, the acquittal shows how diametrical the two parties are, and I am not even trying to hint which side is better. Sad. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 03:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

In retrospect, I regret being overtly harsh to the White House anx Congress. When you have high expectations for the president and Congress, you really hope that the two will not violate them. Otherwise, you lose your cool and begin to criticize them sensationalistically. The only reason to resort to such practice is to express your contempt and disagreement, but it really is unconvincing, even when hyperboles are used, to use emotion when the same point can be made by sticking strictly to the facts. It is tempting to fall for that fallacy, but I am beginning to realize that I know better. The United States is far from totalitarian, and President Trump and his allies in Congress may not even be horrific personally. It is just their politics that we find touchy. It does help to remember that. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 04:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Then again, in the two previous presidential impeachments, not a single member of the president's party broke ranks and voted against the president. Zero. This time, a senator actually did. Impeachment has always been highly partisan and always will be, but someone looking at the numbers might say it was less partisan this time because of that one senator. And of course the neutrality of this article is in question, just like all politics and news today. Here at Wikipedia, one person's reliable source is another person's satanic verse. And on Sanders being an independent... that is also from the POV of the beholder. People have a tendency to look at Independents as a person who has viewpoint of both US political parties; that they can be swayed one way or the other, and that's just not true. Sanders is not in the middle at all but rather to the far left of the democratic party (or was to the far left) so it is understandable that he would side with democrats 99% of the time. He is a socialist but that term doesn't really get him votes so basically being "independent" of the two major US parties is what he is going for. I see no problem with "Independent" being used. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Wikipedia defines social democracy as American Left, and is not far-left politics (such as the authoritarianism of Communism, Stalinism, or Maoism). X1\ (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

That may be true, but this is an American politician based on American political values. Socialism is far left here. And you'll notice I said far left of the democratic party, not far left politics as per wikipedia. When viewed per the American democrats, he is far left. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

We define it per our articles based on RSs. You, Fyunck(click), may feel differently, but don't include it here as it would be wp:OR. X1\ (talk) 00:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't do anything to the article. I was explaining here why Sanders, as an independent, would vote almost exclusively democrat because he is not in the middle of democrats and republicans as many independents are perceived. He is on the far left of American politics... that is not OR in the least as it can be sourced with ease. Per world spectrum, it would certainly be different. I will absolutely include it on the talk page when explaining things to people. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, Wikipedia is written for a global audience, in this case the English-speaking world. So we use global standards. As far as local-U.S. perspectives, your personal view (still without sourced with ease refs given) may be out-of-date per this CNBC item: Why Democratic Socialism Is Gaining Popularity In The United States on YouTube posted July 27, 2019. X1\ (talk) 21:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

For classifications of left and right we generally use standards used in that country vs a global viewpoint. Similar to when articles use British English vs American English. PackMecEng (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

From what I provided, our article's RSs show social democracy as American Left, and not as far-left, both from within the U.S. and from a general perspective; this is attempt to avoid WP:NOTPROPAGANDA, as no RSs have been provided otherwise. X1\ (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Gamingforfun365 for openly showing retrospection. I understand the high expectations leading to a hyperbolic comment, as I have regrettably slipped into that myself at times. X1\ (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Issues with Template:Party shading in Rollcall Vote

I'm wanting to add Template:Party shading/Republican and Template:Party shading/Democratic in here roll call vote table, but the problem is it will just show up as the literal text instead of doing it like on Bill Clinton impeachment trial roll call vote table. Anyone know a solution or willing to do this? Next, rearranging the table by last name. Can I Log In (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Comment retracted: Problem solved by Can I Log In (talk). Can I Log In (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

Splitting out with what percentage of whom wants witnesses called and further splitting it with which witnesses they want to be called wouldn't accomplish anything but make it more convoluted. Polls like this can automatically be assumed to have multiple viewpoints contained in them. Also, what would make splitting them out irrelevant is the fact that if one side gets to call witnesses, then the other can too. The truth of the matter is that a plurality of the american people who were polled think witnesses should be allowed, regardless of what witnesses they think should be called. That's what gives it balance. Just saying. Persistent Corvid (talk) 21:52, 25 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)

it matters when polls are populist 2600:1702:2340:9470:C132:1BAD:12BE:442D (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

If fox news polls are allowed then so are cnn ones as long as the pollsters conducting said polls are reputable. Persistent Corvid (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree..I wasn`t under the impression fox polls were in the article 2600:1702:2340:9470:682E:65E:CE62:D0D0 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Other Trump impeachment articles with opinion polls include fox news polls also. The point is, any reputable pollsters' polls can be included, providing that they are relevant to the article. The polling in question is in fact relevant and conducted by a reliable pollster. If there is a relevant poll done by Gallup or Fox (if done by a reputable pollster) then those can be included also. I'm done hashing out the matter. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Per Fox News poll: Fox News Poll: Record economy ratings, as half say Senate should remove Trump (26 Jan.) 50% of Americans think the Senate should vote to convict and remove Trump from office (also barring him from future public office), and only 44% believe the Senate should wait; that is significant. X1\ (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

