Talk:First impeachment of Donald Trump/Archive 1

References to official House roll call results
Hi Javert2113, can you say more about why you removed the links to clerk.house.gov in this revision? The revision comment says "never been able to get clerk.house.gov to work", but I don't understand what that means; and  both load fine for me in Firefox and in Chrome. They seem like useful references, as they show how every member voted on this historic matter. Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi! I get a "HTTP Error 404" every time I try to load a clerk.house.gov vote, so it honestly might just be me. Regardless, I think the Clerk, while certainly a source for information, isn't the best independent source here, given that, well, most every news outlet in the United States was counting every vote. Regardless, you're right, and I'm sorry for removing the links. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 03:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For whatever help it may be.... The links work for me in Safari on my mobi. Seem like decent cites to have.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Structure of this article
Putting this to writing to preempt any discussion on the purpose and role of this article – ideally, this article should serve as the main article on the topic of the Impeachment of Donald Trump, with certain sections of this article being written in summary style to serve as adequate summaries, for casual readers, of articles which go into greater depth. Here what the structure of the article should look like in my opinion:


 * Intro

Summary of this article
 * Background

Summary of Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Trump–Ukraine scandal articles
 * Inquiry

Summary of Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump article
 * Impeachment

Details on the House of Representatives' votes on Impeachment
 * Trial

Summary of Impeachment trial of Donald Trump article
 * Opinion polling

Details on opinion polling for impeachment throughout the Trump administration, and not just December 2019

– PhilipTerryGraham (talk ·&#32;articles ·&#32;reviews) 07:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think polling should start in December 2019 and continue from there. We have at least an month or two of this thing. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think also editors are going to want a Response section to handle opinions from the masses of commentators and politicians that are going to add their two-cents. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of the above, I think that will be the most logical and simple formating.★Trekker (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with ★Trekker Teammm  $talk email$ 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Howabout holding off, until the 'merge' discussion has completed? There's no panic here. GoodDay (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The merge discussion is running 53% Opposed. I just finished counting. There's no consensus to merge.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * @PhilipTerryGraham's structure for the article is fine in my book, although it could use more on the media and protests, not to mention the Trump campaign's massive spending on TV and print ads. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Public opinion section
I split the public opinion section of the inquiry page here, keeping only the polls relating to the inquiry itself on the inquiry page, but this edit seems to have been reverted. Is it not better to have polls about the inquiry on that page and polls about impeachment on this one? Currently the page only lists December 2019 as if impeachment polling only started then - there's no reason to only include the polls done since the conclusion of the inquiry.  Nixinova   T   C   19:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The polls seemed to be colored with no legend. I would remove the colors. The way they are now looks biased. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's explained in a footnote, though it's not really based on anything.  Nixinova   T   C   20:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * For those who might miss the footnote: These polls are color-coded relative to the margin of error (×2 for spread). If the poll is within the doubled margin of error, both colors are used. If the margin of error is, for example, 2.5, then the spread would be 5, so a 50% support / 45% oppose would be tied. The colors selected are more like traffic light colors - green shades for Support, and reddish-pinkish shades for Oppose. — Maile (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is idiotic, if it is in the margin of error, using your logic. They should have no color. Those that exceed the margin of error should be the only one using the colors. Now it doesn't just look biased, it is biased. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Citations supporting that Pelosi resisted impeachment
There's a sentence a couple paragraphs in, in the Background, that Pelosi resisted impeachment, but it didn't include citations. The line is "Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi initially resisted calls for impeachment." I'm afraid I'm in a real hurry or I'd try to add these into the article, which seems locked down. I'd like to leave them here, and hope someone can include them to support the claim that Pelosi resisted call: https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/183296-2 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/05/20/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-1336587 174.52.240.90 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Third or Fourth President to be Impeached
I think there is also some disagreement about whether or not he has been impeached yet. Or whether the house has voted to impeach him but has not yet done so, and will only have done so when they bring the articles to the senate.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philomouse (talk • contribs) 17:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting, but I am not sure this belongs under 3rd or 4th maybe it's own section in talk? Although, it is significant that it was Noah Feldman who wrote the article you link to. However, A Law Professor’s Provocative Argument seems to point to disagreement between legal scholars. However, there is no court precedent regarding this. Moreover, the longer the articles are with-held the question does become more important. Although, it seems factual to say the impeachment is still pending or in progress. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The article currently says, "...making Trump the third president in U.S history to be impeached...." There's actually some legal disagreement over whether or not Richard Nixon was technically impeached as he resigned during the process. Should this be mentioned? Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The article of impeachment were never voted on for Nixon, so he was never impeached. A footnote would probably be useful though (and I had one in the original revision) to avoid confusion.  Nixinova <b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b>  02:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think a footnote would be helpful, thanks! Alden Loveshade (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the footnote I had in the original page revision:  <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b>  02:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I admit, yours is better than mine, Nixinova. (I mean, come on, I even misused "proffered" here: "Although Richard Nixon had articles proffered against him by the House Judiciary Committee, he resigned before the full House voted on articles of impeachment. See Impeachment process against Richard Nixon.") Still, the fact that the footnotes keep getting removed: are we sure they're necessary? &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 02:24, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Nixon was not impeached. I don't see how there could be disagreement about that.- MrX 🖋 02:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mandela Effect, man. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe minor edits to that - change “will be” to “has been” impeached; and change the Nixon resigned ‘therefore he was never actually impeached’ to ‘before the vote for impeachment.’ to avoid saying ‘therefore’. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Some folks tend to get the 1974 Judiciary committee vote confused with the full House, which never voted on the matter. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Muller report
As a neutral foreigner, i'd suggest adding a short mention of the Muller-report. There's a weird standoff where the report left it up to politicians to draw conclusions and the politicians in the end didn't (dare) draw conclusions because the Muller report didn't. In international press this was mentioned when discussing the charges that did and didn't make it.  PizzaMan  ♨♨♨  13:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's Mu e ller. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Endorsement/Opposition subsection to public opinion
After noticing the entry about the Christianity Today endorsement of impeachment, should there be added publications that endorse and oppose impeachment. I believe the NY Times endorsed it. This obviously will mostly go down partisan lines but this still could be a worthy inclusion. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say it's only important because the president mentioned the publication. However, it does not really add much. It's pretty obvious while in the minority there are republican supporters who support impeachment. However, the same is true regarding democrat supporters a small minority oppose. I think the statistics already give enough regarding this, and it's a pretty obvious. So it just makes the article longer without really adding much. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Biased claims and citations
The article makes claims, specifically in the section “Trump–Ukraine scandal” solely with citations referring to news websites which are widely-known to be biased to or sided with the Democratic Party of the United States of America. This makes the claims also biased, as they all come from sources biased to the political party that is responsible for the instigation of Donald Trump’s impeachment. Furthermore, the page is also protected against vandalism, therefore users of Wikipedia cannot correct statements or add sources. Bassics (talk) 10:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Bassics (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What sources do you claim are "widely-known to be biased to or sided with the Democratic Party" and what are your sources for that claim? - MrX 🖋 14:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Facts seem to have a Dem bias because Dems have a factual bias; Republicans seem to have completely forgone facts. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Nixinova A bit far there. I direct your attention to ‘Hillary is sure to win’ and a couple years of ‘collusion delusion’.  And to state their view as fact, or to pretend inconvenient facts don’t exist seems universal.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hillary won more votes and the Russian collusion wasn't a "delusion";. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

A majority of the citations here are biased and I have a source to my claim but this talk page won’t let me reply with a link to a website. Bassics (talk) 14:17, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Bassics (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If your attempt to post a URL is blocked, that's because the source has reputation for publishing false information. In fact, for it to be blocked, it has to be a really bad source. You may want to have a look at WP:RS and WP:RSP. - MrX 🖋 14:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Journalism.org has a great 10-point scale placement of political ideology and news sources called “Ideological Placement of Each Source’s Audience” Bassics (talk) 14:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Bassics (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/21/world/asia/north-korea-missile-test-trump-kim.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage Bassics (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Bassics (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/maxine-waters-says-trump-will-invite-putin-to-the-white-house-if-the-senate-doesnt-remove-him Bassics (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Bassics (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I guess you’re right about my source for my claim. The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, and ABC are conservative news sources. Bassics (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Bassics (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I feel sorry for Wikipedia. Here no longer is unbiased information. Bassics (talk) 14:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Bassics (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's biased. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:04, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

What I think MrX is you look for any way to discredit someone just to prove your own point. Bassics (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — Bassics (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Are you okay? You went from discussion to anger really, really fast. Wikipedia has literally so many contributors that for something has to be really bad for it to be blocked. While the article is protected, you can still contribute. The only difference is it's reviewed. Also, please see WP:NPOV Bulhis899 (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you stop spamming this page, Bassics? Give us more than 2 seconds to reply to you, damn. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  18:56, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Except you didn't reply. You whinged about him asking two questions and then preceded to answered neither. Nice work. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "Two questions"? Do you not see how long this section is? Bassics is obviously WP:NOTHERE and made no actual points. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:42, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content
StanTheMan0131 has removed sourced info in this edit here:. He previously claimed in another edit here: that "(Prior source violated Wikipedias Reliable Sources rule (checked by https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-magazine/))"

However, Daily Intelligencer is on the list of reliable sources:. This is just unfounded removal of reliably-sourced material. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Another editor has reverted that particular edit already. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2019
Legally, Donald Trump has NOT been impeached. Once more they've ignored the constitution. He is not officially impeached until the papers are delivered to the Senate and managers selected. Pelosi has refused to deliver the papers and unless she does, nothing has happened except a vote to impeach.

