![]() | This page 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. |
This should be reconciled or merged with the already existing Efforts to impeach Donald Trump- and we may want to consider renaming this (or whatever article results) to Impeachment process against Donald Trump, a la Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. 331dot ( talk) 22:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be wise to semi protect or extended confirm protect this page due to the hot influx and news and updates about this subject. If the main Trump page is extended confirm protected, why shouldn't this page. Trump is a very searched and googled person. Any one else agree?-- Proudpakistani11 ( talk) 01:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
[1] This is informative. I saw the impeachment inquiry announced on TV today and it looked like do-nothing theatrics, but the Lawfare article and a few similar things said it might help the House committees pry a few more documents loose from the executive branch. Everyone seems to agree there is no chance of actually removing the president. 67.164.113.165 ( talk) 06:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The article currently states "An increasing number of House Democrats and one independent, Representative Justin Amash (Michigan),[note 1] were requesting such an inquiry.[27]" User:SelfieCity changed the descriptor of Amash from Republican -> Independent with the explanation "the note within the article, Justin Amash, and https://amash.house.gov/ all describe him as currently being an independent — therefore, we shouldn't say he's a Republican"
I don't know what the general practice is for politicians who change parties, but Amash was definitely a Republican at the time he first supported impeachment [and was reported on as such.] So I looked for examples of how other party-switching politicians were described in Wikipedia.
In Civil Rights Act of 1957, Strom Thurmond (Democrat until 1964, Republican afterwards) is described as "Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina." In Civil Rights Act of 1964, Thurmond is simply "Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC)" (he switched parties several months after the events in the article.)
In American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Arlen Specter was described as such: "only three Republicans voted in favor (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter).[21] Specter switched to the Democratic Party later in the year"
I don't want an edit war and am not the most familiar with Wikipedia procedures - based on these other examples, I don't think there's any precedent for inaccurately describing Amash as an Independent when he began supporting impeachment. Could we change the text to e.g. "and one Republican, Representative Justin Amash (Michigan) were requesting such an inquiry. Amash left the Republican Party and declared himself an independent later in the year" [moving the note descriptor to the main body to avoid confusion]?
Reyne2 ( talk) 00:08, 27 September 2019 (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.
Hi,
There's vandalism here:
I would undo it myself, but I've already reverted vandalism in the last 24 hours on this article. Can someone take care of it?
Thanks, David O. Johnson ( talk) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected article 1 month due to POV and unsourced additions from IP and unconfirmed editors. Any admin should feel free to modify this protection as necessary without any need to consult me first. – Darkwind ( talk) 08:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I have been making a few changes and will now move on. However, the section on congressional support is worded in wp:recentism manner. If someone could have a play with it to make it more encyclopedic, that would be fantastic. Mozzie ( talk) 05:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
For one reason or another the coloring I have been adding for the polling is being removed. Is there a difference between these polls and the ones at Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum? Per MOS:COLOR, colors assist accessibility when it comes to the color blind. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the last sentence:
It was created by ZiplineWhy as part of a larger edit here. But I don't see "a threat to withdraw foreign aid and cease communication" in the two citations and the tweet that ZiplineWhy provides. Leshchenko said "As I remember, it was a clear fact that Trump wants to meet only if Biden case will be included". And then he backtracks on that.
I don't think this sentence deserves half of the space in the lead's first paragraph. In the first case, its sources are questionable. Second, even if true, it merely details one individual's memory of why officials in the Ukraine were upset. The start of the second paragraph in the lead, about Pelosi initiating the inquiry in the wake of a whistleblower report, is much more important. The sentence further down in the second paragraph about Leshchenko ("stated that it was made a "clear fact" to the Ukrainian government") is much better at following the same source (ABC News), although it could use trimming.
I would recommend that this sentence be deleted or, at least, transferred to the body of the article. Maybe in a new subsection under Responses called, perhaps, "Ukrainian officials"? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 16:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Twitter links (citations #102, #103, and #108) do not go directly to cited tweets and generate a 404 on Twitter. Halyonix ( talk) 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Apparently I haven't done enough edits to fill this in myself with the current restrictions. So here is the info in case someone else wants to... In the second paragraph there is "Trump placed a hold on military aid to Ukraine at the same time.[further explanation needed]" which asks "Does anyone know the exact date that Trump held up the aid?". Per a Wall Street Journal article the decision was communicated on July 18th. Thus my suggested edit would be to move the sentence mentioned here and place it after the following sentence which talks about the call and then change it "Trump placed a hold on military aid to Ukraine a week before the call." and reference the Sept 24th WSJ article. Truistic ( talk) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I added the name of the whistleblower's lawyer, Mark Zaid, which is in the source and is not secret. FWIW, I went to law school with Zaid and know him personally. Bearian ( talk) 20:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Based on the polling data we have, the most accurate one is the poll done by "Politico/Morning Consult". It should be noted somewhere in the polling section that the sample size and the margin of error matter. Ideally you want to have a MoE between 2.5 and 3.0% with a sample size of 1,500 - 2,500 people for a 95% confidence level. [2], [3] - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
A caution: These polls were conducted in a rapidly developing news environment, sometimes over only a single day of interviews. This poses challenges for pollsters, who have fewer opportunities to call back hard-to-reach respondents. It could also mean that the surveys were conducted at a moment when Democrats or Republicans were particularly eager to participate in polling. Many pollsters refuse to conduct one-day surveys altogether. And these particular pollsters have tended to show more support for impeachment than others over the Trump presidency; they may continue to do so today.--- Coffeeand crumbs 14:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This article states that formal impeachment inquiry started in Sept, but /info/en/?search=Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump#Start_of_formal_impeachment_proceedings states that "In July 2019, The House leadership agreed to quietly start formal impeachment proceedings without a formal vote on the matter. This was first revealed to the public in a court filing dated July 26.", followed by a lot more sourcing than in this article. So unless there is some technical difference between an "inquiry" and "proceedings", with proceedings being a step before inquiry, this article would seem to be wrong at the moment. IANAL so I don't feel comfortable actually editing the article, but from a layman's perspective, the media certainly seems to use the two words interchangeably. So I hope someone who is knowledgeable on the technical details of legislative procedure etc. will read this, and hopefully cite the actual legal documents that make this distinction :-) Djbclark ( talk) 23:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's kinda what I thought but I wasn't 100% sure. Unless I see objections here soon, I now have confidence to attempt an edit to the article to reflect this state of affairs. Djbclark ( talk) 13:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@
Djbclark: - if you read the entirety of that section (
Efforts to impeach Donald Trump#Start of formal impeachment proceedings), and then read the last source
[4], you will realize that it took them until September 12, 2019, to have a resolution defining the rules of the panel's impeachment investigation
- so things moved really slowly, and there wasn't any inquiry started.
starship
.paint (
talk)
14:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
There has been no vote on Impeachment Inquiry and won’t be until December. Stop using the term. Without that vote subpoena power is missing and so is any attempt at any inquiry. Joe Biden did brag at a foreign affairs meeting that..”if the prosecutor isn’t fired in the next six hours you’re not getting that billion dollars “ Phildonohue ( talk) 00:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under this rule and rule X (including any matters
referred to it under clause 2 of rule XII), a committee or subcommittee is authorized (subject to subparagraph (3)(A))—
(A) to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it considers necessary; and
(B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers necessary. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
|
This photo with DT flashing a big grin seems inappropriate to the topic, and unintentionally funny. (For a photo of how he looked discussing impeachment on Oct. 2, 2019, see this AP story.) – Sca ( talk) 13:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I worry about the wording of the
Public Opinion section. The section intro reads Polling has indicated that, on average, a plurality of Americans lean towards supporting impeachment.
