The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Donald Trump, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Donald Trump on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Donald TrumpWikipedia:WikiProject Donald TrumpTemplate:WikiProject Donald TrumpDonald Trump articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I think there is also some disagreement about whether or not he has been impeached yet. Or whether the house has voted to impeach him but has not yet done so, and will only have done so when they bring the articles to the senate.
Interesting, but I am not sure this belongs under 3rd or 4th maybe it's own section in talk? Although, it is significant that it was Noah Feldman who wrote the article you link to. However, A Law Professor’s Provocative Argument seems to point to disagreement between legal scholars. However, there is no court precedent regarding this. Moreover, the longer the articles are with-held the question does become more important. Although, it seems factual to say the impeachment is still pending or in progress. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently says, "...making Trump the third president in U.S history to be impeached...." There's actually some legal disagreement over whether or not Richard Nixon was technically impeached as he resigned during the process. Should this be mentioned? Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article of impeachment were never voted on for Nixon, so he was never impeached. A footnote would probably be useful though (and I had one in the original revision) to avoid confusion. NixinovaTC 02:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a footnote would be helpful, thanks! Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the footnote I had in the original page revision: Trump will thereby be impeached, making Trump the third president to be impeached, after [[Impeachment of Andrew Johnson|Andrew Johnson in 1868]] and [[Impeachment of Bill Clinton|Bill Clinton in 1999]].<refgroup=note>[[Richard Nixon]] resigned from the presidency during his impeachment process, therefore he was never actually impeached.</ref>NixinovaTC 02:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I admit, yours is better than mine, Nixinova. (I mean, come on, I even misused "proffered" here: "Although Richard Nixon had articles proffered against him by the House Judiciary Committee, he resigned before the full House voted on articles of impeachment. See Impeachment process against Richard Nixon.") Still, the fact that the footnotes keep getting removed: are we sure they're necessary? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nixon was not impeached. I don't see how there could be disagreement about that.- MrX 🖋 02:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe minor edits to that - change “will be” to “has been” impeached; and change the Nixon resigned ‘therefore he was never actually impeached’ to ‘before the vote for impeachment.’ to avoid saying ‘therefore’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some folks tend to get the 1974 Judiciary committee vote confused with the full House, which never voted on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Reintegrate
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, the current main article, was ripe to be moved to this name and the saga continued. However it seems different users have taken it upon themselves to create a separate article for this as well as the senate trial. This goes against all current convention for impeachment articles and is wholly unnecessary. I propose merging this and the senate trial page back into the main page content at this name. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 03:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging this page into the inquiry page, neutral on merging the trial into here. This article already has a substantial amount of information that would make it too long to comfortably fit into the already-long inquiry page (which is 330kB+). Other U.S. impeachment processes were from before Wikipedia & the internet's popularity so there was less coverage of the processes. This page is already 63kB+ on day 1 of this happening and will only get larger, so there is enough content to warrant its own page. NixinovaTC 03:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No, it wasn't "different users". This article was brought to life by Coffeeandcrumbs who took part in the same discussion as you. And, no, there is no "convention for impeachment articles". Only two other presidents have been impeached, and both of them predated Wikipedia. This outcome was totally predictable, and it is ridiculous that we have been debating this for a year.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The various drafts for these articles have been created by others, C&C just published them. Regardless, ignoring the rules to institute what view you want because consensus is debated is not acceptable formulation for such an important topic. Truly it reduces all articles involved in quality of writing, citations, understandability, and easy of access. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 03:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support i agree with GoodDay, the other articles should be split up as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedyplane2247 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF. There's more information about Trump's impeachment available. NixinovaTC 04:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could've at least waited for the Inquiry article RM to be completed. Not even the House Democrats moved that fast. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that went against consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of my primary concerns. The main subject of that RM should have been modified to be based on whether to move the inquiry article to the primary impeachment title or to split, but instead, with it still active and some people still debating whether to move the article, the unilateral split occurred. I think that will likely remain the case since many will see it as the new "status quo," especially with it on the Main Page now. Master of Time(talk) 09:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The sudden splits will also confuse folks who took part in the RM, when they return. GoodDay (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: In my eyes, the impeachment inquiry and the impeachment trial generally talk about a similar topic, that being the impeachment. Frankly, I don't enough about the process of impeachment to know the reason why they are separate articles in the first place. Then again, maybe that's another reason to combine them. --Diriector_Doc┝Talk Contribs━━━┥ 04:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The articles each cover different aspects of the impeachment. