Talk:Efforts to impeach Donald Trump/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move to main space

Resolved

I think this has been discussed enough that it could be moved from a draft. I was searching to see if someone had started this.Casprings (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. MB298 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

"Impeachment of Donald Trump"

Resolved

The phrase "Impeachment of Donald Trump" should redirect to this page when searched.

86.144.144.125 (talk) 23:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. At Impeachment of Donald Trump. Per above talk page request. Sagecandor (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Special counsel

Added section from article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Sagecandor (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

New article about new book - The Case for Impeachment

New article about new book - The Case for Impeachment.

Could be a useful source to use for this article. Sagecandor (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Recentism tag

Removed {{recentism}} tagged as unexplained and incorrectly used instead of {{current}}. Sagecandor (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

"Controversy" words

The tendency to use the word "controversy" and "Controversy sections" on Wikipedia is so fucking unencyclopedic. Let's please be more specific and use words tighter to the actual events and incidents involved. Sagecandor (talk) 20:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, specifically, WP:LABEL. Sagecandor (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

Procedural note: Close requested. — JFG ^talk 23:45, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

The Impeachment March is one of many public demonstrations counter-Trump (and more are likely to follow). Rather than have short articles about the various protests, WP will be less-WP:NOTNEWS with this merger. – S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment @Srich32977: I was hoping more editors would expand the Impeachment March article so that it would be as substantial as many of the other articles linked from Protests against Donald Trump. But as that hasn't happened and I'm guessing it is unlikely to, I'm not opposed to a merge. Pinging Another Believer who started the article on my recommendation... Funcrunch (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment by OP – Perhaps both articles (Efforts and March) should be merged into the Protests article. But I see merit in merging March into Protests as the March is simply a single manifestation of the Protest activity. – S. Rich (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merge now that the article has been expanded significantly. (Struck my original comment above for clarity, even though it wasn't a firm !vote at the time.) Funcrunch (talk) 14:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge I don't think this merits a separate article without more news coverage. At present all we have is media reporting of demonstrations announced on a facebook site followed by reports of how many people showed up. Apparently 100 people showed up in Seattle, compared with over 40,000 demonstrators at the 1999 Seattle WTO protests. TFD (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• That's not a fair comparison. There were larger impeachment marches than Seattle, and collectively there were thousands of participants. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

At present all we know about them is that they have a facebook page. When the media chooses to write more detail about them, as they did with Occupy and BLM, then it will merit an article. TFD (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I'm curious if your opinion has changed since the article has been expanded. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the current article represents what we expect the media to do: to pull together all the different protests and explain the commonality. Unfortunately, they haven't done that which makes it difficult to write a Wikipedia article. TFD (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I Strongly Oppose the merge. The protest is notable, and there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG and support a standalone article, which needs to be expanded. There is no rush to complete this work immediately, but I believe this article should be kept like others, including Day Without Immigrants 2017, Day Without a Woman, 2017 May Day protests, March for Science Portland, March for Truth, Not My Presidents Day, etc. We're not just talking anti-Trump protests here, as there is also March 4 Trump. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment by OP – Thank you, Another Believer, for the listing of these anti-Trump articles. IMO we obviously have multiple cases of WP:CONTENTFORKING. Moreover, the fact that one article reached GA status (even though it was not stable because of the proposed AfD and successful merger) does not dampen the FORK aspect of these various articles. – S. Rich (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Megalibrarygirl: Do you have any thoughts? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merge It's only been about a week. Let's see if we can expand it, like Another Believer pointed out. I'd been giving myself a little "Trump break," but I can help try to expand and source it. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ditto. I took a "Trump break" during the Wiki Loves Pride campaign in June, but this is an article I would definitely be interested in expanding at some point in the future, and hopefully sooner than later. I did just work hard to promote March for Science Portland to Good status, so with that done hopefully I can pick this up (though I'm also considering wrapping up my work on Women's March on Portland). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Impeachment March

Work is now underway on the article's talk page. I invite all to join our effort and expand the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Agree with Another Believer. Several of the other marches and protests pages either are already WP:GA or are on their way to becoming Good Articles. Leave it be. Sagecandor (talk) 22:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support merge. The target article doesn't seem to have much there, and the event has already happened. bd2412 T 23:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• @BD2412: Can you take another look at the article, which has been expanded since you last voted? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Frankly, a lot of what has been added - reports of a few hundred people showing up at each of several venues (and even smaller numbers for counter-protests) - barely scrapes the bottom of what should be reported in an encyclopedia. bd2412 T 14:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
    • @BD2412: The article's content and structure are similar to Not My Presidents Day. So, are you saying you still support the merge? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Lines in that article like "About 40 people gathered at a rally in front of Great Barrington, Massachusetts' Town Hall" do not go far in its favor. If the article under discussion is not merged here, then perhaps all of these "march" articles detailed numbers in the hundreds should be merged into a single article on anti-Trump marches. bd2412 T 15:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment At the pace of the 3 emolument lawsuits, and the US Congress, I think deciding the fate of this prior to August 1 is potentially hasty. It would be regrettable if this protest was featured in notable press coverage in a weekly or monthly magazine after being scrapped here. Dakleman (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

If the material is merged into this article, and there are later substantial developments meriting separate coverage, it can be broken out into an independent article again. bd2412 T 13:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• Merge – This particular article is unlikely to expand, now that the event is past, unless we shove minor details into it. It looks weird that anti-Trump protests of millions of people get equal footing with protests of thousands. We are delving into WP:NOTNEWS territory. Sure, we can write beautiful articles about all the protest events, but are they all encyclopedic enough to deserve separate articles? I would suggest a wide merge of all protests that mobilized fewer than 100'000 people into an umbrella article. — JFG ^talk 19:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I would rather this merge discussion focus on this particular article. Regardless, unless there's a guideline or policy saying otherwise, we should not establish an arbitrary threshold number of protesters to determine notability. Funcrunch (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: This article has been expanded, and there are still additional sources to incorporate. Do you still stand by your merge vote, or will you reconsider? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:52, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: I stand by my position, and I believe those articles should be trimmed, not expanded. We have had this discussion in other places: I appreciate the amount of work you put into collating lots of information about those marches, but it delves into trivia territory and gives undue weight to those events in the global encyclopedic context. Large protests deserve large articles, small protests deserve small articles or a section in an umbrella article. Adding material to a "small protest" article to make it look big is unproductive and misleading. — JFG ^talk 17:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, alright. Agree to disagree. Thanks for replying. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment by OP – Impeachment March has 24 references listed. 20 of them are news stories about the marches published July 2/3. (E.g., as the events occurred.) By merging Impeachment March into this article we can lessen the WP:NOTNEWS aspect of the event and its WP article. – S. Rich (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

• You've already made this point above, and the article now has nearly 60 sources because the event took place in more than 30 cities. This coordinated event involved thousands of participants and received local, national, and international coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose These sidebar articles about specifics are necessary to keep the size of the generalized topic from becoming overwhelming. The obvious solution to too much material is to edit it down, edit it out. So effectively, votes to merge are designed to make this kind of support content eventually disappear. Trackinfo (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Because this protest is dealing with a sitting president, I feel that it could possibly be notable enough to stand on its own for now. Maybe it can be merged after this administration kicks the bucket in 2021? Help The Bear 00:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge after trimming the " Impeachment march" article by about 80%. I'm sorry, all of you that have been working to expand that article, but it is now bloated beyond belief. Multiple full paragraphs about a protest in this city or that, involving 100 or "nearly 200" people, with lots of detail about who spoke and what kind of signs the protesters carried, all sourced to local TV stations. A sentence pointing out that the two protests in San Diego County were "endorsed" by an obscure underground paper. Come on, folks. This material could be condensed to a several-paragraph section in "Protests", limiting our material to what is covered by NATIONAL sources, without loss of anything of encyclopedic value. The same is true of many of the other articles covering individual protests. I completely agree with nominator S. Rich that this kind of article is in flagrant violation of WP:NOTNEWS. --MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge this thread is full of wishful thinking. This protest is significantly less notable than March for Science or 2017 Women's March. It is also clearly an effort to impeach Donald Trump. It should be merged here. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge: While there are loads of sources that substantiate that there are protests everywhere that oppose Trump remaining in office, there isn't the notability to differentiate it from the mere efforts to impeach him. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 01:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
• Merge Even before checking I knew this article would almost certainly have been created by Another Believer who seems to have a serious problem understanding WP:NOTNEWS (cf. Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo etc); most of the articles cited by them as proof this one should not be merged should probably not exist either and we probably need a review of the extant articles on activism days/events to see which ones are really worth keeping. Number 57 15:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