As for the article in Christianity today, there is no mention that Franklin Graham, son of its founder, Billy Graham, has been opening critical of it and their stating that Billy would agree with the article. They had no authority to use his name and Franklin says that his father would NOT have sided with impeachment. 172.222.22.245 (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not an edit request, which should be made in the format of "change X text to Y text". Please see the above discussions about the status of impeachment; in short, we summarize what independent reliable sources state and they all state he has been impeached, with one or two scholars offering their opinion he has not technically been yet. To draw an analogy, are you finished with dinner when you are done eating or when you put your plate in the dishwasher? Franklin Graham's opinion about the magazine's activities is not relevant to this article(perhaps another one, but not this one). Pelosi has not refused to do anything yet- she can't deliver anything until the Senate is in session. 331dot (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This topic about the delay keeps being brought up. I don't think we should be so quick to say formally he has been impeached, but we can't quite to say hasn't either. I would consider legal scholars a reliable source, but they do not share a consensus. The more apt analogy would be if a prosecutors writes down their charges but has not yet sent to them to court. The accused has not yet been formally charged. You may even see prosecutors say charges are pending in instances like that. However, the end result is he will be impeached regardless unless something changes. As the end result is a given the only possible effect I see the delay on the larger article is dates. I do agree some magazines operations are not relevant.--50.37.112.189 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Related discussion elsewhere
There is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump#Rename,_merge,_delete? discussion] at Efforts to impeach Donald Trump that might be of interest to editors at this page. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Merge and Reintegrate
Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, the current main article, was ripe to be moved to this name and the saga continued. However it seems different users have taken it upon themselves to create a separate article for this as well as the senate trial. This goes against all current convention for impeachment articles and is wholly unnecessary. I propose merging this and the senate trial page back into the main page content at this name.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 03:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose merging this page into the inquiry page, neutral on merging the trial into here. This article already has a substantial amount of information that would make it too long to comfortably fit into the already-long inquiry page (which is 330kB+). Other U.S. impeachment processes were from before Wikipedia & the internet's popularity so there was less coverage of the processes. This page is already 63kB+ on day 1 of this happening and will only get larger, so there is enough content to warrant its own page. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 03:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: No, it wasn't "different users". This article was brought to life by who took part in the same discussion as you. And, no, there is no "convention for impeachment articles". Only two other presidents have been impeached, and both of them predated Wikipedia. This outcome was totally predictable, and it is ridiculous that we have been debating this for a year.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The various drafts for these articles have been created by others, C&C just published them. Regardless, ignoring the rules to institute what view you want because consensus is debated is not acceptable formulation for such an important topic. Truly it reduces all articles involved in quality of writing, citations, understandability, and easy of access.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 03:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support or likewise divide up Impeachment of Andrew Johnson & Impeachment of Bill Clinton articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support i agree with GoodDay, the other articles should be split up as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedyplane2247 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. There's more information about Trump's impeachment available. <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 04:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Could've at least waited for the Inquiry article RM to be completed. Not even the House Democrats moved that fast. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that went against consensus.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is one of my primary concerns. The main subject of that RM should have been modified to be based on whether to move the inquiry article to the primary impeachment title or to split, but instead, with it still active and some people still debating whether to move the article, the unilateral split occurred. I think that will likely remain the case since many will see it as the new "status quo," especially with it on the Main Page now. Master of Time   ( talk ) 09:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The sudden splits will also confuse folks who took part in the RM, when they return. GoodDay (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Contribs ━━━┥ 04:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: In my eyes, the impeachment inquiry and the impeachment trial generally talk about a similar topic, that being the impeachment. Frankly, I don't enough about the process of impeachment to know the reason why they are separate articles in the first place. Then again, maybe that's another reason to combine them. -- Diriector_Doc ┝<sup style="position:absolute">Talk
 * Oppose The articles each cover different aspects of the impeachment. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE - two different topics, naturally separated and COMMONNAME difference, and seems bad idea to try anything while still in motion - so do a second article and maybe merge later. Before the vote it was an inquiry, not an impeachment.  After the vote it is an impeachment, not inquiry.    Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump focuses explicitly on the inquiry, and thus has become too large of a topic to include on this page. A summary of the article can appear here instead – PhilipTerryGraham (talk ·&#32;articles ·&#32;reviews) 04:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. One is enough. Rmhermen (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's simply too much content for one article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 05:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, the Impeachment inquiry is a several month long process which is notable in itself. The page is already too long to also include the Impeachment of Donald Trump. A WP:SPLIT is warranted. The inquiry is a notable process which leads to the impeachment itself and should remain separate. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 05:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge for inquiry article as per User:Valoem but support for trial article, which shouldn't even exist. Impeachment isn't a trial, the vote to remove is more akin to a trial. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , it is a trial known as the Senate trial, testimony is given with managers presenting their case over several days. Senate then begins deliberations either publicly or privately. The verdict is then given on a vote. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 05:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I misunderstood what that article was supposed to be about (it's a bit premature). Changed to Oppose merge for both. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Trump have passed the house on 2 articles of impeachment The creeper2007 (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What does this even mean? <b style=background:#12c;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>Nixinova</b> </b><b style=background:#27f;padding:2px> <b style=color:white>T</b> <b style=color:white>C</b> </b> 06:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you mean to oppose. Support means you want one article on both the inquiry and impeachment process. Oppose means you want two. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 13:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - The Impeachment inquiry (House investigation) and Impeachment trial (Senate trial) are both related, but they are also two distinct procedures. Not to mention the inquiry page is incredibly lengthy; the trial page will no doubt become just as lengthy. Both can be briefly summarised in the main page, but for the sake of WP:LENGTH both should remain separate. Yes, other presidents' impeachment pages are not separated, but both are significantly shorter pages. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 06:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I remain convinced that my BOLD action to split the first two articles was warranted and saved us a lot of work and time. We can now focus on improving these articles instead of being bogged down by process. (You need only look at how good this article has become to see I was right.) I am not sure we should have started the Senate trial article yet. That could have waited for the new year. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 06:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * All you did was create confusion & frustration. The Inquiry article would've been moved, but you didn't give it a chance. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong Support — The inquiry will be frankly 80% of what stays in the merged article anyway. The sum of the length of the two articles may seem long but by its nature there is a lot of overlapping information. Alex  06:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There will be much less overlap when a good amount of content from Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, such as the near-entirety of the "Background" section, is appropriately migrated to Impeachment of Donald Trump. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 07:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think that should be removed or moved to Trump–Ukraine scandal. The inquiry article has too much background. We don't want to make the same mistake with this article. The summary of the background in this article should be kept very concise. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Still, the "Background" section for this article should have a satisfactory summary of both the Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Trump–Ukraine scandal articles; hopefully much more concise than the current "Background" section on the Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 07:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I oppose merging the impeachment inquiry article into this article. That article’s large enough that it might require splitting. It certainly shouldn’t be merged into this article. I’m neutral when it comes to merging the trial article into this article. We should probably wait & see how that article develops before making a decision. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Why would it require splitting? There are plenty of articles, such as Trump–Ukraine scandal, that are substantially larger than that one. Even by that argument, the way this article (Impeachment of Donald Trump) was created goes against the spirit of WP:HASTE because it was not imperative that the inquiry article be broken up without an official move/split discussion. Master of Time   ( talk ) 08:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong support There is substantial overlap between the Impeachment inquiry article and the Impeachment article. Not very smart to have separate pages for those two at least. Reywas92Talk 08:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The impeachment inquiry is a self-contained chapter of this saga, and the actual impeachment is better handled in a new article, including a brief summary of the Ukraine scandal background and of the inquiry. The impeachment inquiry against Trump is equivalent to the Starr Report on Clinton; both have enough material and separate temporality to deserve their own articles. I would support merging the trial page into this one, because it won't start until January. We can decide later whether it deserves a split. — JFG talk 08:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merge of inquiry / impeachment article. The significant majority of what happened is encompassed by the inquiry article. The impeachment vote itself can be boiled down to the drafting of the articles + the debate/vote on December 18. I might be down with a separate Senate trial article since that is a different phase / process and will have different goings on leading up to it, but will wait and see. Master of Time   ( talk ) 09:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I belive that this page is large enough already and both of these articles will likely just grow and grow.