• Include polls, as impeachment is a political process and thus the attitude of the voters is significant. X1\ (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Per NBC News/WSJ poll: NBC/WSJ poll: Country remains divided over Trump's impeachment trial; Majorities of Americans believe the president abused his power and obstructed Congress but split over whether it was enough to remove him. 46% of voters say Trump should be removed from office as a result of the impeachment trial, versus 49% who say he should remain president. 52% say they believe Trump abused the power of his office by asking a foreign government to investigate a political opponent, compared with 41% who disagree. X1\ (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

New poll

Wall Street Journal/NBC News [36] 49% against removal, 46% for. If accurate, it shows that public opinion has shifted away from being in favor of removal to majority against. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Good summary of several recent polls shows his approval has ticked up across the board: [37]. 155.19.91.37 (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal and NBC both have conservative biases 2600:1702:2340:9470:452F:43DB:CF0C:868E (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

NBC News is rated "Neutral" via User:BullRangifer/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here#Good: Reliable sources. X1\ (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Per FiveThirtyEight, Trump's approval remains low. X1\ (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

After the trial?

Now that the trial is concluded to editors still support having these polls in the article? What is the relevance now?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• Include polls, as impeachment is a political process and thus the attitude of the voters is significant. (same as above) X1\ (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Do an RfC to get more respondents? X1\ (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Exclude polls re evidence. Were not overwhelming and had no actual effect on trial conduct, and after the trial are certainly irrelevant. Better polls for ‘aftermath’ are the Approval ratings (spiked up, similar to Clinton), and maybe polls on % wanting to try again. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Alleged retaliation sacking of Vindman and Sondland

the sources seem pretty clear about the allegation of this being Trump's retribution. i don't see any need for this to be removed.

'President Trump wasted little time on Friday opening a campaign of retribution against those he blames for his impeachment, firing two of the most prominent witnesses in the House inquiry against him barely 48 hours after being acquitted by the Senate.' Gogolwold (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

References

The material I removed in this diff is not supported by the linked reference. It should be removed pending stronger sourcing with more appropriate wording. Mr Ernie (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

It is supported, but anyhow, I've added three more sources. There's no need to change the wording.Gogolwold (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the attribution. Looks ok now. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

LOk, so I've added in the details of who is making the accusations, and reorganised so it makes a bit more chronological sense given that the accusations (if they can even really be called such since Trump's essentially said so himself!) come after both Vindman and Sonderland's removal.Gogolwold (talk) 13:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Good job. The accusations of retaliation sacking are an important part of the story no matter which side one is on politically. We just needed to specify who was making the accusations --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Only ‘fired’ doesn’t seem factually proper. It’s a bit of artistic license or media headline hype. The LtCol. was sent back to the Pentagon, but they’re not releasing him from the service. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

He was fired from his position. It doesn’t mean he has *no* employment. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As Firing (disambiguation) - most commonly refers to Termination of employment, it is factually incorrect or at best misleading. The ‘retaliation’ seems only a bit POV, but ‘fired’ is just incorrect. Markbassett (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

As the act of the dismissals being retribution is but an allegation and has yet to be proven or declared as a decided fact by a legitimate judicial body, the publishing of the assertion itself is subject to libel. Wikipedia's claim of a general consensus for the alleged facts it publishes does not exonerate Wikipedia nor the authors of those articles, in part or in whole, which professes those accusations. Wikipedia should cease its move to becoming a collection of editorial opinion articles and return to the implied promise of being a source of facts. @Symmachus Auxiliarus:Spinning is bias. Markbassett is correct that the word 'fired' seems not factually proper, and I will assert that it is not only seemingly improper, but is improper as it is misleading. Stuart M Klimek (talk)

"Fired" or "dismissed" or "let go" or whatever you want to call it is a fact. Being escorted off the property by security is a fact. "Retribution" as the motive is also a fact, supported not just by the timing but by pretty much all reporting. I do think we should avoid flowery or dramatic language like the NYT's "wasted little time" and "barely 48 hours". But let's not pretend that whether it was retribution or not would be determined by "a legitimate judicial body". Retribution is not a crime, so no courts would be involved. And calling it retribution is not libel. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I think "fired" etc is misleading if the person is actually redeployed.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

You are cordially invited to edit Draft:Mismanagement of the 2019-20 COVID-19 pandemic. Calmecac5 (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Do we need to indicate the first ever bipartisan conviction?