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE - two different topics, naturally separated and COMMONNAME difference, and seems bad idea to try anything while still in motion - so do a second article and maybe merge later. Before the vote it was an inquiry, not an impeachment. After the vote it is an impeachment, not inquiry. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump focuses explicitly on the inquiry, and thus has become too large of a topic to include on this page. A summary of the article can appear here instead – PhilipTerryGraham (talk· articles · reviews) 04:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One is enough. Rmhermen (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rmhermen: There's simply too much content for one article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk· articles · reviews) 05:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the Impeachment inquiry is a several month long process which is notable in itself. The page is already too long to also include the Impeachment of Donald Trump. A WP:SPLIT is warranted. The inquiry is a notable process which leads to the impeachment itself and should remain separate. Valoemtalkcontrib 05:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mergefor inquiry article as per User:Valoem but support for trial article, which shouldn't even exist. Impeachment isn't a trial, the vote to remove is more akin to a trial.Jason Quinn (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Quinn:, it is a trial known as the Senate trial, testimony is given with managers presenting their case over several days. Senate then begins deliberations either publicly or privately. The verdict is then given on a vote. Valoemtalkcontrib 05:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I misunderstood what that article was supposed to be about (it's a bit premature). Changed to Oppose merge for both. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose Trump have passed the house on 2 articles of impeachment The creeper2007 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What does this even mean? NixinovaTC 06:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The creeper2007: I think you mean to oppose. Support means you want one article on both the inquiry and impeachment process. Oppose means you want two. Valoemtalkcontrib 13:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The Impeachment inquiry (House investigation) and Impeachment trial (Senate trial) are both related, but they are also two distinct procedures. Not to mention the inquiry page is incredibly lengthy; the trial page will no doubt become just as lengthy. Both can be briefly summarised in the main page, but for the sake of WP:LENGTH both should remain separate. Yes, other presidents' impeachment pages are not separated, but both are significantly shorter pages. – Nick Mitchell 98talk 06:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I remain convinced that my BOLD action to split the first two articles was warranted and saved us a lot of work and time. We can now focus on improving these articles instead of being bogged down by process. (You need only look at how good this article has become to see I was right.) I am not sure we should have started the Senate trial article yet. That could have waited for the new year. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All you did was create confusion & frustration. The Inquiry article would've been moved, but you didn't give it a chance. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support — The inquiry will be frankly 80% of what stays in the merged article anyway. The sum of the length of the two articles may seem long but by its nature there is a lot of overlapping information. Alex 06:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Opera fera: There will be much less overlap when a good amount of content from Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, such as the near-entirety of the "Background" section, is appropriately migrated to Impeachment of Donald Trump. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk· articles · reviews) 07:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PhilipTerryGraham, I think that should be removed or moved to Trump–Ukraine scandal. The inquiry article has too much background. We don't want to make the same mistake with this article. The summary of the background in this article should be kept very concise. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose merging the impeachment inquiry article into this article. That article’s large enough that it might require splitting. It certainly shouldn’t be merged into this article. I’m neutral when it comes to merging the trial article into this article. We should probably wait & see how that article develops before making a decision. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it require splitting? There are plenty of articles, such as Trump–Ukraine scandal, that are substantially larger than that one. Even by that argument, the way this article (Impeachment of Donald Trump) was created goes against the spirit of WP:HASTE because it was not imperative that the inquiry article be broken up without an official move/split discussion. Master of Time(talk) 08:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support There is substantial overlap between the Impeachment inquiry article and the Impeachment article. Not very smart to have separate pages for those two at least. Reywas92Talk 08:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The impeachment inquiry is a self-contained chapter of this saga, and the actual impeachment is better handled in a new article, including a brief summary of the Ukraine scandal background and of the inquiry. The impeachment inquiry against Trump is equivalent to the Starr Report on Clinton; both have enough material and separate temporality to deserve their own articles. I would support merging the trial page into this one, because it won't start until January. We can decide later whether it deserves a split. — JFGtalk 08:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge of inquiry / impeachment article. The significant majority of what happened is encompassed by the inquiry article. The impeachment vote itself can be boiled down to the drafting of the articles + the debate/vote on December 18. I might be down with a separate Senate trial article since that is a different phase / process and will have different goings on leading up to it, but will wait and see. Master of Time(talk) 09:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I belive that this page is large enough already and both of these articles will likely just grow and grow.