Talk:Impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden

Someone Who isn't Biased For/Against Biden Says His Opinion.
I Am Not Biased Against/For Joe Biden And I Can Say That This Inquiry is based on Truth. I don't enjoy the fact they keep saying "there's no evidence!!" Like. There Is. Do I think he Should/Will be Convicted. Well Assuming It Goes to The Senate. I Don't Think Biden Will be Convicted. Is There No Evidence for An Impeachment? No. There is Enough for An Impeachment. But Hey. Everyone Has Their Opinions. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Orange Anomaly. This is not the place for personal political takes. See WP:Soapbox SecretName101 (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So My Personal Unbiased Opinion is Propaganda? What Has the United States Become. At Least According to you. And I'm Not Trying to Create A Warzone Either. Please Respect My Opinion and I will do the same with you. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I also Read all the "No Soapbox or Self Promotion" Things. I didn't Violate Any. The Closest was the "don't have a comment to become obsolete" one. But How would It become Obsolete if it was My Opinion? Orange Anomaly. (talk) 01:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring
I intend to do more work on this article today. Thank you for the work you've done so far. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 19:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem. busy today, but felt I'd do some work to set this on track to cover the basics SecretName101 (talk) 21:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

2020 DOJ Department of Legal Counsel opinion
I'm sure some people are going to question whether the 2020 DOJ Department of Legal Counsel opinion (that the DOJ does not recognize something as a legitimate impeachment inquiry unless it has been authorized by a vote of the House) means that we should not consider this action to be an impeachment inquiry yet.

I'm going to say no. We still should consider this an impeachment inquiry.

Obviously, I'm not the ultimate authority here, and fellow editors are free to bring counter-points.

But the DOJ is not a court with jurisdiction. It does not rule on congressional actions. Its opinions more or less instruct how the Executive branch conducts itself. But the House is (obviously) in the legislative branch. Its opinions can inform Congress, and can be persuasive authority in judiciary rulings, but they do not bind the House the way a ruling in a court with jurisdiction would.