• With all due respect, I don't think it's fair to accuse me of not understanding NOTNEWS just because I happen to disagree. I've written 4 featured articles and 90 good articles here, some of which are about similar protests, so I'm not approaching this project with a lack of experience or understanding. Let's keep focus on sourcing and notability, and not my supposed inability to comprehend a policy, please. Thanks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• Question/comment: I know I'm commenting too much already, but I've been thinking about this more, and I see the Impeachment March as more of a protest against Trump than an actual attempt to impeach him. This was a coordinated protest involving thousands of participants at demonstrations in dozens of cities, with a united messaged, but their action was not an actual impeachment effort. I could see the Impeachment March being mentioned at both Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Protests against Donald Trump, but if merging this content is even a possibility, isn't the Protests against Donald Trump article a more appropriate parent article? (For the record, I'm still opposed to the merge altogether, as this event clearly meets Wikipedia's general notability criteria, in my opinion. I'm just questioning the best space for this content if merging occurs.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You are correct. This appears to be a protest rather than some form of serious procedural effort toward impeachment. In that light, I think that consideration for merging here should a moot issue. It is an appropriate sidebar to the Protests against Donald Trump page, perhaps meriting a link to this page. Trackinfo (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Power~enwiki: I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this, if you're inclined, since you said the Impeachment March is "clearly an effort to impeach Donald Trump" above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to a merge to Protests against Donald Trump. Regarding this page, the lawsuits and municipal resolutions discussed are similarly more protest than serious procedural effort. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I had assumed, in my support for the merger above, that the target of a merge would be the Protests article. I had followed the "discuss" link without noticing which talk page it went to, and the proposal language does not name the target. I just now noticed that the proposed target is apparently the Efforts to impeach article. IMO that is the wrong target. The "march to impeach" information fits perfectly into the Protests section; it would be an anomaly in the Efforts to impeach article. --MelanieN (talk) 13:55, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:MERGEREASON. The article is already long and I doubt that all of the information in the IM article could be included into this without being undue or resulting in the loss of a lot of content. Furthermore, though related, they're still different subjects. One is a specific phenomenon and the other is a process that nearly every US President now goes through. Expect the impeachment efforts page to grow steadily, like it did with all recent Presidents. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per Prinsgezinde. "Impeachment March" is long enough & notable enough to warrant its own article. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:21, 7 August 2017 (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.

@JFG: Should the merge banners be removed from the top of this article and the Impeachment March article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 13:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Pinging you as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:29, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Another Believer: Yes, I have removed them. — JFG ^talk 13:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Title When Moved

I think the title of the article should be Efforts to Remove Donald Trump from the Presidency. You have discussions in WP:RS going on about the use of the 25th amendment.Casprings (talk) 11:51, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

@Casprings: No, it should be Efforts to impeach Donald Trump for consistency with previous articles. MB298 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it should be Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. In theory, Bush or Obama could also have been removed by their cabinets. The possibility of impeachment is less remote than that. bd2412 T 02:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of that and relating to the above discussion, I think this article has substantial content and coverage that it should be moved into the mainspace. MB298 (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I would wait a bit longer. bd2412 T 05:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely getting closer now. bd2412 T 04:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I say good enough. It will continue to evolve on the main space. Impeachment might just occur in this case. Casprings (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. Be prepared for opposition, just as there was for the same article for the previous two presidents. bd2412 T 03:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

As the thread above is several months old, and the issue is heating up again, I would like to make the following suggestion:

As soon an actual resolution is introduced in the House, change the title to "The impeachment process against Donald Trump." If he is then actually impeached, change it again, this time to: "The impeachment of Donald Trump." Prior to yesterday afternoon, the title being used now is just fine, and will remain so until the actions I just mentioned.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: What a shiny crystal ball you have! Yes, let's discuss the title if and when an actual impeachment process gets started. — JFG ^talk 12:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I would keep the title just as it is unless and until there is an actual successful vote of impeachment. Everything up to that point is still an "effort", not a result. bd2412 T 13:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No Crystal ball or anything else. Three congresspeople are publicly calling for impeachment, one of whom was on the floor of the House. This is stuff that has already happened. "preparations" means they are considering what to do and how to go about it. I changed "official" to "possible," which I hope is more acceptable.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. — JFG ^talk 15:39, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

25th Amendment

I've clarified that a President's powers and duties are suspended, under the 25th amendment. A President can only be removed from office, via death, resignation or impeachment conviction. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

"So far, however, there is no broad-based movement towards such a measure"

I have removed from the lede the sentence "So far, however, there is no broad-based movement towards such a measure". It is not clear what is meant by this sentence, as it is not explained what would constitute a "broad-based movement" for purposes of this qualifier. bd2412 T 18:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. - MrX 19:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuit Strategy

Hello all -- I made the following assertion: "A declaration that the president has accepted emoluments would make the work of House Managers easier in an impeachment." I had a citation from Slate. It was challenged. I replaced with the following citation from the Daily Signal. It was reverted; the editor thought I had made a mistake. That's OK. Now I want the Daily Signal cite back in. I don't want to cause a fuss. Let's talk about it here first.

References

Rhadow (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Efforts to impeach Donald Trump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150202065755/http://www.vanityfair.com/error to http://www.vanityfair.com/error

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Members of Congress

I am questioning whether the Federalist can actually be trusted for this section, The source uses anoyonomus sources and omits Democrats who actually support impeachment. Theoallen1 (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Based on the fact that a vote occured, I think that an objective method should be used. The method that I suggest is either sponsoring or cosponsoring a resolution providing for impeachment of the President (H. Res. 438, 621, or 646) or a nay vote on the motion to table (roll call 658).Theoallen1 (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Claim doesn't have a source

This statement isn't supported in any way by the article in its reference.

"So far, 12 Republican senators have individually indicated a willingness to take action against Trump's presidency; if supported by all 48 Democratic senators, 8 more Republican senators would be needed to successfully remove the President"

Here's the link for the reference.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-impeachment-articles-democrats-president-711525 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.195.65 (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Possibly something like this might be a better source?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/donald-trump-impeachment-us-senate-six-votes-congress-president-house-russia-a7899636.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.222.195.65 (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren photo

Why is there a picture of Elizabeth Warren near the top of the article? She was a junior co-sponsor of a bill that was targeted at blocking foreign payments. I'd like to switch the picture to Dick Durbin (or remove it altogether), as this would be more 'appropriate' to the content (though since the bill is in response to payments at hotel, I'd suggest a picture of Trump's hotels particularly the one in DC is more appropriate since these are the cause of the issue. Sahrin (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't seem appropriate.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Political Diatribe, not Facts

This article is based entirely on political diatribes, and not on factual evidence. It seems generated by people who didn't like the fact that Donald Trump was duly elected President by and under the laws of the United States. I see no reason for this article to exist in an encyclopedia, whose purpose is to discuss factual things. The presence of this article on Wikipedia labels this platform as a place for politics, which I just have a hard time believing is the intent of the folks who invented this website. Can we please return to discussing facts and not engaging in partisan politics of the sort that makes places like CNN infamous? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobTheRogue (talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

And where is the article Efforts to jail Hillary Clinton? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1014:b10f:9020:d9c9:6431:859b:df27 (talk • contribs) 6 September, 2018 (UTC)

We have comparable articles on Efforts to impeach Barack Obama, Efforts to impeach George W. Bush, and of course, Impeachment of Bill Clinton. The subject is examined equally, and without partisan preference. As for Hillary Clinton, we have an article on the Hillary Clinton email controversy. However, the current administration has undertaken no serious efforts to actually prosecute Hillary Clinton, so there are no "efforts to jail" to write about. bd2412 T 20:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