However, many of the polls listed do not speak to that. Politico/Morning Consult, CNN/SSRS, NPR/PBS/Marist, Reuters/Ipsos, and Quinnipiac are all within the
margin of error and therefore statistically the same. Those outside of the margin of error (Monmouth, HuffPost/YouGov, Hill/HarrisX, CBS/YouGov, and USA Today/Ipsos) show, except for Monmouth, average 2-5% lean towards supporting impeachment above margin of error. Half of our current dataset demonstrates statistical neutrality and no plurality one way or another. This is why originally I wrote Polling during late September 2019 has indicated, on average, that a plurality of Americans leans slightly toward supporting impeachment.
before the line was reworded by
Nixinova.
I also want to question why the first poll in the paragraph is not current support or opposition, but hypothetical support based on the what-if regarding the Trump-Ukraine controversy. I know it's relevant because the Controversy is a significant reason for the Impeachment Inquiry, however it seems to reek of WP:CRYSTAL. Gwen Hope ( talk) ( contrib) 23:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Polling has indicated that Americans are generally split on their support of the impeachment inquiry.I am confused as to why some polls are in text when the rest are in the table. starship .paint ( talk) 06:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Reasoning: Immediate and obvious support of a move; fast and greater than 2:1 consensus for Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. Taking all supports without elaboration on title as a support for "Impeachment inquiry", there are 10 votes for that. There are 4 votes for "Impeachment process". There's 1 that is ambivalent between the two. There are three opposes, but two of those can be struck for faulty reasoning (namely, "no President has ever been impeached" and "But he will be impeached"). Note that because the proposed title existed as a redirect, this is subject to a technical move.( non-admin closure) Kingsif ( talk) 03:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Impeachment of Donald Trump →
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump – An overwhelming majority of sources use the word inquiry. This article should also use that term. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs
22:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
It should be Impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, or Impeachment process of Donald Trump, to conform to other articles. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 22:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I support change to the title "Impeachment process...". We ought to have continuity. Inspector Semenych ( talk) 22:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the title ("Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump") to read "Impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump" or "Impeachment inquiry against U.S. President Donald Trump," or some variation thereof which includes his title/office because: (1) it eliminates any ambiguity about inquiries into Mr. Trump personally versus Mr. Trump in his role as president; and (2) provides a more formal, complete picture. 2603:3018:59:0:246B:107A:F470:7653 ( talk) 22:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
That's an outright false statement. The New York Times article in the citation lied about it too. The whistleblower report is their basis for this claim, and no one has access to that. The transcript released today doesn't show any threats or coercion to make them investigate someone on Trump's behalf.
Amaroq64 (
talk)
23:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The New York Times article in the citation lied about it too? --- Coffeeand crumbs 23:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I concur. I attempted to correct for the falsehood, but this is not possible, evidently. Wikipedia has locked the page against "vandalism". Sensiblereaction ( talk) 11:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately for Wikipedia, there is so much false and distorted news from all major news agencies that almost all current political topics/entries are going to be highly speculative and skewed to liberal favor. Journalists are getting away from fact bad reporting and have become opinion commentators. Stanleyshere ( talk) 11:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I tried to link to Jeffress' Wikipedia page in the Twitter comment, but I caused a wikilink conflict that I don't know how to resolve. Is there any solution that would keep the blue link to Jeffress but also not cause the conflict? Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 13:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Just in case anyone is watching here but not there. Cheers, XOR'easter ( talk) 17:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
"Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?"
I've removed this. I think this is problematic per WP:SELFPUB, particularly with regards to "2. it does not involve claims about third parties" - the entire message is a (possibly libelous) claim against a 3rd party, without quoting any response by that individual, which poses further neutrality issues.
Ultimately, I don't think this quote really adds to the section in question Jw2036 ( talk) 13:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This title make it seem like a personal attack on Mr Trump. Consider changing to 'Impeacement enquiry on Donald Trump' BDTraining ( talk) 15:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Post poll I just added asked about support for an inquiry and support for removal, so I put both in different sections. I don't know if some of the earlier polls did that or otherwise asked different questions, but we may want to adjust that section if they did. 331dot ( talk) 11:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
under "Timeline" and "October 8, 2019", sentence 1: "The White House sends a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders condemning the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as "constitutionally invalid" and further escalating the standoff between the two branches of government."
the initial sentence from the source listed for this sentence ( source here) reads very similarly: "THE WHITE HOUSE ON Tuesday sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders condemning Democrats' impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as "constitutionally invalid" and further escalating the standoff between the two branches of government." [1]
this may need to be revised. Thesung1932 ( talk) 06:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald Trump impeachment inquiry. Please see the relevant discussion. NorthHub ( talk) 13:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I came here to learn about the story totally ignorant of the details. One thing that struck me is that there's no mention of what the White House thought Hunter or Joe Biden did to warrant investigation. Without it, the article appears to imply Trump and Giuliani just wanted them investigated with no foundation whatsoever. Is that the case? If not, could the White House's suspicions be added? 2604:2000:1403:2D9:914E:E91D:6670:72BF ( talk) 23:09, 5 October 2019 (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.