Additionally, DOJ opinion runs counter both to most experts' opinions (see some of the citations at Impeachment inquiry in the United States. It also runs counter to common sense: an impeachment inquiry is an abstract construct, not clearly defined by law. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. If it acts like an impeachment inquiry, and is being recognized like one, odds are it is one. SecretName101 (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * the OLC opinion is about the White House, not Congress. it affords the WH to assert, for example, executive privilege, with a substantial legal basis to back it up in court. soibangla (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Soibangla Yes, largely my understanding as well. It instructs the executive branch (White House, etc.), but has no impact yet over the House unless a court with jurisdiction is persuaded to agree in a holding. SecretName101 (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Your claims are valid but I believe the article is missing an important point.
 * Recognizing this as an "impeachment inquiry" is valid but the article should include the important information that without a vote, the executive branches of the US Government are not bound to comply with the inquiry. The same legal basis that the OLC opinion affords the WH to assert executive privilege, also asserts the executive branches not supporting impeachment inquiries unless they are voted.
 * As the DOJ is bound to the guidance of OLC opinion on not indicting a sitting president, all other executive branches are bound by the same guidance and the current guidance is as you stated "that the DOJ does not recognize something as a legitimate impeachment inquiry unless it has been authorized by a vote of the House".
 * Without this vote, none of the executive branches need to support the inquiry. It should be noted that in reference to the Trump impeachment inquiry, various branches complied after a vote was held.
 * The "validation" or "creditability" of this impeachment inquery could be percieved as considerably higher without the above information being included (my opinion, not sure if its a consensus).
 * I apologize, I have not edited an article or participated in 'Talk' before and I may not know the protocol. I am only here because I was looking for information in wikipedia on "2020 DOJ Department of Legal Counsel opinion" and this Talk page is all I found. My thoughts are, if I was looking for it in relation to the current impeachment inquiry, then others may be looking for the same information. MaxxWagner (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * See "Legal standing" in article soibangla (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I apologize, disregard my entire reply.
 * In an entirely unrelated matter, is it protocol to place 'Legal Standing' summaries or content at the very end of the article? I am asking only because I missed it since it was at the very end of the article. Had it been higher up, I wouldn't have wasted all our time. MaxxWagner (talk) 04:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't this article already exist?
See Efforts to impeach Joe Biden. My concern is that this may violate WP:CFORK. Wikipedia is not news, nor is it a crystal ball. Would someone mind elaborating why this doesn't belong in the "Efforts.." article? DN (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Any representative can choose to file an article of impeachment against Biden. This is an official inquiry that will likely see developments. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really address the issues being raised here, but thanks. DN (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What I said absolutely addresses what you said. An impeachment inquiry is not a static and trivial event, so merging it with the efforts article would be improper. Everything in this article is sourced properly. If you believe it's a crystal ball, edit it. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Where/when/how did you absolutely address why Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden isn't a content fork from Efforts to impeach Joe Biden?
 * I didn't bring up WP:MERGE, but since you mentioned it, please explain why merging would be improper in this case?
 * Isn't the majority of this article already covered, or at least within the scope, of the original article, Efforts to impeach Joe Biden?
 * You may note that I never claimed anything here was improperly sourced. Would you happen to know how many of the same sources used to create this article are already in the " Efforts.." main article?
 * What new evidence or events warranted the inquiry? Anything notable in that regard? See WP:N. It seems like Republicans have been talking about impeaching Biden for years, even before the 2020 election. However, as recent as July 2023, NYT reported "Republicans are deeply divided over impeaching President Biden."
 * Is an " impeachment inquiry" generally worthy of a stand-alone article? You will excuse me if I find it premature to operate under the assumption this will turn into a formal impeachment. Regardless of that, the issue would then be that formal impeachment proceedings are not what this article is currently about. Consider WP:10YT. BTW, if there were a formal impeachment proceeding I would agree that it would warrant it's own article, but again, that's not what this article is about. So, you'll have to forgive me if I don't feel like holding my breath. Republicans didn't seem to have the floor votes for impeachment, and there are other issues, not to mention that “House Republicans have been investigating the President for 9 months, and still have no evidence of wrongdoing.”...
 * For now, I am re-adding the Current Event tag you removed, as it encourages discussion on this topic, which is in part why I am here. I suggest we leave it until there is consensus to remove it, or we can request an WP:RfC ...Cheers. DN (talk) 05:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will note that impeachment inquiries into U.S. presidents are historically rare. Biden included, only 5 out of 46 presidents have been subjected to such inquiries. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * According to POLITICO, "In 2020, the Justice Department formally declared that impeachment inquiries by the House are invalid unless the chamber takes formal votes to authorize them."...Was there a formal authorization vote for this inquiry? Cheers. DN (talk) 07:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Darknipples As I noted in an earlier discussion section here, the DOJ is not an entity that has binding instructions/rulings on Congress. Its Office of Legal Counsel only instructs the activities of the executive branch. Meaning that this is binding on on how the Executive Branch is supposed to treat this inquiry. It however, is not a court decision, and does not have any impact on the congressional legitimacy of the inquiry. If you see impeachment inquiry in the United States, there is large expert support that votes are unneeded in order to launch impeachment inquiries. SecretName101 (talk) 13:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @SecretName101 I suppose time will tell, and in this case, it remains questionable as to whether or not this article exemplifies a content fork issue. DN (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * While I do assume good faith in your efforts here, if you are not willing discuss these questions and concerns, that leaves me with limited options. I would prefer to try and understand why you believe this does not constitute a possible WP:CFORK issue before taking it to a different venue for continued discussion. DN (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead of assuming that I'm ignoring you, assume that I'm busy and don't have time to answer every message I receive, particularly when I'm being grilled.
 * In order:
 * This is an official inquiry that will likely see developments.
 * The majority of this article does not cover previous efforts to impeach Biden; they are otherwise irrelevant save only for context.
 * See my second answer.
 * This is not a relevant question. If you're inquisitive, the reason is both because of far-right members of Congress and the House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family.
 * This article has several dozen references specifically about the inquiry. You would be hard pressed to make the case that it's not a notable event. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I never assumed anything negative, I just wanted to be forthcoming and honest about these possible issues. You shouldn't stress over this article, or any article for that matter. If anything, it would probably be more productive to spend time building consensus. That said, your answers seem to be little more than a repeat of your previous response., what do you think? Is there a possible WP:CFORK concern here as this article relates to Efforts to impeach Joe Biden, in your opinion? Cheers. DN (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Title of the impeachment inquiry section
Do you want to discuss what the section title should be? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the different components/stages of the inquiry will get their own sections. Hence why what has happened up to now should be titled as the launch SecretName101 (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of "launch". Perhaps "beginning" would work better? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing Reese12345678910
@Reese12345678910 Stop inserting personal commentary. Many sources are cited to assert the claim you keep inserting inappropriate commentary on. The article Efforts to impeach Joe Biden in fact show numerous explicit instances in which prominent Republicans outright stated that the viewed a potential impeachment of Biden as being an act of retribution for the impeachments of Trump. The observation that some notable Republicans indicated that impeachment of Biden would be retribution for those of Trump is simply a fact: because they did publicly say that. SecretName101 (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

this article covers a highly contentious topic
as such, I believe it behooves us all to strictly adhere to the rules to avoid unnecessary conflicts