With the search string 'jail Hillary Clinton' I found 21,200 results in a 0.39-second Internet search through Google, though I found only one result with the more precise search string 'Efforts to jail Hillary Clinton'. However, I agree that the Wikipedia article on the Hillary Clinton email controversy ought to be able to cover all the component sof the 'Efforts to jail Hillary Clinton' (was it really serious and not merely polemic?). MaynardClark (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, there have been "no serious efforts to actually" impeach Trump. The Hillary Clinton email controversy mentions the jail threat briefly in the lead, but not in the body of the article, as far as I can see. The Hillary Clinton article is topped by a picture of her, and Efforts to impeach Barack Obama is topped by a picture of him, appropriately enough. But this article is topped by a picture of protesters, including a poster that suggests Trump is a Nazi. The protest took place on the day of Trump's inauguration, which doesn't indicate a genuine effort at impeachment. The other pictures and audio-visual recordings all feature Trump's opponents. This article is far much bigger than the Obama article, even though that one covers eight years. This article describes Maxine Waters as a "senior Congresswoman", but Bob Goodlatte as a "loyal Republican who wished to protect the President". It devotes a whole section to futile lawsuits against Trump, but darkly mutters about Trump "using various obscure legal means" to defeat impeachment. This article seems to reflect the wishful thinking of the anti-Trump camp, who thought "impeachment might be in the offing" in 2017. It claims that (as of 2017), "So far, 12 Republican Senators have individually indicated a willingness to take action against Trump's presidency: if supported by all 48 Democratic Senators, 8 more Republican Senators would be needed to successfully remove the President", even though this is not in the source cited. Like Protests against Donald Trump it seeks to document any and every anti-Trump incident, no matter how small (including opinion polls, as discussed before). This isn't very useful in an encyclopedia. If Trump is impeached in the coming years, a tweet in 2016 will not be very significant. This article is partisan, trivial, and misleading. If the impeachment does come, it would be better to delete this article than to split it.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Opinion about impeachment being an issue in the 2018 midterms

Arglebargle79 recently added the following text,[1] which I reverted[2] and he restored.[3]

As the odds of impeaching the President during the remainder of the term faded to nothingness, the matter became an issue in the midterm elections, with both conservatives and the president himself warning of dire consequences of impeachment.

Sources

Nobody wants to get into an edit war over this, so let's discuss. My question is: did anybody notable make any recent statements calling for impeachment in relation to the midterm elections? I was rather under the impression that talk of impeachment was being downplayed even by the top Democrats (Schumer, Pelosi). Accordingly this paragraph looks undue. Comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 14:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Since there were never any chances of Trump being impeached in the current session of congress. I said that they faded away to nothing" What's wrong with that? That impeachment is a genuine campaign issue mentioning it is also germaine. Impeachment, or at least hearings on the matter in the House judiciary committee, are going to be part of the Democrat's mandate should they retake the House next month. That is why we should mention it. Impeachment hearings are speculation, but it being an issue in this year's campaign is not. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes they did. Jerrald Nadler. [4]

[5](talk) 14:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Impeachment inquiry

Should there be a Wikipedia article on 'impeachment inquiry' and what is involved in, and required for impeachment inquiry and for mandating an impeachment? MaynardClark (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

We do have Impeachment investigations of United States federal officials.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Congressman Schiff's response to recent Buzzfeed report

In his most recent set of statements, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff seems to have indicated that if true, the claims outlined in the recent Buzzfeed report are true, they would constitute "both the subornation of perjury as well as obstruction of justice", which are impeachable offences. Numerous legal experts and other congresspeople are also providing commentary that this is impeachable.

Does the report, and the subsequent response from Schiff, warrant inclusion in this article? Looking to achieve some form of consensus considering the controversial subject matter. Flip^andFlopped ツ 17:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Splitting: a proposal for the new year

I am running this up the flagpole in order to get consensus as to what should be done to this article next month. I'm am not saying that we do anything NOW. Nadler has said that there will be hearings on the Stormy Daniels payments and other scandals that are mucking up cable news. Maxine Waters and a number of other congresscritters have said that they would introduce resolutions, and these are almost always these are referred to Nadler's Judiciary Committee. Sooooooo....

What I suggest we do, when the time comes, in about 20 days or so, we split this article in two: The first will be this one we already have which would be moved to: Efforts to Impeach Donald Trump: 2016-2018. The second will be Impeachment process of Donald Trump, which would cover the Nadler and Shiff hearings. These will be public spectacles of the first order and will definitely require their own articles.

We need a plan as to how to go about this, NOW. This is in order to make everything easier when the poo hits the fan in the coming year. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree. There is a single article for Bill Clinton, who actually was impeached. bd2412 T 17:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with bd2412 that there's no pressing need to split the article.--Thatotherdude (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Thatotherdude, did you miss a "no" from that sentence?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Jack Upland, thanks for catching my typo. Correction made.--Thatotherdude (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I disagree with the proposal. I doubt there is need for two articles, and I certainly don't think there is any need to make the decision in advance.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
• User:BD2412. No there isn't. There are at least two others: The Clinton–Lewinsky scandal and the Starr Report, not to mention biographical articles on the various players in the drama, and a general one on the Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations. The hearings themselves were perfunctory.

Also, there are a bunch of articles on the Watergate scandal as well, so many in fact there's an index on the top right hand corner of the article.

The article this is the talk page for is clearly part of the resistance movement. None of the congressional actions had a chance and they knew it. The street protests and the municipal resolutions are fun, but they were never more than screams of anger that were ends unto themselves.

With the House turning Democratic in only 17 days, and with the incoming chairman of the House Judiciary committee promising hearings on the Stormy Daniels affair before Michael Cohen goes to the pokey in March, we need to talk about this NOW for action in Mid to late January so it is done with efficiency and panache. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• We have talked about it, and there is a clear consensus against your proposal. With respect to the other articles relating to the Clinton impeachment, we already have these articles with respect to parallel controversies involving Trump - Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal and Special Counsel investigation (2017–present). bd2412 T 17:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Arglebargle79, what do you mean, "The article...is clearly part of the resistance movement"???--Jack Upland (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • See the article on Protests against Donald Trump. The 'resistance' is what this movement calls itself. Most of the article that this is the talk page for is about publicity stunts. Tom Styer's commercials, for example, he may have wished the REPUBLICAN House of Representatives would impeach him, but he knew it wouldn't happen. The Marches and municipal resolutions aren't really serious, just a way to blow up steam.
    • Well, in that case, why should we have multiple articles about stuff that is just "fun", "screams of anger", "publicity stunts", blowing off steam, futile gestures etc...?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• No coherent arguments have been made for splitting this article. Closeclouds (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I never said that we should split up the article NOW. I said we should start talking about it NOW in order to get ready for what is to come. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Talking about "what is to come" is a bit too much on the side of WP:CRYSTAL. If there are more tangible acts towards impeachment such as committee hearings with that stated purpose, that would still fall under "efforts"; if there were to be an actual successful vote to impeach - and not before that - this article would likely be moved to Impeachment of Donald Trump. bd2412 T 22:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't see why the article couldn't be transformed as appropriate when the time comes. It's not complicated (in general) to split articles or create new ones.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

*Don't Split Splitting tends to obfuscate information by making a reader follow paths for continuity. If there is a fork that needs to be covered, build a sidebar article. If it becomes dominant under its own right, then it will obviously become a significant fork that will necessarily split off information. Let this occur naturally, don't force it. Trackinfo (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If you look at simlar articles, and with the exceptions of Ford and Carter, there have been efforts to impeach every president since LBJ. If you look at the "efforts to impeach" articles, they are rather lengthy and focus on one or two incidents. Hearings about Dick Cheney, for example, were conducted by Democrats and were informal and unauthorized. There was a hearing about Obama, and this was mostly a bunch of Congressmembers popping off and wasn't a serious effort. What happened in congress re: Trump this year and last was pretty much the same thing. If we need a sidebar article (and we will, but that's going to be in January) what will we call it? There are going to be several sets of hearings, both on the Stormy Daniels mess and the Russian investigation, not to mention other issues. All I'm saying is now's the time to think about it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There already seems to be a consensus that we don't need, and won't need, another article, which would include "a sidebar article". If there is a specific independent event that draws its own distinct widespread coverage in reliable sources, we can create an article on such an event once it happens, but we can not possibly predict at this point what form such an event will take. bd2412 T 17:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Let's wait on splitting until an actual impeachment gets underway in Congress. At that point, asplit will be approriateE.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The first impeachment-related hearing is taking place in ten minutes. When it is over, I'd like to reconsider the subject.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Public opinion

