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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've made a draft article that could serve as the parent to this inquiry article at Draft:Impeachment of Donald Trump (as the title "…process against…" is already in use). Should this page be moved to main space? If so, then we could split out some of the Responses section as well as the second table in the Public opinion section. Nixinova T C 03:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is Impeachment of Donald Trump improper because it hasn't happened yet, while articles like Scottish independence and United Ireland, similarly titled after proposed/imagined situations, are proper? 37.44.9.6 ( talk) 09:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Support. Trump is now impeached by the house. The creeper2007 ( talk) 05:38, 19 December 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. |
On 12/18/019 Wednesday, the United States House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump. Donald Trump has become the third US president in history to be impeached by the House of Representatives. This will be followed by a trial in the Senate, in which majority Republicans will likely permit him to remain in office.
The vote was 230 to 197 on the first article of impeachment on abuse of power (one member voting present). Following this, the House passed the second article on obstruction of Congress with a vote of 229 to 198, (again one member voting present). Jpoonolly ( talk) 02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Should we include a table which shows the results of the impeachment vote? (18th of December) Is there a reason it's not there? Nate Hooper ( talk) 05:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Why was the merge discussion tag removed from this article? GoodDay ( talk) 17:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
On Friday Trump retweeted and then deleted several articles naming the whistleblower. Maybe that should be included in the section about whistleblower protection act? Could use a CNN or WaPo article that does not share the tweet so as not to violate BLP... Johnnyg150 ( talk) 21:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
How about if we say something like this to
Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump#Whistleblowers_and_their_lawyers.
Nowa (
talk) 16:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: procedural close. The proposed target is occupied by an article on a related topic. Dekimasu よ! 13:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment of Donald Trump – WP:Commonname and WP:CONCISE. Casprings ( talk) 12:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. There's already an article at the proposed move target. David O. Johnson ( talk) 13:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
It was stated last month that the inquiry would continue. The Lev Parnas stuff was part of the inquiry, so should we mention it? Same with the GAO report, which was handed over to the House as soon as it dropped Arglebargle79 ( talk) 13:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator - I see how WP:SNOW would apply here. Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment process against Donald Trump – This article documents events that happened after the inquiry phase. This is how far the Impeachment process against Richard Nixon got. Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 00:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Should I withdraw this nomination? Would that be allowed in this scenario? -- Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Symmachus Auxiliarus reverted deletion of a line re opinion piece about the Senate trial.
According to US presidential historian Joseph Ellis, [1]. "Trump's chief offense is his own defense. Namely, that as president he cannot be indicted, convicted or investigated, and has no legal obligation to provide documents or witnesses when requested by the House or Senate. That means President Trump is claiming he is an elected monarch who is above the law."
Digressions not about Impeachment inquiry article having commentary about Senate Trial Markbassett ( talk) 01:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is also being discussed at Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump#Cite Joseph Ellis. So far no support there. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 08:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Please keep thread talk relevant to the topic of this article, and of this thread. Markbassett ( talk) 01:40, 28 January 2020 (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. |
I would like to add info about how Giuliani admitted in a New York Times article in May that he was going to Ukraine to push for inquiries that would be beneficial to his client, but were otherwise not foreign policy.
Here is the link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html Johnnyboy326 ( talk) 22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 23:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I got a message saying my edit violated a policy, but I don't know what policy is violated or what part of the edit violates it. I have read over this talk page and I don't see any policies here that I violated. Please help. I couldn't even post the edit here as a blockquote without being blocked. When I tried to post it on my own talk page I still got this messag, "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially violating our policy on biographies of living people, so it has been disallowed. Disruptive editing may result in a block from editing." How can I be violating BLP on my own talk page? This is truly bizarre. I have never been blocked in a way that I couldn't tell why I was being blocked.-- Eastview2018 ( talk) 16:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
No Republican has ever stated that they believed Ukraine and *not* Russia interfered with the 2016 election. There are many occasions where they, or the President, has said that multiple actors were involved.