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Donald Trump impeachment inquiry – Removes controversial usage of "against" while conveying all necessary information. WMSR ( talk) 14:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Polls are asking different questions depending on the poll; some ask opinions on the mere inquiry, some ask about supporting actual impeachment, and some ask for support for removal from office. Should we be differentiating between these questions in the display of the polling information? Currently we are conflating all the polls as "support for impeachment". I can see certain benefits to that as well(easier for readers). 331dot ( talk) 10:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I see that coloring was reinstated again without discussion. I still believe that this practice is borderline original research - drawing conclusions not stated by the sources. I propose to remove the coloring. Retimuko ( talk) 16:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Knowledgekid87:: What's wrong with me removing the colours for ties? It doesn't change any factual information and just makes the section easier to read (the contrast on the "majority" colours at the moment is quite bad). Nixinova T C 00:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
This may be useful in illustrating an article (perhaps not this one, but we have so many...). XOR'easter ( talk) 05:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Since the hearings are closed door, do we need to attribute the details to anonymous sources present during the testimony? The Press are not able to hear first hand what is going on, and are going through sources with no way to verify. However the article records the testimony directly in Wikipedia voice, which I'm not sure is appropriate (excluding Maguire's, which of course was public). As an example, there is a discrepancy per the NYT article - "“I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Mr. Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, told Ms. Hill to tell White House lawyers, according to two people at the deposition. (Another person in the room initially said Mr. Bolton referred to Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Mulvaney, but two others said he cited Mr. Sondland.)" Are we supposed to believe the 2 or the 1? This closed door testimony is depriving the public the chance to see what's going on and get the facts first hand! We have the NYT and other sources quoting anonymous sources quoting testimony from Ms. Hill quoting something said to her by Mr. Bolton or Mr. Sondland quoting something said by Trump. Mr Ernie ( talk) 08:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hill testified that she, Bolton, Volker, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, were in attendance for that meeting on July 10, 2019, and that Bolton was furious after the meeting when he told her that he was "not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up".However the cited NYT article - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/bolton-giuliani-fiona-hill-testimony.html - contains the contradiction I highlighted above. The NYT relies on anonymous sources who were "familiar" with the testimony, but I'm not sure if that means they witnessed first hand the testimony or were told about it by someone else, but says that 2 others cited Sondland and Mulvaney, but one cited Giuliani and Mulvaney. My position is that everything written in the testimony section that wasn't an open testimony needs to be attributed because there is no way to verify it. Mr Ernie ( talk) 12:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Could you please make the Testimony table sortable? It would be helpful, just at this point. In the future, it will be even more helpful in that regard. Probably better to do it while the list is still relatively short. Thoughts? — Maile ( talk) 17:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs tagged the line I added with a possible NOR issue under WP:SYNTH. This line is no more synth than the previous, which are both not the type of synthesis described in the policy. The line summarizes the specific public opinion polling listed by the sources. This isn't an A+B=C situation. This is sources report A, A, A, A, A, A, A, B situation written basically as "data is mostly A". Gwen Hope ( talk) ( contrib) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This article and its related talk page are now temporarily move-restricted to Administrators only for one month, pending outcome of the above discussion about moving the page. — Maile ( talk) 10:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump – One makes an inquiry into something, not against something. The Cambridge Dictionary has a specific entry for "inquire into" and Merriam-Webster's entry says "to make investigation or inquiry — often used with into". Of the intransitive, The Oxford English Dictionary says "To make search or investigation; to search, seek; to make inquisition. Const. into, of, after." This is corroborated by Google Ngram Viewer, where "inquiry into" is much more common than "inquiry against". Besides being more grammatical and common, "inquiry into" is arguably more neutral than "inquiry against", which suggests enmity against the subject instead of a gathering of information about the subject. Qono ( talk) 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Table of Google Search results
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I moved John Kasich to the Media section. He is a paid commentator on CNN and no longer an office holder. When he was a Republican governor, he was against the impeachment. After being on the CNN payroll, he supports impeachment. I changed the "Politician" section to "Current elected officials". Maybe somebody else has a better idea. But once a former elected official goes on paid staff of any media outlet, they are paid to support that particular media's leanings. At least in the US, the major news outlets serve as mere talk shows to promote that particular cable channel's political leanings. — Maile ( talk) 13:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
In all honesty, to me this comes across as an NPOV violation intended to suggest ex-politicians who now work in political media simply espouse the opinions of employers. These categories are not intended to categorize people who are currently x, but to categorize people who are known for being x. People who are familiar with Kasich surely know him as a governor and former presidential candidate, not an occasional CNN contributor. Obama now produces documentaries for Netflix, but if he made a statement included on this article no one would suggest he be in a section titled "film producers," he would be included under "politicians." Also, I'm definitely for changing "current elected officials" back to "politicians," but if necessary making subsections for current versus former. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
There's already been a lot of discussion on this talk page about whether or not the article title should be changed. Since the article is page move protected, and the title is the way it is, why does the main page say "Trump impeachment inquiry"? Clovermoss ( talk) 23:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs of the lead are full of minute detail that belongs in the text, not the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary. Anyone mind if I give the lead a haircut (while making sure the material actually is in the text)? -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Just opening up a conversation for now, but should we wikilink the positions listed under "Subpoenas for documents" and "Subpoenas for testimony"? It might be a good idea, but I don't exactly object if we don't. (For now, the only thing wikilinked is European Union, as part of Gordon Sondland's position, which seems awfully strange to me.)
Anyway, thoughts? — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 00:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Was this discussed?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
RBWilson1000 ( talk) 07:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
You should have seen the "official" portrait that we were forced to use at the Trump article for the first few months of his presidency. [14] I had visions of Trump glowering at us from every Post Office wall for four years! That one was eventually withdrawn by the White House because there were copyright issues with the photographer, and the present smiling one, Donald Trump official portrait.jpg, was put out instead. Thank goodness! -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Should the page be renamed to "Impeachment process…" when this passes? Or should it stay at "inquiry"? Nixinova T C 20:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Should this article have a current events tag? Especially given that things change on a daily basis? -- 192.107.156.196 ( talk) 20:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
As I was reading my morning Fox News, I came across this interesting development. A super PAC called Tea Party Patriots Action has filed an ethics complaint about the impeachment inquiry. [15] [16]. They are insisting that all the evidence gathered so far is tainted and must be discarded. No, I did not read this on The Onion.
Tea Party Patriots Action is associated with Tea Party Patriots. Also related, Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund and Jenny Beth Martin. - Mr X 🖋 11:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC), 12:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to create timeline section just as in Brexit article? It could really summarize the article.-- Abutalub ( talk) 17:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello. In the 3rd paragraph of the lead, I noticed this:
"Ambassador Taylor testified on October 22, 2019, that he had gradually become aware of the existence of a quid-pro-quo extortion campaign in Ukraine intended to ensure Trump's reelection."
First of all, sorry to say, the phrase appears to misattribute Taylor saying, "that he had gradually become aware of the existence of a quid-pro-quo extortion." This is not correct. None of three in-line citations attribute him saying "aware of...extortion" or "...quid-pro-quo extortion." In reference 26 it says, "sketched out in remarkable detail a quid pro quo pressure campaign on Ukraine"
[17].
Reference 27 says, "that the president withheld military aid from Ukraine in a quid pro quo effort to pressure that country’s leader to incriminate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and smear other Democrats"
[18]. In Reference 28, the opening paragraph, it does use "extort" in connection with Taylor's testimony
[19], but that is the media organization's voice. And consider the fact this is
The Intercept. Their wording will tend to be evocative at times, when other more mainstream media would not be the same.
Also, I think it is best to move away from heavily loaded words, such as "extortion". These could probably be substituted with impartial wording - such as "obtain", "attain", "receive" and so on. There seems to be good policy based reasoning for this. But first, because this is an encyclopedia, we are not print or broadcast media needing to attract attention for the bottom line. Interestingly, this is in agreement with policy.
WP:IMPARTIAL is on a policy page and there it says Wikipedia aims for an impartial tone. It is a short read. I feel I have written too much already, so I won't quote what it says here. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
It might be worth looking at peacock words also. These seem similar to what I am talking about, but perhaps not exactly on point. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of this section, the following sentence should be added. (I'm unsure about the wisdom of editing this highly visible article with my own account, hence this edit request.)