This is basically irrelevant.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You're a member of the public too, and I guess that's your opinion. This is a political article in a country where the people give power to the government. The sections is supported with RSs. Public opinion isn't the whole story, but its an important one, and will become more so if these efforts advance to the point of hearings in the house. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment will not be decided by a popular vote, so this is fairly useless information, no matter how well sourced it might be.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Says you. Sources, however, are already reporting on this subtopic. Take climate change. There, we have even split out Public opinion on climate change into an article all by itself. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Politicians care about public opinion, it helps them to make decisions. The amount of public opinion in favor of impeaching Trump has a direct effect on how likely his impeachment is. Earthscent (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source which says that? The Impeachment of Bill Clinton and Impeachment process against Richard Nixon do not pay a great deal of attention to opinion polls. This is a judicial process and you are saying that it's determined by opinion polls. And I'm the one accused of pushing my opinion???--Jack Upland (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a compromise. Trim the size of the section. Keep the table and the sourced data. Remove the prose text from the section. Sagecandor (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the table is the most irrelevant part. There is no point in tracking various opinion polls over time. It is not like an election campaign. Trump will not lose if the numbers go against him. A prose statement about the opinion polls might be notable. However, the prose that's there doesn't have much to do with impeachment. For example, the Muslim ban has little relation to the impeachment process. These are opinion polls conducted before any specific charges have been laid. They are really not very relevant. However, innocent people who come here seeking information get their eyes drawn to that colourful table, which gives a spurious impression of what impeachment is about. If the "Yes" column goes blue, it will not mean Trump is impeached.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

How the Watergate crisis eroded public support for Richard Nixon, Pew Research Center. Sagecandor (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That indicates that the impeachment process influenced public opinion, not that public opinion determined the impeachment process.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Public Opinion and Nixon's Downfall, ABC News. Sagecandor (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

That is a short blog written by an opinion pollster that shows Nixon's popularity fell during the Watergate scandal. It doesn't say much about impeachment. Notably this states that "Much of the support for impeaching Trump comes from political considerations, the poll shows — not a belief that Trump is actually guilty of impeachable offenses, like treason, bribery or obstructing justice", which indicates those polled don't actually understand impeachment. These polls are essentially surrogates for approval ratings. Nancy Pelosi, who surely has a lot of influence over the issue, has hit out at this kind of opinion-driven push for impeachment.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

And some of that would be good to cover in this section about public opinion on this topic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• Schmidt, Steffen W. (2013), American Government and Politics Today, 2013-2014 Edition, Wadsworth Publishing, p. 181, ISBN 978-1133602132, In 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned in the wake of a scandal when it was obvious that public opinion no longer supported him.
  •  Done. I believe that settles that.  Done. Sagecandor (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about??? Firstly, this is an article about Trump, not Nixon. Secondly, there is a plethora of analysis about the Watergate scandal, how can one sentence "settle" anything? I think the consensus is that Nixon resigned because he had lost support in Congress, including the pivotal support of Barry Goldwater.[6][7][8] Thirdly, that sentence doesn't mention impeachment. In fact, it implies that impeachment was irrelevant to his resignation. If so, what is the relevance here? Fourthly, well, I don't know what your graphics achieve...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Gallup, George (2000), The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1999, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, ISBN 0842026991, This reaction is much different from the Watergate era, when President Richard Nixon was forced to resign. At that time, public confidence in the federal government, especially the executive branch, dropped significantly.
  • There we go. Sagecandor (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, what is the relevance???--Jack Upland (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The relevance, is that public opinion, is relevant here. Sagecandor (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think this discussion confirms my point, alarmingly enough. The fact that editors can suggest that Watergate was about a slide in the opinion polls, or that Trump will be impeached if the voters think he should, is deeply concerning. If that is what editors think, what are uninitiated readers going to think? High school students etc? An encyclopedia should be about conveying information, not passing on false impressions.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

No, this discussion does not confirm your point. Public opinion is very relevant: regardless of any crimes Trump might have committed, if public opinion is on his side then impeachment is unlikely, and if public opinion is against him then impeachment is likely. Obviously, public opinion is very relevant to this article. Earthscent (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Earthscent. Sagecandor (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

But do you have a source that says this? No, you don't.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

The sources already cited above say this. Sagecandor (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

1. McCarthy, Tom (May 16, 2017), "What would happen if Donald Trump were impeached?", The Guardian, Public opinion matters because for impeachment to happen, Congress must act, and elected officials sometimes hang their principles on opinion polls.
2. England, Charlotte (November 10, 2016), "What would happen if Donald Trump was impeached?", The Independent, So the House of Representatives could turn against Mr Trump, and there could be sufficient legal grounds to impeach him. But to actually kickstart start the mechanism for removing him from office there would probably have to be a shift in public opinion.
3. Clench, Sam (May 17, 2017), "Could Donald Trump be impeached as president?", News.com.au, But ultimately, the probability of a push for impeachment succeeding is dependent on public opinion.

Public opinion matters with regards to impeachment proceedings. This is not my opinion. This is not a personal opinion of editors on Wikipedia. This is as per multiple sources. Sagecandor (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome ! Glad I was able to find the reliable sources for it ! Sagecandor (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is called "Efforts to impeach Donald Trump". Public opinion is NOT a part of an effort to impeach. It is a factor weighing on it. This article reads in its current configuration more like there is some sort of inevitable sequence of events leading up to impeachment. It is like there is a case that's been built. That's why "Public opinion" seems to fit here. But again, the topic is "Efforts to etc". The topic is not "The Case for Impeachment" To quote an editor of this article: "As soon an actual resolution is introduced in the House, change the title to "The impeachment process against Donald Trump." If he is then actually impeached, change it again, this time to: "The impeachment of Donald Trump." Prior to yesterday afternoon, the title being used now is just fine, and will remain so until the actions I just mentioned.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The wish should not be the father of a presumably objective, encyclopedic article. Djklanker (talk) 19:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, even if you accept that opinion polls would play a major part in impeachment (which I don't - see above), it's hard to see how this year's opinion polls will be relevant next year. The article does read as if it's describing an inevitable series of events...--Jack Upland (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The article describes relevant trends in public opinion, which may have an effect on future political efforts, either spurring them on or subduing them. bd2412 T 22:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Equally, if America has a cold winter, it may have an effect.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:47, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

We now have a year and a half of opinion polls, but no impeachment. The article currently states: "Public opinion is a key factor in impeachment proceedings as politicians including those in the House of Representatives look to opinion polls to assess the tenor of those they represent." The problem with this is that there have only been two US presidents impeached. Andrew Johnson was before opinion polls. In the case of Bill Clinton, the Democrats unexpectedly won five seats in the mid-term election just before the impeachment. Not exactly a slide in the polls. Nixon wasn't impeached, so we should hardly cite him in discussing "impeachment proceedings". None of the sources cited for this sentence actually support it. They suggest a shift in public opinion from Republican voters would be needed to get Republican representatives to move against Trump. They do not support the bald claim that "Public opinion is a key factor in impeachment proceedings". They don't really support the use of opinion polls in this article because what counts, according to their analysis, the opinion of Trump's core supporters, not the opinion nationwide.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This article reports the phenomenon of efforts to impeach, whether an impeachment ever occurs or not, just as with Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Efforts to impeach Barack Obama. As for the opinion polls, this is not a political thinkpiece, but an encyclopedia article recounting all of the facts relevant to the topic. Some verifiably sourced information may not be useful to some readers, but may be useful to others. To the extent that some readers may want to know what public opinion polls have determined on the matter, this is useful to those readers. It is the last section of the article, so readers who are interested in any other element of the topic will reach it before they get to this section. bd2412 T 22:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Opinion polls are somewhat informative, but we are reporting an excess of polls. This is not an election page. I would remove the long table of polls, and just cite a few significant polls, in context of contemporary events, i.e. Comey's dismissal. — JFG ^talk 07:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

FYI, Sagecandor has since been impeached as a sock.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Public opinion on impeachment

An IP editor has removed — and I have restored — a well-sourced summary on public opinion polls relating to impeachment. Contrary to the IP editor's assertion that PPP is a "partisan" polling firm, 538's objective pollster rankings (based on pollster accuracy, see methodology) gives PPP a "B+" rating and actually indicates a very slight Republican lean (with a "mean-reverted bias" of R+0.2).