★Trekker (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above opposes. I think this is viable and more than enough material for there to be a whole separate article. Quahog (talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support due to simplicity of both articles being on the same topic and having the same meaning Charlesmartin1987 (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Impeachment of Donald Trump.Oppose per MrX reasoning of course. Teammmtalk email 11:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Teammm: could you clarify what you are supporting? As worded, it looks like you are supporting his actual impeachment of yesterday, rather than the proposed merging process here. — Maile (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are separate processes, which will be followed by the Senate trial (another separate process). Too large for the whole of this to be in one article. Please consider the average reader, who may be accessing this on a small, portable device. How much scrolling should readers have to do before they get to the process they want? Especially if we're talking about students who are accessing this in a classroom. — Maile (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mobile view already breaks down articles in such a way as to limit scrolling, so that really doesn't seem like it should be a significant issue. Plus, looking at just what the page history says gives a misleading picture in terms of article size, e.g. much of the seemingly massive 70 KB in this article is just table coding, references, and the like. And that's not accounting for any redundancies between this article and the inquiry article. Master of Time(talk) 11:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Un huh. Well, speaking for myself ... if I have to read down through too much, I lose interest and look for something more interesting to read. How much is the average attention span on reading through all of this, even without the merging? What purpose are we serving by having it in one big glut? Given Wikipedia's easy linking from one page to the next, I see no purpose in merging everything. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose. The "Inquiry" page was too damn long as it is. We need a separate "trial" article and an "indez" article. @Maile 66 is absolutely right. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose because the inquiry is incredibly notable in itself, and has a tangible beginning, middle, and end. It is an occurrence that meets notability standards on its own, and then some. The Pony Toast🍞 (Talk) 14:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is more than enough material for there to be a whole separate article. Fluffypigpie (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support I agree with GoodDay, this is a vote for consistency - Chip🐺 • #TeamTrees🌳 16:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Absolutely no need for multiple articles which, for all intents and purposes, are about the same root subject. Keep the consistency demonstrated by the other two impeachment articles and just merge everything into the one article. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (edit conflict) per above, and very strong likelihood of the articles expanding independently. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Now that we are past the inquiry stage, I think it is justified to have different articles about different stages in the process. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This should be the main, summary article. Any other articles would be WP:SPINOFFS containing more detail about the various phases of the impeachment process. - MrX 🖋 18:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Agree with MrX, it's fine to have this article and a more detailed article on the inquiry. Magil8216 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging the articles under Impeachment of Donald Trump. The inquiry only seems independently notable because it's so recent. Lereman (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made a page that realizes this proposed merge. NixinovaTC 19:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF again. This takes place in the internet era so there's more information available about Trump. Also, Nixon's never got past the inquiry stage. NixinovaTC 20:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter when they took place, there should be consistency. WP:RECENTISM is obviously happening here. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no; if you compare Clinton's inquiry stage to Trump's there's a lot more info about Trump's because everything was out in the open; if Trump's inquiry stage could fit in only 2 paragraphs then I'd support a merge, but it doesn't. NixinovaTC 21:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's been dozens of books written about all of the impeachments so there could be multiple articles about all of them, but its superfluous to have them, so nobody has bothered to make them. One article each is enough. Also the Internet started in 1991 so it'd be easy to find tons of articles written during the Clinton impeachment process if someone wanted to split that article, but it's just not necessary. One could argue the "information age" began in 1440 when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, so it currently being the "internet era" is a terrible argument. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOpposeHowever, I believe that they should only be merged once the Impeachment trial has concluded, due to the fact that the event is currently occurring. Vote changed to oppose due to more compelling evidence. A-NEUN (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Even though I already voted in favor of the merge, waiting for the trial to conclude would be better. --Diriector_Doc┝Talk Contribs━━━┥ 21:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC) No longer in agreement. --Diriector_Doc┝Talk[reply] Contribs━━━┥ 15:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - These are both fundamentally part of the same story. MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. I could see Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump being summarized in this article. Let editors keep working on these separate articles for a while longer and see if some of the repetition can be removed. ---Another Believer(Talk) 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The article would get longer than needed and I feel the inquiry is a different topic that needs it's separate article Lutty2028 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support We have discussed this issue many times at Talk:Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump. I have strongly opposed multiple articles every time it came up, and so have many others. There was never a consensus to have two articles - much less a third one about the Senate trial as some people are proposing. For heavens sake, why? It will just wind up repeating most of the information in the other article(s). And yet, Coffeeandcrumbs took it upon themselves to go ahead and create this as soon as impeachment was voted. Impeachment is one thing, not three, and should be in one article as all of the other impeachment-related articles are. (I believe we can trim a lot of the fat out of the "inquiry" article and will do so when I get back to my regular computer.) And yes, there are separate articles about the supporting scandals of the other presidents - and there are for Trump also, see Trump-Ukraine Scandal - but not about the actual impeachment. Impeachment should be in one place and not force people to go chasing around from the beginning to the middle to the ending and back and forth with tons of duplication in between. This would be like having different articles for each quarter of a football game, or separate articles for "Biography of Charles Manson", "Crimes of Charles Manson", "Trial of Charles Manson", "Imprisonment of Charles Manson", and so on. We have two articles now, unfortunately, but they should be merged in the near future. --MelanieN alt (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, at 329 Kb, is already a large article. This is a valid WP:SPLIT for any events happening from December 18, 2019, once Trump was impeached. The other article is for events happening from September up to the date above. We have clear, distinct stages, and lots of information. starship.paint (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have a feeling we are stuck with the three articles (plus possibly a timeline if someone cares to make one) for the foreseeable future. People just can't resist the excitement and lure of WP:RECENTISM. In a year or so I will propose merging the three into one article, as they should be, and maybe people will be more amenable to it then. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support merging the three articles. I think we should not dedicate a separate article to each stage of the impeachment process. НСНУ (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see on top of the "Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump" article a number of 'further information' links. That might make everything simpler and less congested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge. Keeping everything in one article is going to be unwieldy. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quisquidillius (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per WP:SIZE as the article is already too large. 9March2019 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All these articles are very long already, and if they are merged, then it can be too big to navigate comfortably. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I converted this third article on the subject to a redirect here. Rmhermen (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Being this is the third impeachment of a US President, this is clearly notable and historic. Sources have already stated its significance and will be massively expanded in the upcoming months. Valoemtalkcontrib 05:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I was wondering if perhaps the content of this article should be merged back into the inquiry article which would then assume the "Impeachment of Donald Trump" title, with the Senate trial and the lead-up to it then receiving its own page because the Senate trial is a separate process from impeachment, which is a House process. They "try" the impeachment, but the Senate's actions are not part of impeachment. Master of Time(talk) 08:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The inquiry article was too damn long. It needed some pruning, which is why we need the two new articlesArglebargle79 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really need to say damn every time you go on record opposing a merge? I'm allowed to disagree. And if you consider my basic argument, the material specific to the impeachment 'vote' is actually quite limited. Just look at this article as it is right now, disregarding the 70 KB. The actual impeachment section (and if you want, polls section) is actually quite short. My thinking is that this article and the inquiry material should all be together as "Impeachment of Donald Trump," with a separate trial article for the second phase of the process (which is where I would expect most of the growth + added text to occur). Down the line, if necessary, future commentary on Trump's impeachment that doesn't relate to the Senate trial or anything else can have (a) separate fork(s). Master of Time(talk) 12:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't but it's necessary here. The question of limiting the articles to Ukraine was a contentious one and needs to be addressed. The protests and reactions need a place to go as well.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No. As I have stated ad nauseum, there is a need for an "index page" (this one) and a separate trial page, as there is going to be plenty of information and drama surrounding it now that you-know-who has actually been impeached and the focus of American politics is the Senate trial. As to Andy Johnson and Clinton, their trials took place before the invention of Wikipedia, and Clinton's scandal has at least three or four articles. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That article is a product of WP:RECENTISM, as we don't have such an article for Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Andy Johnson article is almost all about the trial. There were two investigations in 1867 that weren't even mentioned, including one that went all the way to the floor and lost. The fact that they impeached first in 1868 and wrote the articles later is barely even mentioned there. Again look at the difference between the 2004 Republican Convention article and the 1956 one. the latter is barely a stub, and the other is rather long and detailed. Why? Wikipedia didn't exist in 1956. It's the same here. Doing a really good job on the AJ impeachment would require tons of original research, or reading lots of really old books. The Clinton impeachment was mostly an afterthought that backfired. No one wanted Clinton impeached by the time he was...Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely support This third article was never discussed, should not have been created, and there is no reason for it. The title should be made into a redirect unless and until consensus is reached to have THREE-for-heavens-sake separate articles on the impeachment, against all precedent and against all logic. And folks, please stop claiming that "Clinton's impeachment has multiple articles," that is simply false. Clinton's impeachment has one article about the impeachment, plus supporting articles about the scandal. Trump's article should also have one article about the impeachment, plus supporting articles about the scandal (see Trump-Ukraine scandal). --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now: I think it is justified to have a separate article about the trial, but not until the trial has actually started. 00:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk • contribs)
Support for now per Nine hundred ninety-nine. Once the trial is actually going to start, we should change the redirect into an actual article. Seems obvious enough. Kaldari (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
References to official House roll call results
Hi Javert2113, can you say more about why you removed the links to clerk.house.gov in this revision? The revision comment says "never been able to get clerk.house.gov to work", but I don't understand what that means; [1] and [2] both load fine for me in Firefox and in Chrome. They seem like useful references, as they show how every member voted on this historic matter. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I get a "HTTP Error 404" every time I try to load a clerk.house.gov vote, so it honestly might just be me. Regardless, I think the Clerk, while certainly a source for information, isn't the best independent source here, given that, well, most every news outlet in the United States was counting every vote. Regardless, you're right, and I'm sorry for removing the links. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever help it may be.... The links work for me in Safari on my mobi. Seem like decent cites to have. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Structure of this article
Putting this to writing to preempt any discussion on the purpose and role of this article – ideally, this article should serve as the main article on the topic of the Impeachment of Donald Trump, with certain sections of this article being written in summary style to serve as adequate summaries, for casual readers, of articles which go into greater depth. Here what the structure of the article should look like in my opinion:
I think polling should start in December 2019 and continue from there. We have at least an month or two of this thing. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think also editors are going to want a Response section to handle opinions from the masses of commentators and politicians that are going to add their two-cents. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above, I think that will be the most logical and simple formating.★Trekker (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Howabout holding off, until the 'merge' discussion has completed? There's no panic here. GoodDay (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The merge discussion is running 53% Opposed. I just finished counting. There's no consensus to merge.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@PhilipTerryGraham's structure for the article is fine in my book, although it could use more on the media and protests, not to mention the Trump campaign's massive spending on TV and print ads. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy Pelosi Says Articles of Impeachment May Not Be Sent to the Senate
Not certain if we need to add this.. Seems Nancy Pelosi doesn't want President Trump to be acquitted of the impeachment by the senate...
It's more nuanced than that. McConnell has not agreed to what Pelosi calls a fair trial; that's the obstacle. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delaying the Senate trial 'til February-March? would certainly hurt the Sanders & Warren campaigns. Anyways, seeing as Pelosi might overly delay in this situation, it should be added to the article given its historical uniqueness. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, Pelosi is not delaying this. McConnell already admitted on-air that he is not an impartial juror, and that he would not overly drag out the trial. By his own admission, he wants the trial and acquital achieved quickly so the nation can get past this, and is unwilling to negotiate on the number of witnesses he wants called for the trial. So including the information in a way that lays blame at Pelosi's door is not only disingenuous, but a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view regulations, which are in place for situations like this. If we, as Wikipedia editors, fail to strike the right tone of neutrality on this, and include all available information that is relevant, then it would be a great disservice to the reader. Regardless of where we, as individual editors, stand on the matter personally, either it all needs to be included, or none of it should be. Again, just my opinion, based on my understanding of the relevant policies. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since neither Pelosi or Schumer can force McConnell's hand. Perhaps it's all a nothing burger. So why bother adding. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because this issue is why there is not going to be a quick Senate trial. If the consensus agrees with you that none of it should be mentioned, I'd be okay with that, but the fact of the delay should be mentioned in an impartial matter if it can reasonably be so. The issue is relevant to the Trump impeachment. We have never seen an impeachment where a senior senator of the same political party as the president in question has boasted on-air about not being impartial and wanting to move quickly to acquit. Failing to mention it would violate this policy, among others, at least from my perception. If the consensus moves to not mention it, then clearly, I am alone in my assessment and may be off-base. But readers, where possible, should have an impartial accounting of the facts, which are laid out in reliable sources. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The brief mention of the delayed delivery at the Preparation for Senate is good. If it goes on long or has drama/content so gets more coverage, then it would deserve it’s own subsection as an unprecedented stage of the process. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should it be stated that this impeachment was very partisan?007longbeach (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I moved your comment to this section where it is more relevant. As for what you said, as several reliable news outlets have reported, it was only"very partisan" because most of the congressional Republicans prefer to exhibit a blind loyalty to Trump rather than voting in a way that reflects the attitude of those whom they have been elected to represent. Public opinion polls by reliable sources note that a majority of Americans polled feel Trump should face some consequences for his alleged wrongdoing. So mentioning what you said in the way you said it would violate Wikipedia's policies on reflecting information found in reliable sources and maintaining a neutral point of view. If the information you mentioned could be couched in a more neutral tone, it might be eligible for inclusion, but not using the terminology you mentioned. At least, that's my opinion, FWIW. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"blind loyalty to Trump rather than voting in a way that reflects the attitude of those whom they have been elected to represent" something like 90% of republicans think the impeachment is a farce, I'd say the republican reps are likely voting exactly the way the people they were voted in by want them to. I have no horse in this race, I don't edit. 65.27.84.231 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What you say may be true on a national level, but on a state level, things are more nuanced than that. In my own home state of Utah, polling information shows that more than half of all Utahns support impeachment, and yet, of the four congressional representatives currently serving, only one, the lone Democrat from the delegation, voted in favor of the impeachment. The votes of the other 3 against it did not reflect the current opinions of their constitutants, and I suspect that Utah isn't the only state where that is the case. And overall, the opinion of the entire country is more in favor of impeachment of this president now than ever before, which is information that can be confirmed in the latest available nationwide polls. That is a clear demonstration that there are members of Congress who have more of a blind loyalty to the president of their party than a desire for their votes to reflect what their constituants are feeling. That is to what my previous comment was alluding. Hope that clears up why I said what I said. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to include the delay because it could mean that Trump has not been impeached.
I think it is important that this is included in the article since there is a strong legal argument that Trump has not been impeached until the house sends the articles to the house with their managers and prosecutes the case. [1] Technically speaking Trump has not been impeached according to the legal scholars the house democrats called to testify during the impeachment inquiry. It will also be important to include this information to explain the difference between this impeachment and past impeachments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.12.236 (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case. There's a difference between being impeached and being removed from office. Once the House ratifies articles of impeachment by the sufficient margin, a president is impeached, but it is up to the Senate to ratify the action before the President can be removed from office. Until that time, the ratification of the charges by the House is merely seen as a slap on the wrist. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Public opinion section
I split the public opinion section of the inquiry page here, keeping only the polls relating to the inquiry itself on the inquiry page, but this edit seems to have been reverted. Is it not better to have polls about the inquiry on that page and polls about impeachment on this one? Currently the page only lists December 2019 as if impeachment polling only started then - there's no reason to only include the polls done since the conclusion of the inquiry. NixinovaTC 19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The polls seemed to be colored with no legend. I would remove the colors. The way they are now looks biased. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's explained in a footnote, though it's not really based on anything. NixinovaTC 20:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For those who might miss the footnote: These polls are color-coded relative to the margin of error (×2 for spread). If the poll is within the doubled margin of error, both colors are used. If the margin of error is, for example, 2.5, then the spread would be 5, so a 50% support / 45% oppose would be tied. The colors selected are more like traffic light colors - green shades for Support, and reddish-pinkish shades for Oppose. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is idiotic, if it is in the margin of error, using your logic. They should have no color. Those that exceed the margin of error should be the only one using the colors. Now it doesn't just look biased, it is biased. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Works of PBS are not in the Public Domain, no. -Thespündragon 01:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Victorgrigas and Thespoondragon: Not exactly. The video was recorded using cameras that belong to the House and therefore are in the Public Domain. Even the on screen graphics identifying who is speaking comes from the Clerk of the House of Representatives. (See [3]) You can't take a work that is in the Public Domain and stamp it with your logo (which itself is in the public domain because of c:COM:TOO US) then claim it is copyrighted. This video is in the public domain.