, rather than revert my edit, it would have been better to follow BRD to discuss here rather than initiate an edit war soibangla (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, here are the allegations from McCarthy that you brought up based on the CNN source that I believe have conflicts with how they are described in other sources, namely a similar WaPo article.
 * -He stated that Biden "did lie to the American people about his own knowledge of his family's foreign business dealings," but there is no public evidence that his occasional interactions with Hunter Biden's business partners led to him getting substantively involved in his son's financial arrangements.
 * The CNN article itself says "Joe Biden’s unequivocal denials of any business-related contact with his son have been undercut over time." and offers a qualifier on "public evidence" that may impact how this statement is further interpreted beyond the plain language itself. The WaPo analysis also admits the truth of the claim on its face, and states that further interpretation depends on "subjectivity here that depends on how one interprets claims from Biden." It ends with a question to the reader: "To the broader point, would such misrepresentations warrant impeachment?" There is also an Axios article that largely reinforces the truth of McCarthy's accusation. There are obviously a lot of varying interpretations on this which, as WaPo describes, is effectively subjective commentary beyond the plain truth of McCarthy's statements.


 * -He alleged "Biden used his official office to coordinate with Hunter Biden's business partners about Hunter's role in Burisma," though there is no public evidence of that.
 * The CNN article says there is no public evidence for this at all, and goes into a top-level overview on the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory. The WaPo article says this appears to refer to a "2015 email exchange between a business associate of Hunter Biden’s and a communications staffer with the Obama administration in which they shared statements that were being offered to the news media in response to questions about Hunter Biden’s Burisma work." It concludes with a suggestion that it is not that significant; but that is far from "no evidence." KiharaNoukan (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @soibangla
 * I see I also removed a portion that dealt with "the president joined on multiple phone calls and had multiple interactions." This is largely supported in both articles, I restored this section. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Repeated removal of cited material without consensus
User, it's well past time to take this to talk... - -  DN (talk) 01:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * , if anything, "unproven" is an understatement. soibangla (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

This makes 4 reverts....Oh, and you have decided remove this entire talk page section.... DN (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

, I appreciate your edit, but could you and or please point out to me where, and in which source, it says "misleading"? Was it somewhere in the WaPo source? The CNN citation just seems to mention it as "unproven" in the first sentence...Cheers. DN (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * How about we just get rid of it. The Washington Post and CNN are the farthest away from reliable sources and are very partisan, shouldn't be used on a factual website like Wikipedia right? There called fake news for a reason and have low TV ratings lol. Also editing a short little phrase that doesn't fit your guys left winged propaganda agenda is considered vandalism, jeez that's soft and very laughable. Let's actually get some real trustworthy sources on here Rr1290 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What you're saying is exactly the opposite of how we work here and what sources we consider RS. You're at the wrong place. Go to Conservapedia. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So you really think that only left winged sources are reliable? I thought Wikipedia was somewhere to go to get factual information. Those articles put spin on their stories and do not make them 100 percent reliable. I think we need to relook at our RS and get ones that are factual and tell the story from both sides. Rr1290 (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I just wrote on your talk page: Don't ever attack other editors for their political positions: "Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions." We document what RS say. You seem to be trying to right great wrongs and wage a political battle here. Take that attitude somewhere else. You are clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia but instead are trying to bend it toward your own political persuasion. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Line in need of rephrasing
"some Republican members who have raised concerns about the available evidence support an impeachment inquiry to allow for a complete evidentiary record"

what does this mean? Probably should be rephrased. If someone like me who reads up on this sort of things is confused after several reads, this sentence is probably butchered. SecretName101 (talk) 22:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Changed to "some Republican members who have raised concerns about the lack of available evidence still support holding an impeachment inquiry in order to allow for a complete evidentiary record" SecretName101 (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)