From January 11, 2020 in Politico "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [1]
Stating that Republicans believe "Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election" is a Democrat talking point, heavily propagated by the media and leaders in Congress. However it is not accurate, and that Ukraine did not interfere to some extent is also not accurate. 50.27.9.97 ( talk) 19:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Collapsing for brevity |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Crowdstrike Ukrainian CEO Dmitri Alperovitch is connected to Atlantic Counsil (is Atlantic Council VP) and Privatbank that belonged to Igor Kolomoyskyi. Privatbank was giving loans to Cyprus offshores (including Burisma Holdins, LTD), thus laundering money through Latvia (~~20 billion $USD of IMF and USA loans and aid and then bankrupting those companies (see more on offshore loan schemes)) that were gained by Kolomoyskyi and Zlochevski. The key component there is IMF, they said that money will not flow unless Zelensky will start investigation into (at that time already nationalized) Privatbank and Kolomoyskyi. And that happened on 11th of September 2019 (when police seized documents and Privatbank was having Kolomoyskyi in court https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-privatbank/police-raid-offices-and-seize-documents-of-ukraines-privatbank-idUSL5N26244O), so that day both USA (White House, this article) and IMF unblocked funds that were dispersed on 30th of September (end of fiscal year) by USA (no precise information about IMF). Kolomoiski was using that laundered money to get into control of near Donbass region and started a proxy war in Ukraine with Russian Federation that was planned by Obama/Biden/Clinton/Atlantic Counsil after Putin annexed Crimea by 95.5% referendum (and most importantly after russian veto of United Nations resolution 68/262). Obviously they thought that Clinton will win (and get all pro-Clinton Ukrainians support) and because they would not try to use partially dubious Steele dossier (with pee-pee tape and in connection with Trump Tower Moscow and most importantly Global Magnitsky Act) if they were not sure after Clinton lost that US embassy in Ukraine will still block all Ukranians' visas that were against Clinton. But embassy started to fail under Trump's pressure and when he finally fired Yawanovich (after 1 year that Yawanovich was already talking about his impeachment) the whistleblowers came in. There were other United Nations decisions that resulted in Russian financial crisis (2014–2017). Biden's son was kept hostage by Kolomoyskyi to control Joe Biden. Joe Biden used his power to first made a claim that Shokin was corrupt in US embassy database and when Shokin asked to finally rearrest Burisma assets (besides bank accounts on Cyprus) on 2th February 2016 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20160205092116/http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=168807) -- Biden just used 1 billion of $ of loan guarantees and support from World Bank Group and IMF to get rid of him in next 3 weaks. Nevertheless, investigation was then started by Lutshenko and Lutshenko was fired by Yawanovich (that was giving unprosecutable lists to him) and it started after that many times (last time in January 2020), but every time it was being stopped by US embassy. Finally, Shokin sued Joe Biden in March 2020 as he were also afraid of mercury poisonings. And DOJ started rewieving evidence from Ukranian government/whistleblowers. 94.29.0.171 ( talk) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC) None of the above content is relevant to this article in any way whatsoever. This article is about the impeachment inquiry, not unrelated accusations against Joe Biden or his son. 331dot ( talk) 21:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
|
House Democrats told the Supreme Court on Monday that they are again in the midst of an "ongoing presidential impeachment investigation" as part of their "weighty constitutional responsibility" – and, the Democrats argued, redacted grand-jury material from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s now-completed Russia probe must be turned over as a result. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-cite-ongoing-new-impeachment-inquiry-in-effort-to-obtain-mueller-materials https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/18/politics/house-supreme-court-mueller-grand-jury/index.html I will remind you of a key date June 23. John Bolton book. 91.76.22.132 ( talk) 14:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Just wanting to inform editors who did large edits to the article of the new impeachment inquiries on Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. The article is fairly new and needs tons of help/information. (Just a friendly alert to a similar article.) Elijahandskip ( talk) 21:49, 24 August 2020 (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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've made a draft article that could serve as the parent to this inquiry article at Draft:Impeachment of Donald Trump (as the title "…process against…" is already in use). Should this page be moved to main space? If so, then we could split out some of the Responses section as well as the second table in the Public opinion section. Nixinova T C 03:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Why is Impeachment of Donald Trump improper because it hasn't happened yet, while articles like Scottish independence and United Ireland, similarly titled after proposed/imagined situations, are proper? 37.44.9.6 ( talk) 09:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Support. Trump is now impeached by the house. The creeper2007 ( talk) 05:38, 19 December 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. |
On 12/18/019 Wednesday, the United States House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump. Donald Trump has become the third US president in history to be impeached by the House of Representatives. This will be followed by a trial in the Senate, in which majority Republicans will likely permit him to remain in office.