However, the question becomes more complicated with footage from other networks with more complex on-screen graphics like CNN. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Controlled by the Democratic Party
I object to edits that attempt to insert non-NPOV wording into the lead such as this and this. I invite Jdillonf to obtain consensus here for this edit before adding it back into the article in any form.- MrX 🖋 13:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; the House acted as a body. That it is controlled by Democrats is immaterial to that. Party affiliation can be discussed as part of discussing the vote totals or something. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the 'impeachment' was so blatantly farcial it has to be pointed out continually throughout the article that this exercise is a partisan exercise, and at no time should any of this article infer that Republicans had ANYTHING to do with it. It is imperative that that tone be represented. At this time the article represents the talking points of the office of the Speaker of the House and the DNC.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdillonf (talk • contribs)
That Democrats control the House is immaterial to the fact that the House acted as a body. It also was not just Democrats, as independent ex-Republican Justin Amash voted in favor. Several Republican officials not in Congress have supported their actions, including John Kasich and Tom Ridge. There is also general agreement that most of the GOP caucus is simply too afraid of Trump and his supporters to oppose him openly. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NO REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IMPEACHMENT! This is the headline that has to be repeated throughout this article as a counterweight to obvious propaganda that is now spewing across the page. That no Republican voted for the impeachment is paramount in a understanding of this subject. If you want to continue to rant about your
own politics, go somewhere else. This page has to instruct (this is Wikipedia, not your blog) why the Democratic Party insisted on trying to impeach President Donald John Trump five times before they succeeded.Jdillonf (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jdillonf, what is "paramount" here is that Trump attempted to unduly influence a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen. That's why he was impeached. That no Republican, save Justin Amash, of course, voted to impeach is an important detail covered in the article already. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hearsay & presumptions don't amount to concrete evidence, however. It's up to the Senate to decide if Trump's guilty or not. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Concrete evidence already exists in not only testimony, but documentation, and self-admission by the administration. What isn't being decided isn't the fact of what happened. That's already known, admitted-to, well-corroborated, and established. The only thing the Senate will decide is whether or not the facts of what happened merit disqualification and removal from office. The truth exists outside of verdicts. Wikipedia just has to be careful with WP:BLPCRIME because without public backing of an indictment or conviction, not much can be said without risking legal issues. Gwen Hope (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: - Trump and the White House: key witnesses, don’t testify, don’t provide documents. Sondland blocked from reviewing calls and notes. Republicans: what a thin case you have! Where’s the evidence? Not guilty! starship.paint (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense.
Jdillonf (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That impeachments are partisan isn't anything new, as it only requires a simple majority vote. Republicans had the majority in the House during the 1867–69 Congress, when they impeached a Democrat (Andrew Johnson) & Republicans had the majority in the House during the 1997–99 Congress, when they impeached a Democrat (Bill Clinton). So, it's nothing unique. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article should point out, in the lead and in the text, (the text already makes it clear) that the House vote was along party lines - as it already does for the Judiciary Committee vote. I see that it doesn't and I will add it. There is no need to make more of it than that. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PLEASE EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE EXCLAMATION MARKS ARE NECESSARY. EXCUSE THEM FOR NOW. Can we all just be civil here? Why not screw the political infighting and write Facts and Information. We all have our opinions, but this is no place to discuss them. Use social media for that. What is important is that the World is full of information and mis-information on this subject. BOTH THESE things should be discussed in this article, but keep opinions out of it! Give the QUOTED opinions of person (think Mcarthy and Pelosi) that are informed on this situation, not your own. Even in the talk pages, we should remember this is an encyclopedia, not a platform for personal opinion shuffling. Mulstev (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dig it!Jdillonf (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think anybody was being uncivil. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And please don't SHOUT. Anyhow it is not clear what you are shouting about. What specifically do you think needs to be in the article, that isn't there now? The talk page is for discussing what should go in the article. This specific discussion is about how big a point to make out of the fact that the vote was along near-party lines. IMO there is enough in the article now on that subject. --MelanieN alt (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on both points, and excuse my rashness. However, talk pages are as visible as the main article, even if they are less viewed. The discussion above is civil, bar my own screeches, but it does contain amounts of opinion, which may exist but are damaging to the fact based ideals of wikipedia. I write mainly to warn, and hopefully to remind, that there are persons always looking for ways to discredit or laugh at sources of information which are user-edited, such as Wikipedia. There is no reason to put anything on or in an article or talk page that may be damaging toward public opinion and trust of Wikipedia. Hopefully this second comment clarifies my above comment. Apologies if they be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really make much sense, talk pages are meant to discuss what people think about the article, so of course it'll have people's opinions in it. NixinovaTC 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be as objective as possible. It should include the fact that only democrats were in favor of impeachment and there was bipartisann support for Trump. You can simply cite the voting record. Any comment about what individuals outside the house thought about impeachment does nothing to make the article any more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.12.236 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, not only Democrats supported impeachment. Amash is independent, he supported impeachment. starship.paint (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Impeachment did not actually occur yet