★Trekker (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above opposes. I think this is viable and more than enough material for there to be a whole separate article. Quahog (talk • contribs) 10:15, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support due to simplicity of both articles being on the same topic and having the same meaning Charlesmartin1987 (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Impeachment of Donald Trump. Oppose per MrX reasoning of course. Teammm  $talk email$ 11:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * could you clarify what you are supporting? As worded, it looks like you are supporting his actual impeachment of yesterday, rather than the proposed merging process here. — Maile  (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose These are separate processes, which will be followed by the Senate trial (another separate process). Too large for the whole of this to be in one article. Please consider the average reader, who may be accessing this on a small, portable device.  How much scrolling should readers have to do before they get to the process they want? Especially if we're talking about students who are accessing this in a classroom. — Maile  (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mobile view already breaks down articles in such a way as to limit scrolling, so that really doesn't seem like it should be a significant issue. Plus, looking at just what the page history says gives a misleading picture in terms of article size, e.g. much of the seemingly massive 70 KB in this article is just table coding, references, and the like. And that's not accounting for any redundancies between this article and the inquiry article. Master of Time   ( talk ) 11:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Un huh. Well, speaking for myself ... if I have to read down through too much, I lose interest and look for something more interesting to read.  How much is the average attention span on reading through all of this, even without the merging? What purpose are we serving by having it in one big glut? Given Wikipedia's easy linking from one page to the next, I see no purpose in merging everything. — Maile  (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. The "Inquiry" page was too damn long as it is. We need a separate "trial" article and an "indez" article. @Maile 66 is absolutely right. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose because the inquiry is incredibly notable in itself, and has a tangible beginning, middle, and end. It is an occurrence that meets notability standards on its own, and then some. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 14:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think this is more than enough material for there to be a whole separate article. Fluffypigpie (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Contribs ━━━┥ 21:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC) No longer in agreement. -- Diriector_Doc ┝<sup style="position:absolute">Talk Contribs ━━━┥ 15:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong Support I agree with GoodDay, this is a vote for consistency -  Chip &#x1f43a; • #TeamTrees&#x1F333; 16:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Absolutely no need for multiple articles which, for all intents and purposes, are about the same root subject. Keep the consistency demonstrated by the other two impeachment articles and just merge everything into the one article. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, and very strong likelihood of the articles expanding independently. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Now that we are past the inquiry stage, I think it is justified to have different articles about different stages in the process. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 17:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose See my comment below. I would appreciate more detail about the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the Impeachment of Bill Clinton too. -- RobLa (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This should be the main, summary article. Any other articles would be WP:SPINOFFS containing more detail about the various phases of the impeachment process. - MrX 🖋 18:44, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Agree with MrX, it's fine to have this article and a more detailed article on the inquiry. Magil8216 (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merging the articles under Impeachment of Donald Trump. The inquiry only seems independently notable because it's so recent. Lereman (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I made a page that realizes this proposed merge. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  19:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: There's only one article each about the impeachments of Bill Clinton, Andrew Johnson, and Richard Nixon. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF again. This takes place in the internet era so there's more information available about Trump. Also, Nixon's never got past the inquiry stage. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  20:59, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter when they took place, there should be consistency. WP:RECENTISM is obviously happening here. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, no; if you compare Clinton's inquiry stage to Trump's there's a lot more info about Trump's because everything was out in the open; if Trump's inquiry stage could fit in only 2 paragraphs then I'd support a merge, but it doesn't. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There's been dozens of books written about all of the impeachments so there could be multiple articles about all of them, but its superfluous to have them, so nobody has bothered to make them. One article each is enough. Also the Internet started in 1991 so it'd be easy to find tons of articles written during the Clinton impeachment process if someone wanted to split that article, but it's just not necessary. One could argue the "information age" began in 1440 when Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press, so it currently being the "internet era" is a terrible argument. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Oppose However, I believe that they should only be merged once the Impeachment trial has concluded, due to the fact that the event is currently occurring. Vote changed to oppose due to more compelling evidence. A-NEUN (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Even though I already voted in favor of the merge, waiting for the trial to conclude would be better. -- Diriector_Doc ┝<sup style="position:absolute">Talk
 * Support - These are both fundamentally part of the same story. MaximumIdeas (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - Why not Great Mercian (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. I could see Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump being summarized in this article. Let editors keep working on these separate articles for a while longer and see if some of the repetition can be removed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 21:37, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article would get longer than needed and I feel the inquiry is a different topic that needs it's separate article Lutty2028 (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly support We have discussed this issue many times at Talk:Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump. I have strongly opposed multiple articles every time it came up, and so have many others. There was never a consensus to have two articles - much less a third one about the Senate trial as some people are proposing. For heavens sake, why? It will just wind up repeating most of the information in the other article(s). And yet, Coffeeandcrumbs took it upon themselves to go ahead and create this as soon as impeachment was voted. Impeachment is one thing, not three, and should be in one article as all of the other impeachment-related articles are. (I believe we can trim a lot of the fat out of the "inquiry" article and will do so when I get back to my regular computer.) And yes, there are separate articles about the supporting scandals of the other presidents - and there are for Trump also, see Trump-Ukraine Scandal - but not about the actual impeachment. Impeachment should be in one place and not force people to go chasing around from the beginning to the middle to the ending and back and forth with tons of duplication in between. This would be like having different articles for each quarter of a football game, or separate articles for "Biography of Charles Manson", "Crimes of Charles Manson", "Trial of Charles Manson", "Imprisonment of Charles Manson", and so on. We have two articles now, unfortunately, but they should be merged in the near future. --MelanieN alt (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, at 329 Kb, is already a large article. This is a valid WP:SPLIT for any events happening from December 18, 2019, once Trump was impeached. The other article is for events happening from September up to the date above. We have clear, distinct stages, and lots of information.  starship .paint  (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merging Impeachment of Donald Trump and Impeachment trial of Donald Trump at this early point, but oppose merging Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump, which is too long. UpdateNerd (talk) 09:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a feeling we are stuck with the three articles (plus possibly a timeline if someone cares to make one) for the foreseeable future. People just can't resist the excitement and lure of WP:RECENTISM. In a year or so I will propose merging the three into one article, as they should be, and maybe people will be more amenable to it then. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strongly support merging the three articles. I think we should not dedicate a separate article to each stage of the impeachment process. НСНУ (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see on top of the "Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump" article a number of 'further information' links. That might make everything simpler and less congested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. Keeping everything in one article is going to be unwieldy. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support—merging Impeachment of Donald Trump and Impeachment trial of Donald Trump would surely be a good move, as they both relate, in my view, information about similar topics, and the final article would not be too long. Quisquidillius (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per WP:SIZE as the article is already too large. 9March2019 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose All these articles are very long already, and if they are merged, then it can be too big to navigate comfortably. Minecrafter0271 (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - while Trump-Ukraine scandal should remain a separate article (as Watergate scandal and Clinton-Lewinsky scandal do), the official business of impeachment is narrower and belongs in one article. All the Oppose votes are based on there being too much information, which I dismiss for two reasons - a) Wikipedia has, while technically not infinite space, an awful lot of space for text, and contents exist for a reason, b) there's the question of how much of what is there needs to be there and/or is duplicated. Magic9mushroom (talk) 04:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree that it would be good to have one article about impeachment. Three articles will involve massive duplication, confusion, and unnecessary difficulties.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Everything should be condense and into one article for easier traversal and lookup. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 07:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Contribs ━━━┥ 02:09, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Do the supporters realise that a merged page will be around half a megabyte long? My phone is crying just thinking about that. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Phones nowadays can load pictures five times that size without any problem. Unless your phone is a Palmpilot, I'm pretty sure it will have no problem loading a bunch of text.-- Diriector_Doc ┝<sup style="position:absolute">Talk
 * Article size would like a word with you. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You should be using your phone to call people, not to read articles.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you aware it is 2019 and not 1999? I haven't used my phone to call anyone in years; meanwhile I edit pages on my phone all the time. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  23:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. UpdateNerd went ahead and merged the impeachment trial article into this one. How do we move forward? David O. Johnson (talk) 08:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd say trim Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump to the absolute essentials and merge it here too. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:8C07:C8D3:185B:B55C (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