Bakaj, in a Washington Post op-ed, argued that the identity of his client is no longer pertinent after further events corroborated his client's account of the matter. [1]
References
49.36.13.237 ( talk) 03:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, your reinstatement of a edit I contested via reversion requires consensus on this talk page (or other conflict resolution means) to be reinstated. Regarding Margin of Error, utilizing a required 2x MoE standard is not substantiated in the field of statistics for this type of measurement. A standard MoE is already a 95% percentile confidence interval. According to Pew Research Center, specifies polling 2x MoE standards for comparing difference between support of two candidates or issues comparatively, not support for a single candidate or issue. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by gwenhope ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Somewhere in this section should include the fact that John Durham is investigating 2016 election interference https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/25/john-durham-probing-ukraine-as-part-of-trump-russi/ What is not clear at this point is whether his investigation in related to the CroudStrike server and/or 2016 Ukrainian election interference previously reported by Politico https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 and the NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/world/europe/ukraine-paul-manafort.html RBWilson1000 ( talk) 23:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no direct mention that Durham is investigating Ukraine's "potential 2016 election interference" though it is in the WashingtonTimes article. Given that Ukraine is the focus of this impeachment and nation level detail is provided when describing Barr's actions (Italy, UK, Australia). It seems appropriate to add this in relation to Durham for equivalent context. RBWilson1000 ( talk) 16:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
In the Trump–Ukraine scandal segment of ths article, though there is mention of allegations related to Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election there isn't anything about a Politico story written on the subject early in 2017. That should be added (see link).
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
This sentence, 'Trump had been repeatedly told by aides that Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election, but refused to accept these assurances', in the second paragraph of this section in this Wikipedia article is misleading. It isn't in the main Wikipedia Trump-Ukraine scandal page.
It is clear Ukraine meddled in 2016 per the Politico story and a story in the New York Times (see link) from which it quotes a Ukrainian court ruled “resulted in meddling in the electoral process of the United States in 2016 and damaged the national interests of Ukraine.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/world/europe/ukraine-paul-manafort.html
RBWilson1000 (
talk) 01:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)—
RBWilson1000 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Symmachus Auxiliarus (
talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC). There is no such account as RBWilson1000. --
MelanieN (
talk) 16:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Striking, my error. --
MelanieN (
talk)
18:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Symmachus Auxiliarus - did this point get into this article or that one ? (Then again, I also don't see much contemporary at all in here -- say something to clarify about Hunter Biden sweetheart deal (true) as said at the time vs what was supposedly requested to be investigated ... The article here has only 2019 stuff and confusingly phrases it as an investigation into Hunter, when I thought it was to investigate both Bidens and over the conspiracy theory VP Biden got an investigator fired to protect him & Burisma.) RSVP, Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 00:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No. The sentence 'Trump had been repeatedly told by aides that Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election' implying Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election is still in there. It is clear, from multiple sources and the fact that John Durham is currently investigating Ukrainian 2016 election interference that this is a misleading sentence. According to the Politico story, "The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation". If it remains it should at least be qualified to not infer there wasn't any Ukrainian 2016 election interference. RBWilson1000 ( talk) 18:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Should this article be the one page about this event (similar to pages like Impeachment of Bill Clinton) or should there be different pages for different aspects of the impeachment? If this page were to be just about the inquiry and other aspects would be split, then we would have: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, which is just the investigations; Impeachment of Donald Trump, the impeachment vote in the house, which, if passed, leads to the Impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the Senate trial and removal-from-office vote. This was shortly discussed above at #Inquiry or process? but we should establish a consensus what the scope of this article is (just inquiry or the whole impeachment event) before the impeachment vote (possibly occurring this month). Nixinova T C 02:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
There are several problems with the first line. 1) It calls Speaker Nancy Pelosi by her title, but not President Donald Trump. 2) It is misleading in that it says it was "initiated" on Sept 24th. It will lead people to believe that is when the inquiries started, when they did not. 3) It calls the inquiry an "impeachment inquiry" which is disputed by Trump and republicans (feel free to ask for sources if you aren't already aware of this)
"An impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, President of the United States, was initiated on September 24, 2019, by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
This proposed change avoids any controversy, fixes the misleading portion, and is more accurate. Pelosi's announcement is undisputed.
"On September 24, 2019, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she was directing six committees undergoing investigations against President Donald Trump to proceed under the umbrella of an official impeachment inquiry."
This is a citation backing up the proposed change.
“Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry,” she said at a Tuesday afternoon press conference, after hours of meetings with Democratic leaders, committee chairs, and the rest of the House Democratic Caucus. “I am directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”
I don't anticipate this would be a problem. It's an accurate paraphrase of what Speaker Pelosi actually said.
There appear to be some problems with the second line. 1) I looked over the whistleblower complaint, and I don't see where he alleged such a thing. Maybe I missed it, and if someone can point that out, then I would appreciate it. The whistleblower compalaint actually says he is "reporting an 'urgent concern'". That is factually different from an allegation. 2) Also, I don't see anything about other nations in the complaint. Again, maybe I missed it, but it appears that was tacked on in a way that implies it was part of the complaint, which it appears to not be. 3) There is a mention of an investigation into Joe Biden and his son, but it failed to mention an investigation into election interference in the 2016 election, which the report also noted. 4) putting "abusing the power of the presidency to advance Trump's personal and political interests" is an opinion that appears to come from Wikipedia itself since it came after the dash. It does not appear to be an opinion in the report either (please not it if you find it), but it could be a concern.
"It began after a whistleblower alleged that President Trump and other top government officials had pressured the leaders of foreign nations, most notably Ukraine, to investigate former U.S. vice president and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter—abusing the power of the presidency to advance Trump's personal and political interests."
Here is a suggested change:
"It began after a whistleblower report surfaced expressing concerns that President Trump used the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election. The report stated that the author was not a direct witness to most of the events, but found accounts from U.S. officials credible and that according to those accounts, President Trump pressured the President of the Ukraine to investigate or continue to investigate former U.S. vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election."
I think this more accurately reflects the whistleblower report. I took out the part about "other top government officials" because I didn't think it matched with the part about the "power of his office", which comes right from the report. I couldn't think of a way to keep it in and keep that in without making it much longer. I don't anticipate any issues with this change since it is so similar to what it says in the actual report, except for removing the "other top government officials" part. Maybe someone else can work that in, but I'm not sure if that is worthwhile since this isn't an article about "other top government officials".