 * It depends on what the source says. It would also help if you pointed out where this is in the article, section name etc... DN (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked at what the cited sources that mentioned the lawmakers named said in order to decode what was meant. SecretName101 (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That rephrasing is fine, it basically encapsulates members who have been noted by RS to have had issues with the available evidence (or lack thereof), but still support the impeachment inquiry nonetheless.
 * From WaPo
 * "Now we’re getting into members who, despite raising concerns about the lack of evidence against Biden, are supporting the inquiry," under which they list Dusty Johnson and French Hill.
 * @SecretName101 I see you removed Mitt Romney from that category, while he isn't cited in the WaPo article, he is in the Hill article
 * "Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who voted twice to convict Trump of impeachment charges, noted that House Republicans have yet to put forth a specific allegation against Biden.
 * “There hasn’t been any allegation yet, any conduct which reaches the constitutional standard for impeachment,” he said.
 * Romney said he has not yet seen “any evidence of that nature” emerge from the House committees’ investigations of Biden or from their oversight of the Internal Revenue Service’s or the Department of Justice’s investigations in Biden’s family business dealings.
 * But the Utah senator said that millions of dollars in income that Hunter Biden collected by trading on his last name does raise awkward questions for the president.
 * “Clearly, the fact that Hunter Biden was running around, if you will, shaking people down by virtue of his relationship with his father opens a question that President Biden could have avoided had he done a better job circumscribing the conduct of his son,” Romney said.
 * Even so, Romney expressed reservations about launching a formal impeachment inquiry without setting forth a clear allegation of criminal activity, improper behavior or incompetence.
 * “You need to explain to the American people why it is you think an inquiry of that nature is called for and to suggest a possible wrongdoing that would justify investigation. That hasn’t happened yet,” he said."
 * While he is clearly critical about the evidence and other problems with the inquiry and impeachment in general, he ultimately supports the inquiry, so I think he belongs in that category. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed Romney because the articles cited did not have him actually supporting the impeachment inquiry. All it had him say is that there are question. We should not speculate that he supports it unless we have a source in which he actually makes that clear. SecretName101 (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree it is a bit vague in the Hill article, but would you be fine re-adding it with the Deseret News article that affirms he supports it?
 * "Utah’s Republican senators, Mike Lee and Mitt Romney, expressed support for the House impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden Tuesday." KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and that source was not cited when I removed Romney's name from a section attributing a specific view not supported by provided sources.
 * I have since revised the article incorporating that source SecretName101 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure if this has already been revised, but this is an instance where the relative clause is muddled between the subject and the infinitive phrase. Extraposition from noun phrase to satisfy end-weight or a comma may work here without the use of "still". Some Republican members support an impeachment inquiry to allow for a complete evidentiary record who have raised concerns about the available evidence is a good start. If I were to completely revise this sentence, I would go with Notwithstanding concerns about available evidence, some Republican members support an impeachment inquiry to allow for a complete evidentiary record as an initial draft, perhaps replacing notwithstanding with In spite of or Despite, the former being my preference. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:26, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Investigation vs Investigations
@SecretName101 I linked the Weiss special counsel investigation page because the article does cover the earlier 2018-originating investigation on money laundering (later tax charges) that led up to the current Special Council investigation on taxes + guns + potential future charges related to his work for foreign entities.

For naming purposes of investigation vs investigations, I guess it depends on whether or not the investigations are separate when it evolves into a special council investigation that covers broader topics. I'm not aware of another Hunter Biden federal investigation besides these/this that is relevant to the article. I was able to find a WaPo article that labels the broad Hunter Biden DOJ+FBI+IRS investigation dating back to 2018 as just one investigation. KiharaNoukan (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I created the Weiss special counsel investigation article and wrote a fair amount of it. As far as I know, it's one investigation. See Smith special counsel investigation. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"No evidence"
While I agree it is fair to say (particularly with the sources provided) that there is a lack of any significant evidence, or any proof, is saying that there is (absolutely) no evidence an accurate characterization?

Remember: evidence and proof are two different things.

For instance: If witnesses saw the perpetrator of a crime drive a green car, defendant A's ownership of a green car could be evidence but not proof of their involvement.