"Alleged" Co-ercion?
"The Trump–Ukraine scandal revolves around efforts by U.S. president Donald Trump to coerce Ukraine and other foreign countries into providing damaging narratives about 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidate Joe Biden as well as information relating to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Trump enlisted surrogates within and outside his official administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, to pressure Ukraine and other foreign governments to cooperate in supporting conspiracy theories concerning American politics"

The above paragraph is very biased. There is no evidence of this coercion so the word "allegedly" should be inserted at the bare minimum. The part of supporting conspiracy theories is a conspiracy theory in itself. Again no proof has been offered. Frankly this reads like it has been written by the DNC. I presume the New York Times is considered equally reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.225.104 (talk) 21:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — 80.101.225.104 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * As there has indeed been no trial yet I have inserted the word "alleged" so the paragraph reads "around alleged efforts". Britmax (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Per how impeachment literally works, the impeachment process is a trial. As in, the House approving the article means that they have found that the coercion occurred. Kingsif (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * At least when it comes to the US system. Just being impeached does not mean a crime or offense occurred. That is for the senate to decide. I think alleged is fair. Same applies to normal charges in traditional courts when the prosecution files charges against someone the prosecution is alleging they committed some crime. News articles tend to be careful to use the word alleged in normal trials even when there is overwhelming evidence such as video footage, numerous witnesses, and even DNA evidence. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — 50.37.100.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The fact that a trial will occur and has not yet occurred, is a very strong argument for alleged. Otherwise, a trial would not be needed. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally, Nancy Pelosi is withholding the articles of impeachment for submission to the Senate for trial. Either way, I think "alleged" would be correct here. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 07:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should say "alleged". The trial has not happened. Impeachment is the equivalent of charges being laid. Also, the Ukrainian president has denied being coerced.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I fundamentally disagree on the basis of what an impeachment is (or are we saying Clinton "allegedly" lied about having inappropriate relations with Lewinsky?), in the same way I disagree with the ridiculous assertion that it's not a real impeachment until Pelosi has given papers to the Senate, and would remind commenters that the wording was not even under discussion until a single-purpose IP said it was POV. Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Stay on point, we are talking about if a crime is alleged until after a trial. We have a precedent here WP:ALLEGED and what we should do is clear. "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial" The rest of your comments are a distraction. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither of the two articles of impeachment pertain to crimes per se, but to suggest that there is no evidence of coercion is absurd on its face. - MrX 🖋 21:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely evidence of coercion. That is why he was charged with by the House of Representatives and will be tried in the Senate. You can believe there are no crimes involved, but that is a minority view and not what is portrayed in reliable sources. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The "evidence" is purely 100% subjective and not factual, which is why the entire impeachment process has been withheld from completion. The House dems want/need time to find actual evidence.  Rotaryenginepete (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * However, Constitution says other "high crimes", which is ambiguous and leaves it up for interpretation to the House. The Senate trial is either to determine if the crimes check out, and optionally if the charge is a crime. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Potential new articles of impeachment, add?
House Judiciary Committee said it could draft and recommend "new articles of impeachment" against Trump if additional evidence is revealed by former White House counsel Don McGahn. X1\ (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/23/doj-impeachment-vote-undercut-house-mcgahn-testimony-089604
 * https://apnews.com/867403d69b0135e020b7d5a1963f2033
 * https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/23/judiciary-panel-says-it-could-draft-new-articles-of-impeachment-against-trump.html
 * https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment-don-mcgahn-subpoena-ae7a4d60-9680-4d5a-99bf-d1e0734537f8.html
 * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/house-and-justice-department-lawyers-file-briefs-arguing-over-whether-don-mcgahn-should-testify-before-congress/
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/impeachment-2-house-lawyers-say-more-charges-possible-n1106706
 * https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/23/politics/don-mcgahn-testimony-white-house/index.html
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but I would say no. There is a lot of "this could happen" "that could happen" talk floating around right now. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion tag
Why was that tag removed from this article (and Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump article)? The discussion in ongoing over whether to 're-merge' these two articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * UpdateNerd merged the article in this edit: . David O. Johnson (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think the consensus was very clear. However, there was an overabundance of tags (concerning not two, but three articles) with substandard links to the "relevant" discussion, so to simplify the confusion on a highly viewed article I just made a bold edit to clean things up until the trial begins. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no formal close of the discussion, though. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem like it had a snowball's chance of going another way. This is a temporary solution until the trial begins, then we can decide what makes the most sense. UpdateNerd (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Importance of Withholding for This article?
I am seeing a lot of discussion regarding he has not been technically/formally impeached. Colloquially, he for certain has been impeached. When looking at this I am not seeing consistent consensus nor any court rulings. Not surprising since impeachment is pretty rare. Further, the managers and articles have never been withheld before, but there is no evidence they will be held indefinitely. So when it comes to writing a Wikipedia article what is the importance though? Otherwise, what is the point of the discussion surrounding this. I really only see one important thing that may be uncertain from this, and that is the date of impeachment. Is it when the vote happened or when the process in the house is complete. Is there anything this effects I may be overlooking? --50.37.112.189 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC) — 50.37.112.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Since we are unaware of a date until which the House will submit the articles, isn't it suffice to state that they are being held indefinitely, since we do not have a definitive date and time? I also believe this is important because it sets a precedent for the process of removal of a sitting president. This has never happened before, afaik, so it's something to note or make people aware of. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 00:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC
 * Your using indefinite in a stricter sense than I am. I mean as never going call managers and have the articles submitted, and there still is a definite time frame of early 2020. Although, I do cede that it is important that something like this has never happened before, but don't see how that effects the larger article.--50.37.112.189 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC) — 50.37.112.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To maintain a neutral point of we are to "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts", and the larger argument surrounding makes the date contested. --50.37.112.189 (talk) 23:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC) — 50.37.112.189 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * I don't think it's important at this point. I don't think the delay should be described as "indefinite".The indications are the trial will be in January. If that isn't true, then this issue will be important. I think we should wait and see.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For future reference, what indictations say that the time frame is in January? WhoAteMyButter (talk) 01:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This article gives one a good idea that thing are planned for January. McConnell says Senate trial talks at 'impasse' as Congress leaves town

This is an intelligent question that the average Wikipedia user hasn't thought about, let alone debate. Most of the media described Trump as impeached, but in reality, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party are withholding the articles of impeachment indefinitely. They have only adopted the articles but have not advanced them to the Senate. Constitutional lawyers will debate whether or not this is considered impeachment. —Partytemple (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't really accurate to say "withheld", and there is certainly no justification for saying "withheld indefinitely." The actual situation is: he was impeached on December 18. On December 19 Congress went on a several-week-long break. She can't send the articles over during the break, so nothing can happen until January in any case. The accurate description of the situation is that the articles have not yet been sent over to the Senate. We might also mention that the rules for the Senate trial have not yet been established. That also can't happen until the Senate is back in session, since the Senate has to approve them. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, "withheld" is most definitely accurate, even quoted straight from the horse's mouth. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/some-house-democrats-push-pelosi-to-withhold-impeachment-articles-delaying-senate-trial/2019/12/18/6e25814a-21c5-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html  The impeachment resolution has been approved by the House, but the impeachment process by legal definition is not completed...due to an unprecedented withholding of the articles...therefore Trump is not yet impeached.  I have referenced/cited scholars, Constitutional and historical sources  in depth above in my edit request https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Impeachment_of_Donald_Trump#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_21_December_2019 but unfortunately it has fallen on deaf ears.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC) — Rotaryenginepete (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Firstly, encyclopedic content needs to prioritize facts before opinion. Therefore we should prioritize what has happened and be careful citing interpretations or even speculation about personal motives or future events. Fact is, the House has not yet named Impeachment managers and not yet delivered the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. There is also Pelosi's statement about her conditions for naming managers and delivering the articles. "Withholding" is important because as every other defendant, President Trump has the right for a speedy trial. If the House postpones the begin of the trial or otherwise stretches the Impeachment procedure, it might violate Trump's right to a speedy trial. Additionally, the President has not been formally impeached yet because this occurs when the Impeachment managers exhibit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate at the begin of the trial, as impeachment is a synonym for arraignment. Xenagoras (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Trump has no right to a speedy trial. According to the link you posted, that right applies "in all criminal prosecutions". Impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. It isn't even necessary that the impeached party have broken an actual law. As for the argument that Trump hasn't "really" been impeached yet, that interpretation has been put forward by a couple of law professors, but the media at large have not taken it up. We rely on reliable media sources, and reliable sources are still saying that he was impeached. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW please see our article Impeachment in the United States, under "Procedure": Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached”. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * lol even the article Impeachment in the United States is wrong. If the Constitution gives the Senate sole Power to try Impeachments, and this impeachment is supposedly completed, then why can't the Senate exercise that power?  Oh yeah, because the President isn't impeached yet.  Also, the Bill of Rights is extended to all US citizens, so saying Trump has no right to a speedy trial is also SEVERELY mistaken and WRONG .Rotaryenginepete (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC) — Rotaryenginepete (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I agree with Rotaryenginepete's argument that since the court (Senate) cannot try the indictment (Articles of Impeachment) before the bill of indictment has been delivered to the court and prosecutors (Impeachment managers) are ready to indict in trial, the defendant/respondent (President Trump) is not impeached. Unfortunately, "House Practice" Article 27, Section 8 states, "The respondent in an impeachment proceeding is impeached by the adoption of the House of articles of impeachment", which contradicts US constitution Article I section 3 that says, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Since trial is not possible yet, some part of the legal procedure is missing as of today, but that missing part is not accurate described in "House Practice", although it is described in PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE. Xenagoras (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sixth amendment only applies to criminal prosecutions. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial". To constitute a criminal proceeding, there must be a threat of "actual imprisonment", a substantial "deprivation of liberty." This is proven in the cases: Scott v. Illinois, and Rothgery v. Gillespie County. Thus, this is not a criminal prosecution, and so the President is not guaranteed a speedy trial. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you WhoAteMyButter for linking to Scott v. Illinois which found that a speedy trial only applies to prosecution that results in jail penalty. Since Impeachment cannot result in a jail penalty, impeached persons do not have the right to a speedy trial. I therefore withdraw the related comment above. Xenagoras (talk) 13:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition to what has been said, impeachment is analogous to an indictment in a criminal trial, not a conviction. The House acts as a grand jury and considers evidence about whether to adopt articles, and if they do, that evidence, in addition to witness testimony, is presented to the Senate at the trial. That said, since an impeachment trial is not a criminal trial, constitutional protections for criminal trials do not apply; for example, the jury is not one of the president's peers, rather it is the entire body of the Senate. WMSR (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So a Senate trial charging with high crimes and misdemeanors isn't a criminal proceeding because there's no jail penalty? I see the logic where this doesn't apply to House impeachment inquiry proceedings, but IDK if a petty theft conviction w/o jail time can be compared to a conviction by impeachment trial. Yes there's no threat of the President's personal liberty being revoked, but he is being charged with a crime. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC) — Rotaryenginepete (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * He's not being charged with a "crime". This is a constitutional process, not a legal process. He's being charged for commiting impeachable conduct. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I also digress on the civil rights applying here. Rotaryenginepete (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC) — Rotaryenginepete (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Democrats Vow To Impeach Trump Again Even If He Wins 2020 Election
This may be pertinent. Seems the haters won't be stopping any time soon.. "Democrats have already made their intention clear to doggedly pursue Trump until they succeed in ousting him from office"
 * Al Green (D-TX) said that he backs filing new articles of impeachment if Senate doesn't convict

https://www.ibtimes.com/dems-vow-impeach-trump-again-even-if-he-wins-2020-election-they-could-succeed-2883673 74.76.202.168 (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Mind your POV. The only thing they "hate" is impeachable conduct. If we need to create Second impeachment of Donald Trump, we'll do it when it's needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Be ready for more of this. There are vitriolic expressions of something towards the President. It is unprecedented. I'd support either expanding this article or a second article. 100-years from now, they will need to know about this vendetta. 174.158.183.81 (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi Says Articles of Impeachment May Not Be Sent to the Senate
Not certain if we need to add this.. Seems Nancy Pelosi doesn't want President Trump to be acquitted of the impeachment by the senate...