Here is a nice copy of the report. https://www.scribd.com/document/427562713/Declassified-Whisteblower-Complaint#download&from_embed Here is another. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-redacted-trump-whistleblower-complaint
2601:243:1180:9660:A194:BE4C:9F1:DA71 ( talk) 12:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
This should be reconciled or merged with the already existing Efforts to impeach Donald Trump- and we may want to consider renaming this (or whatever article results) to Impeachment process against Donald Trump, a la Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. 331dot ( talk) 22:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be wise to semi protect or extended confirm protect this page due to the hot influx and news and updates about this subject. If the main Trump page is extended confirm protected, why shouldn't this page. Trump is a very searched and googled person. Any one else agree?-- Proudpakistani11 ( talk) 01:23, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
[1] This is informative. I saw the impeachment inquiry announced on TV today and it looked like do-nothing theatrics, but the Lawfare article and a few similar things said it might help the House committees pry a few more documents loose from the executive branch. Everyone seems to agree there is no chance of actually removing the president. 67.164.113.165 ( talk) 06:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The article currently states "An increasing number of House Democrats and one independent, Representative Justin Amash (Michigan),[note 1] were requesting such an inquiry.[27]" User:SelfieCity changed the descriptor of Amash from Republican -> Independent with the explanation "the note within the article, Justin Amash, and https://amash.house.gov/ all describe him as currently being an independent — therefore, we shouldn't say he's a Republican"
I don't know what the general practice is for politicians who change parties, but Amash was definitely a Republican at the time he first supported impeachment [and was reported on as such.] So I looked for examples of how other party-switching politicians were described in Wikipedia.
In Civil Rights Act of 1957, Strom Thurmond (Democrat until 1964, Republican afterwards) is described as "Then-Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina." In Civil Rights Act of 1964, Thurmond is simply "Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC)" (he switched parties several months after the events in the article.)
In American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Arlen Specter was described as such: "only three Republicans voted in favor (Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and Arlen Specter).[21] Specter switched to the Democratic Party later in the year"
I don't want an edit war and am not the most familiar with Wikipedia procedures - based on these other examples, I don't think there's any precedent for inaccurately describing Amash as an Independent when he began supporting impeachment. Could we change the text to e.g. "and one Republican, Representative Justin Amash (Michigan) were requesting such an inquiry. Amash left the Republican Party and declared himself an independent later in the year" [moving the note descriptor to the main body to avoid confusion]?
Reyne2 ( talk) 00:08, 27 September 2019 (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.
Hi,
There's vandalism here:
I would undo it myself, but I've already reverted vandalism in the last 24 hours on this article. Can someone take care of it?
Thanks, David O. Johnson ( talk) 20:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected article 1 month due to POV and unsourced additions from IP and unconfirmed editors. Any admin should feel free to modify this protection as necessary without any need to consult me first. – Darkwind ( talk) 08:36, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I have been making a few changes and will now move on. However, the section on congressional support is worded in wp:recentism manner. If someone could have a play with it to make it more encyclopedic, that would be fantastic. Mozzie ( talk) 05:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
For one reason or another the coloring I have been adding for the polling is being removed. Is there a difference between these polls and the ones at Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum? Per MOS:COLOR, colors assist accessibility when it comes to the color blind. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 21:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
This is the last sentence:
It was created by ZiplineWhy as part of a larger edit here. But I don't see "a threat to withdraw foreign aid and cease communication" in the two citations and the tweet that ZiplineWhy provides. Leshchenko said "As I remember, it was a clear fact that Trump wants to meet only if Biden case will be included". And then he backtracks on that.
I don't think this sentence deserves half of the space in the lead's first paragraph. In the first case, its sources are questionable. Second, even if true, it merely details one individual's memory of why officials in the Ukraine were upset. The start of the second paragraph in the lead, about Pelosi initiating the inquiry in the wake of a whistleblower report, is much more important. The sentence further down in the second paragraph about Leshchenko ("stated that it was made a "clear fact" to the Ukrainian government") is much better at following the same source (ABC News), although it could use trimming.
I would recommend that this sentence be deleted or, at least, transferred to the body of the article. Maybe in a new subsection under Responses called, perhaps, "Ukrainian officials"? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 16:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Twitter links (citations #102, #103, and #108) do not go directly to cited tweets and generate a 404 on Twitter. Halyonix ( talk) 20:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Apparently I haven't done enough edits to fill this in myself with the current restrictions. So here is the info in case someone else wants to... In the second paragraph there is "Trump placed a hold on military aid to Ukraine at the same time.[further explanation needed]" which asks "Does anyone know the exact date that Trump held up the aid?". Per a Wall Street Journal article the decision was communicated on July 18th. Thus my suggested edit would be to move the sentence mentioned here and place it after the following sentence which talks about the call and then change it "Trump placed a hold on military aid to Ukraine a week before the call." and reference the Sept 24th WSJ article. Truistic ( talk) 20:16, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I added the name of the whistleblower's lawyer, Mark Zaid, which is in the source and is not secret. FWIW, I went to law school with Zaid and know him personally. Bearian ( talk) 20:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Based on the polling data we have, the most accurate one is the poll done by "Politico/Morning Consult". It should be noted somewhere in the polling section that the sample size and the margin of error matter. Ideally you want to have a MoE between 2.5 and 3.0% with a sample size of 1,500 - 2,500 people for a 95% confidence level. [2], [3] - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
A caution: These polls were conducted in a rapidly developing news environment, sometimes over only a single day of interviews. This poses challenges for pollsters, who have fewer opportunities to call back hard-to-reach respondents. It could also mean that the surveys were conducted at a moment when Democrats or Republicans were particularly eager to participate in polling. Many pollsters refuse to conduct one-day surveys altogether. And these particular pollsters have tended to show more support for impeachment than others over the Trump presidency; they may continue to do so today.--- Coffeeand crumbs 14:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
This article states that formal impeachment inquiry started in Sept, but /info/en/?search=Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump#Start_of_formal_impeachment_proceedings states that "In July 2019, The House leadership agreed to quietly start formal impeachment proceedings without a formal vote on the matter. This was first revealed to the public in a court filing dated July 26.", followed by a lot more sourcing than in this article. So unless there is some technical difference between an "inquiry" and "proceedings", with proceedings being a step before inquiry, this article would seem to be wrong at the moment. IANAL so I don't feel comfortable actually editing the article, but from a layman's perspective, the media certainly seems to use the two words interchangeably. So I hope someone who is knowledgeable on the technical details of legislative procedure etc. will read this, and hopefully cite the actual legal documents that make this distinction :-) Djbclark ( talk) 23:34, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's kinda what I thought but I wasn't 100% sure. Unless I see objections here soon, I now have confidence to attempt an edit to the article to reflect this state of affairs. Djbclark ( talk) 13:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@
Djbclark: - if you read the entirety of that section (
Efforts to impeach Donald Trump#Start of formal impeachment proceedings), and then read the last source
[4], you will realize that it took them until September 12, 2019, to have a resolution defining the rules of the panel's impeachment investigation
- so things moved really slowly, and there wasn't any inquiry started.
starship
.paint (
talk)
14:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
There has been no vote on Impeachment Inquiry and won’t be until December. Stop using the term. Without that vote subpoena power is missing and so is any attempt at any inquiry. Joe Biden did brag at a foreign affairs meeting that..”if the prosecutor isn’t fired in the next six hours you’re not getting that billion dollars “ Phildonohue ( talk) 00:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
For the purpose of carrying out any of its functions and duties under this rule and rule X (including any matters
referred to it under clause 2 of rule XII), a committee or subcommittee is authorized (subject to subparagraph (3)(A))—
(A) to sit and act at such times and places within the United States, whether the House is in session, has recessed, or has adjourned, and to hold such hearings as it considers necessary; and
(B) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspondence, memoranda, papers, and documents as it considers necessary. [1]
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
|
This photo with DT flashing a big grin seems inappropriate to the topic, and unintentionally funny. (For a photo of how he looked discussing impeachment on Oct. 2, 2019, see this AP story.) – Sca ( talk) 13:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I worry about the wording of the
Public Opinion section. The section intro reads Polling has indicated that, on average, a plurality of Americans lean towards supporting impeachment.