Should we consider being more precise with how we word this? The absolutism seems inaccurate. There may even be no good evidence, but to say no evidence (of any kind) is perhaps too strong of wording. I personally think we should add a modifier like "no significant evidence" instead of saying just "no evidence". SecretName101 (talk) 23:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)


 * To be fair, the only cited article post-inquiry that supports the strict "no evidence" statement is the TNR one. I think it would be beneficial to cover more ground with sources. I separated direct from "concrete/conclusive/etc." evidence because IMO it's clear that it means the same thing as "no evidence" in the context of the current text, which says no evidence has been linked to Joe Biden himself with regards to supposed wrongdoing. I linked it separately in case anyone does think otherwise.
 * A list of post-inquiry sources I've found:
 * (10) General "no evidence": TNR Reuters Axios Bloomberg VOA WSJ NYT Politifact NBC Forbes
 * (8) General "no evidence" for business dealings/personal gain at least: NPR AP LA Times NY Magazine Politico Christian Science Monitor The Guardian The Hill
 * (2) "No direct evidence": CNN Washington Post
 * (3) "No evidence" used alongside "no concrete/substantial evidence": BBC Boston Globe Vox
 * (4) "No significant/conclusive/hard/substantial evidence": PBS Newshour Time AP/Chicago Tribune ABC
 * The majority of the sources focus on using an unqualified descriptor of "no evidence" to at least cover at least the main allegations of personal gain from Hunter's business dealings, while a plurality covers allegations in general. A substantial minority do attach substantive qualifications, although from how I read the articles, they all seem interchangeable with how the articles using "no evidence" describe the allegations (Not much on Biden himself, nothing saying he is a wrongdoer, but he has spoken with son's business partners on at least some occasions), and some of them do in fact use unqualified variants of "no evidence" themselves. I've yet to find a source that states that at least some evidence directly links to wrongdoing by Biden.
 * From reading the articles, I would say the existing descriptor of no evidence of wrongdoing by the president" largely covers the bases of what most of the RS, if not all, have to say about the evidence available, beyond the verbatim terminology that they use. The only thing I might suggest is something like "no direct evidence" or "no evidence directly linked to misconduct by Biden" to potentially clarify without going into WP:OR. KiharaNoukan (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There remains no evidence of personal gain or influence peddling, and the Shokin allegation has been shown to be false. Those are the big three allegations. I think we need to be strictly faithful to sources without qualifiers, consistent with what Comer investigation of Biden family and Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory say, and avoid the sort of blurring of lines that Comer et al. persist with in their public statements on Hannity and Twitter, where they are free to claim whatever they like to "flood the zone with shit," as Bannon says. This sort of shit tends to permeate the whole matter such that even some good journalists are inclined to hedge by adding qualifiers to their reporting. soibangla (talk) 04:22, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't there also a difference between evidence and claims? McCarthy et al seem to be making uncorroborated claims there is evidence, which is why it's important that these claims are are described as such and attributed accordingly. I think WP:BLP might be helpful in this regard. DN (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, saying there are lots of wire transfers and SARs and claiming they are evidence of wrongdoing without actually presenting any docs is not evidence. soibangla (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the claims of fact have been verified by RS, most notably Joe Biden knowing about and interacting with Hunter's business associates. At a very technical level, like the Federal Rules of Evidence, this is "evidence" in the sense that it can be used to prove Biden knew about and interacted with Hunter's associates (and then combined with another piece of evidence that actually links to bribery or something to actually make a case). I think this is what @SecretName101 is alluding to.
 * However, for Wikipedia, WP:V supersedes this, and at a practical level, readers may not interpret "evidence" to mean something like this. To give a particularly relevant example, right after providing testimony confirming that VP Biden spoke to Hunter's business associates over the phone, Devon Archer was asked "whether he had any evidence of 'wrongdoing' by Joe Biden" to which he replied, "No, I'm not aware of any." KiharaNoukan (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have some problems with the Thompson and Kessler reporting. First, Joe said Hunter didn't make money in China, not from business deals in China. It seems these reporters don't attempt to even hint at that distinction. The allegations against Hunter are intended to suggest he was in bed with the Chinese communist party government, and so Joe was, too. Lots and lots of people and firms do business in China without any suggestion they're in bed with commies. It's not as if Hunter forged "a partnership with a major government-controlled company" like some other guy did.
 * Second, the Archer testimony shows they were first talking about a spring 2014 Cafe Milano dinner when "[Joe] had dinner," but the Cafe Milano dinner in question was in April 2015, which Archer said Pozharskyi of Burisma attended. Archer explained who was at the spring 2014 dinner but didn't say Pozharskyi was there, only at the April 2015 dinner, and he didn't say Joe had dinner in April 2015, which is consistent with other witnesses who said Joe just passed by briefly, chatted and shook some hands and left. These dinners were hosted by the head of some Greek-American association related to their annual meeting; he was a friend of Joe's for decades, so Joe came by to visit with his old buddy for his annual soirée, not to meet with Hunter's business associates. Hunter invited his business associates to create what Archer called the "illusion of access" to power. And perhaps Joe was introduced to Pozharskyi, but there's no evidence there was anything more to it, and thus no evidence Joe discussed Burisma with Pozharskyi, as some like to suggest. There were Kazakh Hunter business associates at the spring 2014 dinner, per Archer, but I don't see any issues have been raised about that. FWIW, I have attended many dinners with business associates that are purely social affairs with no business discussion. This is common. It's almost an unwritten rule that business is off-limits. soibangla (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Change the Name to "Impeachment Investigation Into Joe Biden."
As Of Now. It doesn't seem like it's a Inquiry rather than a Investigation. Remember. They are Trying to "Paint a Picture Of Corruption" With The Evidence They Find. I Personally Suggest To Change the Name or Separate It into Two Articles. But that's just me. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * from where I sit, reliable sources call it an inquiry, but I could sit somewhere else with sufficient persuasion soibangla (talk) 21:49, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Inquiry is the most common term used by American media, and is what the congressional leaders have also been using. WP:Common name dictates that "inquiry" would be preferred to "investigation" SecretName101 (talk) 20:48, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