Other involved parties: Jgstokes and Minhle20002013

Senator Mitt Romney became the first U.S Senator in history to cast a vote to convict and remove the President of their own political party from office, it was also the first time in history there was a bipartisan vote to convict and remove the President from office .

References

No, we don't need this. Historically, U.S. presidential impeachment trials have only been Republican vs. Democrats (okay we have 2 independents, but they caucus with Democrats.). With that fact, only the opposing party has voted guilty until this one. Mitt Romney, the "supporting" party voted guilty. There you go, bipartisan conviction support, no need to indicate, and it wasn't very bipartisan at all really.

Thoughts from other users?

Also, Jgstokes, you violated 1RR, and you could've been sanctioned. Becareful.

{{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 21:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Include some facts that are ommited or wrong in this article

1) Javelins were not aid, they were bought by Ukraine and thus there were no hold on them.

2) Trump asked investigation into Croudstrike and a server for Javelins favor, not Biden's son.

3) Shokin rearrested Burisma assets after UK arrest of its money in Cyprus after that he was fired. He sued Biden. https://web.archive.org/web/20160205092116/http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=168807

4) Aid was unblocked on 11 September 2019 because of obligating event of raiding Privatbank by Zelenski. Aid was not withold; Trump put a hold on it, aid was released in the end of fiscal year as it was planned before that (30 September).

5) Investigations from Zelensky were done. With OANN and Giuliani.

6) Javelins are just a political weapon: Zelenski could not use it against pro-russian ukranians according to Trump administartion deal with Ukraine. https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/03/far-from-the-front-lines-javelin-missiles-go-unused-in-ukraine/ 2A00:1370:812C:DACF:416E:FCD1:E565:513F (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

• I've removed the RfC tag, as this was not properly formatted as an RfC nor was it clear that an RfC was appropriate at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes It does not matter, whether there is an RfC, it is still an RfC, it was not properly closed and you know it. 91.78.221.238 (talk) 23:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 13 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved, which is overwhelmingly favored by opinions since the creation of second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

---

Impeachment trial of Donald Trump → First impeachment trial of Donald Trump – As the House prepares to impeach Trump a second time, it may be helpful to distinguish this article as the first impeachment trial. Hans van Mol 14:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chsdrummajor07 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments at Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Requested_move_13_January_2021. Interstellarity (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, as we do not know if the Senate will hold a second impeachment trial. If the Senate decides to hold the second trial, then the article can be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Opposeuntil the Senate actually performs the trial (Mitch McConnell said that he would not exercise his emergency powers to make the Senate meet and conduct a trial before Biden's inauguration), I think it would be best to wait until the event actually occurs. Assuming that does occur, then I think we can change the title. Nicholaspark2001 (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – wait. There might not even be an impeachment trial, just a vote. Once the Senate makes more information available, then this can be reconsidered. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now I'm the one who moved the other pages to "First impeachment". I intentionally left this one in place because we don't know if there will ever be a trial. It seems that the House won't transmit the article until after Biden's 100 days, and we don't know what the Senate would do with it. So there is no reason for a "second trial" article at this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Changed my mind to Support. We now have Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump, impeachment managers, and when the articles are transmitted, Democrats will control the Senate. There will be a trial. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I think creation of that article may have been premature, as it still seems to be uncertain as to if or when a second impeachment trial would even take place. I'd be surprised if someone doesn't try to AfD that article. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

      Rreagan007, it appears that it will take place after Pelosi sends the article to Schumer, more than 100 days from now. Schumer won't stop a trial. Even the guidance put out by McConnell suggests it would start Jan 19 if Pelosi sent it ASAP. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

From what I've read, the soonest it could happen is the day after the Senate comes into session at 1pm, which would be January 20, an hour after Biden is sworn in. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

All of which is plenty of information for an article on the second impeachment trial, hence the need to move this one as requested. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

And what should be do if a second trial never takes place? It seems rather silly to have an article about a trial that never took place. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose for now and I would also question the use of "first" and "second" instead of "2020" and "2021" jamacfarlane (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The year would be more fitting in my opinion. Thanks, EDG 543 (message me) 22:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

  Disagree. A reader is more likely to know that they want to find the article on the first or second impeachment trial and will be less likely to know which year they took place on.