According to articles from Bloomberg and National Review, President Trump is not impeached until the House sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Should consider revising these pages to reflect so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MugwumpSpirit110 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MugwumpSpirit110, those are opinion pieces. I don't believe those opinions are the consensus view of things. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is 1) what reliable sources say and 2) what the House itself says. Every newspaper/media outlet in the US had a variation of "House impeached Trump" as their headline. The House itself gets to determine if they impeached someone as the Constitution gives the House the "sole power of impeachment". The view that it is not valid until actually carried across the Capitol Building to the Senate(which can't be done until the session resumes on January 6th) is the opinion of those who hold that view and is not an official finding. It would be like saying your dinner is not finished until you put your plate in the dishwasher. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll copy here what I said at Talk:Donald Trump: We should keep, in the lead, the affirmative statement that he has been impeached. All Reliable Sources are treating the House vote as being actual impeachment, and previous impeachments have been dated as of the House vote. But several publications have noted Feldman's opinion, published in a Blooomberg op-ed here, and reportedly the White House is considering making the argument.[4] So we could add a sentence to the House Vote section of the text, attributed to Feldman and identified as opinion. Something like "Legal scholar Noah Feldman has stated in an op-ed that it is not an actual impeachment until the report is forwarded to the Senate, and the White House has echoed the argument." Sorry, I can't add it myself; I am not at my regular computer and would have difficulty citing references. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the US Constitution, Trump was impeached the moment the full House passed the first impeachment article & Pelosi confirmed the result. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean you are opposed to adding a sentence about Feldman's opinion - and the White House's possible use of it? Trying to get opinions here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I found the following sentence at our article Impeachment in the United States: Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". If this becomes a bigger issue than the opinion of one person, it might be worth citing that here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He's been impeached, keep it in the leader. Note the name of the article itself. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping it in the lead, unqualified. My suggestion was to add a sentence to the article text. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10 made a suggestion at the main Donald Trump article: we change the language to read "the House voted to impeach," and we remove "was impeached"/"third president to be impeached" and anything else like that until legal scholars resolve the controversy. While the debate goes on, I think we should stay with language that all sides agree on. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no debate, just some opinions that differ with what most other sources and the House itself says. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ordinarily I would probably just say, yes, let's just go by what the majority of the reporting is saying, but this isn't an ordinary situation. It's the first time in American history that the House has refused to send articles of impeachment to the Senate after passing them, so we're in uncharted territory. Also the op-ed this morning from the House Democrats' own legal expert stating that Trump hasn't been impeached is pretty stunning, actually. In all likelihood, this will all become moot in relatively short order when Nancy finally forks over those articles...but in the meantime there is some definite ambiguity here. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has yet been withheld, the articles cannot be delivered until the Senate is back in session on January 6th. Pelosi has said she is only waiting until the structure of the trial is agreed to, so she can decide who she wants for managers. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are saying she's holding onto them for now, and she could have delivered them before the recess but chose not to until the Senate does what she wants the Senate to do.[5][6][7] Lots of language like "refusing," "sitting on," "holding up," etc. I don't think it's in contention that she's withholding the articles until her demands are met. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The legal meaning of “formally charged” is that charges have been filed.
Even though the house has voted to impeach, charges have not been filed. Hence Donald Trump has NOT been impeached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoMoBig (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MoMoBig Every reliable source in the United States disagrees with you, as does the House itself. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then it’s about time to overthink Wikipedia’s “reliable sources”, because the word impeachment literally means that charges are filed and it is a fact that charges have NOT been filed.MoMoBig (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not care about truth, per se, but the representation of truth in popular thought. Things can be clearly wrong, technically, but be considered "correct," by Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. Wikipedia editing is more of a theological discussion, than a scientific one, so don't start talking about technicalities and truths. Talk about what reliable sources think, and adjust weight accordingly. Hey, it is why your middle school teacher told you not to use Wikipedia as a source. 2601:982:4200:8C80:81BD:612A:6457:BF48 (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting question. Sadly, there is no court/legal precedent regarding it. There does seem disagreement among legal scholars so whether or not that's the case seems be hard to say. However, the longer the articles are delayed the fact of this question does become more important. So the most factual statement would be the articles of impeachment have formally been approved, and the rest of the process is in progress or pending. It's not a far fetched idea though like presidents instead of vetoing a bill have waited to sign or veto it leaving it limbo. You also have things like the 27th amendment; it's certainly possible to delay or put things in limbo by not following through processes.--50.37.100.51 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Citations supporting that Pelosi resisted impeachment
There's a sentence a couple paragraphs in, in the Background, that Pelosi resisted impeachment, but it didn't include citations. The line is "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi initially resisted calls for impeachment." I'm afraid I'm in a real hurry or I'd try to add these into the article, which seems locked down. I'd like to leave them here, and hope someone can include them to support the claim that Pelosi resisted call:
https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/183296-2https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-1336587174.52.240.90 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]