However, many of the polls listed do not speak to that. Politico/Morning Consult, CNN/SSRS, NPR/PBS/Marist, Reuters/Ipsos, and Quinnipiac are all within the
margin of error and therefore statistically the same. Those outside of the margin of error (Monmouth, HuffPost/YouGov, Hill/HarrisX, CBS/YouGov, and USA Today/Ipsos) show, except for Monmouth, average 2-5% lean towards supporting impeachment above margin of error. Half of our current dataset demonstrates statistical neutrality and no plurality one way or another. This is why originally I wrote Polling during late September 2019 has indicated, on average, that a plurality of Americans leans slightly toward supporting impeachment.
before the line was reworded by
Nixinova.
I also want to question why the first poll in the paragraph is not current support or opposition, but hypothetical support based on the what-if regarding the Trump-Ukraine controversy. I know it's relevant because the Controversy is a significant reason for the Impeachment Inquiry, however it seems to reek of WP:CRYSTAL. Gwen Hope ( talk) ( contrib) 23:48, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Polling has indicated that Americans are generally split on their support of the impeachment inquiry.I am confused as to why some polls are in text when the rest are in the table. starship .paint ( talk) 06:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved. Reasoning: Immediate and obvious support of a move; fast and greater than 2:1 consensus for Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. Taking all supports without elaboration on title as a support for "Impeachment inquiry", there are 10 votes for that. There are 4 votes for "Impeachment process". There's 1 that is ambivalent between the two. There are three opposes, but two of those can be struck for faulty reasoning (namely, "no President has ever been impeached" and "But he will be impeached"). Note that because the proposed title existed as a redirect, this is subject to a technical move.( non-admin closure) Kingsif ( talk) 03:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
Impeachment of Donald Trump →
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump – An overwhelming majority of sources use the word inquiry. This article should also use that term. ---
Coffeeand
crumbs
22:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
It should be Impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump, or Impeachment process of Donald Trump, to conform to other articles. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 22:22, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
I support change to the title "Impeachment process...". We ought to have continuity. Inspector Semenych ( talk) 22:41, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the title ("Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump") to read "Impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump" or "Impeachment inquiry against U.S. President Donald Trump," or some variation thereof which includes his title/office because: (1) it eliminates any ambiguity about inquiries into Mr. Trump personally versus Mr. Trump in his role as president; and (2) provides a more formal, complete picture. 2603:3018:59:0:246B:107A:F470:7653 ( talk) 22:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
That's an outright false statement. The New York Times article in the citation lied about it too. The whistleblower report is their basis for this claim, and no one has access to that. The transcript released today doesn't show any threats or coercion to make them investigate someone on Trump's behalf.
Amaroq64 (
talk)
23:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
The New York Times article in the citation lied about it too? --- Coffeeand crumbs 23:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
I concur. I attempted to correct for the falsehood, but this is not possible, evidently. Wikipedia has locked the page against "vandalism". Sensiblereaction ( talk) 11:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately for Wikipedia, there is so much false and distorted news from all major news agencies that almost all current political topics/entries are going to be highly speculative and skewed to liberal favor. Journalists are getting away from fact bad reporting and have become opinion commentators. Stanleyshere ( talk) 11:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
I tried to link to Jeffress' Wikipedia page in the Twitter comment, but I caused a wikilink conflict that I don't know how to resolve. Is there any solution that would keep the blue link to Jeffress but also not cause the conflict? Thanks for any help. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 13:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Just in case anyone is watching here but not there. Cheers, XOR'easter ( talk) 17:30, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
"Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?"
I've removed this. I think this is problematic per WP:SELFPUB, particularly with regards to "2. it does not involve claims about third parties" - the entire message is a (possibly libelous) claim against a 3rd party, without quoting any response by that individual, which poses further neutrality issues.
Ultimately, I don't think this quote really adds to the section in question Jw2036 ( talk) 13:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
This title make it seem like a personal attack on Mr Trump. Consider changing to 'Impeacement enquiry on Donald Trump' BDTraining ( talk) 15:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
The Washington Post poll I just added asked about support for an inquiry and support for removal, so I put both in different sections. I don't know if some of the earlier polls did that or otherwise asked different questions, but we may want to adjust that section if they did. 331dot ( talk) 11:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
under "Timeline" and "October 8, 2019", sentence 1: "The White House sends a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders condemning the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as "constitutionally invalid" and further escalating the standoff between the two branches of government."
the initial sentence from the source listed for this sentence ( source here) reads very similarly: "THE WHITE HOUSE ON Tuesday sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders condemning Democrats' impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump as "constitutionally invalid" and further escalating the standoff between the two branches of government." [1]
this may need to be revised. Thesung1932 ( talk) 06:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Donald Trump impeachment inquiry. Please see the relevant discussion. NorthHub ( talk) 13:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
I came here to learn about the story totally ignorant of the details. One thing that struck me is that there's no mention of what the White House thought Hunter or Joe Biden did to warrant investigation. Without it, the article appears to imply Trump and Giuliani just wanted them investigated with no foundation whatsoever. Is that the case? If not, could the White House's suspicions be added? 2604:2000:1403:2D9:914E:E91D:6670:72BF ( talk) 23:09, 5 October 2019 (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.