The vote was 230 to 197 on the first article of impeachment on abuse of power (one member voting present). Following this, the House passed the second article on obstruction of Congress with a vote of 229 to 198, (again one member voting present). Jpoonolly ( talk) 02:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Should we include a table which shows the results of the impeachment vote? (18th of December) Is there a reason it's not there? Nate Hooper ( talk) 05:43, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Why was the merge discussion tag removed from this article? GoodDay ( talk) 17:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
On Friday Trump retweeted and then deleted several articles naming the whistleblower. Maybe that should be included in the section about whistleblower protection act? Could use a CNN or WaPo article that does not share the tweet so as not to violate BLP... Johnnyg150 ( talk) 21:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
How about if we say something like this to
Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump#Whistleblowers_and_their_lawyers.
Nowa (
talk) 16:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: procedural close. The proposed target is occupied by an article on a related topic. Dekimasu よ! 13:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment of Donald Trump – WP:Commonname and WP:CONCISE. Casprings ( talk) 12:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. There's already an article at the proposed move target. David O. Johnson ( talk) 13:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
It was stated last month that the inquiry would continue. The Lev Parnas stuff was part of the inquiry, so should we mention it? Same with the GAO report, which was handed over to the House as soon as it dropped Arglebargle79 ( talk) 13:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator - I see how WP:SNOW would apply here. Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment process against Donald Trump – This article documents events that happened after the inquiry phase. This is how far the Impeachment process against Richard Nixon got. Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 00:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
Should I withdraw this nomination? Would that be allowed in this scenario? -- Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
User:Symmachus Auxiliarus reverted deletion of a line re opinion piece about the Senate trial.
According to US presidential historian Joseph Ellis, [1]. "Trump's chief offense is his own defense. Namely, that as president he cannot be indicted, convicted or investigated, and has no legal obligation to provide documents or witnesses when requested by the House or Senate. That means President Trump is claiming he is an elected monarch who is above the law."
Digressions not about Impeachment inquiry article having commentary about Senate Trial Markbassett ( talk) 01:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is also being discussed at Talk:Impeachment of Donald Trump#Cite Joseph Ellis. So far no support there. Richard-of-Earth ( talk) 08:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
|
Please keep thread talk relevant to the topic of this article, and of this thread. Markbassett ( talk) 01:40, 28 January 2020 (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. |
I would like to add info about how Giuliani admitted in a New York Times article in May that he was going to Ukraine to push for inquiries that would be beneficial to his client, but were otherwise not foreign policy.
Here is the link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/09/us/politics/giuliani-ukraine-trump.html Johnnyboy326 ( talk) 22:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Minecrafter0271 ( talk) 23:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I got a message saying my edit violated a policy, but I don't know what policy is violated or what part of the edit violates it. I have read over this talk page and I don't see any policies here that I violated. Please help. I couldn't even post the edit here as a blockquote without being blocked. When I tried to post it on my own talk page I still got this messag, "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially violating our policy on biographies of living people, so it has been disallowed. Disruptive editing may result in a block from editing." How can I be violating BLP on my own talk page? This is truly bizarre. I have never been blocked in a way that I couldn't tell why I was being blocked.-- Eastview2018 ( talk) 16:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
No Republican has ever stated that they believed Ukraine and *not* Russia interfered with the 2016 election. There are many occasions where they, or the President, has said that multiple actors were involved.