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2019/12/pelosi-considering-not-sending-articles-of-impeachment-to-senate-until-mcconnell-agrees-to-fair-trial-report/

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2019/12/18/pelosi-says-articles-impeachment-may-not-sent-senate/ 74.76.202.168 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2019 (UTC) — 74.76.202.168 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * It's more nuanced than that. McConnell has not agreed to what Pelosi calls a fair trial; that's the obstacle. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delaying the Senate trial 'til February-March? would certainly hurt the Sanders & Warren campaigns. Anyways, seeing as Pelosi might overly delay in this situation, it should be added to the article given its historical uniqueness. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * IMHO, Pelosi is not delaying this. McConnell already admitted on-air that he is not an impartial juror, and that he would not overly drag out the trial. By his own admission, he wants the trial and acquital achieved quickly so the nation can get past this, and is unwilling to negotiate on the number of witnesses he wants called for the trial. So including the information in a way that lays blame at Pelosi's door is not only disingenuous, but a blatant violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view regulations, which are in place for situations like this. If we, as Wikipedia editors, fail to strike the right tone of neutrality on this, and include all available information that is relevant, then it would be a great disservice to the reader. Regardless of where we, as individual editors, stand on the matter personally, either it all needs to be included, or none of it should be. Again, just my opinion, based on my understanding of the relevant policies. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since neither Pelosi or Schumer can force McConnell's hand. Perhaps it's all a nothing burger. So why bother adding. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Because this issue is why there is not going to be a quick Senate trial. If the consensus agrees with you that none of it should be mentioned, I'd be okay with that, but the fact of the delay should be mentioned in an impartial matter if it can reasonably be so. The issue is relevant to the Trump impeachment. We have never seen an impeachment where a senior senator of the same political party as the president in question has boasted on-air about not being impartial and wanting to move quickly to acquit. Failing to mention it would violate this policy, among others, at least from my perception. If the consensus moves to not mention it, then clearly, I am alone in my assessment and may be off-base. But readers, where possible, should have an impartial accounting of the facts, which are laid out in reliable sources. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Should it be stated that this impeachment was very partisan?007longbeach (talk) 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The brief mention of the delayed delivery at the Preparation for Senate is good. If it goes on long or has drama/content so gets more coverage, then it would deserve it’s own subsection as an unprecedented stage of the process.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I moved your comment to this section where it is more relevant. As for what you said, as several reliable news outlets have reported, it was only"very partisan" because most of the congressional Republicans prefer to exhibit a blind loyalty to Trump rather than voting in a way that reflects the attitude of those whom they have been elected to represent. Public opinion polls by reliable sources note that a majority of Americans polled feel Trump should face some consequences for his alleged wrongdoing. So mentioning what you said in the way you said it would violate Wikipedia's policies on reflecting information found in reliable sources and maintaining a neutral point of view. If the information you mentioned could be couched in a more neutral tone, it might be eligible for inclusion, but not using the terminology you mentioned. At least, that's my opinion, FWIW. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "blind loyalty to Trump rather than voting in a way that reflects the attitude of those whom they have been elected to represent" something like 90% of republicans think the impeachment is a farce, I'd say the republican reps are likely voting exactly the way the people they were voted in by want them to. I have no horse in this race, I don't edit. 65.27.84.231 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — 65.27.84.231 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What you say may be true on a national level, but on a state level, things are more nuanced than that. In my own home state of Utah, polling information shows that more than half of all Utahns support impeachment, and yet, of the four congressional representatives currently serving, only one, the lone Democrat from the delegation, voted in favor of the impeachment. The votes of the other 3 against it did not reflect the current opinions of their constitutants, and I suspect that Utah isn't the only state where that is the case. And overall, the opinion of the entire country is more in favor of impeachment of this president now than ever before, which is information that can be confirmed in the latest available nationwide polls. That is a clear demonstration that there are members of Congress who have more of a blind loyalty to the president of their party than a desire for their votes to reflect what their constituants are feeling. That is to what my previous comment was alluding. Hope that clears up why I said what I said. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

It is important to include the delay because it could mean that Trump has not been impeached.


 * I think it is important that this is included in the article since there is a strong legal argument that Trump has not been impeached until the house sends the articles to the house with their managers and prosecutes the case.   Technically speaking Trump has not been impeached according to the legal scholars the house democrats called to testify during the impeachment inquiry.  It will also be important to include this information to explain the difference between this impeachment and past impeachments.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.12.236 (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)  — 72.94.12.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

That's not the case. There's a difference between being impeached and being removed from office. Once the House ratifies articles of impeachment by the sufficient margin, a president is impeached, but it is up to the Senate to ratify the action before the President can be removed from office. Until that time, the ratification of the charges by the House is merely seen as a slap on the wrist. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What the Senate does is not ratification, it's a trial, at which the president will be found either guilty or not guilty. According to the Constitution, the Senate "shall have sole power" to conduct the trial.  So, can they conduct the trial or not?  The only situation in which the Senate may conduct an impeachmeant trial is if the President has been impeached.  If he has, they may conduct one.  The reverse is also true: if they cannot conduct a trial, then the President has not been impeached.  The article needs some mention of the fact that the legal argument exists - and has strong basis in precedent - that the President has not actually been impeached merely because the House passed a resolution to do so.  Impeachment is a process that exists beyond the passing of the resolution, even according to the House manual.  Sonar1313 (talk) 04:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I concede your point about the fact that the Senate holds a trial, but the trial is to determine whether or not the President should be removed from office. A President can be impeached by the House but acquitted through a Senate trial, which is what happened to Bill Clinton. And either way, there is another elment that most people seem to overlook relating to this matter: In a scenario where the Senate holds a trial, once the Chief Justice of the United States is sworn in to preside over that trial, he then swears in the Senate as jurors. And the oath they are required to take at that time includes a promise to impartially examine the facts. And given that Mitch McConnell has point-blank stated he is not going to be an impartial juror, as long as he maintains that attitude, he cannot and will not honor that oath he is constitutionally-mandated to take. And since he is not the only one who has made a statement about not being impartial, until the Senate agrees to a bipartisan attitude of impartiality, and a willingness to examine the facts as they are, not as some members would like them to be, it would be disingenuous and a violation of her responsibility for Pelosi to send the articles to the Senate until that changes. That is the holdup, and that is the material point. See this section of a relevant article on impeachment, for which relevant sources verify these facts. The Senate must be impartial in these trials, so until that impartiality can be assured, it would be a bad idea for the House to send the charges over to the Senate. And this is the kind of attitude to which I was referring in an earlier comment on this very thread: Senate Republicans need to stop being Trump loyalists and see these charges as nothing more and nothing lesside than what they are, and the entire Senate needs to put aside partisan politics and cooperate on a fair and impartial examination of the charges, which deserve serious consideration and treatment. And if they cannot do that mandated responsibility in this matter, turning the case over to them at this point would be an exteremely bad move. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Biased information
There is a targetted source of information that is out of place in the article. "In October 2019, a poll showed that 99% of white evangelical Protestant Republicans opposed Trump's impeachment and removal from office." is an extremely specific article from a biased source, and does not contribute to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealJamesAries (talk • contribs) 04:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC) — RealJamesAries (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The prri seems trustworthy enough to me, and the statement seems relevant. But I guess 99% does seem extreme, maybe another poll can be added as a comparison? Davepeta (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Controlled by the Democratic Party
I object to edits that attempt to insert non-NPOV wording into the lead such as this and this. I invite to obtain consensus here for this edit before adding it back into the article in any form.- MrX 🖋 13:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed; the House acted as a body. That it is controlled by Democrats is immaterial to that.  Party affiliation can be discussed as part of discussing the vote totals or something. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Because the 'impeachment' was so blatantly farcial it has to be pointed out continually throughout the article that this exercise is a partisan exercise, and at no time should any of this article infer that Republicans had ANYTHING to do with it. It is imperative that that tone be represented. At this time the article represents the talking points of the office of the Speaker of the House and the DNC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdillonf (talk • contribs)
 * That Democrats control the House is immaterial to the fact that the House acted as a body. It also was not just Democrats, as independent ex-Republican Justin Amash voted in favor. Several Republican officials not in Congress have supported their actions, including John Kasich and Tom Ridge. There is also general agreement that most of the GOP caucus is simply too afraid of Trump and his supporters to oppose him openly. 331dot (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Democrats will not consider their control of the House immaterial when they make claims in the future that this was one of their great accomplishments. It would be a factual assertion that the impeachment inquiry and the vote on the articles would never have reached the stage they did without the Democratic Party's multiple committee chairmen. Indeed, they will themselves emphasize the lack of Republican support, just as you do. (That is an understatement, given the impassioned opposition by more than one ranking committee member.) Granted, a lot of conservative media personalities are asserting that it is already one of their great embarrassments. However, I expect them to make those assertions anyway. Whatever the current Democratic leadership thinks they have achieved in the annals of Congress, they are on track to replace classic illustrations of the word "chutzpah".SvensKenR (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

NO REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR IMPEACHMENT! This is the headline that has to be repeated throughout this article as a counterweight to obvious propaganda that is now spewing across the page. That no Republican voted for the impeachment is paramount in a understanding of this subject. If you want to continue to rant about your own politics, go somewhere else. This page has to instruct (this is Wikipedia, not your blog) why the Democratic Party insisted on trying to impeach President Donald John Trump five times before they succeeded.Jdillonf (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , what is "paramount" here is that Trump attempted to unduly influence a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen. That's why he was impeached. That no Republican, save Justin Amash, of course, voted to impeach is an important detail covered in the article already. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hearsay & presumptions don't amount to concrete evidence, however. It's up to the Senate to decide if Trump's guilty or not. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Concrete evidence already exists in not only testimony, but documentation, and self-admission by the administration. What isn't being decided isn't the fact of what happened. That's already known, admitted-to, well-corroborated, and established. The only thing the Senate will decide is whether or not the facts of what happened merit disqualification and removal from office. The truth exists outside of verdicts. Wikipedia just has to be careful with WP:BLPCRIME because without public backing of an indictment or conviction, not much can be said without risking legal issues.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * - Trump and the White House: key witnesses, don’t testify, don’t provide documents. Sondland blocked from reviewing calls and notes. Republicans: what a thin case you have! Where’s the evidence? Not guilty!  starship  .paint  (talk) 23:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * We already have Efforts to impeach Donald Trump and Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump which discuss attempts prior to this successful impeachment. Also, the vote counts are labeled clearly by party in the tables. To say anything beyond the facts to frame this as a solely political move by a party would be serious NPOV violations and push propaganda.  Gwen Hope  (talk) (contrib) 19:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense. Jdillonf (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