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Donald Trump impeachment inquiry – Removes controversial usage of "against" while conveying all necessary information. WMSR ( talk) 14:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Polls are asking different questions depending on the poll; some ask opinions on the mere inquiry, some ask about supporting actual impeachment, and some ask for support for removal from office. Should we be differentiating between these questions in the display of the polling information? Currently we are conflating all the polls as "support for impeachment". I can see certain benefits to that as well(easier for readers). 331dot ( talk) 10:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I see that coloring was reinstated again without discussion. I still believe that this practice is borderline original research - drawing conclusions not stated by the sources. I propose to remove the coloring. Retimuko ( talk) 16:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@ Knowledgekid87:: What's wrong with me removing the colours for ties? It doesn't change any factual information and just makes the section easier to read (the contrast on the "majority" colours at the moment is quite bad). Nixinova T C 00:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
This may be useful in illustrating an article (perhaps not this one, but we have so many...). XOR'easter ( talk) 05:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Since the hearings are closed door, do we need to attribute the details to anonymous sources present during the testimony? The Press are not able to hear first hand what is going on, and are going through sources with no way to verify. However the article records the testimony directly in Wikipedia voice, which I'm not sure is appropriate (excluding Maguire's, which of course was public). As an example, there is a discrepancy per the NYT article - "“I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up,” Mr. Bolton, a Yale-trained lawyer, told Ms. Hill to tell White House lawyers, according to two people at the deposition. (Another person in the room initially said Mr. Bolton referred to Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Mulvaney, but two others said he cited Mr. Sondland.)" Are we supposed to believe the 2 or the 1? This closed door testimony is depriving the public the chance to see what's going on and get the facts first hand! We have the NYT and other sources quoting anonymous sources quoting testimony from Ms. Hill quoting something said to her by Mr. Bolton or Mr. Sondland quoting something said by Trump. Mr Ernie ( talk) 08:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hill testified that she, Bolton, Volker, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, were in attendance for that meeting on July 10, 2019, and that Bolton was furious after the meeting when he told her that he was "not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up".However the cited NYT article - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/14/us/politics/bolton-giuliani-fiona-hill-testimony.html - contains the contradiction I highlighted above. The NYT relies on anonymous sources who were "familiar" with the testimony, but I'm not sure if that means they witnessed first hand the testimony or were told about it by someone else, but says that 2 others cited Sondland and Mulvaney, but one cited Giuliani and Mulvaney. My position is that everything written in the testimony section that wasn't an open testimony needs to be attributed because there is no way to verify it. Mr Ernie ( talk) 12:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Could you please make the Testimony table sortable? It would be helpful, just at this point. In the future, it will be even more helpful in that regard. Probably better to do it while the list is still relatively short. Thoughts? — Maile ( talk) 17:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Coffeeandcrumbs tagged the line I added with a possible NOR issue under WP:SYNTH. This line is no more synth than the previous, which are both not the type of synthesis described in the policy. The line summarizes the specific public opinion polling listed by the sources. This isn't an A+B=C situation. This is sources report A, A, A, A, A, A, A, B situation written basically as "data is mostly A". Gwen Hope ( talk) ( contrib) 18:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
This article and its related talk page are now temporarily move-restricted to Administrators only for one month, pending outcome of the above discussion about moving the page. — Maile ( talk) 10:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Consensus not to move — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 15:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump – One makes an inquiry into something, not against something. The Cambridge Dictionary has a specific entry for "inquire into" and Merriam-Webster's entry says "to make investigation or inquiry — often used with into". Of the intransitive, The Oxford English Dictionary says "To make search or investigation; to search, seek; to make inquisition. Const. into, of, after." This is corroborated by Google Ngram Viewer, where "inquiry into" is much more common than "inquiry against". Besides being more grammatical and common, "inquiry into" is arguably more neutral than "inquiry against", which suggests enmity against the subject instead of a gathering of information about the subject. Qono ( talk) 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Table of Google Search results
| ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
I moved John Kasich to the Media section. He is a paid commentator on CNN and no longer an office holder. When he was a Republican governor, he was against the impeachment. After being on the CNN payroll, he supports impeachment. I changed the "Politician" section to "Current elected officials". Maybe somebody else has a better idea. But once a former elected official goes on paid staff of any media outlet, they are paid to support that particular media's leanings. At least in the US, the major news outlets serve as mere talk shows to promote that particular cable channel's political leanings. — Maile ( talk) 13:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
In all honesty, to me this comes across as an NPOV violation intended to suggest ex-politicians who now work in political media simply espouse the opinions of employers. These categories are not intended to categorize people who are currently x, but to categorize people who are known for being x. People who are familiar with Kasich surely know him as a governor and former presidential candidate, not an occasional CNN contributor. Obama now produces documentaries for Netflix, but if he made a statement included on this article no one would suggest he be in a section titled "film producers," he would be included under "politicians." Also, I'm definitely for changing "current elected officials" back to "politicians," but if necessary making subsections for current versus former. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
There's already been a lot of discussion on this talk page about whether or not the article title should be changed. Since the article is page move protected, and the title is the way it is, why does the main page say "Trump impeachment inquiry"? Clovermoss ( talk) 23:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The last two paragraphs of the lead are full of minute detail that belongs in the text, not the lead. The lead is supposed to be a summary. Anyone mind if I give the lead a haircut (while making sure the material actually is in the text)? -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Just opening up a conversation for now, but should we wikilink the positions listed under "Subpoenas for documents" and "Subpoenas for testimony"? It might be a good idea, but I don't exactly object if we don't. (For now, the only thing wikilinked is European Union, as part of Gordon Sondland's position, which seems awfully strange to me.)
Anyway, thoughts? — Javert2113 ( Siarad.| ¤) 00:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Was this discussed?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
RBWilson1000 ( talk) 07:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
You should have seen the "official" portrait that we were forced to use at the Trump article for the first few months of his presidency. [14] I had visions of Trump glowering at us from every Post Office wall for four years! That one was eventually withdrawn by the White House because there were copyright issues with the photographer, and the present smiling one, Donald Trump official portrait.jpg, was put out instead. Thank goodness! -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Should the page be renamed to "Impeachment process…" when this passes? Or should it stay at "inquiry"? Nixinova T C 20:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Should this article have a current events tag? Especially given that things change on a daily basis? -- 192.107.156.196 ( talk) 20:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
As I was reading my morning Fox News, I came across this interesting development. A super PAC called Tea Party Patriots Action has filed an ethics complaint about the impeachment inquiry. [15] [16]. They are insisting that all the evidence gathered so far is tainted and must be discarded. No, I did not read this on The Onion.
Tea Party Patriots Action is associated with Tea Party Patriots. Also related, Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund and Jenny Beth Martin. - Mr X 🖋 11:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC), 12:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to create timeline section just as in Brexit article? It could really summarize the article.-- Abutalub ( talk) 17:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello. In the 3rd paragraph of the lead, I noticed this:
"Ambassador Taylor testified on October 22, 2019, that he had gradually become aware of the existence of a quid-pro-quo extortion campaign in Ukraine intended to ensure Trump's reelection."
First of all, sorry to say, the phrase appears to misattribute Taylor saying, "that he had gradually become aware of the existence of a quid-pro-quo extortion." This is not correct. None of three in-line citations attribute him saying "aware of...extortion" or "...quid-pro-quo extortion." In reference 26 it says, "sketched out in remarkable detail a quid pro quo pressure campaign on Ukraine"
[17].
Reference 27 says, "that the president withheld military aid from Ukraine in a quid pro quo effort to pressure that country’s leader to incriminate former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and smear other Democrats"
[18]. In Reference 28, the opening paragraph, it does use "extort" in connection with Taylor's testimony
[19], but that is the media organization's voice. And consider the fact this is
The Intercept. Their wording will tend to be evocative at times, when other more mainstream media would not be the same.
Also, I think it is best to move away from heavily loaded words, such as "extortion". These could probably be substituted with impartial wording - such as "obtain", "attain", "receive" and so on. There seems to be good policy based reasoning for this. But first, because this is an encyclopedia, we are not print or broadcast media needing to attract attention for the bottom line. Interestingly, this is in agreement with policy.
WP:IMPARTIAL is on a policy page and there it says Wikipedia aims for an impartial tone. It is a short read. I feel I have written too much already, so I won't quote what it says here. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
It might be worth looking at peacock words also. These seem similar to what I am talking about, but perhaps not exactly on point. --- Steve Quinn ( talk) 04:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
At the end of this section, the following sentence should be added. (I'm unsure about the wisdom of editing this highly visible article with my own account, hence this edit request.)