Because this material is well-sourced and longstanding, and violates no policy, consensus should be obtained prior to removing this content. Neutrality^talk 04:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I completely agree with the restoration of this material, which is appropriate to include and consistent with other articles addressing such impeachment efforts. Readers are able to jump right to the articles on the polling companies themselves to determine if they have a reputation for leaning one way or the other. bd2412 T 12:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Fine to keep this content. — JFG ^talk 13:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I think opinion polls are given undue weight here - see above. They could be summed up in a few lines. We do not need a summary of every opinion poll. This adds nothing to the article and gives the misleading impression that impeachment will be decided by opinion polls. It would be more instructive to talk about the opinions of members of Congress.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree with that. Tables of polls should be removed, and a couple polls should be cited, in context of events leading to those polls (i.e. after the Comey dismissal). — JFG ^talk 07:47, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the tables of polls, leaving the commentary on significant polls. Given the discussion here and above, and the fact that Sagecandor has been banned as a sock puppet, I think there is a consensus against the tables.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Structure

The structure could be improved. It consists of two timelines, plus a number of small sections which could be integrated into the timelines.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've joined the two timelines. The bulleted lists should be converted into prose, and the timeline should have more meaningful headings.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Lead needs a rebuild

I have just removed one sentence that cited a source from October 2017 to comment on events of 2018. All of the sources are from 2017, with the exception of reference used for the final sentence — and the note about the 25th Amendment (nb 1). This note has basically nothing to do with the sentence it is attached to. That sentence predicts what will happen in 2017 and 2018, which is now stale. The note has no reason to be in the lead. If it is not mentioned in the body, then it should be removed. The rest of the lead should be updated to reflect the current situation. We don't need sources if we're just summarising the body of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I have removed nb 1.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I removed this: "Other people and groups have asserted that Donald Trump has engaged in impeachable activity during his presidency", but it was restored. It cites two sources from January 2017!!! That's hardly representative of Trump's presidency. Also, my reference to Mueller was removed as "undue", even though his investigation plays a large role in this article.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The article isn't titled Efforts to impeach Donald Trump after 2018. It covers the whole of the topic, as it should. Reliable sources reported opinions favoring impeachment on specific grounds early on in Trump's presidency, a fact that does not evaporate with the passage of time. Furthermore, certain specific assertions of impeachable offenses, such as alleged violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, continue to be discussed, investigated, and litigated now. Note that specific articles of impeachment have been offered by members of Congress with respect to a variety of asserted grounds. With respect to Mueller specifically, that investigation is only one element of the ongoing investigation of the alleged influence of Russia on Trump. We should be very careful to avoid giving the misleading impression that impeachment hinges on that specific investigation, and the specific matters that it addressed. bd2412 T 19:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

The sentence, "Other people and groups have asserted that Donald Trump has engaged in impeachable activity during his presidency" can't be verified by sources in January 2017. I suggest the citations be removed because there is no need to have them in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Mueller! Mueller!

Now that the Mueller report has been handed in, it is clear that this is a very misleading article. It should be cut down to size and only retain relevant information. People coming here want to know what is happening (or not happening) with the impeachment of Trump. Most of this article is a breathless countdown to nothing in particular, with loads of unhelpful commentary.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sater is going still testify. There's going to be a bunch of impeachment related investigations in Congress, as the Meuller report punted on the question of obstruction. The show goes on. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no show. The article can include Sater when he testifies. This is beginning to resemble a hunt for an orange whale. The article can't document something until it happens. It doesn't seem that the Mueller inquiry has got us any closer to impeachment. It's almost April. Any impeachment process started now will run into the presidential election. There's really no point in impeaching Trump if they can just vote him out. Realistically, then, any impeachment will have to wait to 2121 or later.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Proceedings in the impeachment of Bill Clinton began shortly after the 1998 mid-term election, which was on November 3, 1998, and which followed issuance of the Starr Report on September 11, 1998. Clinton was actually impeached on December 19, 1998. The trial in the Senate lasted five weeks, from January 7, 1999 until Clinton's acquittal in the Senate on February 12, 1999. That's about three months from the time the gears started turning in the House to the final resolution of the matter in the Senate. At that pace, an impeachment process started now would run until around the July 4th long weekend. bd2412 T 20:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's five months from the date of the report. And the Starr Report outlined 11 counts for impeachment, while Mueller apparently gave none. By contrast, the Senate Watergate Committee was formed on 7 February 1973 and reported 27 June 1974 — and Nixon wasn't impeached. Of course, it could be quicker than any of that, but it's hard to see the impeachment process starting soon. Potential Democratic candidates have already started campaigning, and the Democrats apparently plan to have debates in June. It's highly unlikely that impeachment will occur before the next election. See the second paragraph of this news report. But that's beside the point. If it happens, we record it. If it doesn't, we don't. This article reads like the diary of a political Captain Ahab. The orange whale is always just over the horizon...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

This is not the forum for speculation on whether the timeline of impeachment would be particularly extended. Of course, if there is a reliable source speculating that any impeachment process started now will run into the presidential election, we can include that. bd2412 T 20:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I gave a source, and here are more:[9][10][11]. The problem is that if it is true that there won't be an impeachment before 2021, then this article is going into a long tunnel in which there is no need to "update" it. For example, Sater's testimony has no particular notability. Maybe it will be picked up on in two or three years' time, but that can be documented then. It's like the countdown to a rocket launch when we've just heard that the rocket won't be launched till 2021, if ever. There's no point in saying: 3, 2.99999, 2.99998, 2.99997... These are not truly "efforts to impeach" if there is no real possibility of impeaching this year or next. It is strange that you complain about speculation when this whole article is speculative. This article should concentrate on what has happened, as I've said before. I take it you agree with my basic point.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The article is, of course, not on impeachment, but on efforts to impeach - in this regard it is no different from Efforts to impeach George W. Bush and Efforts to impeach Barack Obama. Such efforts seem to exist for every president since Clinton. bd2412 T 11:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Those two articles are completely different. They list discrete efforts or calls for impeachment. This article lists a long sequence of events that have led nowhere. That is why I propose to change this article. Firstly, it should be closer to those articles you have cited. It should concentrate on specific efforts to impeach Trump, rather than an inconclusive narrative. Secondly, there should be an overview which explains the mechanics of an impeachment process in relation to Trump. Yes, we have an article about impeachment, but it would be helpful to have a summary here, which is related to the current facts. This would be a far more informative article.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

That is an interesting point - in this case, there have been discrete efforts or calls for impeachment, but the article does not fully list them. For example, "Opinion: The Founding Fathers would have impeached corrupt Trump in a New York minute" (August 13, 2018), proposes that Trump should be impeached for violating the Emoluments Clause and profiting from foreign dignitaries patronizing his businesses with the expectation of being given special consideration for so doing. bd2412 T 13:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back in part. The article does list a variety of potential grounds for impeachment. The alleged Emoluments Clause violation is noted in the first paragraph of the body. The actual resolution for impeachment brought on December 6, 2017, was for "Associating the Presidency with White Nationalism, Neo-Nazism and Hatred" and "Inciting Hatred and Hostility". bd2412 T 13:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to take exception to the "Nixon was never impeached" comment. It passed out of committee and then he resigned. That's a successful impeachment process. The current impeachment process, should it start, will officially start as early as tomorrow, when there's a conference call on the subject. If they say "no," that's one thing, but if they say "yes" or "maybe" is a totally different animal entirely. But that's tomorrow, and if they decide to go ahead, i suggest we do a split. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Why do you think the article should be split this time?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, there are one of three ways it could go. The first is to drop it. Then a split would be unwarranted. Second, an agreement to hold a bunch of hearings with impeachment to be discussed later, at that point, a discussion on the subject could be postponed here. However, if option 3, a formal impeachment inquiry is agreed to, then we MUST split.

The reason why is simple: There will be hearings and lawsuits galore. There's obstruction of justice, collusion, and emoluments. not to mention general corruption. So we should have "efforts to Impeach...2017-18", which will include all the symbolic venting and those failed resolutions. Stuff even the people who did them knew would result in nothing. Then there would be "the impeachment process of Donald Trump" which would start out with the Cohen hearings and then the Meuller report and the reactions to same. Then following the conference call (which is this afternoon), what happens with the whole mishegas. Remember, the "impeachment process of Lyndon Johnson" consisted of one resolution by Bella Abzug in 1968. It doesn't require or deserve a separate article. A vote to start the formal process requires a new article. Hence a split.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

We had a similar discussion in December, and there was no consensus to split. If there is a vote for impeachment, there is an argument to have a new article. However, there is an argument that this article could be used a background. And there is an argument we shouldn't have two separate articles, "Efforts to impeach" and the "Impeachment of", because that would be confusing. However, you need to get consensus when it happens.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest retitling this section at this point, as readers visiting this talk page for the first time might read "Mueller! Mueller!" as a call, in Wikipedia's voice, for Mueller's testimony before Congress. bd2412 T 14:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. That was funny on my watchlist!