James Biden
I recently created an article for James Biden. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Yet another spin off article instead of consolidating them at "Efforts to impeach Joe Biden" article?

 * CNN - Possible new impeachment inquiry from speaker Johnson
 * NBC Johnson thinks he has the votes
 * The Hill House GOP mulls Biden impeachment inquiry vote within next two weeks

So, just to clarify, are we going to have to create a new article every time there's a new inquiry? Asking for a friend...DN (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I want to say no. Cwater1 (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Usually there’s not more than one impeachment inquiry. Only president I know of who has had more than one inquiry process was Andrew Jackson. SecretName101 (talk) 07:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
Hello. After reading over this article, I have come to the conclusion that this article seems to be slightly biased against Donald Trump and Republicans attempting to impeach Biden. The language and words used seem to bring down and belittle the people attempting to impeach Biden. Whether or whether not I support an impeachment of Joe Biden, or whether or whether not anybody here supports an impeachment of Joe Biden, we should work to make this article as neutral as possible. I have added a neutrality warning in hopes of this being fixed. Antny08 (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)


 * , you're going to have to be more specific. What is an "attack" on those seeking to impeach Biden? What isn't neutral? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe "attack" was not the correct word. I will change that. But the wording that is used in this article, especially when speaking of Donald Trump and Republicans, is wording that is usually taken with a negative connotation. Antny08 (talk) 03:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This edit I would argue adds bias by removing specificity. You changed have expressed a desire to retaliate against the impeachments of Trump by impeaching Biden to have felt it is necessary to impeach Joe Biden, taking out why Republicans "feel it necessary" to do so. You also changed some wording on the Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory to make it seem that the allegations have merit, when they do not. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This makes it very difficult to AGF behind the banner. DN (talk) 06:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But to say that the Republicans wants to impeach Biden mainly because of the fact that they impeached Trump is clearly ridiculous and makes Republicans seem like little children. Also, the way the sentence was worded with the 'conspiracy theory' made Republicans look like they were idiots. Also, whether I agree with the 'conspiracy theory' or not, you cannot say that there is absolutely no merit to it. Governments are good at keep things secret, especially with big things like that. Antny08 (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says what sources say, based on editor consensus of WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. That particular allegation (conspiracy theory) was proven to be false, and yet it kept being repeated and was referred to in reliable sources as such. As far as the efforts to impeach Biden being called a form of retaliation, there are multiple sources for that. To paraphrase Trump himself, he has been suggesting that the Biden impeachment may be justified as retaliation for his own impeachment. Again, this has all been documented in reliable sources. DN (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you send me the sources? Antny08 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the wording is not reflective of the sources, then perhaps changes can be made, otherwise this is not a NPOV issue. DN (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If the wording in a source is also biased, then it should not be used as a source, or at least there should be a statement explaining any potential biases. Antny08 (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Which wording? You need to be specific. DN (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * just read the article and you will see I can't write every single wording Antny08 (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And now I will be removing the NPOV banner. "Just read the article" doesn't cut it for your claims of bias. You haven't presented any wording that is problematic. I've undone one of your changes that made the wording worse and saw another editor did as well. I've read the article. It seems fine to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Sentence possibly UNDUE for "Background" section - Propose moving it to "Initiation of the inquiry" section
The last sentence in the Background section provides context to a prediction by McCarthy, that never actually happened.