That impeachments are partisan isn't anything new, as it only requires a simple majority vote. Republicans had the majority in the House during the 1867–69 Congress, when they impeached a Democrat (Andrew Johnson) & Republicans had the majority in the House during the 1997–99 Congress, when they impeached a Democrat (Bill Clinton). So, it's nothing unique. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The article should point out, in the lead and in the text, (the text already makes it clear) that the House vote was along party lines - as it already does for the Judiciary Committee vote. I see that it doesn't and I will add it. There is no need to make more of it than that. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

PLEASE EVERYONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE EXCLAMATION MARKS ARE NECESSARY. EXCUSE THEM FOR NOW. Can we all just be civil here? Why not screw the political infighting and write Facts and Information. We all have our opinions, but this is no place to discuss them. Use social media for that. What is important is that the World is full of information and mis-information on this subject. BOTH THESE things should be discussed in this article, but keep opinions out of it! Give the QUOTED opinions of person (think Mcarthy and Pelosi) that are informed on this situation, not your own. Even in the talk pages, we should remember this is an encyclopedia, not a platform for personal opinion shuffling. Mulstev (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Dig it!Jdillonf (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I didn't think anybody was being uncivil. GoodDay (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * And please don't SHOUT. Anyhow it is not clear what you are shouting about. What specifically do you think needs to be in the article, that isn't there now? The talk page is for discussing what should go in the article. This specific discussion is about how big a point to make out of the fact that the vote was along near-party lines. IMO there is enough in the article now on that subject. --MelanieN alt (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed on both points, and excuse my rashness. However, talk pages are as visible as the main article, even if they are less viewed. The discussion above is civil, bar my own screeches, but it does contain amounts of opinion, which may exist but are damaging to the fact based ideals of wikipedia. I write mainly to warn, and hopefully to remind, that there are persons always looking for ways to discredit or laugh at sources of information which are user-edited, such as Wikipedia. There is no reason to put anything on or in an article or talk page that may be damaging toward public opinion and trust of Wikipedia. Hopefully this second comment clarifies my above comment. Apologies if they be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulstev (talk • contribs) 19:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This doesn't really make much sense, talk pages are meant to discuss what people think about the article, so of course it'll have people's opinions in it. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

The article should be as objective as possible. It should include the fact that only democrats were in favor of impeachment and there was bipartisann support for Trump. You can simply cite the voting record. Any comment about what individuals outside the house thought about impeachment does nothing to make the article any more complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.12.236 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — 72.94.12.236 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The article already cites the voting record. In detail. MelanieN alt (talk) 05:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No, not only Democrats supported impeachment. Amash is independent, he supported impeachment.  starship .paint  (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Jdillonf is correct, the partisan nature of the vote and the entire proceeding is the most often mentioned aspect of this - it has greater WP:WEIGHT than the counts do. The ‘Democrats in the House’ wording seems OK, or one could explicitly say partisan such as ‘In an almost totally partisan vote, the House’, or something else.   But to say ‘House’ alone is giving a false portrayal.  Do we need a straw poll or rfc on this ?  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You haven't shown any sources to support your claim, nor have you shown how you determined that the "the partisan nature of the vote and the entire proceeding is the most often mentioned aspect of this". I just searched "impeachment" and the very first source says "His iron grip was never firmer than over the last two months, during the House inquiry that concluded Wednesday with Mr. Trump’s impeachment on charges of abuse of power and obstructing Congress." Nothing about Trump being impeached by Democrats. As a couple of editors including myself have said, the house acts as one body. - MrX 🖋 15:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * SO, are you suggesting that it be stated within the article that the House impeached Trump as a single body? I wonder what Kevin Mccarthy would say on that? Early in the video, (i cant find a transcript) he uses pronouns such as 'we' and 'us' when describing the house, regardless of party. He, however, later refers to Pelosi and her democratic colleagues as 'they' and 'them'. Perhaps to split the argument, it could be stated that, as a body, the house vote, although along party lines, was for impeachment. Individual's within that body, however, see things differently (as expected), and therefore vote (predominately) according to party affiliation. Mulstev (talk) 07:16, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Is this video public domain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGDSG9cj0VE It's from the house floor, should be PD?

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Works of PBS are not in the Public Domain, no. -Thespündragon 01:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. The video was recorded using cameras that belong to the House and therefore are in the Public Domain. Even the on screen graphics identifying who is speaking comes from the Clerk of the House of Representatives. (See ) You can't take a work that is in the Public Domain and stamp it with your logo (which itself is in the public domain because of c:COM:TOO US) then claim it is copyrighted. This video is in the public domain.
 * However, the question becomes more complicated with footage from other networks with more complex on-screen graphics like CNN. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:31, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this whole playlist also PD? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6P0sM21Tpw&list=PLgawtcOBBjr_4n_02kUz8Po5NcZg_a2dS Victor Grigas (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, I see no additions that constitute a creative work to pass the threshold of originality (TOO). --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, I see no additions that constitute a creative work to pass the threshold of originality (TOO). --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 07:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment did not actually occur yet
According to articles from Bloomberg and National Review, President Trump is not impeached until the House sends the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Should consider revising these pages to reflect so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MugwumpSpirit110 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , those are opinion pieces. I don't believe those opinions are the consensus view of things. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * What matters is 1) what reliable sources say and 2) what the House itself says. Every newspaper/media outlet in the US had a variation of "House impeached Trump" as their headline.  The House itself gets to determine if they impeached someone as the Constitution gives the House the "sole power of impeachment".  The view that it is not valid until actually carried across the Capitol Building to the Senate(which can't be done until the session resumes on January 6th) is the opinion of those who hold that view and is not an official finding. It would be like saying your dinner is not finished until you put your plate in the dishwasher. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I'll copy here what I said at Talk:Donald Trump: We should keep, in the lead, the affirmative statement that he has been impeached. All Reliable Sources are treating the House vote as being actual impeachment, and previous impeachments have been dated as of the House vote. But several publications have noted Feldman's opinion, published in a Blooomberg op-ed here, and reportedly the White House is considering making the argument. So we could add a sentence to the House Vote section of the text, attributed to Feldman and identified as opinion. Something like "Legal scholar Noah Feldman has stated in an op-ed that it is not an actual impeachment until the report is forwarded to the Senate, and the White House has echoed the argument." Sorry, I can't add it myself; I am not at my regular computer and would have difficulty citing references. --MelanieN alt (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