There was no need to do that.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The header as written sounds like cheerleading for impeachment, which is something we don't do here. bd2412 T 00:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

You shouldn't edit other editors' comments. The fact that you believe the heading could be misinterpreted is irrelevant. Any reader can see that my initial comment wasn't a call for Mueller to testify. (It was actually a reference to the film, Ferris Beuller's Day Off.) My original post had nothing to do with a "possible course of events". In any case, the issues of neutrality and "Wikipedia's voice" don't apply to a talk page. Ironically, I am the one editor here who hasn't been a cheerleader.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me suggest, then, that perhaps your section headers should not be jokes obscurely based on movie references. Clearly, these could easily be misinterpreted to mean the opposite of what you would interpret them to mean. This comes close to being a WP:NOTAFORUM issue. It also somewhat odd that you perceive yourself as "the one editor here who hasn't been a cheerleader". There is not a single editor here who has expressed an opinion on whether Trump should or should not be impeached. We are, however, documenting the public efforts by those who are expressing such an opinion, whichever side of the political aisle they may fall on. bd2412 T 14:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

My original comment was clearly about improving the article; it was not a discussion of the topic. The only rule that has been broken was by you when you edited my words.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Be careful with your accusations. I have not edited your words at all. bd2412 T 20:52, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

True. I missed that.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions that Trump favors impeachment

A number of sources have suggested that Trump wants to be impeached in order to gain a perceived political advantage from a backlash by his supporters, and that he and his political surrogates are doing things to encourage his impeachment for this reason. Should this be mentioned in the article? See Politico, "Impeachment? This Is the Fight Trump Wants"; New York Times, "A Strategy Emerges to Counter House Democrats: Dare Them to Impeach"; CNN, "Burnett: Trump wants an impeachment fight"; CNBC, "Nancy Pelosi: Trump is ‘goading’ Democrats to impeach him to solidify his base". bd2412 T 21:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The first article says: "No one enjoys getting impeached, and if it happens to him, Donald J. Trump will be no exception." The argument is very nuanced. Then there's the issue of weight. There are copious opinions about Trump and what he's thinking. Ideally, the article should provide a range.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. I will work on some language. bd2412 T 14:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Amash

Should Rep. Justin Amash's support for impeachment be mentioned, as the first House Republican to call for it? [12] 331dot (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's pretty relevant tot he subject of the article.- MrX 🖋 11:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have mentioned the support of "one Republican" in both the lead and the "commentary" section, but without naming him. I don't oppose naming him if people think it is relevant. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Amash and Carlos Curbello are both mentioned by name in an earlier section as Republicans favorable to impeachment. bd2412 T 17:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

this is somewhat relevent

This is a link to an article in Slate about Wikipedia and Trump. Normally, something like this wouldn't belong on this page, but the article is very instructive as to what our work is here. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• It is an interesting take, but more relevant to the Donald Trump article than to this specific article. bd2412 T 16:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

"Support" list

User:KingOpti101 added a section with an itemized list - a good faith and carefully sourced list - of members of Congress who “support”. But what they support is unclear. An investigation? Actual impeachment? Something more nuanced? And do we really want to maintain a daily a list of everyone who takes a position on this? Would we also need a list of people who have opposed in some fashion? I think we should not try to do this kind of scorekeeping, and I have removed it pending discussion here. What do others think? -- MelanieN (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• My sense is that such a list, if created, would shortly need to be broken out into a separate article. If we list those who have explicitly supported impeachment, we should also list those who have explicitly opposed it, or said that they have not yet formed an opinion on it. bd2412 T 21:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• This article is a slow motion train wreck, and the best improvement would be WP:TNT. No, a list of supporters is not a good idea. It's not just a question of what they support. When did they express their support? Under what conditions? I don't think that Pelosi (for example) has ruled out impeachment under any circumstances. Impeachment when? Before the election or after the election if Trump is re-elected? Impeachment as a pipe dream or a plan of action? It's too nuanced. If there was a source which said that in June 2019 14.5 Democrats and 1 Republican supported impeachment, 7 were undecided, and 12 didn't know what impeachment was, then that would be worth including somewhere in this pig's breakfast.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
• Which Congresspeople and Senators support(and oppose) impeachment is certainly worthy of inclusion, as it's one piece of information readers will come here looking for. We don't need to give a full accounting of the date, time, place, and rationale for doing so, that's what the sources are for, as well as the articles about the individual politicians. This is no different than including endorsement lists on articles about elections. It eventually might need to be a separate article, but it could be started here. I agree that it could be broken down into support for impeachment, support for an impeachment inquiry, those on record as having no opinion, and those opposed. 331dot (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If broken down like that, it wouldn't really be a "support" list so much as a "positions" list. bd2412 T 21:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, what would you do if people changed their mind or equivocated? What if different sources label the same member a supporter and an opponent? What is an impeachment inquiry anyway?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

For example, Pelosi has now said that she doesn't want to impeach Trump, she wants to put him in jail. How do you deal with that?--Jack Upland (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

IT's time to split the article in two

Over the last couple of days, Rep.Jerry Nadler announced both on television and in court that impeachment proceedings have indeed begun. Let me repeat that: The Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee has announced Publicly that impeachment proceedings have already begun. Therefore, we need to split this article in two. The first one will basically be this one. The second will be what happens after Nadler's announcement. I'll wait a couple of days for consensus, then, if there's no torrent of objections, I'll do it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow. This is getting more and more silly. There is no impeachment proceeding. People are just talking about it, as they have since Trump won the election. You argued for a split back in December and got no consensus, and now you're raising the issue again. The best thing to do would be to improve this article. If this article gets too large, then it can be split. There is no point in splitting the article in the hope that Jerry Nadler will be the new Felix Sater.--Jack Upland (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's see, there are lawsuits and hearings scheduled. The CHAIRMAN of the house JUDICIARY COMMITTEE says they are, so they are. Last December the Republicans controlled congress. Things change.Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

When the formal proceedings for the official impeachment process begin, you are welcome to split that off. We will probably have a House side and possibly if they go forward, a Senate side. There might be a lot of sidebars. Since they have not yet begun under that label, there is nothing to split off yet. Trackinfo (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Nadler is saying this to bolster his legal cases to obtain testimony and documents through courts enforcing subpoenas from his committee. It doesn't mean that anything has changed. 331dot (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Democrats don't seem to be sure

Democrats in the House, appear to disagree on whether it's an impeachment inquiry. GoodDay (talk) 10:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

to paraphrase Jerry Ford:an impeachment proceeding is anything a majority of the House judiciary committee says it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.179.3 (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Nadler said: "This Committee is engaged in an investigation that will allow us to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to President Trump. Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation. There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the nomenclature" [13]. It doesn't seem that there is any agreement on what to call it. It is clearly worth documenting here.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Listing the Various Reasons (Crimes and Misdemeanors) for Impeaching President Trump

To keep track of the many developments [circa March2019], we need a list of alleged crimes of President Trump. In science, there are lists so that people can see what work areas are related. Examples include:

• Arithmetic integer sequences
• Lists of periodic tables
• NP Complete problems

Similarly, we US Citizens (and the changes must be made only by US Citizens) need to have a list that people can unambiguously refer to. For instance, some people might say: there is no evidence of Russian collusion with Republicans, or with Trump's administration, or with Trump personally. Note the tighter restrictions on the evidence envelope from half the population, to a few hundred, to one person. This list would be a framework for seeking answers to what and how

• felonies,
• charges,
• misdemeanors,
• accusations

there are (a suggested ordering in terms of severity, but I'm not a lawyer: I know a felony is worse than a misdemeanor...). This "Listing the Various Reasons (Crimes and Misdemeanors) for Impeaching President Trump" would be a curated living document, where items would move up the list as news becomes available, e.g.

