![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
The phrase "Impeachment of Donald Trump" should redirect to this page when searched.
86.144.144.125 ( talk) 23:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
Could be a useful source to use for this article. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed {{ recentism}} tagged as unexplained and incorrectly used instead of {{ current}}. Sagecandor ( talk) 17:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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
'You look at the bill Sen. Warren sponsored,' he added. 'The lawsuits ask for declaratory judgment to fill in very wide gaps and reasoning.'
Rhadow ( talk) 17:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobTheRogue ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
References
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, [1] [2] with both conservatives [3] and the president himself [4] [5] warning of dire consequences of impeachment.
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)
[5]( talk) 14:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 and Flopped ツ 17:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
*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)
This is basically irrelevant.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:56, 30 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)
In 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned in the wake of a scandal when it was obvious that public opinion no longer supported him.
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.
Public opinion matters because for impeachment to happen, Congress must act, and elected officials sometimes hang their principles on opinion polls.
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.
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)
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)
FYI, Sagecandor has since been impeached as a sock.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Democrats in the House, appear to disagree on whether it's an impeachment inquiry. GoodDay ( talk) 10:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
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:
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
"Emoluments Clause and the other being complicity with... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.27.53 ( talk) 09:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The timeline needs to be rewritten. Theoallen1 ( talk) 04:34, 27 July 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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
The phrase "Impeachment of Donald Trump" should redirect to this page when searched.
86.144.144.125 ( talk) 23:47, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
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.
Could be a useful source to use for this article. Sagecandor ( talk) 19:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed {{ recentism}} tagged as unexplained and incorrectly used instead of {{ current}}. Sagecandor ( talk) 17:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
@ 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. [1] 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
'You look at the bill Sen. Warren sponsored,' he added. 'The lawsuits ask for declaratory judgment to fill in very wide gaps and reasoning.'
Rhadow ( talk) 17:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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? [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobTheRogue ( talk • contribs) 05:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
References
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, [1] [2] with both conservatives [3] and the president himself [4] [5] warning of dire consequences of impeachment.
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)
[5]( talk) 14:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
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)
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 and Flopped ツ 17:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
*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)
This is basically irrelevant.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 04:56, 30 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)
In 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned in the wake of a scandal when it was obvious that public opinion no longer supported him.
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.
Public opinion matters because for impeachment to happen, Congress must act, and elected officials sometimes hang their principles on opinion polls.
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.
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)
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)
FYI, Sagecandor has since been impeached as a sock.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Democrats in the House, appear to disagree on whether it's an impeachment inquiry. GoodDay ( talk) 10:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
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:
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
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
"Emoluments Clause and the other being complicity with... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.27.53 ( talk) 09:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The timeline needs to be rewritten. Theoallen1 ( talk) 04:34, 27 July 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)
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)
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)
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)