Bakaj, in a Washington Post op-ed, argued that the identity of his client is no longer pertinent after further events corroborated his client's account of the matter. [1]
References
49.36.13.237 ( talk) 03:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Knowledgekid87, your reinstatement of a edit I contested via reversion requires consensus on this talk page (or other conflict resolution means) to be reinstated. Regarding Margin of Error, utilizing a required 2x MoE standard is not substantiated in the field of statistics for this type of measurement. A standard MoE is already a 95% percentile confidence interval. According to Pew Research Center, specifies polling 2x MoE standards for comparing difference between support of two candidates or issues comparatively, not support for a single candidate or issue. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by gwenhope ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
References
Somewhere in this section should include the fact that John Durham is investigating 2016 election interference https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/25/john-durham-probing-ukraine-as-part-of-trump-russi/ What is not clear at this point is whether his investigation in related to the CroudStrike server and/or 2016 Ukrainian election interference previously reported by Politico https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446 and the NYT https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/world/europe/ukraine-paul-manafort.html RBWilson1000 ( talk) 23:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no direct mention that Durham is investigating Ukraine's "potential 2016 election interference" though it is in the WashingtonTimes article. Given that Ukraine is the focus of this impeachment and nation level detail is provided when describing Barr's actions (Italy, UK, Australia). It seems appropriate to add this in relation to Durham for equivalent context. RBWilson1000 ( talk) 16:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
In the Trump–Ukraine scandal segment of ths article, though there is mention of allegations related to Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election there isn't anything about a Politico story written on the subject early in 2017. That should be added (see link).
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire - Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
This sentence, 'Trump had been repeatedly told by aides that Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election, but refused to accept these assurances', in the second paragraph of this section in this Wikipedia article is misleading. It isn't in the main Wikipedia Trump-Ukraine scandal page.
It is clear Ukraine meddled in 2016 per the Politico story and a story in the New York Times (see link) from which it quotes a Ukrainian court ruled “resulted in meddling in the electoral process of the United States in 2016 and damaged the national interests of Ukraine.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/12/world/europe/ukraine-paul-manafort.html
RBWilson1000 (
talk) 01:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)—
RBWilson1000 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Symmachus Auxiliarus (
talk) 16:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC). There is no such account as RBWilson1000. --
MelanieN (
talk) 16:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Striking, my error. --
MelanieN (
talk)
18:24, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Symmachus Auxiliarus - did this point get into this article or that one ? (Then again, I also don't see much contemporary at all in here -- say something to clarify about Hunter Biden sweetheart deal (true) as said at the time vs what was supposedly requested to be investigated ... The article here has only 2019 stuff and confusingly phrases it as an investigation into Hunter, when I thought it was to investigate both Bidens and over the conspiracy theory VP Biden got an investigator fired to protect him & Burisma.) RSVP, Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 00:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No. The sentence 'Trump had been repeatedly told by aides that Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election' implying Ukraine did not interfere in the 2016 election is still in there. It is clear, from multiple sources and the fact that John Durham is currently investigating Ukrainian 2016 election interference that this is a misleading sentence. According to the Politico story, "The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation". If it remains it should at least be qualified to not infer there wasn't any Ukrainian 2016 election interference. RBWilson1000 ( talk) 18:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Should this article be the one page about this event (similar to pages like Impeachment of Bill Clinton) or should there be different pages for different aspects of the impeachment? If this page were to be just about the inquiry and other aspects would be split, then we would have: Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, which is just the investigations; Impeachment of Donald Trump, the impeachment vote in the house, which, if passed, leads to the Impeachment trial of Donald Trump, the Senate trial and removal-from-office vote. This was shortly discussed above at #Inquiry or process? but we should establish a consensus what the scope of this article is (just inquiry or the whole impeachment event) before the impeachment vote (possibly occurring this month). Nixinova T C 02:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
There are several problems with the first line. 1) It calls Speaker Nancy Pelosi by her title, but not President Donald Trump. 2) It is misleading in that it says it was "initiated" on Sept 24th. It will lead people to believe that is when the inquiries started, when they did not. 3) It calls the inquiry an "impeachment inquiry" which is disputed by Trump and republicans (feel free to ask for sources if you aren't already aware of this)
"An impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, President of the United States, was initiated on September 24, 2019, by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi."
This proposed change avoids any controversy, fixes the misleading portion, and is more accurate. Pelosi's announcement is undisputed.
"On September 24, 2019, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she was directing six committees undergoing investigations against President Donald Trump to proceed under the umbrella of an official impeachment inquiry."
This is a citation backing up the proposed change.
“Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry,” she said at a Tuesday afternoon press conference, after hours of meetings with Democratic leaders, committee chairs, and the rest of the House Democratic Caucus. “I am directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry.”
I don't anticipate this would be a problem. It's an accurate paraphrase of what Speaker Pelosi actually said.
There appear to be some problems with the second line. 1) I looked over the whistleblower complaint, and I don't see where he alleged such a thing. Maybe I missed it, and if someone can point that out, then I would appreciate it. The whistleblower compalaint actually says he is "reporting an 'urgent concern'". That is factually different from an allegation. 2) Also, I don't see anything about other nations in the complaint. Again, maybe I missed it, but it appears that was tacked on in a way that implies it was part of the complaint, which it appears to not be. 3) There is a mention of an investigation into Joe Biden and his son, but it failed to mention an investigation into election interference in the 2016 election, which the report also noted. 4) putting "abusing the power of the presidency to advance Trump's personal and political interests" is an opinion that appears to come from Wikipedia itself since it came after the dash. It does not appear to be an opinion in the report either (please not it if you find it), but it could be a concern.
"It began after a whistleblower alleged that President Trump and other top government officials had pressured the leaders of foreign nations, most notably Ukraine, to investigate former U.S. vice president and 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter—abusing the power of the presidency to advance Trump's personal and political interests."
Here is a suggested change:
"It began after a whistleblower report surfaced expressing concerns that President Trump used the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 election. The report stated that the author was not a direct witness to most of the events, but found accounts from U.S. officials credible and that according to those accounts, President Trump pressured the President of the Ukraine to investigate or continue to investigate former U.S. vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter, and to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election."
I think this more accurately reflects the whistleblower report. I took out the part about "other top government officials" because I didn't think it matched with the part about the "power of his office", which comes right from the report. I couldn't think of a way to keep it in and keep that in without making it much longer. I don't anticipate any issues with this change since it is so similar to what it says in the actual report, except for removing the "other top government officials" part. Maybe someone else can work that in, but I'm not sure if that is worthwhile since this isn't an article about "other top government officials".
Here is a nice copy of the report. https://www.scribd.com/document/427562713/Declassified-Whisteblower-Complaint#download&from_embed Here is another. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/read-the-full-redacted-trump-whistleblower-complaint
2601:243:1180:9660:A194:BE4C:9F1:DA71 ( talk) 12:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)