• in May 9, 2017 when rumor of compromising material on Trump's NSA Advisor
• turns into pleading guilty to lying to the FBI on "Dec. 1, 2017, 8:52 a.m.". --Peter10003 (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

• User:Peter10003 - No, it's "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", which would be listed by the House indictment, if any. Roughly translates to 'Abuse of power' and 'abandonment of office'. An OR list or even RS speculations are not good information. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The Constitution says, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I think it's unclear what this means. We do have a High crimes and misdemeanors article which gives some detail. However, this is largely just opinion. There isn't some authoritative source to tell us what the phrase means, and there have been only two Presidents impeached and neither of them were convicted, so there isn't much precedent. Andrew Johnson was impeached for a range of things. Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice. Nixon would have been impeached for obstruction of juctice, abuse of power, and contempt of Congress. But there's nothing much to guide the House of Representatives on how to vote.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

2019 Trump-Ukraine controversy

We need to figure out how best to include the 2019 Trump-Ukraine controversy into this article, as it has already been raised as a possible grounds for impeachment, including by Democrats previously unwilling to consider that route, and some anti-Trump Republicans. bd2412 T 22:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes indeedie! Pelosi has "caved" and at four this afternoon, there's going to be a meeting to ratify what the rules committee is planning to vote on to have a select committee to take impeachment away from Nadler. I suggest (although when has anyone on this page agreed to my suggestions?), that when the vote is finally taken we change the Ukraine controversy article and change it to "The impeachment process of Donald Trump" and split this one into Efforts...Trump (2016-18), and Efforts....2019. Like I said, the straw has broken the camel's back and things are going fast and furious, now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. A select committee being created makes this clear. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, the reason other people don't listen to you is that you have said that things are fast and furious now multiple times. Until there is a vote for impeachment, all we have are efforts to impeach Trump, and some vaguely connected events that have been scraped into this article. There is no need at the moment to split the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

We call Impeachment process against Richard Nixon what it is called, and that was nothing more than an "effort" since it did not get to a full House vote. What's different about this case, and at what point do we rename this article, if not now? 331dot (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

At this moment MSNBC, CNN, and even Fox News have large one-inch type headlines on my screen referring to this impeachment inquiry. 331dot (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Someone has created Impeachment of Donald Trump. 331dot (talk) 22:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Which is good. IT should be called the "impeachment process" but that's a discussion for another page. Right now, we should start working how to complete this article here, as the "efforts" phase has been completed. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I still consider it premature to talk about an "Impeachment of" phase. bd2412 T 23:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Impeachment process against Richard Nixon is probably a bad choice of title. However, in Nixon's case, articles of impeachment had been reported to the House. Knowing the numbers were against him, he resigned. That article was written with hindsight. In Trump's case, we don't know what's going to happen. Many people assumed that Mueller's report would lead to impeachment. Given there's now an article Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, there's no need to rename or split this one.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Bulleted timelines

Is there any reason why this article includes a series of bulleted timelines written in the present tense?--Jack Upland (talk) 07:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

IT's time to split the article in two (Part two)

For all of you deniers out there, Politico just reported that The House Judiciary Committee is going to vote on an impeachment resolution on Wednesday. It will define the parameters of the inquiry in a similar fashion as to the ones against Nixon in 1974 and Clinton in 1998. The link is in the main article. This isn't me crying wolf either. I wasn't the first two times.Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I still don't see a reason to split the article. All of that is still accurately captured under the heading of efforts to impeach. Until a vote on the House floor culminates in impeachment, all we have are efforts towards that end. bd2412 T 22:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I also think the wrong link has been put into the article, and the sentence about Politico is garbled.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I am wondering when we will get to the point that this be renamed to "Impeachment process against Donald Trump", a al Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps when it is widely known by that name. bd2412 T 13:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason we should split the article is that prior to last January, there were no serious attempts by anyone, except maybe Tom Styer, who spent tons of money on the effort, to impeach the president. The municipal resolutions and such were just protests against what they saw were malfeasance. There were EFFORTS, but not any serious ones. Starting in January, there were actual hearings, some were by the "wrong" committee, i.e. Oversight's Cohen hearings. There was also pushback and lawsuits, something that didn't happen in 2017-18 because the House was in Republican hands. There was an actual, serious debate on the subject. The vote in two days is fundamentally different than marches and the municipal resolutions, as this represents a formalized impeachment proceeding (please remember that the proceedings against Nixon and Clinton were never called an "impeachment process" by anyone outside of Wikipedia) that will include hearings with all the bells and whistles. There were months of these in 1974 and, I believe two days worth in 1998.

So we need three articles. One on the hoopla by the so-called resistance in the first two years of the term. One on the investigations by various committees in the House, and then on the formal impeachment proceeding that is going to be voted on the day after tomorrow. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

There is no consensus on splitting the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Well we definitely don't need three articles. At the moment, any House member can call these proceedings whatever they want to appease their constituents. Nothing of formal substance towards an actual impeachment has happened. bd2412 T 13:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Except that the Judiciary Committee voted to define the parameters of their investigation/inquiry/whatever they call it. [14]. 331dot (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

So what?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Please don't split the article. The scroll bar of the immense size of this compared to every other US president and the bias shown is a good example that's being used in memes to wake people up. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• James Comey on why he believes he was fired (C-SPAN).webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

"Complicit with"

"Emoluments Clause and the other being complicity with... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.27.53 (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on modifying the 'commentary & opinion' section

Under the 4th Section of this article, Commentary & Opinion, there is a subsection titled 'Statements by Democrats'. There is no other subsection for any other political party (i.e. Libertarian, Republican, etc.) I propose we either wipe the 'Statements by Democrats' section completely, or we add more titles to include ALL political parties in the United States:

- Statements by Republicans - Statements by Libertarians - Statements by Green Party - Statements by Constitution Party

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. --StanTheMan0131 (talk) 19:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

• @StanTheMan0131: It may be helpful to add 'Statements by Republicans', but none of the other parties are relevant because they don't have any members in Congress. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • We could add a section briefly restating the support for impeachment by Republican representatives Justin Amash (R-MI) and Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), already noted earlier in the article. BD2412 T 12:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Rename, merge, delete?

Should this be renamed since it barely deals with the successful effort to impeach him? Or should it be merged with another article? Are there any section that are obsolete and should now be deleted?--Jack Upland (talk) 05:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• All prior unsuccessful efforts are still efforts that are part of the historical record. I wouldn't rename or remove. This is parallel to the articles on efforts to impeach presidents for whom those efforts were undertaken but did not succeed. BD2412 T 05:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but in this case the effort was successful. There is no parallel. Perhaps we should rename it to "Preliminary efforts...".--Jack Upland (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I think people will understand from the current title that these were efforts that preceded the ostensibly successful one (although there remains some question over whether an "impeachment" has occurred absent the articles being conveyed to the Senate). BD2412 T 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Rename to Timeline of Donald Trump impeachment and format it as a timeline (which it already partially is). Eliminate most or all of the textual material, including the information about the previous unsuccessful attempts at impeachment; all of this is already covered in one or more of the three existing articles about his impeachment. This would leave a timeline which could be very valuable in tying the whole matter together - particularly helpful since the current impeachment is scattered among three articles. Thanks for suggesting this, Jack Upland. The last thing we need is yet a fourth article, completely duplicating material which is covered in the other three. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

P.S. If this option receives consensus, I volunteer to help convert the article into timeline format. -- MelanieN (talk) 07:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

@MelanieN:, please note that this is not "yet a fourth article"; this is the first article that was created on this topic, and the other articles are content forks of this one. If anything needs to be altered, it is the later articles which copied the existing content from this article. BD2412 T 14:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I hear you, BD. This article was the first on the subject and is the oldest. You started it way back in 2016. But we should decide how to handle this subject based on what would be best for the encyclopedia’s treatment of the subject, not on temporal priority. I have opposed the proliferation of articles covering this one subject, and I hope one day to be able to merge the other three into a single article "Impeachment of Donald Trump". But I have also said all along that a timeline type article about impeachment would be a good thing to have. This article IMO serves no current purpose as prose coverage of the impeachment - for better or worse it has been overtaken and displaced by more recently created articles. But is already halfway to being the timeline article that we need. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Alternately, we could rename it something like Other efforts to impeach Donald Trump and strip down to a "see also" anything having to with the Ukraine matter. BD2412 T 16:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

But really this article is not about "other efforts". As discussed previously, this article is basically a countdown to impeachment. So a timeline would work well.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Timeline: MelanieN, this is a brilliant idea! It deals with the issue I have raised, and it also deals with the long-running problem of the way the article is written. It would take a massive effort to turn this article into encyclopedic prose; it would be relatively easy to convert it into a timeline. And the article would have a coherent purpose. Brilliant!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Do not rename or remove. All prior unsuccessful efforts are history in their own right. The Mueller investigation and other events should not be erased by the most recent story, they should be in this separate article. And Im thinking that when (if) this latest one is dismissed, there will still be the possibility (liklihood) of yet more. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks like a timeline article would have to be a separate article, then. Ultimately, the existing articles on the current process may need to be renamed something like First impeachment of Donald Trump to avoid confusion with later impeachments. BD2412 T 18:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
    • I think we should be discussing an improvement to this article, rather than gazing into crystal balls.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
      • The potential for a second impeachment is already the subject of coverage by reliable sources (see [15], [16], [17]), and should probably be noted in this article. At this point, I would certainly object to the removal of any properly sourced information currently contained in the article, although I would have no objection to a separate timeline being made. BD2412 T 05:44, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
        • You should be impeached for a clear case of "page ownership".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
          • I'm just calling balls and strikes, as I have on the similar articles regarding other presidents. However, if you feel that I have done something against consensus or policy, please do let me know what it is that you have in mind. Cheers! BD2412 T 18:32, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

But Was He Actualy Impeached?