According to the US Constitution, Trump was impeached the moment the full House passed the first impeachment article & Pelosi confirmed the result. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So does that mean you are opposed to adding a sentence about Feldman's opinion - and the White House's possible use of it? Trying to get opinions here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * BTW I found the following sentence at our article Impeachment in the United States: Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. Upon passage, the defendant has been "impeached". If this becomes a bigger issue than the opinion of one person, it might be worth citing that here. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * He's been impeached, keep it in the leader. Note the name of the article itself. GoodDay (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with keeping it in the lead, unqualified. My suggestion was to add a sentence to the article text. --MelanieN alt (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Rusf10 made a suggestion at the main Donald Trump article: we change the language to read "the House voted to impeach," and we remove "was impeached"/"third president to be impeached" and anything else like that until legal scholars resolve the controversy. While the debate goes on, I think we should stay with language that all sides agree on. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — Architeuthidæ (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * There is no debate, just some opinions that differ with what most other sources and the House itself says. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Ordinarily I would probably just say, yes, let's just go by what the majority of the reporting is saying, but this isn't an ordinary situation. It's the first time in American history that the House has refused to send articles of impeachment to the Senate after passing them, so we're in uncharted territory. Also the op-ed this morning from the House Democrats' own legal expert stating that Trump hasn't been impeached is pretty stunning, actually. In all likelihood, this will all become moot in relatively short order when Nancy finally forks over those articles...but in the meantime there is some definite ambiguity here. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — Architeuthidæ (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Nothing has yet been withheld, the articles cannot be delivered until the Senate is back in session on January 6th. Pelosi has said she is only waiting until the structure of the trial is agreed to, so she can decide who she wants for managers. 331dot (talk) 21:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources are saying she's holding onto them for now, and she could have delivered them before the recess but chose not to until the Senate does what she wants the Senate to do. Lots of language like "refusing," "sitting on," "holding up," etc. I don't think it's in contention that she's withholding the articles until her demands are met. Architeuthidæ (talk) 21:58, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — Architeuthidæ (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If a federal official commits a crime or otherwise acts improperly, the House of Representatives may impeach—formally charge—that official. https://www.senate.gov/reference/Index/Impeachment.htm
 * The legal meaning of “formally charged” is that charges have been filed.
 * Even though the house has voted to impeach, charges have not been filed. Hence Donald Trump has NOT been impeached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoMoBig (talk • contribs) 22:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Every reliable source in the United States disagrees with you, as does the House itself. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then it’s about time to overthink Wikipedia’s “reliable sources”, because the word impeachment literally means that charges are filed and it is a fact that charges have NOT been filed.MoMoBig (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So now there are two law professors arguing that impeachment has not occurred. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.html 99.203.17.28 (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not care about truth, per se, but the representation of truth in popular thought. Things can be clearly wrong, technically, but be considered "correct," by Wikipedia standards of reliable sources. Wikipedia editing is more of a theological discussion, than a scientific one, so don't start talking about technicalities and truths. Talk about what reliable sources think, and adjust weight accordingly. Hey, it is why your middle school teacher told you not to use Wikipedia as a source. 2601:982:4200:8C80:81BD:612A:6457:BF48 (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — 2601:982:4200:8C80:81BD:612A:6457:BF48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * What on Earth are you even talking about? Take that line of reasoning to ANY non-entertainment/media-focused article and see how long your edits last before being reverted. I don't know where you're getting this from, but truth has always been a major concern of Wikipedia. Of course an online encyclopedia mostly written by hobbyists isn't always going to be perfectly accurate, but if a source is wrong about something that will generally be noted. If something is contentious or in a grey area that will also generally be noted. The idea that sources should be cited just because they're considered reliable regardless of truth is an absolute and utter appeal to authority. 51.37.13.189 (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. Sadly, there is no court/legal precedent regarding it. There does seem disagreement among legal scholars so whether or not that's the case seems be hard to say. However, the longer the articles are delayed the fact of this question does become more important. So the most factual statement would be the articles of impeachment have formally been approved, and the rest of the process is in progress or pending. It's not a far fetched idea though like presidents instead of vetoing a bill have waited to sign or veto it leaving it limbo. You also have things like the 27th amendment; it's certainly possible to delay or put things in limbo by not following through processes.--50.37.100.51 (talk) 03:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — 50.37.100.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * WP:WINRS "Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues." Works as predicted....71.136.189.245 (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am quite aware of that fact about Wikipedia. I don't see why that's a good reason to not care about facts. I merely was commenting this is an interesting question, and legal scholars are divided on it's answer. There also is the fact this has not happened in past impeachments, and depending on how long they are withheld becomes more important. The most extreme case would be let's say they are withheld indefinitely. That question would certainly need to be answered then. The longer the time frame the more relevant a factual answer becomes. However, I doubt such an extreme would happen so it's merely an interesting question as I have stated earlier. That probably will become moot once sent to the senate. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — 50.37.100.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * It's really splitting hairs to say it's not an official impeachment until the bill is transmitted to the Senate. When Pelosi pounded the gavel, the impeachment was official. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Someone in SoCal Area (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it really is not splitting hairs in the sense of "No ifs, ands, or buts about it," sort of fashion. It is in the sense of public discourse, but not in a technical sense. The house wrote the charges, voted to submit the charges, and... may never actually file the charges. If one never file the charges, how can another be guilty of something never submitted to trial? This isn't even a partisan thing, it is a basic logic of how our laws work thing. If I had the reckon, a supreme court judgement would probably agree with the idea of, legally, technically, impeachment hasn't occurred until charges are filed, and submitted. None of this matters for this article though. They will almost assuredly be submitted in Q1 2020, and in public eye, and public discourse, impeachment has 99.9% already happened. All left now, is a rubber stamp. 2601:982:4200:8C80:81BD:612A:6457:BF48 (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — 2601:982:4200:8C80:81BD:612A:6457:BF48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * If the impeachment was official when Pelosi pounded the gavel, then the Senate can proceed immediately, can it not? The question is, can the Senate proceed or not?  If it can proceed, then Pelosi is doing nothing at all by "withholding" the articles from the Senate.  If it cannot, then impeachment is not official.  I submit, however, that in normal trial procedure, the court trying someone without actually having been presented with charges would be a galactical gross abuse of state power, and the prosecution deciding to try a suspect but never actually informing the court would be 1) an equally large abuse of power or 2) absolutely nothing at all, depending on whether or not the suspect is being held pending charges.  In either case, you have to actually inform the court you intend to try someone before anything becomes official.  So with impeachment. Sonar1313 (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's doubtful that the courts would rule on when impeachment is technically valid. In Nixon v. United States(about Walter Nixon, not Richard), SCOTUS ruled that how the Senate conducts an impeachment trial is a political question that the courts cannot resolve, since the Senate has the "sole power to try impeachments".  Since the House has the "sole power of impeachment", the courts would likely also determine that how the House conducts an impeachment is not for them to decide. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Like we can only speculate what the courts would say. Again I think this merely an interesting question. The only reason I see this ever getting to a court though is if it's held indefinitely. The courts could easily defer the decision to house rules comittee since the house has the power of impeachment. However, the question still is "does an incomplete process count as impeachment". However, it is highly unlikely the articles get held indefinitely. Nonetheless, the argument of voting to impeach and never formally telling anyone or continuing the process afterwards does appear to have some merit. Broadcast television and such is not a formal statement of the house. Formalities, are important in government. For example the house can't even introduce a bill unless its physically been placed in the hopper in the house. So let's say for some reason the house voted on a bill that was never placed in that hopper. That bill was never formally introduced, and would need to be voted on again. The reason I bring this up is you see a lot these corner cases of formalities have been figured out in the senate and house for routine things like bills. Contrastingly, impeachment is anything but routine. So corner cases/formalities have not been worked out. Henceforth, why I find it interesting. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — 50.37.100.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * By the thinking above on impeachment not having taken place, how do we account for Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Impeachment of Bill Clinton? History tells us both these men were impeached.  — Maile  (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well in both those cases the articles where forwarded to the senate. The fact they have been withheld here is unprecedented. This has lead to questions regarding the formalities of impeachment, but there is disagreement among legal scholars. However, unless they are withheld indefinitely or till trump has left office the question is merely about the formal process. It still is an interesting question, but unless something even less likely and unprecedented happens the answer is kinda moot. As it's a pretty much a forgone conclusion they will be sent to the senate and it is just matter of when. So you could say impeached in practice, but whether or formally is under contention. However, it's just conjecture unless either the courts or the house rules committee clarifies the formal requirements. --50.37.100.51 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC) — 50.37.100.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I agree that Trump (technically) has not yet been impeached. Article I section 2 clause 5 of the U.S. constitution states “ The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” As the articles are still in the hands of the House, and not the senate (yet) technically speaking, Trump may not be impeached (yet). There should be a clause in the article stating the debate as to whether or not he has been impeached such as “some legal scholars currently hold the belief that Trump is not officially impeached until the charges are officially brought to the Senate. This belief is not held by most mainstream media outlets, as the impeachment dates for previous presidents are listed as the day of the vote to impeach so the technicalities of Trump’s impeachment are unclear” Jacket2018 (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If it says the House has "sole power", they have sole power. The Senate is not involved in the impeachment charges. Senate is responsible for the trial and potentionally subsequent removal. No where in the Constitution does it state that the House must submit articles to the Senate in order for the official to be "impeached". If you want to argue the "formally charge" argument, the formal charges are in House Resolution 755, under "RESOLUTION". The charges were created, and voted on. This formally charges him. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment has not yet occurred. The order of events necessary for Impeachment is as follows: The House votes on Articles of Impeachment. A simple majority of votes is for Impeachment. The House speaker announces the vote result and adoption of the Articles of Impeachment. The House nominates people to legally represent itself for the Impeachment trial in the Senate. The House sends the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate and informs the Senate who its legal representatives are. The Senate opens the trial by having the House' legal representatives stand up and announce that, "The House impeaches person X for Articles of Impeachment XYZ." Xenagoras (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Impeachment has occured. Impeachment is the sole power and responsibility of the House, the Senate does not participate in the impeachment. The Senate participates in the Trial (comes after impeachment), which is the trying of the articles of impeachment to see if the regarded official should be removed. Impeachment is the charge. If you can point me to a reliable source that states that the House must submit articles to the Senate for a proper impeachment, please inform me of them. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Senate does not participate? Maybe you missed where the Constitution says "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." Article I, Section 3, Clause 6.Rotaryenginepete (talk) 00:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is trying. The judgement of the impeachment. THe House does impeachment. Senate does trial. They are seperate but related. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's very easy to understand with a little common sense. Just compare the impeachment to any other trial at a court of law. Regarding Impeachment, the House of Representatives is equivalent to the body of public prosecutors. It conducts an investigation (the Impeachment hearing) to find facts as basis to decide if there is an offense to be prosecuted and it writes the bill of indictment (the Articles of Impeachment) and it decides whether or not to indict (the House vote on December 18). The House speaker is the equivalent of the attorney general. In agreement with the House members, the speaker nominates a couple of federal prosecutors (Impeachment managers) to represent the body of public prosecutors (the House) during the trial in the court (the Senate). The Impeachment managers deliver the bill of indictment (the Articles of Impeachment) to the court (the Senate). The court (represented by the Senate leader) accepts the bill of indictment and notifies the Impeachment managers at what date and time the trial can begin. The Senate leader also notifies the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the planned date and time of the trial. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court acts as chief judge of the Impeachment trial and the Senators act as jury. The trial begins when the Sergeant at Arms in the Senate proclaims, "All persons are commanded to keep silence, on pain of imprisonment, while the House of Representatives is exhibiting to the Senate of the United States articles of impeachment against -- -- "; after which the articles shall be exhibited. The full details of the Impeachment procedure are described in PROCEDURE AND GUIDELINES FOR IMPEACHMENT TRIALS IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE See also, and  Having now understood the Impeachment as a trial at a court of law and which roles the various actors have to fulfill, we can read how arraignment works: Under the United States Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, " arraignment shall [...] [consist of an] open [...] reading [of] the indictment [...] to the defendant [...] and call[] on him to plead thereto. He/she shall be given a copy of the indictment [...] before he/she is called upon to plead." Xenagoras (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The charges are the impeachment. The trial is the judging to see if the impeachment is enough to remove the official from office. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Impeachment is indeed at the sole power and responsibility of the House, and they fulfill this responsibility by presenting articles of impeachment to the relevant authority for trial. They have not yet presented these articles and therefore impeachment has not yet occurred. It's exactly the same as indictment: an indictment is a document presented by a qualified entity to the relevant authority, which becomes actionable on that presentation. In more general terms, a vote in favor of a course of action does not equate to performance of that action: we can vote on where to have lunch, but we have not yet eaten. The fact that so many "reliable sources" do not or pretend not to understand this perhaps obscure but certainly very simple legal or linguistic point throws into question the very idea of "reliability." 123.193.136.104 (talk) 03:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They were presented. They were presented to the House, and the House voted YES; "These charges are valid and do constitute an impeachment. We vote yes, as a body, because this body finds these charges to be correct and thus we have now impeached him", basically. As soon as the House voted Yes on those articles, those articles became the impeachment charges. As impeachment is the sole power of the House, the [sic] "presenting the article of impeachment to the relevant authority for trial" was the House dems presenting the articles to the full House, for a vote. WhoAteMyButter (talk) 04:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is definitely wrong, because the arraignment = exhibition of the bill of indictment (Articles of Impeachment) occurs in court (the Senate). Xenagoras (talk) 13:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in the article that states this information. I think the article should at least state that according to the legal opinions of whatever the legal experts are, Trump isn't actually impeached until the articles are delivered to the Senate.  In this case the House is like the prosecutor, and the Senate is like a court.  Impeachment is the formal charge of a crime.  This has to occur in a court or in this case the Senate. While the House has voted to make the charge, they haven't actually made the charge until they give it to the Senate, the court in this case. Some of the press articles mentioned above give some good incite into this view.Sf46 (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Delay sending articles
Someone had posted to WP:ERRORS whether it is accurate to say Trump "is impeached" versus the House "voted to impeach". While they cited an editorial, which is generally not considered a reliable source (WP:RSEDITORIAL), this New York Times article talks about the debate. I'll leave it to others whether mention is warranted in this article per WP:DUE or not.—Bagumba (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you read the talk page, Bagumba. Long and short of it: this has been discussed ad nauseum, and is already settled. Thank you for brining this to our attention, though. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * My post was FYI; I did skim it before hand. It was otherwise TLDR, the orginal headings probably didn't represent where each conversation apparently went, and I didn't see any summarizing points. Not a complaints from me, that's just how things work. Anyways, I'm just the messenger. Happy New Year.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point, Bagumba. Donald Trump has not been impeached, and the editors running the "In the news" section on the home page are making utter fools of themselves and further reinforcing the unreliability of Wikipedia as a source of information.  Impeachment is not complete until the articles are transmitted to the United States Senate, and as of the posting of this comment, that has not yet happened, and for all we know, may never happen. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)T @ 19:27, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above about this topic. We summarize what independent reliable sources state, and they all state he has been impeached.  Opinions that it's not "official" until the paper is walked across the capitol building and placed in Mitch McConnell's hand are just that- opinions. 331dot (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So prosecutor saying they are going to prosecute someone, but never files the paperwork the court counts as being prosecuted to you? A lot prosecutors will say they have charger pending or prosecution is pending in that case. Although the only problem I see is the date of impeachment of this with the article. --50.37.216.119 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2019 (UTC)i — 50.37.216.119 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