From January 11, 2020 in Politico "Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire" [1]
Stating that Republicans believe "Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election" is a Democrat talking point, heavily propagated by the media and leaders in Congress. However it is not accurate, and that Ukraine did not interfere to some extent is also not accurate. 50.27.9.97 ( talk) 19:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Collapsing for brevity |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Crowdstrike Ukrainian CEO Dmitri Alperovitch is connected to Atlantic Counsil (is Atlantic Council VP) and Privatbank that belonged to Igor Kolomoyskyi. Privatbank was giving loans to Cyprus offshores (including Burisma Holdins, LTD), thus laundering money through Latvia (~~20 billion $USD of IMF and USA loans and aid and then bankrupting those companies (see more on offshore loan schemes)) that were gained by Kolomoyskyi and Zlochevski. The key component there is IMF, they said that money will not flow unless Zelensky will start investigation into (at that time already nationalized) Privatbank and Kolomoyskyi. And that happened on 11th of September 2019 (when police seized documents and Privatbank was having Kolomoyskyi in court https://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-privatbank/police-raid-offices-and-seize-documents-of-ukraines-privatbank-idUSL5N26244O), so that day both USA (White House, this article) and IMF unblocked funds that were dispersed on 30th of September (end of fiscal year) by USA (no precise information about IMF). Kolomoiski was using that laundered money to get into control of near Donbass region and started a proxy war in Ukraine with Russian Federation that was planned by Obama/Biden/Clinton/Atlantic Counsil after Putin annexed Crimea by 95.5% referendum (and most importantly after russian veto of United Nations resolution 68/262). Obviously they thought that Clinton will win (and get all pro-Clinton Ukrainians support) and because they would not try to use partially dubious Steele dossier (with pee-pee tape and in connection with Trump Tower Moscow and most importantly Global Magnitsky Act) if they were not sure after Clinton lost that US embassy in Ukraine will still block all Ukranians' visas that were against Clinton. But embassy started to fail under Trump's pressure and when he finally fired Yawanovich (after 1 year that Yawanovich was already talking about his impeachment) the whistleblowers came in. There were other United Nations decisions that resulted in Russian financial crisis (2014–2017). Biden's son was kept hostage by Kolomoyskyi to control Joe Biden. Joe Biden used his power to first made a claim that Shokin was corrupt in US embassy database and when Shokin asked to finally rearrest Burisma assets (besides bank accounts on Cyprus) on 2th February 2016 ( https://web.archive.org/web/20160205092116/http://www.gp.gov.ua/ua/news.html?_m=publications&_c=view&_t=rec&id=168807) -- Biden just used 1 billion of $ of loan guarantees and support from World Bank Group and IMF to get rid of him in next 3 weaks. Nevertheless, investigation was then started by Lutshenko and Lutshenko was fired by Yawanovich (that was giving unprosecutable lists to him) and it started after that many times (last time in January 2020), but every time it was being stopped by US embassy. Finally, Shokin sued Joe Biden in March 2020 as he were also afraid of mercury poisonings. And DOJ started rewieving evidence from Ukranian government/whistleblowers. 94.29.0.171 ( talk) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC) None of the above content is relevant to this article in any way whatsoever. This article is about the impeachment inquiry, not unrelated accusations against Joe Biden or his son. 331dot ( talk) 21:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
|
House Democrats told the Supreme Court on Monday that they are again in the midst of an "ongoing presidential impeachment investigation" as part of their "weighty constitutional responsibility" – and, the Democrats argued, redacted grand-jury material from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s now-completed Russia probe must be turned over as a result. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dems-cite-ongoing-new-impeachment-inquiry-in-effort-to-obtain-mueller-materials https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/18/politics/house-supreme-court-mueller-grand-jury/index.html I will remind you of a key date June 23. John Bolton book. 91.76.22.132 ( talk) 14:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Just wanting to inform editors who did large edits to the article of the new impeachment inquiries on Ohio Governor Mike DeWine. The article is fairly new and needs tons of help/information. (Just a friendly alert to a similar article.) Elijahandskip ( talk) 21:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)