I modified the part that stated "he was impeached" to "a bill of impeachment was passed by the house". I then cited Harvard law professor Noah Feldman in a Bloomberg artical who is of the opinion that impeachment involves passing the bill and* transmitting it the house. This is a topic that is being discussed. You and I can debate this until the sun does down but my point is that Legal academia does not appear to have a unanimous view on this and if a Harvard Law professor is questioning it that means i have to question if it should be presented as a statement of fact.

That a bill of impeachment was passed is a matter of public record (I did check) BUT the matter of does impeachment consists of just passing the bill or is it passing AND transmitting the bill? appears to be disputed by at least one accademic at Harvard. So I believe the more accurate statement is that a bill of impeachment was passed - not he was impeached. If the bill goes to the senate, the statement should be changed to read he was impeached as then could be no dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.165.248.226 (talk) 05:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@173.165.248.226: no, he has been impeached per WP:WEIGHT. Wikipedia doesn't really care what one person says, when a majority of mainstream reliable sources say otherwise; point is, the House impeaches presidents, the president got impeached -- simple as that. This has been discussed on this talk page a number of times, consensus is that Trump has been impeached - get consensus to change that, or leave as is. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 01:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

And you should be impeached for placing your comment at the top of the page, instead of simply creating a new section at the bottom.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Now moved to bottom. Anybody could have done this already. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete : "In an opinion piece two days later, attorneys George Conway and Neal Katyal called the brief "spectacularly anti-constitutional," arguing it places the president above the law while noting that Congress routinely investigates criminal matters"

Besides being A-List celebrities, WHAT does THIS statement have to DO with the Subject? There have been MANY opinion pieces on both sides! ---- BBerry2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillBerry2 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Delete : "The eight-page letter was widely interpreted by legal analysts as containing political rather than legal arguments.[32][33][34][35][36]"

This is simply another Democratic Talking Point! There was interpretation falling on BOTH SIDES! ---- BBerry2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillBerry2 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite or strike down

This article amounts to opinion. There are some facts, but whole this is an opinion piece. Strike this article, or rewrite. Don't make me log in or I have this article struck down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.235.215.169 (talk • contribs)

IP sockpuppetry, then? bd2412 T 02:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The timeline needs to be rewritten.Theoallen1 (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I would support a total rewrite.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

From what I've been seeing on media, the impeachment effort has been losing steam. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I would disagree. The numbers supporting an inquiry is growing among Democrats.Theoallen1 (talk) 22:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Except this happened five days ago. soibangla (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Look, I've heard this chorus for the last year. "This just happened!" "Someone's passing a motion in the next room!" "The donkeys are restless!" In the end we have to document what has happened, not what we're wishing and hoping and hoping and wishing will happen. As previously discussed, with the presidential election campaign in full swing, it is unlikely that anyone would initiate an impeachment process. As it stands, the article is just a complete mess, reading like the incoherent diary of a political Captain Ahab hell-bent on harpooning that orange whale. Anyone coming here for a neutral overview of the situation would be sorely disappointed.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed in this article, as it is heavily biased against the president. It is focused almost entirely on the accusations against the president and for the few opposing statements it seeks to weaken those by providing them with a dissenting opinion. (For example, despite all of the political motivations on both sides, it was only the president's response to an accusation that was labeled as political and was lacking legal foundation. Regardless of the legal standing of his response, why doesn't this article let the accusations stand without such an opposing view?) Jmccoy1119 (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles on efforts to impeach presidents will always focus on the things that people think they should be impeached for. We are merely reflecting here what reliable sources report on the subject. BD2412 T 17:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Merge

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 result of the discussion was procedurally closed as premature per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 14:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

---

I believe 2021 efforts to remove Donald Trump is insufficiently notable for a standalone article, and ought to be merged to this one. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems to cover methods beyond just impeachment. If merged anywhere, I think it would be in the article on the attack on the capitol building. BD2412 T 05:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Most of it's about impeachment. The 25th Amendment stuff could potentially go at the storming of the capitol article, or this article could be broadened. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Do not merge, Keep stand alone article I also believe there is enough for a stand alone. Thinking long term, this is an element of history that should be saved however it turns out. Trackinfo (talk) 17:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait to merge. Right now, merging is somewhat counterproductive. If it is not actually voted on by the House, then it can be merged. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's wait. Articles don't have a deadline. There is considerable press regarding the 25th Amendment. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Because the aftermath is not able to be completely assessed yet, I think we should wait. Should it be decided to merge, I believe that the efforts to impeach/remove him should be separated from previous attempts, and summarize the event and describe its aftermath. This way, it is notable from the previous attempts, and explains why these attempts have so much support over the others, and why this would be done during his lame-duck period. NDfan173 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Merge. No matter what happens, it will be fast. If efforts to remove Trump fail, as I suspect they will, this will merit nothing more than a footnote in history.Calmecac5 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Merge Sadly, no part this consists of "efforts", merely calls to remove. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait - The event is not done, wait until its over so we can merge/keep 🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait - The breadth of the effort to remove President Trump from office in 2021 goes beyond just impeachment, and because that breadth includes the 25th Amendment, I do not think that 25th Amendment information belongs in this article and feel it is best to see what Trump's cabinet or Congress decide to do. 2600:1700:7869:200:A12E:7FA9:49B4:4C4C (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, suggest close articles of impeachment are being drafted, there's no way these pages should be merged now.  Nixinova   T   C   20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait: I support waiting the coming days to see what happens with this development. --AXEdits (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait - I can see why merging is being suggested, but to me the key thing is the use of the 25th Amendment has been suggested by credible sources and that is not really the same as impeachment. If an attempt to use the 25th gains more ground then this article (or a successor depending on the outcome) would be needed. If not then a merge might be appropriate, but as the Trump Presidency is scheduled to end in less than two weeks, we could leave it until then and decide. Dunarc (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait - In my opinion, it's too soon to decide. I support a merge if there is no progress made over the next few days. Ahmad^talk 21:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait this seems premature, impeachment and removal via the 25th amendment each seem relatively likely, with substantial coverage of both in RS. We will have an outcome within a fortnight anyway, so I don't see any harm in waiting until the dust has settled. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait. A merger would be premature, since a president being impeached for a second time or being subject to the first removal via the 25th amendment in America history would be a very notable event. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge. Currently smacks of wp:recentism. Unless this attempt actually goes anywhere as opposed to fizzling out like a squib along with other trump controversies, it doesn't deserve its own page. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait: we will find out what happens soon enough.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge I would also propose that Second impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump be merged into this article. Until a formal impeachment inquiry is announced or perhaps the 25th Amendment is invoked a standalone article is not needed. JayJay^{What did I do?} 00:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge JayJay, I have merged Second impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump into this article under January 2021. Nirvanaoreilly (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose articles of impeachment filed and Nancy Pelosi is pushing for it to move forward. Noah^Talk 03:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wait - We'll see what happens, but from my POV, either prospect is shaping out to be unlikely. Love of Corey (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as the articles cover quite different attempts to remove Trump from office. In addition, the 2021 article is broader in scope and does not cover impeachment alone.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 08:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per 5225C Majavah (talk!) 10:46, 8 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.