It would seem prudent to move this prediction out of the Background section and put it under the "Initiation of the inquiry" section where the context still makes sense and is therefore still DUE. DN (talk) 07:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "In September, McCarthy promised in an interview with Breitbart News that he would only open an impeachment inquiry into Biden with a full house vote."

Requested move 22 December 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move; a clear majority of editors supported the move, and those editors had stronger arguments. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden → Impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden
 * Impeachment inquiry against Bill Clinton → Impeachment inquiry into Bill Clinton
 * First impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson → First impeachment inquiry into Andrew Johnson
 * Second impeachment inquiry against Andrew Johnson → Second impeachment inquiry into Andrew Johnson
 * Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump → Impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump
 * Impeachment process against Richard Nixon → Impeachment process into Richard Nixon

– An inquiry is an investigation into wrongdoing, not an inherent admission of guilt. I had considered opening this move request weeks ago but never got around to it. This applies to the other impeachment inquiry articles. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The entry of Impeachment process against Richard Nixon added by Muboshg is stricken per WP:TPO for its lack of explicit support from extant votes and missing in the requested move/dated. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support, as I suggested exactly this in the edit summary when I reverted a previous move. HandsomeFella (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I wouldn't infer a neutral or positive tone from an impeachment inquiry, so I'm not sure how this would improve much, though I'm all ears.
 * DN (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is more a grammatical lingustic issue: "into" is the correct preposition. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support It's a sensible idea, and backed up in some sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support I think "into" is more neutral than "against". "Against" makes it seem like it's some sort of unjustified witch-hunt. In my opinion. SusImposter49 (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As you all have opposed the move of Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump at Talk:Impeachment_inquiry_against_Donald_Trump/Archive_1, I leave this notice as courtesy. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 10:29, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This looks like WP:CANVASSING., is there a reason you pinged the users who opposed a similar move request without pinging the ones who supported it? Courtesy ping to to balance the scales. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It can't be WP:CANVASSING since I haven't ever had any conflicts of interest in either RM. However, it surprised me that you unilaterally added the entry for Impeachment process against Richard Nixon here without explicit support from other voters like, which is completely unacceptable. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:VOTESTACKING is selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion, which intentionally or not, is what you did. Fair point about the Nixon page. It should be included, and I will ping the supporters to make sure they are aware. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. "Into" is more neutral. Sources seem to use that word with regards to Biden. 331dot (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:AT. This does not improve the precision or make the title more natural. "Against" more clearly identifies the subject of the article. "Into" only makes sense when the subject of the inquiry is an event, situation or other topic. When the subject of the inquiry is a person and when the inquiry is antagonistic, which an impeachment inquiry always is, then "against" is the more natural, precise and neutral phrasing. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Also note another article with similar phrasing: Impeachment process against Richard Nixon. It should be changed at the same time if this move request is approved. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It does improve precision, because an inquiry is into someone or something, not "against" someone or something, in this case Joe Biden's alleged wrongdoings as president. It does not have anything to do with some editor having already made up their mind or something, this is purely a linguistic issue: "against" is simply the wrong preposition here, and "into" is the correct one.
 * Ideally, the articles should have the title "Impeachment inquiry into NN's actions[/conduct/whatever] as president". I think that may be too long a title, but I'm open to it if others agree.
 * I also disagree with the added article. You don't have a process "into" something. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. When the inquiry into Nixon's wrongdoings was done, the process against him started. See? It couldn't be more obvious.