They are not prosecutors until the terms of the trial are agreed to, and are technically referred to in that instance as "case managers". Besides, a trial for which several of the designated jurors have already indicated they are not impartial (which is clearly the stance of McConnell and several of his Republican colleagues) would be the actual sham part of this process. I get tired of having to repeat this. Here's a suggestion: before bringing up invalid arguments under any subject on this talk page or any others, why don't you make the effort to ensure your arguments have not already been addressed elsewhere? The purpose and intent of further discussion here is to dialogue about information which is new to the discussion, and if that is not the case, bringing up something repeatedly under several different discussions is essentially pointless. Also, if anyone involved in the discussion bothered to actually do the research before bringing up matters for discussion, it would cut out a lot of the need to repeatedly make the same points under multiple topics. Of course, that's nothing more and nothing less than my own opinion, based on my understanding of the way such discussions should work here on Wikipedia, which is only based on experience of around a dozen years of participating in such discussions as an editor here, so you can take or leave anything I or anyone else says as you prefer to do so. And it is also the right of anyone who cares to do so to waste time by bringing up the same arguments across multiple discussions on any talk page here on which they choose to do so. But if their concerns are addressed elsewhere on such pages, or similar pages here, there is always a point where such discussions become pointlessly rehashed ad nauseum, which is not, IMHO, a good usage of time. --Jgstokes (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant prosecutor as kinda of analogy. Although you could say the house functions like a grand jury. --50.37.216.119 (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2019 (UTC) — 50.37.216.119 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Impeachment trial of Donald Trump
I converted this third article on the subject to a redirect here. Rmhermen (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Being this is the third impeachment of a US President, this is clearly notable and historic. Sources have already stated its significance and will be massively expanded in the upcoming months. <b style="color: DarkSlateGray;">Valoem</b> <b style="color: blue;">talk</b> <b style="color: Green;">contrib</b> 05:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This is probably an unpopular opinion, but I was wondering if perhaps the content of this article should be merged back into the inquiry article which would then assume the "Impeachment of Donald Trump" title, with the Senate trial and the lead-up to it then receiving its own page because the Senate trial is a separate process from impeachment, which is a House process. They "try" the impeachment, but the Senate's actions are not part of impeachment. Master of Time   ( talk ) 08:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The inquiry article was too damn long. It needed some pruning, which is why we need the two new articlesArglebargle79 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you really need to say damn every time you go on record opposing a merge? I'm allowed to disagree. And if you consider my basic argument, the material specific to the impeachment 'vote' is actually quite limited. Just look at this article as it is right now, disregarding the 70 KB. The actual impeachment section (and if you want, polls section) is actually quite short. My thinking is that this article and the inquiry material should all be together as "Impeachment of Donald Trump," with a separate trial article for the second phase of the process (which is where I would expect most of the growth + added text to occur). Down the line, if necessary, future commentary on Trump's impeachment that doesn't relate to the Senate trial or anything else can have (a) separate fork(s). Master of Time   ( talk ) 12:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't but it's necessary here. The question of limiting the articles to Ukraine was a contentious one and needs to be addressed. The protests and reactions need a place to go as well.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:39, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose No. As I have stated ad nauseum, there is a need for an "index page" (this one) and a separate trial page, as there is going to be plenty of information and drama surrounding it now that you-know-who has actually been impeached and the focus of American politics is the Senate trial. As to Andy Johnson and Clinton, their trials took place before the invention of Wikipedia, and Clinton's scandal has at least three or four articles. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That article is a product of WP:RECENTISM, as we don't have such an article for Andrew Johnson or Bill Clinton. GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The Andy Johnson article is almost all about the trial. There were two investigations in 1867 that weren't even mentioned, including one that went all the way to the floor and lost. The fact that they impeached first in 1868 and wrote the articles later is barely even mentioned there. Again look at the difference between the 2004 Republican Convention article and the 1956 one. the latter is barely a stub, and the other is rather long and detailed. Why? Wikipedia didn't exist in 1956. It's the same here. Doing a really good job on the AJ impeachment would require tons of original research, or reading lots of really old books. The Clinton impeachment was mostly an afterthought that backfired. No one wanted Clinton impeached by the time he was...Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I oppose merging Impeachment trial of Donald Trump into Impeachment of Donald Trump. There will be enough notable content for at least three articles (Parent article: "Impeachment of Donald Trump" which provides summary-style synopses of these two detail-level articles: "Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump" and "Impeachment trial of Donald Trump"). I disagree with some of Arglebargle79's historical analysis, particularly about the Clinton impeachment.  I wouldn't oppose the creation of a well-written article titled "Impeachment inquiry against Bill Clinton" (I would appreciate reading it, and might even be convinced to write it), and I believe the only reason why we don't have one is because Wikipedia didn't exist in 1998.  I strongly agree with the core insight Arglebargle79 provides here in the comparison of the 1956 Republican Convention and the 2004 Republican Convention.  -- RobLa (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely support This third article was never discussed, should not have been created, and there is no reason for it. The title should be made into a redirect unless and until consensus is reached to have THREE-for-heavens-sake separate articles on the impeachment, against all precedent and against all logic. And folks, please stop claiming that "Clinton's impeachment has multiple articles," that is simply false. Clinton's impeachment has one article about the impeachment, plus supporting articles about the scandal. Trump's article should also have one article about the impeachment, plus supporting articles about the scandal (see Trump-Ukraine scandal). --MelanieN alt (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for now: I think it is justified to have a separate article about the trial, but not until the trial has actually started. 00:42, 20 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk • contribs)
 * Support for now per Nine hundred ninety-nine. Once the trial is actually going to start, we should change the redirect into an actual article. Seems obvious enough. Kaldari (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Three is just excessive, and quite unnecessary, only further complicating matters for readers who want to be informed on the subject. --MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for now, for reasons explained just above. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * '''Oppose 2600:1702:2340:9470:8C07:C8D3:185B:B55C (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose, these articles continue to balloon in size unnecessarily. I'm uncertain why we're insisting on having one or two gigantic articles instead of smaller articles that can really tackle the details of each step. I note that an editor involved in this discussion has unilaterally decided the discussion here constituted "consensus" and merged it again... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)