• Oppose for now. Unless and until the Senate announces a trial on the latest impeachment, it is premature to move this page. OCNative (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait - The Senate hasn't started an impeachment trial yet, and from what I know, we don't know if or when one will start. GyozaDumpling (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait for now Until they announce it. Whenever that will be... *looks at Mitch McConnell* Missvain (talk) 17:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not just McConnell. The trial cannot begin until the House officially sends the article of impeachment to the Senate, which a high-ranking Democrat has indicated won't happen until after Biden's first 100 days in office. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose, especially since no date of the trial has been set, and who knows what the outcome will be. StAnselm (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support article already exists for second impeachment trial. All signs point to it happening (we should assume it will, rather than assume that it won't, happen). This article (on the first impeachment trial) was created the day after he was impeached, before Pelosi named impeachment managers (which allowed the Senate to schedule a trial). She has already appointed impeachment managers. We are a step closer to being able to hold a trial now than we were when this article was created. SecretName101 (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Dr. Pizza (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support While there is no indication yet *when* the second trial will begin, it 100% will happen according to every reliable source. An article already exists for the second trial, so to avoid confusing the reader, this should be renamed. It's not WP:OR, it's just common sense. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support If a trial is going to be held. It's up to Schumer & his colleges. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support for reasons listed above. It should be moved quickly. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support. If there's an article for the second trial then this should be called the first. WestCD (talk) 01:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support Given that we have an article Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump it is absurd to not modify this article's name. If editors are inclined to have a fight about whether Wikipedia should presuppose an event that has not yet happened, they should feel free to make the case for deletion of the aforementioned article, but until then, this article's name should reflect that there is a second impeachment trial article. OnAcademyStreet (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support Plenty of reliable sources are talking about the preparations for the second trial. Even if it doesn't happen, it is still notable as a hypothetical concept, because it is being covered left and right. I will change my opinion if the article gets deleted though. However, I really do not think that is going to happen. I will also change my opinion if the other article is moved to Planned Impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support after second trial has begun - Wait until the second trial has formally begun to move the article. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support In fact that the second trial would begin on 19 January or later and we also already have new article about Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. I suggests the current title should become a DAB/List page. 118.96.188.169 (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support; the trial is going to happen since McConnell isn’t going to be majority leader in a couple days anyway and Chuck Schumer is definitely going to want this trial to happen SRD625 (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support - per WestCD . PhilKnight (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2021 (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.

Barry Black

Shouldn't Barry Black's opening prayer before each day of the trail be mentioned somewhere in the article? Thriley (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

45th

StAnselm It is less specific and, moreover, it is intentionally less specific. The function is to push a fringe view. It is a sort of kampfbegriff whose introduction can only be POV. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

But it wasn't the impeachment of a former president; it was the impeachment of a current president. StAnselm (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

GordonGlottal, I agree with StAnselm. 45th is the better choice for any article where whatever happened to him occurred while he was still president, since calling a current president a former president is confusing. Also, I don't consider 45th to be POV or FRINGE, it's just a statement of fact. Stating facts is an ideal tone for an encyclopedia. I am concerned that you are mass changing this across dozens of articles, and I would recommend that you stop. This seems controversial. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This has been an issue on other pages -- some editors, who believe Trump is currently the duly elected presidented, want to use vague language to avoid saying he lost. Trump himself does this, by referring to himself as the "45th president". It is extremely unencyclopedic, and we should avoid it wherever possible. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

This policy has relevance to this matter. Trump was the 45th president during his tenure from 2017-2021; Joe Biden became the 46th president upon the constitutionally-supported end of Trump's term. Any events referring to actions taken by or in reference to Trump during the time when he served as president rightly refer to him as the 45th president, because that's what he was. Wikipedia is not obligated to alter the wording used in such cases simply based on the fact that Trump or his supporters use that numeric term to imply that he is or still should be president. We go by what the sources say. And based on the cited sources, that is correct terminology to use to describe Trump's term now that it has concluded. It's a non-issue, in my mind. It's made abundantly clear elsewhere on Wikipedia that Wikipedia as an institution in and of itself does not consider Trump the current president, so if anything anywhere on Wikipedia is implying that Trump is the current president, that issue needs to be dealt with there. It's clear that a majority of the opinions expressed in this topic on this page do not agree with the concerns raised in this topic by a single editor. That implies that there is no consensus for the changes suggested by you, GordonGlottal, so it may be wise at this point to drop further objections, unless of course anyone else who comments agrees with you in a timely manner, because that's how Wikipedia actually works. 'Nuff said. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Instant outside rebuttals to trial arguments do not belong here

This article exists to give a relatively detailed account of the trial proceedings. It is out of scope, and severely NPOV-violating, to give, immediately after each argument by one of Trump's lawyers, a sentence or footnote explaining why the argument is (according to some professor, journalist or Wikipedia editor) wrong. I intend to remove any such embedded editorials that I see, but am posting here first to see if there are other opinions about this. (Some of this material may be on topic in sections of the article that discuss responses, analysis, etc separate from the trial per se. What I am proposing to remove is all such material within the day-by-day coverage of the unfolding proceedings.) Sesquivalent (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Article doesn't say WHY Trump was impeached

This article never explains WHY Trump was impeached. It should mention the conduct that led to the articles of impeachment being brought, ideally in the introductory section Matt2h (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)