 * Nixon resigned before the process became an full-fledged impeachment, so that's why it is differently named – and should stay thay way. Alternatively, replace "process" with "inquiry", i.e. "Impeachment inquiry into Richard Nixon". But I think it never even reached the stage of official inquiry, so maybe best if it stays where it currently is. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I just added it to the list above. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * please be aware that I added Impeachment process against Richard Nixon to the move per Coffeeandcrumbs' comment above after you voted. Please consider whether or not this changes your vote. I presume has seen that it is added as they have posted in this section since it was added. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You might also want to ping the nominator when you tried to change their proposal. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I still support. SusImposter49 (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support for purely grammatical reasons. "Into" is the correct preposition here. WMSR (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I can see good intentions here, the majority of quality sources might say "into" or "against" for different reasons and for different presidents. No need to sugar-coat or cookie-cut in order to feign neutrality, equality, or appease overly sensitive readers for fear they might have a tantrum, IMO. These are public figures, not private citizens. DN (talk) 05:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not about sugarcoating, neutrality or appeasing anyone, it's purely a lingustic issue. Inquiries are carried out into [something], in this case, NN's actions as president. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. Since Coffeeandcrumbs questioned my use of Ngrams last time, I did another analysis, this time of Google results of the form :
 * "Joe Biden" - all "into", no "against" besides Wikipedia
 * "Bill Clinton" - mainly "into", the impeachment itself is "impeachment trial of"
 * "Andrew Johnson" - one source using "against", one source  using "into", one source  using "of"
 * "Donald Trump" - "into",
 * "Richard Nixon" - into, "involving"
 * Looking again at the ngrams analysis, I think the main thing it shows is that use of of/against/into is pretty much statistically indistinguishable. So strike out any arguments about what is "natural" or grammatically or linguistically correct. But, it does seem relevant that the top sources in Google all use into. Also "into" is a bit more WP:concise than "against". Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: looks contentious enough to have more eyeballs on this discussion. especially with votestacking having taken place. – robertsky (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Agree with nom. Schierbecker (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * No opposition on my part. I’ve weighed making this nomination myself. SecretName101 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose I think it's pretty clear that an impeachment inquiry is hostile towards the person in question and there is the belief, at least supposedly, that wrongdoing took place. Nobody starts an impeachment inquiry just for a quick check. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, but this is about linguistics. You carry out an inquiry into something. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But using “against” makes the people who are impeaching look hostile from an un neutral point of view, which is why I believe it should be changed. Antny08 (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What if they are "hostile"? For instance, what if there is no evidence for impeachment? DN (talk) 13:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose on linguistic grounds: while "inquiry into" is tentatively correct, its argument should be the act rather than its perpetrator. Thus, it's an "inquiry into Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct", but not an *"inquiry into Bill Clinton". "Against" reads better here; or, as somebody suggested, "impeachment trial of ". No such user (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have suggested an alternative above: Impeachment inquiry into NN's actions[/conduct/whatever] as president. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Support - Using “against” is biased, as it makes it seem like it is an attack against Joe Biden. This would also make sense to apply to all impeachment articles, to keep them as neutral as possible. Using “into” will ensure neutrality and not make impeachment inquiries seem like hateful and vengeful acts. Antny08 (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Second relist, for same reasons as first BilledMammal (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I see no reason to change these page titles, after all these years. GoodDay (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * On what basis? It's a question of grammar, here. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gramar wasn't a problem all these years. Why would it be now? I'm not changing my position. GoodDay (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong support on the basis that this is proper English. Paul Vaurie (talk) 05:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox Date
"September 12 - December 13" in the Infobox Date implies the impeachment inquiry didn't pass. Not only is it still ongoing. The Resolution To Authorize (Confirm or make Official) The Inquiry Passed 220 - 212. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The inquiry ended with the December 13 vote to initiate impeachment proceedings soibangla (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Is that all she wrote?
TNR March 2024 "Representative James Comer has finally given up on trying to impeach Joe Biden—but he’s trying to make it seem like that was his plan all along. After more than a year of insisting that the president and his family are guilty of corruption, Republicans have yet to produce any evidence of Biden’s wrongdoing. Many GOP lawmakers are starting to back away from the impeachment effort, admitting that they likely don’t have the votes to pass articles of impeachment."... DN (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Darknipples "Republicans have yet to produce any evidence" is Democrat propaganda and biased opinion. 2603:6010:6C01:A765:82A7:B241:987:8853 (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that there's no evidence produced is propaganda? There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden, that's a straight fact. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Darknipples Also what about all the allegations related to the CCP?  I don't think I saw any mention of that in the article. 2603:6010:6C01:A765:82A7:B241:987:8853 (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because they're bogus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)